[spetznaz]

All i have to say is that the crusader system is an impressive piece of hardware, however so was the trebuchet of the middle ages. And thus both are obsolete. I am not American (i am African), however it is clear that in the battlefield of the future the US will have to rely on hi-tech weapon variants that are also easy to deploy and have high levels of lethality. This is because a lot of the so-called 'third-world' nations are undergoing leaps when it comes to military tech, and although the US can still whoop all of their collective asses there have been some recent trends that are quite simply frightening for the US. These 3rd world countries know for a fact that they cannot beat the US in a face to face confrontation (and most have military scenarios that pit them against the US incase you did not know this... even your good ol' British ally does this). So what do they do? They engage in what is known as assymetrical strengths. This means that instead of trying to match the US, what they do is get a small arsenal that is meant to tackle US assets. For example russian sun-burn missiles that were invented solely for the purpose of destroying American aircraft carriers (i wonder what would happen if the US had to defend Taiwan from China since China has a good number of these). Or maybe to combat the stealth fighters they have the chezch radar system that can paint (and has been proven to) track the F-117, or the Australian system that can acquire the B-2 spirit. The purpose of this is to negate certain US strengths in such a way that there are many casualties on the American side, and these is meant not to stop the war, but to make the US citizens back home so sick of seeing their kids caming home in body bags that they force congress to stop the war. Call it indirect warfare if you may. And that is the problem with the Crusader. It is a great weapons system, but it is 10 years too late. With threats other than the soviet block rising there has to be a paradigm shift from what the US used to do. And the crusader just has to go. And if you think of it those who are championing the Crusader come from states like Oklahoma that will earn great revenue if it is approved. Now my question is whether giving the US a great military that is not obsolete is the goal, or just to ensure a state gets income from building an outdated system. They should put there state interests aside for the sake of national security. Now i knwo there are some who are asking why i have all of these to say (after all i am not American)? Well, i do have a stake in all this due to several reasons. One for instance is that that stupid Osama idiot bombed one of our buldings in 1998 (the embassy building in Kenya) and killed over 200 kenyans (he got 9 americans in the process). Another reason is like it or not the US stands to be the only barrier to stop kooks who want to mimic hitler from rising up from the dregs of humanity. Third reason is that as a non-american i know things that most americans don't have access to, and honestly only the US stands to protect the world from itself. And although i may sound like a sycophant it is just the plain truth. And people who advocate the crusader as a viable system in the modern era need to wake up and smell the coffee, or else if a war breaks out in the future and the crusader is sent some lessons in military manoeuvrability may be learnt that might be quite dear in terms of numbers lost. Just as the trebuchet is obsolete, so is the the crusader. And i wish someone in congress who is not just trying to get funding for his/her state could read this post!

[boris]

Paragraphs are our friends.

[AppyPappy]

Our weapons were proven in battle. The Russian stuff were busted in battle.

[Poohbah]

The Borey/Yuriy Dologokuriy-class submarine--like its fast-attack counterpart, the Sverodvinsk--is rusting to death on the building ways. They were supposed to be in commission a couple years ago.

Also, the Typhoon-class boats have been decommissioned.

This piece is about six years old and hopelessly out of date.

[chilepepper]

The Crusader is the modern equivalent of the battleship. It is cool looking but would be taken out in the first minutes of a confrontation with a serious foe.

[Free the USA]

Check the Bump List folders for articles related to and descriptions of the above topic(s) or for other topics of interest.

[lavaroise]

Russia has indeed some serious stuff. Their new subs can simultaneously engage airplanes, boats and subs, something ours can't do yet apparently. The Topol-M can fly polar orbits and come nuke Chicago via flying over the South Pole. It really is a versatile missile that can come from several directions at the same time, effectively evading or distracting radar targeting.

As for the third world, it is an incredibly powerful platform to ruin America economicaly in pre-emptive manner to a Russian attack. Those who deny the jurisdiction of the third world and Russia over a potential destruction of the US better think again. These armies are solely built against the US, not against European colonization or Russia.

[HardStarboard]

Spetz - good analysis. I agree. You might be interested in reading a post yesterday entitled "Metal Storm may replace Crusader" Just search on "Metal Storm" and you'll find it.

For a real treat, go to their website and view the streaming video presentation. Absolutely fantastic - and sounds like they have a pretty good connection with DOD and Rummy's thinkers.

For what its worth, I took a small position in the stock this morning....its volume is 10 or 15 times the usual today. Someone else is interested.