XM2001 Crusader 155mm SPH (Self Propelled Howitzer)

cador

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
2 June 2007
Messages
54
Reaction score
15
I have a lot informations about XM-2001 Crusader but nothing about "light" version (specifications) . These one had only six wheels but i have no dimensions (lenght ? etc...) ;D
 
look in wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM2001_Crusader
250px-XM2001_Crusader.jpg
 
cador said:
I have a lot informations about XM-2001 Crusader but nothing about "light" version (specifications) . These one had only six wheels but i have no dimensions (lenght ? etc...) ;D

As far as I know, the light version also had seven wheels.
 
On this picture of the XM-2002 we see six wheels. I saw the XM-2001 with 6 wheels but i do not find it on the net again. these pictures are the most recent of the Crusader programm.
 
Who know United Defense service which furnish me a C.A.D. of the most recent Crusader programm ?
 
The CAD movie show the "ligth" XM-2001 with 6 wheels by side http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/crusader-pics.htm
Could BAE furnish me detailed outside views to scratchbuild it ? ::)
 
I believe the original "heavy" design was the plan during the days of the cold war. Yet the Crusader was redesigned to be a lighter 41-43 ton vehicle before it got to the prototype stage.

So weren't all the prototypes of the light design?
 
The XM2001 Crusader was to be the United States Army's next-generation self-propelled howitzer (SPH), designed to improve survivability, lethality, mobility, and effectiveness and planned to be introduced by 2008. United Defense was the prime contractor; General Dynamics the major subcontractor. In early May 2002, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld cancelled the $11 billion USD program because he considered it neither mobile nor precise enough.

The Crusader was intended to replace the M109A6 Paladin Self-Propelled Howitzer and the M992A2 Field Artillery Ammunition Supply Vehicle (FAASV).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM2001_Crusader
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/crusader/
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/crusader.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/crusader.htm


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPvMWDw93go

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qe8FMvEHa94
 

Attachments

  • crusader_l1.jpg
    crusader_l1.jpg
    54.7 KB · Views: 376
  • crusader_l3.jpg
    crusader_l3.jpg
    60.4 KB · Views: 1,275
  • crusader6.jpg
    crusader6.jpg
    44.9 KB · Views: 1,336
  • crusader2.jpg
    crusader2.jpg
    44.7 KB · Views: 1,295
  • XM2001_Crusader_Self-Propelled_Howitzer_New.jpg
    XM2001_Crusader_Self-Propelled_Howitzer_New.jpg
    31.6 KB · Views: 1,258
  • 13709.jpg
    13709.jpg
    18.7 KB · Views: 1,292
Triton said:
The XM2001 Crusader was to be the United States Army's next-generation self-propelled howitzer (SPH), designed to improve survivability, lethality, mobility, and effectiveness and planned to be introduced by 2008. United Defense was the prime contractor; General Dynamics the major subcontractor. In early May 2002, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld cancelled the $11 billion USD program because he considered it neither mobile nor precise enough.

The Crusader was intended to replace the M109A6 Paladin Self-Propelled Howitzer and the M992A2 Field Artillery Ammunition Supply Vehicle (FAASV).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM2001_Crusader
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/crusader/
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/crusader.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/crusader.htm


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPvMWDw93go

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qe8FMvEHa94
I saw high res pictures as we see in the first movie; is it possible for having more ? ???
 
sealordlawrence said:
And with the cancellation of the FCS MCF programme including NLOS-C the US Army is back to square one.

The logical course of action would be to reactivate the Crusader, but.... ::)
 
I am looking for blueprints with 3 views of the XM-2001 XM-2002, the models we see in the first video, with 6 wheels and the turret modified
 
I have some sympathy with the US Army's dilemma. On the one hand it has the M109, which is
a proven platform and relatively easy to upgrade on the other it has competing ideas on what a
future 155mm spg should look like: light and air transportable or heavy and all bells and whistles.

The only competing system I can think of is the German PZH 2000 (though the Braveheart turret and gun
might also feature). Given the high cost of anything German and its probable fragility (last major war involving the
Bundesrepublik anyone?)>

Crusader was probably a step too far too soon.

UK 75
 
uk 75 said:
Crusader was probably a step too far too soon.

I wouldn't say that. In fact, in it's slimmed down second version, Crusader was arguably exactly what the US Army needed. Unforunately it didn't fit in with 'the vision' of Rumsfeld and the rest of the members of the cult of Transformation. The rest is history, all too grim and heartbreaking. :mad:
 
Grey Havoc I am sure you are right on the technical side. But with the present economic mess in the us and the low tech nature of its current opponents.,. I do not see the us taking on Russia or China anytime soon.
 
From 1998: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a342442.pdf

This document summarizes the results from a six-week special assistance
study conducted by RAND's Arroyo Center. This study was
requested by the Assistant Vice Chief of Staff of the Army and was
coordinated with the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations
and Plans (DCSOPS). The specific objective of the special assistance
effort was to explore the utility of the Crusader system to the
future of the Army. Along these lines, specific questions were asked
about Crusader's ability to provide firepower on the future battlefield
and to serve as a major technology "carrier" into the Army After Next
(AAN) era. This document not only includes our answers to the
questions posed by DCSOPS but also addresses some of the other issues
that may surface in considering the relative need for a state-of the-
art self-propelled howitzer (SPH) in light of other U.S. Army interests.
Thus, it should be of interest to defense acquisition officials
and policymakers.

The research was carried out in the Force Development and Technology
Program of RAND's Arroyo Center, a federally funded
research and development center sponsored by the United States
Army.
 
Thank you GH for yet more reasons why at least the technology should have kept progressing. Was not aware of that particular JPSD ACTD data..
 
Is it possible that BAE (United defense) publish declassified 3 views of the 40 tons versions (6 galets) or CAD for 3D printing ? B)
 
uk 75 said:
Grey Havoc I am sure you are right on the technical side. But with the present economic mess in the us and the low tech nature of its current opponents.,. I do not see the us taking on Russia or China anytime soon.

If the time comes the US has to face Russia or China conventionally there won't be time to say, "whoa, time out, we need to build some better SPGs."
 
Grey Havoc said:
uk 75 said:
Crusader was probably a step too far too soon.

I wouldn't say that. In fact, in it's slimmed down second version, Crusader was arguably exactly what the US Army needed. Unforunately it didn't fit in with 'the vision' of Rumsfeld and the rest of the members of the cult of Transformation. The rest is history, all too grim and heartbreaking. :mad:

There was nothing wrong technically with the Crusader. After they moved from liquid propellant to modular charges it was not actually that much of an ambitious project. The original ~60 t Crusader was exactly what the US Army needed. The slimmed down version was an attempt to carry two per C-17 at the cost of the required unit of fire to meet the conventional warfare mission. A foolish and cultish requirement that combined with the "Hercability" of the FCS resulted in the loss of an entire generational recapitialisation of land combat systems. Certainly did not result in any great savings of money considering how much has been spent sustaining, upgrading and reseting legacy equipment.

Of note with the Crusader program is not only did it provide hugely enhanced artillery capability but as an in service and in production system it would have provided the 'building blocks' needed for a new tank, new IFV and new AEV. The crew station and digital vehicle management system, the engine, the running gear, armour tech, etc. All that would be needed for the Abrams and Bradley replacements would be role specific hull, weaponry and armour arrangement. Imagine FCS MGV minus the network with a GVW of 60 tonnes. With of course growth capacity to add the FCS network when it was ready.
 
The best generals are those who have served in the artillery.
– Napoleon Bonaparte

God fights on the side with the best artillery.
– Napoleon Bonaparte

With Artillery, War is made.
– Napoleon Bonaparte

“Artillerymen believe the world consist of two types of people; other Artillerymen and targets.”
– Unknown

Napoleon also said in effect the true professional is logistician and the Crusader study posted on this forum explained that was an issue for Crusader and any relevant M109 replacement. Expensive precision is not a panacea.

Patents show Liquid propellant is no longer ambitious.
 
The plan from 2000 onwards was actually for the Crusader and the M1 to have a common gas turbine engine in the form of the LV100.

See here: http://ciar.org/ttk/mbt/armor/armor-magazine/armor-mag.2002.ma/2ACCE02.pdf

The LV100 failed to achieve its design goals, notably in 2003 testing there were significant power shortfalls, getting it right and procuring it probably would have cost more money than has subsequently been spent on the AGT1500. The TIGER program for the AGT1500 has gone some way to improving reliability with that engine but ultimately a fully developed LV100 would have been ideal.

The original point of the Armoured Systems Modernisation program was to produce a common series of vehicle systems that could be used to produce replacements for the M109, M1A1/A2 and Bradley. The LV100-5 planned for the Crusader at cancellation was a development of the LV100-2 (intended output of 1750-2000hp) that was the gas turbine competitor to the diesel XAP-1000 power pack (Cummins XAV-28 engine) in the AMS program. After AMS was a push to move the new power plant technology and vehicle electronics/BMS into legacy platforms rather than buying new ones.
 
Last edited:
Abraham Gubler said:
The original ~60 t Crusader was exactly what the US Army needed. The slimmed down version was an attempt to carry two per C-17 at the cost of the required unit of fire to meet the conventional warfare mission. A foolish and cultish requirement that combined with the "Hercability" of the FCS resulted in the loss of an entire generational recapitialisation of land combat systems.

Agree very much so here. All the more so since PzH 2000 has been deployed to Afghanistan to shell Taliban.
 
jsport said:
– Napoleon Bonaparte
– Napoleon Bonaparte
With Artillery, War is made.
– Napoleon Bonaparte
– Unknown

What? No Freddie da Great?

"Artillery lends dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl."

jsport said:
Patents show Liquid propellant is no longer ambitious.

Very interesting... Though MACS is such an improvement over legacy bagged charges (and CTA for fixed ammo) it might be hard to ween the Army off the latest, if belated, improvements to go to an even better improvement.
 
JFC Fuller said:
The plan from 2000 onwards was actually for the Crusader and the M! to have a common gas turbine engine in the form of the LV100.

See here: http://ciar.org/ttk/mbt/armor/armor-magazine/armor-mag.2002.ma/2ACCE02.pdf

And the LV100 is a huge improvement for Abrams. Yet the money for this new engine was spent on expensive refresh for the old GT to replace no longer produced spares with current spares and no major or significant capability improvement (ie far less fuel burn).
 
Abraham Gubler said:
jsport said:
– Napoleon Bonaparte
– Napoleon Bonaparte
With Artillery, War is made.
– Napoleon Bonaparte
– Unknown

What? No Freddie da Great?

"Artillery lends dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl."

jsport said:
Patents show Liquid propellant is no longer ambitious.

Very interesting... Though MACS is such an improvement over legacy bagged charges (and CTA for fixed ammo) it might be hard to ween the Army off the latest, if belated, improvements to go to an even better improvement.
haven
Haven't seen anything over 60mm purposed as CTA. Liquid lends itself to variable to longest ranges.
 
The original CTA gun was the XM274 in 75mm (actually 76mm). Also ARES had a 90mm CTA design and Rheinmetall a 105mm CTA.
 
Abraham Gubler said:
The original CTA gun was the XM274 in 75mm (actually 76mm). Also ARES had a 90mm CTA design and Rheinmetall a 105mm CTA.

Even if 155mm CTA is introduced, the M109A7 w/ an electric loader /ram etc.. will likely allow rates which present the logistics problem Crusader would have. Can't imagine high rates of fire are not still a requirement if "JFC Fuller" principles/tactics are still the goal. :) Liquid is a better propellant choice.
 
jsport said:
Abraham Gubler said:
The original CTA gun was the XM274 in 75mm (actually 76mm). Also ARES had a 90mm CTA design and Rheinmetall a 105mm CTA.

Even if 155mm CTA is introduced, the M109A7 w/ an electric loader /ram etc.. will likely allow rates which present the logistics problem Crusader would have. Can't imagine high rates of fire are not still a requirement if "JFC Fuller" principles/tactics are still the goal. :) Liquid is a better propellant choice.

No one would propose CTA for artillery, especially in 155mm. The whole system depends on variable charges, and a modular charge system like MACS is a pretty decent way to do that. Liquid propellant is certainly technically feasible, but it's not clear that it's worth the complexity.
 
TomS said:
jsport said:
Abraham Gubler said:
The original CTA gun was the XM274 in 75mm (actually 76mm). Also ARES had a 90mm CTA design and Rheinmetall a 105mm CTA.

Even if 155mm CTA is introduced, the M109A7 w/ an electric loader /ram etc.. will likely allow rates which present the logistics problem Crusader would have. Can't imagine high rates of fire are not still a requirement if "JFC Fuller" principles/tactics are still the goal. :) Liquid is a better propellant choice.

No one would propose CTA for artillery, especially in 155mm. The whole system depends on variable charges, and a modular charge system like MACS is a pretty decent way to do that. Liquid propellant is certainly technically feasible, but it's not clear that it's worth the complexity.
...would only argue that the long ranges and high rates are worth analyzing given the likely opposing threat system numbers including MRLs and advances.
 
A good listen

http://www.defensenews.com/videos/defense-news/tv/2016/03/13/81729050/

Recoil mitigation and cooling advances also make the original Crusader concept worth a look.
 
"US Would Fight Without Air Support for Weeks if War With Russia Began


Military.com 26 Mar 2018 By Matthew Cox

Senior U.S. Army officials on Monday mapped out a plan to dramatically increase the range of the service's artillery and missile systems to counter a Russian threat that would leave ground forces without air support in the "first few weeks" of a war in Europe.

The Army has named long-range precision fires as its top modernization priority in a reform effort aimed at replacing the service's major weapons platforms.

"We've got to push the maximum range of all systems under development for close, deep and strategic, and we have got to outgun the enemy," Gen. Robert Brown, commanding general of United States Army Pacific Command, told an audience during a panel discussion on "improving long-range precision fires" at the Association of the United States Army's Global Force Symposium in Huntsville, Alabama.

"We don't do that right now; it's a huge gap. ... We need cannons that fire as far as rockets today. We need rockets that fire as far as today's missiles, and we need missiles out to 499 kilometers."

Currently, Russian air defenses are effective enough to keep fixed-wing aircraft from conducting close-air support; intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance; and other support missions vital to ground combat forces, said John Gordon IV, a senior policy researcher at Rand Corp.

Rand conducted a study for officials at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, concluding that in the first seven to 10 days of a conflict with Russia, "the Russians would have very significant advantage in terms of numbers and all aspects of ground combat."

"Because of the power and the range and the lethality of these Russian air defenses, it's going to make all forms of air support much more difficult, and the ground forces are going to feel the effects," Gordon said.

"It's certainly going to put a premium on U.S. Army field artillery. It's going to put a premium on long-range fires to compensate for what will, at least initially, be a significant degradation in the amount of air support -- less joint ISR, less CAS, less interdiction, less offensive and defensive counter-air, so all that is going to have an effect on Army operations because of the quality of these Russian air defenses," he said.

Russia also has a larger number of superior artillery systems than the U.S., Gordon said.

"The Russians take this stuff seriously; artillery has been the strong suit of the Russian Army since the days of the czars," he said.

"They've got a range advantage over us in a number of different areas, particularly cannons," Gordon said. "Typically, modern Russian cannons have got 50 percent to 100 percent greater range than the current generation of U.S. cannons."

Brig. Gen. Stephen Maranian, commandant of the Army's Field Artillery School, who now leads the newly formed cross-functional team responsible for the long-range precision fires modernization priority, said the Army is looking at hypervelocity, electromagnetics and "very large-caliber cannon" to improve long-range fires in the long term.

In the shorter term, the service is working on replacing the Army Tactical Missile System, or ATacMS, with the Precision Strike Missile, Maranian said.

ATacMS, which has a range of 160 kilometers, was terminated in 2007, but the Army has since extended the service life of the program.

"We expect to see [Precision Strike Missile] prototypes fly within the next fiscal year in 2019," Maranian said. "From there, hopefully a delivery of the base missile by early 2023."

The base missile is going to provide a "huge upgrade from ATAcMs," increasing the range out to 499 kilometers, the limit of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces, or INF, Treaty, he said.

"It's going to provide 1.5 times the speed, it's going to be twice the capacity ... and it's also going to have the ability to be even more lethal than the ATAcMs," he added.

Maranian said the base missile will be able to go after "multi-domain targets -- so the ability to hit a ship at sea, the ability to hit moving targets on the land domain, the ability to have sub-munitions that attack heavy armored targets and have effects ... and the ability to use sensors to hone in on targets. Those are all aspects of future spirals of this missile that the base Precision Strike Missile will provide."

In terms of artillery, Maranian said the Army is planning a "dramatic increase to the firepower" that exists in its brigade combat teams.

The Army has been attempting to upgrade its Paladin 155mm self-propelled howitzers systems. The M109A6 Paladin Integrated Management, or PIM, just completed its initial operational test and evaluation last week, Maranian said.

The Army is relying on the Extended Range Cannon Artillery, or ERCA, technology to extend the range of the system.

The upgraded, rocket-assisted projectile, which will increase the range out to 40 kilometers, is scheduled to be ready by fiscal 2021, he said.

An upgraded breech, which will help boost the range out to 70 kilometers, will be ready by the fiscal 2023 timeframe, as will be the "incorporation of an autoloader to improve our four rounds in the initial minute, and one round a minute after that, sustained rate to a six-to-10 round a minute sustained rate of fire," Maranian said.

"That will be the basis of achieving overmatch against any adversary in any theater," he said."

-- Matthew Cox can be reached at matthew.cox@military.com.
 
Another reason not to be fan of one twice former SecDef. This should be very mature system by now.
 

Attachments

  • Kosovo.jpg
    Kosovo.jpg
    100.9 KB · Views: 378
  • Baltimore.jpg
    Baltimore.jpg
    99 KB · Views: 378
Couple of more advanced concept 'money shots' of Crusader with what appears to be more (probably counter battery) sensors.
 

Attachments

  • Money1.jpg
    Money1.jpg
    64.4 KB · Views: 367
  • Money2.jpg
    Money2.jpg
    90.2 KB · Views: 407
IIRC the new engine for Crusader was to go to the M1 as well.
 
Yep, Rumsfeld was the disaster that just keeps giving, even now long after he was given the boot.
 
I'd love for someone to interview Rumsfeld and Gates and ask them whether they thought their major program decisions were good.
 
DrRansom said:
I'd love for someone to interview Rumsfeld and Gates and ask them whether they thought their major program decisions were good.
Having seen Gates talk recently, I'd be surprised if he feels he made many bad calls. Even things which look bad in retrospect he would likely defend as "right in the moment with the info I/we had." Rumsfeld I couldn't say, his whole term was various levels of disaster but I don't know if he's enough of a realist to realize it.
 
DrRansom said:
I'd love for someone to interview Rumsfeld and Gates and ask them whether they thought their major program decisions were good.
Although the Crusader program had alot of problems if one recalls, ..understanding was that Rumy said airpower can handle it. He left the military as young officer and an aviator... dreamy. Not sure where Gates was on Crusader.
 
Considering the US Army's historical preference of holding an enemy at range and devastating them with artillery I'm rather surprised there have never been any serious calls to revive the Crusader in some updated form. Even now it would seem to be as good a starting point as any. Are we really better off rebuilding the M109A6/A7 piece by piece until it is a new vehicle?
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom