I just read something earlier today that the ARMY is canceling the M10 Booker
Yes. I expect the produced vehicles will probably get some modification and sent to Ukraine. Or sold off some other way. I think there are about 80. Unless the Army can figure out a way to repurpose them, but low density= higher maintenance and training cost- so not as likely
Bitchinâ SWAT vehicle.
4 Likes
They actually want a air droppable tankâŠ
Weight wise the ZTQ-15 isnât much lighter than the Booker- within the 5-6 ton range if they have the appliquĂ© armor on it.
The PLA is keen to field it not just as air transportable but to be used at high altitude. Only problem is itâs going to be up against the Indian âZorawarâ which has a similar 105mm but is 10 tons lighter- and unlike the PLA the Indians have extensive (and ongoing) high altitude combat experience to call on for their development.
Well? So much for the 82nd getting tanks again. âWaah-Waahâ 
2 Likes
According to Google AI, there are only three M10 Bookers built.
I think that the US Army got the M10 Booker CORRECT and that the SECDEF got the cancellation WRONG. None of the other US Army AFVs get deployed with their bolt-on add-on armor OFF. You can just tell by the washers and bolt heads; they are fastened tightly onto armored plates. If the US Army wants a lighter M10, just unscrew the armor and bolts OFF. This is a political fight that just doesnât make sense because the M10 has a purpose for light infantry and Airborne forces and it took a long time to gestate. If the US Army wanted a lighter âtank,â then build and acquire the BAE Systems M8 AGS, which is about half the weight of the M10 and still probably canât be airdropped anyway.
The USAF C-130J, the longest C-130 version, can airdrop 42,000 pounds of cargo, or 19 tons. That is a Stryker. Have you ever seen a Stryker airdropped? The US Army can acquire German Wiesel 2s at 4.7 tons if it really wants an airdroppable AFV, but protection is only 7.62mm ball; that is a M240 or M60 medium machine gun.
However, the standard light armor protection for the US Army nowadays is 12.7-14.5mm AP, or heavy machine gun fire. That wonât stop any autocannon in Russian or Chinese AFV service. Thus, the 42-ton M10 Booker makes sense at 42 tons.
Politically, the current 2025 Administration doesnât want to tax the wealthy and wants to cut federal government spending to trim the debt. The US government will always be spending because of daily natural disasters and world crises. It will cost around $300 BILLION to rebuild the Southern California wildfires, and the California governor is just asking for $40 BILLION. Each and every day, there are US natural disasters from hurricanes, tornadoes, severe storms, earthquakes, wildfires, floods, etc. This is what is draining the federal budget with unpredictable consequences to rebuild and get American lives back on their feet because some/many lost everything. The US government needs more revenue through taxes, auctions, or armament salesâthere really arenât many ways that the US federal government gets revenue. Tariffs are taxes. OK, thatâs as political as I want to get.
3 Likes
No politics
3 Likes
Got it, but I just wanted to state how the US government gets its money and why itâs such a losing cause because of natural disasters causing destructions that eat into the federal budget to rebuild and repairâŠand thereâs even talk of abolishing FEMA and having the states pay for their own natural disaster damage, meaning no federal government assistance may mean homeless people due to Mother Nature. Itâs like the US government canât save because it has no control over Mother Earth or human nature! @Dan
its a shame
2 Likes
Keep the topic about modeling and the vehicle instead of uninformed political opinions.
3 Likes
Iâve read a few articles about the M10, and Iâm confused. From changing requirements that caused the entire process to restart, increasing costs etc. The vehicle got too heavy to be airdropped so the Army got rid of that requirement, then the Air Force could only carry one on a C-17, like the M1A2Cs. What a mess. Does anyone know what the heck theyâre doing anymore??
2 Likes
Also, supposedly only 3 of the 11 bridges on Fort Campbell could support its weight. Maybe it can be sold to another country.
1 Like
Jeez, and I thought Brit procurement was bad (actually, it is); but youâd have thought they could have made a decision before 80-odd tanks were produced, or is that just me?
4 Likes
Procurement acting like alwaysâŠ.and they never know what they are doing as requirements and budgets are always changing.
4 Likes
More to the point, youâd think they would decide to cancel before they went crazy with the âHereâs our great new tank!â announcementsâŠ
5 Likes
My apologies if I offended anyone with my rant above.
The US Army has been through this a few times with Line-of-Sight Anti-Tank (LOSAT) which became the smaller Compact Kinect Energy Missile (CKEM). They were hypersonic, above Mach 6, anti-tank missiles that traveled so fast that they can be considered sabotsâŠand they existed way back in the 2000s, if not the 1990s. They were tested to work, not funded, canceled. Their vehicle was the HMMWV.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_Kinetic_Energy_Missile
And then there was the XM501 Non-line of Sight-Missile System (NLOS-M) that is similar to a loitering munition, but the technology wasnât quite mature back then and it missed a few times = canceled. Now the technology is mature, but loitering munitions are launched from tubes, not VLS missile boxes, but the concept is generally the same, and one doesnât need a 6x6 FMTV to launch loitering munitions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM501_non-line-of-sight_launch_system
And then there was the 2000s Future Combat System (FCSâManned Ground Vehicle (MGV) family) that started at 19 tons by TRADOC and then grew to 27 tons and eventually 30 tons. The USAFâs C-130J can airdrop 19 tons. FCS existed as a Non-Line-of-Sight----Cannon (NLOS-C) that can throw a 155mm shell the same range as the towed M777, but under armor, and with an armored turret. The rest of the FCS family didnât make it off the drawing boards. According to Wikipedia, the FCS has armor protection of 30-45mm frontal and 14.5mm elsewhere. That is decent and better than the Stryker. Canceled. NLOS-Cannon technology was rolled into the Crusader SPH program and then the M8 AGS.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_Combat_Systems_Manned_Ground_Vehicles
So there have been a few attempts to field the US Airborne and Light Divisions an AFV, and many systems were tested to work, but lack of funding, lack of interest, political, and lack of determination and motivation axed and canceled these programs. American memories are shortened when colonels and generals get promoted, transferred, retired, or just dropped the programs not to remember them again.
The M10 Booker has came a long way from the FCS 2000s program and itâs disheartening to learn that itâs canceled, even at 42 tons. The US Airborne and Light Infantry Divisions are now left with nothing. Iâd bring back CKEM, but CKEM has no explosive power. FCS-NLOS-Cannon is deadâŠthe FCS 155mm SPH prototypes are now rusting hulks somewhere.
Technology matures, yes, and microchips get smaller by Mooreâs Law, but the US Army has trailed a modernization trend ever since the 2000s, if not the 1990s = 20-30+ years! To finish the race with the M10 Booker Combat Vehicle entering production, only to snatch the trophy and ribbon away at the finish line and tell the US Army to start over at the starting line is really something. Remember, the M10 uses the British AJAX chassis. Armor will always be important for the US Army, and remember that enemy artillery, rockets, precision missiles, and ballistic missiles outrange FPV drones anyway.
1 Like
Peter,
Welcome to the abysmal world of defence procurement in the UK; a prime example of complete an utter mismanagement, being the FRES debacle (Future Rapid Effects System). Wikipedia give a fairly comprehensive handle on most of it, with a Panglossian shine thatâs for sure:
Future Rapid Effect System - Wikipedia
I wouldnât really bother reading it â youâll slash your wrists.
The whole saga of replacing the CVR(T) fleet and others has gone on for decades, and the Army still is not as equipped as it should be.
Whilst I try and keep up with defence matters, in this case I gave up. Iâve still no idea what Challenger 2 or Warrior replacement weâre meant to be getting, and I donât think the Army does either. Mind you, I have the luxury of not caring either.
The much vaunted Ajax system, in service now, but only after years of modifications, contractor wrangling, which all Iâm sure, took its toll on the Army.
Not entirely connected, although this is very much a personal view, over the decades the Army seems to have totally lost its way; consumed by diversity, equality (at all costs) and the likes of Woke you wouldnât believe, Iâm not too sure we have a force that understands that an Army exists to kill people and break things. Itâs that simple and what Armies are simply for. All it needs to undertake these simple criteria are an appropriate organisation (and again the Brit Army has gone bananas with, for instance, Brigades now being designated âBrigade Combat Teamsâ an oxymoron if ever there was one), a doctrine (eg âkill the enemyâ perhaps?), equipment (Hah!), training, and discipline; the latter being the glue that holds it all together.
But what do I know? All Iâm really saying is, I feel your pain!
2 Likes