M10 Booker looks like a win more card to me. It will be helpful if you’re already in a dominant position and less useful in creating a dominant position.
~80 tons vs ~80 tons
If we wargame six M113’s with a fat stack of SwitchBlade drones with two drone operators each vs two M10 Bookers for the top ten scenarios the 82nd Airborne is likely to face which would be most useful?
Seems likely the M113 SwitchBlades will be more useful most of the time.
So, a question: have the US or NATO militaries ever successfully airdropped anything bigger than a Stryker into a conflict where that vehicle made a difference to the outcome? I keep thinking our Airborne folks want big boom from the skies but I’m having trouble thinking up examples where it worked.
Indeed, the problem is that virtually anything can be dropped - the trick is getting it to survive the landing! And anything armoured with people in it will be too heavy for successful dropping. Anything light enough will not have enough armour to withstand modern munitions, or a gun big enough to be worth having. The same plane-space would be better suited to quads for mobility and lots of man-portable boom-sticks…
Panama was the only time that tanks were parachuted into combat. I believe that 8 or 10 were heavy dropped during the Invasion Drops. 1 burned in due to chute failure and 1 landed in the swamp adjacent to runway DZ ending up so bogged down that it could not be recovered, and was demo’d in place after being stripped of usable parts. In the end those dropped in played no critical role, while a few that had been prepositioned before Just Cause kicked off provided supporting fire for 4/6 Infantry for their assault on the Commendancia.
During Desert Shield, the 82nd’s Sheridans were air landed, and were the only US armor in Saudi until the Marines arrived with their M60A1s not too long afterwards.
A-10?? or a replacement?
Oh, I’m a huge advocate of the Warthog along with various Blackhawks filled with firepower, but I can’t mentally justify the Booker or airdropped vehicles bigger than, say, the M-ATV or Stryker. I doubt anyone can say the Sheridan was a massive success in airdropped form even if it did span a few decades of use.
As we learned from this thread, the Stryker suspension is fragile - the rear suspension can be damaged simply by lifting the front end:
I took the Air Force Load Planner’s Course at Buckley in 2006. Certain variants of the Stryker could conceivably even be dropped from a C-130. But would the suspension hold up? Not recommended.
Possibly if you wedged honeycomb pads between the hull and the pallet. Of course we could try LAPES on it, That might be fun as well,
The A-10 is going to be phased out. The President already stated that the A-10s assigned to Selfridge ANG base will be replaced with F-15EX fighter planes. So I will be looking at the skies over Tucson, to see the old A-10s from the 107th land at Davis-Monthan to be added to the AMARG Boneyard.
Sad news about the A-10, but I guess drones are the new go-to for dangerous low-level ground attack as demonstrated in Ukraine. Can’t see the F15 filling the role, as it won’t be able to do slow approaches or take the punishment from ground fire.
The A-10 Thunderbolt fills a unique niche in the CAS role. No matter what the brass says about the F-15 and F-16 being faster and more nimble. The A-10 has loiter time and it’s reduntant systems and titanium bathtub cockpit make it survivable.
Indeed! The only realistic replacement in the role would be drones - lots of loiter time and no crew to put at risk…
I like the idea of the drone launching vehicle, but I think the M113 needs to be retired its outdated and has been showing its age for many years now. We need to modernize the military not keep performing CPR on aging and overworked equipment.
You said it best, Ryan. I have friends who worked at Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Booz Allen, Honeywell, and Raytheon (having lived in the DC area for many years), the whole procurement and military contract process is unpredictable and a big mess. M10 thing is not a unique situation, but rather a common one in the grand scheme of things, regardless of what is going with the current administration.
Delays, cost overruns, changing requirements, changing technologies, and ineffective or outdated systems, stemming from various factors, including overly complex bureaucratic processes, a lack of transparency, and binding long-term, high-cost contracts, instead of adaptable, faster acquisition methods. Too many cooks in the kitchen? Frequent changes in the leadership at the Pentagon probably do not help either.
The list goes on and on. I am sure there are a looooot more.
TSAT (Transformational Satellite Communications System) program - cancelled after several billions spent. Pretty much nothing came out of it.
F-35 or JSF program - I don’t know how many decades it took and how many cost overruns? This may be the single most expensive military program ever? I read $2 trillion with a T. USMC wanted a vertical landing aircraft (like the Army Airborne wanting the air-droppability?), replacing the Harrier then this requirement caused all kinds of issues? At least something came out of it.
RAH-66 Comanche helicopter: first flight in 1996, canceled in 2004.
FARA (Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft), design contract awarded in 2019; program canceled in 2024.
M8 AGS - beating a dead horse
M247 Sergeant York - another topic discussed too many times
XM2001 Crusader gun
USMC EFV (Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle)
JLENS (Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile Defense Elevated Netted Sensor System) - the program started in 1996 and canceled after 20 yrs and $ billions spent.
“1 craft to drift from APG, Maryland on a 100-mile uncontrolled descent across Pennsylvania, dragging its cable tether, which damaged power lines and cut power to 20,000 homes, the program was suspended in October 2015, and completely discontinued by 2017.”
V-22 Osprey - well, not cancelled but took about 20 years to come to fruition, and after how many billions? Well, back in 1988, the concept was there, but the aviation computers/technologies did not exist.
Now M10? I am not surprised. At least we have a 1/35 kit for it to cherish the memory. 
It’s sad to see I worked on the current fleet of vehicles for many years, and I saw just how bad the condition of the equipment is. Now that I’m out and I see all the new things getting cancelled, makes me shake my head and wonder how ready our military is ready to take the fight to an enemy if needed right now.
Part of the problem is the rapid change in technology. 100 years ago technology changed at a slower pace. A system could be identified as needed, designed, manufactured and put into use and still be current with technology. Today, a system need is identified, designed, modified, upgraded, a test run is built funding drags on and by this time newer technology is starting to appear, the tactical use of the design is starting to get long in the ears, or new budget constraints happen …and project canceled. I truly don’t have an idea of what will be needed in 10 years. The Ukranian war is an example of why. Russian Armor was going to roll right on through until it didn’t. Drones turned expensive vehicles into hulks as easy as turning a jeep into a hulk. Anyone with half a brain is evaluating the drone verses armored systems. If a drone attack will penatrate an M1A2 turret roof as easy as an M113, just use M113’s. Far cheaper. It seems like drone tech is advancing at a rapid pace as well. Due to the time between concept and reaching the field and the rapid change in technology I think militaries are becoming less sure of what to build to be effective in the future. I think the problem will only get worse. As a piece of supporting evidence, what is the increased rate of technological advances as time moves on. Exponential? At some point by the time the concept phase is completed, the system is already obsolete. So upgradeable legacy systems may be the only viable solution.
Well put and I do agree with how fast tech is moving around the time a system is developed its also absolete. There needs to be some kind of middle ground to revamp what we have then to bring it to a more modern standard.
Surprised we haven’t seen those in 1/35 styrene yet.
I am one of the many here that would love to get their hands on any AMPV variant to build.
If they don’t cancel that program as well. 
