M10 Booker cancelation

[Armor_Buff]

UNCLASSIFIED // FOR OFFICIAL DELUSION ONLY

FROM: NAVSEA HQ (Now Apparently Useless Ship Engineering Administration)

TO: All Concerned Parties Still Pretending This Is Fine

SUBJECT: Ongoing Excellence in Maritime Financial Incineration

Shipmates,

In keeping with our proud tradition of turning billion-dollar plans into billion-dollar regrets, please find the following status update on key procurement victories:

1. Littoral Combat Ship
   (LCS, little crappy ship):
   We’re proud to announce the early retirement of several LCS hulls after years of heroic effort achieving limited operational value. We remind fleet commanders that despite being armed, these ships are best used for photo ops, diplomatic dockings, or light ferry duty.

2. Zumwalt-Class (DDG-1000):
   While the advanced gun system lacks ammunition, it remains a powerful symbol of fiscal optimism. All three ships are now designated as Mobile Technology Shrines (MTS), perfect for inspiring future generations of overengineers.

3. Constellation-Class Frigate (FFG-62):
   Initial construction has been delayed due to weight gain and ambition. We’re confident these frigates will float—eventually. Design modifications continue until morale improves.

4. Amphibious Assault Ships (LHA/LPD):
   Despite doctrinal irrelevance, production continues unabated. Remember: strategy is temporary, but shipyard contracts are forever.

We remain committed to building the world’s most expensive fleet of underperforming platforms. Please forward all accountability inquiries to our recycling bin.

V/r,
Rear Admiral Budgetburner, USN
Chief of Staff, NAUSEA

[Petition2God]

Good one!

[18bravo]

@HeavyArty

They are being replaced by the AMPV series of vehicles; turretless Bradleys.

I’d do away with that top photo. The five AMPV variants ended up completely different in appearance.

I’ve seen enough examples of them on more than one installation to believe they are not going away. There’s an entire facility at Fort Benning dedicated to training soldiers on the maintenance of these vehicles. (seen in background)

[Trisaw]

Actually, Google AI said that three M10 Bookers were built when I searched it so I guess that’s outdated info, but I’ve seen photos of a platoon, so perhaps 30 were built and Google AI today said that 33 will be delivered in FY2025. My bad, and I apologize, I don’t know what’s wrong with Google AI. Just goes to show not to trust AI and the internet in everything.

I would use all 30+ M10s up over the decades. NASA did so with their five Space Shuttles until they proved too dangerous to use. No use tossing the built M10 Bookers to museums or Sierra Army Depot for decommissioning. With 3D printing, spare parts can be printed and installed to make the 30+ M10 Bookers last for years to come.

Loitering munitions and drones take time to fly to a target whereas a HEAT or sabot round flies at hypersonic speeds. Yes, loitering munitions are indeed dangerous as anti-tank weapons, but they have to be large enough to kill a tank, and being large, they aren’t very man-portable.

One has to remember that the US Army fights jointly, and CAS is often a few to dozens of minutes away. It’s a shame that the Airborne wasn’t awarded with a Mobile Protected Firepower combat vehicle in case CAS is nowhere near.

Furthermore, the Remote Combat Vehicle (RCV) family was also canceled and that doesn’t make sense as RCV-Light, Medium, and Heavy were supposed to provide the ISR, cargo carrying capability, and 30-40mm firepower to the dismounted infantry from the XM30s.

//////////////////////////////
As for an A-10 replacement, one already existed in the 1990s, but the USAF wasn’t interested because it had the A-10, so the prototype was not placed into production. Burt Rutan’s ARES is single jet engine with intake on one side and a 25mm Gatling gun on the other side. It may not be as powerful and survivable as the A-10, but performance specifications are about the same.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scaled_Composites_ARES

[tanknick22]

thier reason is they say the A-10 cant survive in contested airspace i guess they forgot about the -A10 in ODS that too a hit from a SA6 SAM and survived

[Tank_1812]

@TopSmith

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.

While I mostly agree, look at the 1950’s jet evolution for a counter point.

[TopSmith]

I agree with the jet example. To go from a ME 262 to an F104 in about 15 years is amazing. However armor was still plodding along.

[VultureDave]

Getting a new AFV into service now is insanely complicated.Look at the problems the Soviet T34 had and that was a command economy.

[Trisaw]

I’ve been reading the Defense magazines at my local university library since I was in the 7th Grade (now they’re mostly gone for decades now due to budget cuts and the “anti-military nature” of younger student generations). Printed Defense magazines are inherently expensive and they never came back when the university cut costs in the 1990s. So I switched to online Defense blogs.

Now I’m middle aged… So for decades, I just self-taught myself Defense news and by far I’m not an expert or a trained military analyst.

For fielding weapons systems, for me it’s the classic case of, “I’ll believe it when I see it.” A LOT of weapon systems have been canceled due to whatever reasons: Mostly funding, bugs, design errors, poor testing performance, cost overruns, schedule delays, criticisms, unit price, outdated by the time its fielded, etc. The editors’ job is to publish the news; analysts debate on the information.

It’s well known that most of the best and brightest minds don’t go into government or military work as a Public Servant. Of course there are many exceptions. In government, you’re watched like a hawk, judged, graded, name made public, and illegal mistakes can fire you and/or land you in prison. Many smart and successful people go into corporate because of the high salaries, stock and bonuses, which can really make one rich, and perks such as chef in the building, free lunch and snacks, window office, and free bus service. But corporate can fire you in an instant, even if the boss just doesn’t like you, something that hasn’t happened in government until recently due to cost-cutting measures.

The nature of the people in corporate is vastly different than that of government. I met some of the best, brightest, happy, and most successful people working in corporate, but I wouldn’t say that any were my friends after I left. Most career people are goal-driven and don’t care a lot about other people, the workers, or the organization. They work for a living, not work for an organizational dream or a mission statement. As the saying goes, “The workplace is not your family” despite what the CEO, bosses, and coworkers say. Everyone was and is a stranger…

What does all of the above have to do with the M10 Booker? If the M10 Booker is canceled, then the M10 department most likely will be gutted and the team members moved to other departments if the M10 isn’t supported anymore, which there are about 30 Combat Vehicles in existence. This happens in corporate too. The department bosses breakup and absorb the M10 Booker workers and the team no longer exists, or exists as a skeleton crew, thus ideas won’t flow for the M10 anymore and funding will trickle instead of waterfall. “If you’re not on the winning or supported team,” it can get pretty lonely fostering an AFV that is no longer being produced and doesn’t have approval and fans from the top VIPs.

[HermannB]

FRES - I always wonder who forges such names. Military burocrats?

[tanknick22]

Tradition used be naming tanks after generals
at the very begining of WW2 tanks didnt have names that changed when the brits starting naming US tanks they got through lend lease the last AVF/tanks to be named after a general was the M1 Abrams and M2 Bradley who knows why the ARMY stopped

[Uncle-Heavy]

Some kook tried to stick the name Gavin on the M113
but it didn’t stick.

[Edro]

I can’t help but notice the same excuses used to justify the cancellation of the Booker to that of the divestment of the Abrams from the Marines. While technology come and goes, so far technology has not provided a suitable replacement for tanks. There is no other weapon system that can deliver heavy firepower, significant armor protection and a high degree of mobility. Possible replacements usually lack in one or two of these capabilities.

Edro

[skurcz]

8 of 11 bridges at Ft Campbell cannot handle the weight of the tank. Also the Air Force has limited the C-17 to carry only ONE tank at a time. These on top of the other issues mentiond in the article.

[MoramarthT]

@Trisaw

A LOT of weapon systems have been canceled due to whatever reasons

It’s interesting to compare this with naval construction between the Crimean and First World Wars where pretty much everything was obsolete by the time it came off the slipway but went on (with a few exceptions, e.g. HMS Captain) to give solid service for decades, although perhaps not in it’s intended role (again with exceptions, e.g. the Icebreakers Angara, Krassin (Svyatogor), Suur Tõll and Tarmo, or the Egyptian Royal/Presidential Yacht El Mahrousa launched 1865 and still in service).

Cheers,

M

[barkingdigger]

@HermannB

FRES - I always wonder who forges such names. Military burocrats?

A friend who once worked for Royal Ordnance told me about a project he worked on where they came up with a long descriptive project name whose initials happened to spell out S.H.I.T. H.O.T. and got rather a long way towards approval before some high-ranking killjoy interceded…

[Damraska]

While reading this discussion, I made the exact same observation. Right up until the naval treaties, every other ship offered significant advances over previous iterations. When war came, naval planners found uses for everything.