This is the XM30 concept in 2022…four years can change its looks. Photo by Army Recognition.
Despite the name, the XM30 mounts not a 30mm autocannon, but a 50mm autocannon and that itself is a huge improvement in lethality.
It really makes me wonder why the M10 Booker wasn’t pushed forward. Forget using the M10 Booker for U.S. Airborne and Air Assault Forces…use them for the U.S. Armored Calvary and Mechanized Infantry Divisions and see how 42 tons for the M10 vs. 60 tons for the M1E3 fares. It seems kind of silly to axe the M10 Bookers without testing them first to see if they’re viable for the U.S. Army armored formations in other scenarios besides Airborne and Light Infantry.
Agree. The M10 Booker should never have been canceled. Huge mistake.
They could have found ways to lighten it before rushing it into production
I think that the XM30 can be improved in design. It’s the typical design of one side of the turret, now unmanned, I believe, has a twin missile launcher. Why not put another twin missile launcher on the other side of the turret? Sure it will cost more, but having one side of the turret with ATGMs and the other side with C-UAS or Stinger missiles will help against both ground and air targets, something AFVs are weak in when it comes to airborne threats, depending on a rooftop machine guns for anti-air protection. An AI automatic anti-drone gun can be mounted on the roof and they make those.
If the U.S. Army has a phobia against AFVs shooting down friendly helicopters, drones, and warplanes (“Friendly-fire”), that phobia does have merit. However, AFVs can’t depend on attack helicopters and the USAF all the time for air cover and CAS, especially when Air Force fighters and the A-10s are aging and being reduced in active numbers.
The A-10s will fly to 2030s, but the USAF has no replacement plans and actually doesn’t want to sponsor and finance a new A-10 replacement, citing that the F-35 will be it. The USAF wants to increase the F-15EX acquisition numbers, but it will be years before the F-15Es are replaced and new F-15EXs enter service. Thus, air cover and air support for U.S. Army AFVs is still going to be large, complex, expensive, and heavy.
the AIR FORCE thinks close air support can be done at 30,000 ft
They also think that “securing a building” means getting a 30 year lease on it.
That is why the Marines want their own airwing.
I haven’t seen the results of an A10 VS F35 competition in the ground support role. Probably will not happen.
Seems like the Army is looking for a Leopard 2 shaped like an Abrams.
the F35 can not take the damage like a A10 can , i seem to remember hearing that a A10 too a direct hit from a SA6 in the first gulf war and kept on flying
The A10 has a lot of advantages over the F35 in the ground support role. However, the Air Force has always wanted fast movers for ground attack.
dumb idea