“The Army’s first new major combat vehicle in two decades will be known as the M10 Booker Combat Vehicle, honoring fallen soldiers killed in the Iraq War and World War II, service officials said.” --Stars and Stripes
I know that AFV design and efficacy isn’t down to aesthetics, but I recall the old adage re aircraft that “if it looks right, it is right”, but this, well, just doesn’t “look right”.
Mind you, what the hell do I know?
I’ll get my coat.
105mm M10 Booker weighs in at 42 tons and is $12.9M per tank. 120mm M1A2 SEPv3 is $24M and weighs in at nearly 74 tons. --Stars and Stripes.
One problem the M10 Booker has is that firing the main gun causes barrel fumes to enter the turret. GDLS is working on a solution.
When will we get a model of it?
Ill take one
And what is its intended role?
It looks… weird. Like a tank, but isn’t. Like an Abrams/Bradley-bastard with surplus 105?
It’s a new infantry support light tank. It’s the Abrams little bother and can be air transported to support where the big boy can’t go. It sports the 105mm gun and I think really highlights the shift the army is taking its tactics post GWOT.
M10 Booker is supposedly based on the failed UK AJAX IFV chassis. Someone correct me if I’m wrong.
And appears that they fixed the fume problem when firing the main 105mm gun according to National Defense Magazine. But like Wikipedia said, the AJAX has noise and vibration issues and I read that the M10 Booker is kind of noisy also. But when you need 105mm direct fire support, having something is better than nothing.
The M10 Booker is for US Airborne, Light Infantry, and Air Assault forces to replace the infamous M551 Sheridan light tank that never really worked properly. It acts as a direct fire support weapon “bunker buster” against IFVs/APCs, fortifications, bunkers, barriers, walls, pillboxes, etc. It’s not really meant to go up against MBTs. The M8 Armored Gun System was supposed to replace the M551, but that fell through and the Stryker 105mm MGS never lived up to its expectations as being too cramped, no V-Hull, too unarmored, and low in ammo count.
I think that the USMC should have some for urban warfare.
It’s intended to be used by the 82nd Airborne Division.
The division has been without armor assets since the retirement of the ancient M551 Sheridan.
Each IBCT will have 14 MPF/M10 Bookers assigned to them.
Cost overruns and other issues will mean we probably won’t see it in service for 10 years. Not impressed.
Fumes in the turret that’s rich. I crewed M551s, M48A5s, M60A1s and A3s and M1s we always got fumes in the turret. They came out of the breech and out of the spent casing. It was the cost of doing business. That’s what the turret blower was for. It sucked fresh air in to force the fumes out. As far as looks go it looks OK to me. A bit big though. At 42 tons it weighs more then a Sherman Jumbo.
But now Health and Safety deem the fumes toxic and hazardous, and one might believe the military fear legal consequences. It was the reason the U.K. retired their Scorpion CVR(T)s in 1994.
As an engineer having worked in both aviation and in the rail industry, I can assure you, your hunch is correct.
It looks top heavy, although probably isn’t.
The basic hull is similar to what’s out there, but the suspension may be another story. The power pack is radically different, but from what I hear is simply waiting on equipment to hit the docks. (often can be 12 to 24 months). There will be many small changes made to the hull and turret, and probably some major revisions as well. It took the Abrams close to three years before everybody was satisfied, and even after that there was a steady stream of revisions till around 1986 or 87.
If you want to read something laughable, then read all the trash talk the press put on the Abrams! The press will never know of anything major going on. Most of the crap they bitched and moaned about was fixed before they ever found out about it. I’m pretty certain the air filtration system inside the turret was addressed long before they found out about it.
The power pack has been on the dyno for over six weeks, and seems to run just fine. Yet we all know there will be a few design changes before they go after the 25,000 hour test (the design is not that far along to even think about it). I’d sorta guess they’ll be looking at the first of November (all TACOM durability test seem to be between November and the last of February). Then there will be several more 25K tests with true production built power packs (probably last for a year and a half).
Once the actual power pack is finalized, the final designs for the testing equipment can go out for bids (trust me there will only be one bidder)
The gun and gun mount will be fairly simple and probably similar to the M1 IP. The electronics will probably be the latest Abrams stuff. I’ve heard that the master CPU for the power pack has been done for several years, and we’ve all seen in use in large cities (it will have a few software changes of course)
Once the machinery starts to show up; it will not take too long unless there is a long wait for a certain piece of equipment. They can cut gears just about anywhere in any of the plants, so that will not be much of an issue. Rest is simple
To me, how the turret sits above the hull looks like a shot trap. A Merkava ball & chain system for it?
I sure hope I am wrong with my observation!
So the highest bidder will win the contract …
Same here, M1IPs…maybe we’ll see an ad for the lawyers. “Were you in the military, and exposed to fumes from main gun rounds” LOL
The press said everything bad about the Abrams Bradley, Apache, and everything we’ve produced in the last 40 years or so. Most if not all of our systems have proven themselves in combat for reliability and saving lives. Same ol same ol. Then again who can blame them with the huge cost overruns and decades long processes it seems to get things done.
A photo from Defence Blog.
One has to recall that a lot of these US weapon systems have been upgraded and updated to make them work, such as the Patriot SAM that is now the Patriot PAC-3 version and packing four missiles per launcher cell instead of one just due to chip miniaturization. The M1 Abrams became the M1A2 System Enhancement Program (SEP) Version 3 and 4. The Apache AH-64 became the AH-64D and E. The CH-47 Chinook is now the “F” and “G” variant. So there are now a few iterations from the “Plain Vanilla” system then when it started as.
I am surprised that the M10 Booker still has the pintle .50cal M2HB. It’s probably not an US Army requirement for CROWS II, but for a tank, I’d add the LP CROWS II RWS even if it tips the scale at another ton added. Having the TC stick his head and upper torso out to aim and fire the rooftop MG is just so outdated these days.
M10 is based off of the UK AJAX chassis…you can see that the driver’s hatch is offset from center on both photos of the AJAX and the M10.
M10 Booker does have bow camera system to aid the driver, GPS, TC’s CITV, turret wire cutter, and 16 smoke grenade launchers for perhaps four smoke salvos.
I would assume that the Army can bolt on a thicker frontal hull plate if they wanted to.
I’d also see if the US Army can do something about the thermal and engine exhaust coming out of the right side of the hull…perhaps “harmonica baffles” like the F-117A to distribute the smoke, heat, blackness, and noise.
It doesn’t look much better in green (apropos my earlier “aesthetic” related comment(!))
Given the problems relating to the Ajax programme in the UK one might wish to be careful in what one wishes for.
I’m sure that once in service though, we’ll all grow to love it and clamour for a kit of it!