US Army's New M10 Booker (MPF)

Trisaw · 6 May 2025 17:38

I cannot speak for the SECDEF, but practically all decisions should involve meetings, reports, studies, and even visits to the plants, workers, Soldiers, manufacturers, and the people involved. Did the SECDEF do that? Did he or didn’t he? What factual basis was the decision based on besides cost-cutting and removing “legacy-themed AFVs?” I think the media or the US Army said that the M10 was too heavy, not the SECDEF.

The SECDEF also cut the 155mm M109 ERA and the Remote Combat Vehicle (RCV) Family which was supposed to support and escort the dismounted troops from the XM30, the M2 Bradley replacement. The argument is that the SECDEF wants to fast-track the M1E3 and XM30 by cutting the other AFV programs, so it’s not about weight, the Breaking Defense article seems to suggest that the SECDEF wants “Innovative and transformative” weapons and not “Same old hat legacy AFVs.” But when the War in Ukraine shows that both sides and throwing practically every kind of “legacy AFV” that they can get their hands on, the M10 Booker makes sense to field for US Airborne and Light Infantry divisions that use the Infantry Squad Vehicle.

What should have occurred is to find a way to remove the M10’s bolt-on armor and fill those bolt holes with (example) lightweight plastic heads and washers. Then build a vehicle/robot that can handle, haul, and screw in the armor plates as fast as possible. But somehow, the US Army didn’t want to deal with the fact of adding or removing bolt-on armor to lighten the M10’s weight and passing that on to the SECDEF or USAF. The truth is that practically all of these Mobile Protected Firepower vehicles come with the bolt-on armor installed. I have seen very few photos of MPFs with the armor off (no photos of the add-on armor off on the M10 Booker), and I wonder if the bolt rods will be showing like dangerous rebars, able to impale someone. If so, make even hollow lightweight plastic or wooden chipboard armor to cover those bolt rods like a second lighter skin than composite armor plate. But I believe, like any add-on, the bolt rods can be removed also, even if it is a timely and tedious process.

This is the BAE M8 AGS with I believe some turret bolt-on armor panels OFF. You can see how it looks like. The M10 Booker should look the same. Why the US Army doesn’t train with and transport M10 Bookers with the bolt-on armor OFF is beyond me. Someone is not communicating properly somewhere about M10 tank weight able to shed off the outer layer of add-on armor to reduce its weight down from 42 tons.

BAE’s M8 AGS with some bolt-on armor OFF as evident by the turret holes and the rear hull mesh side skirt screen. Removing the outer layer of armor reduces the weight of the M8 AGS, and the M10 Booker should have the same general principle (I’m assuming).

Damraska · 6 May 2025 18:59

That is a good rebuttal and something I thought about since writing my previous post. I took some time this morning to refresh my memory on M10 history, procurement, and purpose. Why, exactly, was the program cancelled? Determining what really happened would require reading years worth of emails, meeting minutes, and transcripts. The explanations thus far given could very well be spin to cover a political hatchet job. Or maybe not.

A 3D printed domed cap could cover the exposed bolt faces. Why bother designing bolt on armor if you never expect to take it off?

Trisaw · 6 May 2025 19:04

The M10 Booker mounts a pintle .50cal M2HB that is manually aimed and fired and requires the Tank Commander to stand up in the open hatch., Some online vouch for mounting a CROWS II RWS. With the BLADE CROWS II radar, and the Tank Commander’s CITV, the M10 Booker can have a good C-UAS system to detect, identify, track, engage, and destroy drones all while under armor. Currently, the M10 Booker doesn’t have this.

////////////////////////

I think the M10 is kinda neat. What makes me mad is that the people running the project did immediately correct the design when it went over weight. That was a first order requirement. I do not want those decision makers anywhere near another procurement project.

I don’t think that the US Army made that mistake. I think that the US Army wanted more armor for a medium tank. If they wanted lighter MPF, they would have selected the 26-ton BAE M8 AGS, half the weight of the M10 Booker. If they wanted even lighter, then the about 23-ton Textron Stingray II which is so light that its armor is publicly known to resist 23mm AP fire frontal arc and 14.5mm bullets elsewhere. But I think the rumor is that Textron’s Stingray II wasn’t upgraded in decades, hence it wasn’t selected as the final two MPF contenders, BAE’s M8 AGS and GDLS’s M10 Booker.

Ted_Dannemiller · 6 May 2025 19:08

The MPF candidates were spec’d for installable/removable armor. Quite clear on the BAE prototype The prototype vehicle of the GDLS MPF had protection that was L1 at ~42t, and L3 at ~46t (full up with bolt-one).

The donor is the ASCOD (Austria-Spain), and w/o turret was showing up at 33t. W/ armor and the SP-30 Ulan turret, the ASCOD came in at 42t. The updates included composite layers and ERA.

There were no surprises about the mass.

Trisaw · 6 May 2025 19:22

The question then shifts to: “What are the US Airborne and Light Infantry Divisions supposed to do with the M10 Booker cancellation?” I suggest keeping all existing M10s in service until they’re ran until they’re totally broken and unfixable, but there are other options.

The US Airborne can acquire the two-seat utility ISV with anti-tank loitering munitions in the cargo bed. It can carry like seven loitering munitions.

Photo from GM Defense:

Photo from @18bravo below:

Or the US Army can have the AMPV mount a 3105 John Cockerill 105mm turret as a quasi MPF. It won’t be the M10 or M8 MPF, but at 36 tons for the AMPV, and with a 105mm turret, maybe around 40 tons, it might work. While it won’t be much lighter than the M10 Booker, the main difference is that the M10 Booker is cancelled whereas the BAE AMPV is a hot production line up and running and building AMPVs right now.

metalhead85 · 6 May 2025 19:25

What about a vehicle like the German Weasel, with a larger gun obviously? I understand the requirements involved but something has to give. Yes you’re sacrificing armored protection but you can’t have everything. Maybe the M8 should have been given more thought and development.
This sounds crazy I know, but what about jeep or Humvee mounted cannons?

Trisaw · 6 May 2025 19:30

Resurrect LOSAT/CKEM…which is kind of odd in 2025-2026 because HMMWVs aren’t really made anymore (reset and SLEP) and SECDEF halted production of replacement JLTVs. So…eh…what tactical truck?

@metalhead85 German Wiesel 1 and 2 have 7.62mm armor protection and the US Army has moved away from that low standard. The M113 was supposedly proof against 7.62mm although some rumors state that it wasn’t entirely bulletproof against 7.62mm with its aluminum armor.

https://www.army-technology.com/projects/losat/?cf-view

Damraska · 6 May 2025 21:50

According to one article I just read, the air drop requirement for the M10 was dropped all the way back in 2015.

Edro · 7 May 2025 03:00

I doubt that the Army would want to run the M10 until the road wheels fall off. With this cancellation, there would be no opportunity to improve on the platform.

And a two seat utility ISV with any sort of anti-tank capability would replace only one of the roles of a tank. Tanks have other roles on the battlefield, other than taking out other tanks. They must also provide heavy firepower in support of infantry and take out bunkers, or other fortified positions. There really isn’t a substitute for a tank.

Edro

Trisaw · 7 May 2025 04:07

Yes, that is why I am for the M10 Booker and I think its cancellation, along with the 155mm M109 ERCA (barrel wear, and the US Army resurrected the program after it was cancelled to try to fix the barrel wear issue), JLTV, and RCV family cancellations, are several wrong SECDEF decisions. What will replace these new or upgraded land forces systems…FPV drones? The 4x4 JLTV program is canceled! Is the US Army going to buy larger, more expensive 6x6 FMTVs to transport small handheld FPV drones? Or will the US Army use open unarmored MRZRs for sUAS transport? See, it doesn’t make logical sense for someone who has to do so much (Defense) reading…and that was what a late-Senator said about Washington DC…there’s a lot or reading involved (do your homework) in order to know what one is talking about because the programs’ progress and statuses were that these land systems actually did work after rigorous testing. Why start anew? Besides, aerial drones aren’t PEO Land Systems, more like Army Aviation Department. No FPV drone in its current design has ever sling-loaded Soldiers under armor for aerial transport, and that’s just a silly impossible notion.

Tanks scare infantry…and they still do. With the retirement of the A-10s for CAS, best to have 105mm MPFs.

I’ll tiptoe a little here into the minefield, but it looks like the US Army generals and VIPs just want to say some assumptions and make excuses to make their top boss look good. It doesn’t seem to be working because the AMPVs and Strykers got axed too. There are no news or photos saying and showing that SECDEF visited the armor HQ before he made these decisions to axe the whole HQ.

80 M10 Bookers exist as of May 2025…

https://breakingdefense.com/2025/05/army-to-cancel-planned-robotic-combat-vehicle-award-pause-howitzer-competition-sources/

Damraska · 7 May 2025 07:00

The obvious place to send the M10s is to the Marines. Ninety brand new medium tanks / assault guns may be a very good fit for them.

Based on my reading, the Secretary of Defense issued a broad order to find outdated and wasteful military systems and cut them. It was the Secretary of the Army who made the specific decision to chop the M10. It is possible I misunderstand the exact nature of who did what.

Aerial drones and aircraft cannot hold ground. They are an expensive way to bust bunkers and dug in positions.

Again, I am not some super duper military analyst so please take the following comments accordingly.

Air dropped tanks do not make any sense to me. Many get built but no one ever uses them in a serious way. Dropping that requirement seems smart.

On the other hand, giving your infantry an assault gun makes lots of sense. All sorts of machines have filled that role in many wars to great effect. Building an assault gun that weighs ~40 tons and can take armor upgrades, as opposed to a much more expensive tank that weights ~70 tons, makes lots of sense. They can live with the infantry. They can blow up buildings, machine gun nests, and small fortifications without calling in an air strike, artillery, drone strike, or tank. They can hang back, out of close combat, and level stuff for cheap firing 105 all day.

The dumbest thing I read was that people would confuse M10s with tanks and use them like tanks. Well golly gosh, maybe train your people not to do that? Duh?

On the other, other hand, maybe military planners now think they can win wars without ever putting a human being in harm’s way. Maybe they feel drones roaming the battlefield will kill everything or spot for air strikes and artillery. Maybe the next war is, “most drones wins”.

I have no clue where to even start reading about those sorts of discussions but they must be happening.

Ted_Dannemiller · 7 May 2025 12:19

Go check the mass of the AMPV. I think it’ll disqualify, quickly.

Armor_Buff · 7 May 2025 13:04

Arguments against new equipment for the U.S. Army today echo those made by isolationists in the late 1930s, which in hindsight underestimated emerging threats.

While not a direct repeat of history, the similarities highlight the risk of under-preparation in a changing global environment.

18bravo · 7 May 2025 14:29

Dan · 7 May 2025 15:15

This is what is driving this cancelation.

Armor_Buff · 7 May 2025 15:38

It’s not just the US Army that needs more but less expensive equipment…

In a hot combat zone, like inside the 1st island chain near Taiwan until destroyed or rendered ineffective estimated to be 24 to 72 hours in US wargames.

Even the Houthi’s got one of their missles with in ~650 feet of hitting a US carrier last year. Plus this year an F18 went overboard during evasive maneuvers when the Houthi’s sent ONE missle & ~12 drones at a US carrier. Confined to the second island chain estimates go up to weeks to several months.

The nature of warfare seems to be changing away from the big dinosaurs to the small vicious rodents that eat the eggs

Damraska · 7 May 2025 16:19

More thoughts from someone who is not any kind of expert:

A few posts back, Trisaw stated that the United States has at least one vehicle mounted, automated weapon system that can shoot down drones. In World War II, every ship was covered in anit-aircraft guns. How come United States ships are not covered in automatic drone defense guns?

New rule–anything that comes within 5,000 feet of a United States military vessel without permission will be immediately engaged and destroyed.

Why does everyone on Team Good Guy keep playing by nerf ball rules when Team Bad Guy is throwing grenades?

During World War I, defensive weapon systems were mostly superior to offensive weapon systems. During World War II, offensive systems were mostly superior to defensive weapon systems. Right now, offensive systems seem to have the upper hand by a significant margin. Better anti-aircraft, anti-drone, and anti-missile systems would shift the balance back towards defensive systems. Why are those systems not getting deployed and developed? Again, Trisaw stated we have anti-drone turrets for vehicles. Why is such a turret not on every single vehicle large enough to carry one?

Do you remember when cruise missile launching subs were a thing? Maybe we need a bunch of drone swarm launching subs. If I recall correctly, some ships can put drones in launch cells. Maybe do more of that?

Taiwan needs to cozy up to Israel and acquire nuclear weapons.

Aaaannndddd coming back to the M10… Even if drones are unstoppable and he who has the most drones wins, after you have drone superiority, then what? Seems like having an assault gun to flatten real estate on the cheap would be really useful.

If Wade and I were in the same room for a Build Day type event, we would own the room.

Now I really want to build an M10. Both of em.

Uncle-Heavy · 7 May 2025 16:42

A largish drone that can fly a 105 mm shell (or equivalent explosive charge) in through a broken window or down into a dugout would flatten real estate well enough for most purposes.
Drones carrying TM-62 antitank mines with fuzes modified to turn them into bombs.
Relatively cheap firepower with pin-point precision (Should I fly in through the front door, the left or the right window, Sir?). When the fire control team can go take a look through a window before calling in an airstrike. Instant battle damage assessment, check the status of the target as soon as the smoke clears. Hunting the enemy in their own trenches, up close and personal while sitting in relative safety a few miles away.
The next few years will see an intense “arms race” to develop counter measures, ways around counter measures, better counter measures, ways to get around the better counter measures …
Hunter-killer drones hunting enemy drones …

Ted_Dannemiller · 7 May 2025 16:50

The drone race (sic) has been underway for decades. To see the impact of drones on outcomes, study the Nagorno-Karabakh War of 2020. Azerbaijan won decisively, using drones as a force multiplier. But they still had to crawl inside towns and villages and dig out the Armenians.

Armor_Buff · 7 May 2025 17:07

How does bad weather affect these little drones?

How much wind speed can they tolerate?

At the rate of progress will something like Chappie be knocking doors and taking names?