Back to 70/80, remember the President Carter era. In France that’s the same since 1995, cancellation programs, many regiments closed, equipements overdated, defense budget is just a reserve for other departements.
1 Like
Almost all western nations cashed in on the great peace that followed when the
Warsaw pact collapsed.
Now we have to pay and work hard to rebuild the capacity we lost.
4 Likes
The Wiesel seems (to me, a practitioner of Infantry, Armor, and Cavalry/Recon missions over 27 years) too light for anything but reconnaissance. The Mission requirements for the M10 (and any other StuG/Assault Gun) stemmed from a need to support the friendlies while closing with and destroying the enemy.
So the Wiesel seems well-suited for its reconnaissance (Aufklarungs) missions, but not airborne and air assault elements doing kinetic things on a big scale. The ATGM variant can kill tanks from a distance, but that stems from a need to screen a friendly force while forcing the enemy to deploy from march formations. The Wiesel (and classic reconnaissance light fighting vehicles like the M114, et al) has just enough lethality to make the forward security elements pause to deploy to cover and develop the situation. The Wiesels then boogie (bounding all the way) to the next GDP and rinse/repeat.
.02
4 Likes
Well I posted this in July of last year and it has become surprisingly relevant in some ways!!
3 Likes
The US Marines don’t want the M10 Bookers…I asked actual a Marine captain and colonels and that’s what they told me, unofficially. They are set on Force Design divesting tanks so they stick with the Marine Commandant’s desire not to have tanks (go figure).
As for the US Army, @Damraska asks why this and not that? The problem is that the US Army’s armor programs start with “Requirements.” A Requirement is something that someone high up, usually a general, wants for Soldiers. “I need this for the future” the general would say. So cutting back and/or axing on the M10 Booker, AMPV, Stryker, JLTV, M109 ERCA leaves the Requirement still in place without a solution or replacement; the Requirement is still there, unfulfilled. That is what I think SECDEF may or may not know because he may or may not have been briefed on the armor programs origins, status, progress, costs, test results, Requirements and mission goals. So is SECDEF stating that FPV drones will fulfill the Requirements of all of these armor programs? Sure, sling-load Soldiers to a FPV drone and see how high and far it’ll take them compared to a JLTV. All the program cancelations still leave Requirements in place that are unfulfilled—longer range 155mm artillery, armored transport better than M113 armor, anti-tank helicopters, cannon fire support for the Airborne and Light Forces, etc. If you have a bountiful supply of drones driven to the front (and no JLTVs, AMPVs, or Strykers to get them there = they were curtailed or canceled) to take the place of one M10 with say 30 cannon rounds, then OK, but you’ll need about 100 armed FPV drones for the firepower of 30 105mm M10 Booker shells. Drones take one human operator per drone to pilot. Sure, you can have drone swarms with AI for one human pilot and 50 drones linked together, but that is a logistical challenge in itself to produce and arm 50 drones. FPV drones cannot do air defense against ballistic and cruise missiles; the US Army still needs a balanced combined arms forces that require Soldiers to crew them.
So without Requirements, the Soldiers won’t get them. “It’s not in the Requirements” is a common DoD excuse stating that Soldiers won’t get any. OIF Guntrucks were a very good example; the US Army had no Requirement for Guntrucks; the Soldiers made Guntrucks themselves, against Army policy and rules.
The hypocrisy of the “Warrior Ethos” is that a warrior needs more tools than an upgraded MBT and a new IFV; the warrior Solider needs lighter armor than M1E3 and XM30 and I’m very surprised that SECDEF doesn’t realize this. Already C-UAS systems are in place to deal with FPV drones like Active Protection Systems, jammers, EW, high-powered microwaves, and interceptors. The US Army is not the Ukrainian army because the US Army keeps the best technology from falling into Russia’s hands. We didn’t ship M1A2SEPv2s to Ukraine, just older M1A1s without the CITV. As the late Congress Senator said, this government business requires a LOT of reading to do research and homework to gain knowledge and learn. One can’t just look at something and decide “like/dislike” on a whim. We modelers do research and homework before buying kits or else we would waste money on junky kits or get burned by shop scammers.
Here’s an example: TERMINATOR humanoid robots may be part of the future, but heck, aerial TERMINATOR Hunter-Killers (H-K) are not small FPV drones, but massive hovering attack jets that have huge gatling lasers. Aerial H-Ks are so well armored that the human Rebels cannot bring them down effectively except with rocket launchers, just like Star Wars’ AT-ATs have such thick armored hides that they were invulnerable to practically all Rebel blaster fire at Hoth.
4 Likes
So the US Army’s excuse argument siding with SECDEF’s cancellation orders currently is that, “We must NOT spend anymore money on legacy systems and we must innovate for the wars of tomorrow. Warfare has radically changed and we must adapt.”
OK…so what are the new Requirements? The US Army still needs counter-mine AFVs, armored ambulances, Command and Control, armored logistics, and various roles the XM30 and M1E3 can’t achieve. AMPVs, JLTVs, and Strykers can do it = axed.
There are many people whose job it is to dream of future war (that is if they didn’t get laid off and fired from DoD, but Think Tanks do this “War thinking” independent of the US government funding). Now DoD runs a risk of having a “Santa’s List” of dreamy ideas and concepts when what it needs is still hardcore armor, but SECDEF axed that. Hey, AFVs usually need wheels or tracks to move Soldiers unless you want Soldiers like Rocketman, and Rocketman just stays airborne for 3 miles, 10 minutes, and 85 mph.
From Google AI…
" The Gravity Industries Jet Suit offers a flight time of up to 10 minutes, depending on conditions. It can achieve speeds of up to 85 mph. The suit typically has a range of about 3 miles (5 km).
Here’s a more detailed breakdown:
- Flight Time: The Jet Suit’s flight time can vary, with some sources citing up to 8 minutes and others up to 10 minutes.
- Speed: The suit is capable of reaching speeds in excess of 60 km/h (approximately 37 mph). Some sources state it can reach 85 mph.
- Range: The suit’s range is generally quoted as being up to 3 miles (5 km).
- Fuel: The Jet Suit uses Jet A1 Kerosene, Premium Diesel, and Kerosene as fuel.
Without a future battle plan, it becomes harder to reinvent what the SECDEF wants of “New and innovative warfare.” USMC Force Design is this way and I’m in communications with Marines who question some parts of Force Design. The US Special Forces “Iron Man Suit” flopped with no results after spending who knows how much money. Yes, it’s frustrating to read of all this stuttering progress, but DoD is not my job… 
If you want a hover tank as a Requirement, then try making a hover tank. But a hover tank is going to cost plenty. Back to the drawing board when all these current AFV programs came off of the drawing boards and saw light of day, and no, the SECDEF’s cancellations are not government efficient and effective (ahem, that other new US government “efficiency department”)!
3 Likes
I was with you right up to this line - NOBODY should be surprised at what the current SECDEF doesn’t realize! He’s so massively underqualified for the job that his appointment might actually be construed as an act of treason…
5 Likes
Easy, easy!
I heard the SoD is a great party planner, the very best! He intends to throw a Truppen-parade on June 14th the likes of which we haven’t seen in ~85 years or so!
This will historical because we just don’t do BIG military parades in the USA!
4 Likes
SECDEF was an Army Reserve Major, and I respect the man at that level. But anecdotally he wasn’t a very good leader, and the best guess is that he said things Dampnut liked and he looks all manly on Faux News and Dampnut cares more about that than any actual experience or qualifications.
5 Likes
SECDEF has aides and briefings; it is not a solo job. I wonder if he listens to the full story and presentations. There are and were some bosses that cut off and interrupt briefings just to make a decision and then walk away, not giving time for the entire briefing, but again I am not the SECDEF so this is all speculation.
Decisions and management “off the cuff Old Western gunslinger style” works if one is an expert and has decades on the job to make quick-fire decisions based on previous experiences and proven knowledge and success. If you are the founder of your own business and company, you can do that.
His cutting of many armor programs indicates that he does not know what are legacy AFVs and what aren’t because the programs he axed are not old AFVs; they are the new AFV and tactical truck replacement programs! Either his aides didn’t fully brief him, or he made a gunslinger decision and fired all six rounds that stopped six armor programs “dead”…friendly fire.
Nonetheless, the US Army generals’ Requirements remain unchanged and unfulfilled with the cancellations. The big question of “Now what?” remains.
3 Likes
Lots of politics being discussed. 
2 Likes
@Uncle-Heavy There are many videos on YouTube of drones doing what you describe. It seems like the capabilities you describe are now common. There are far fewer videos of drones being disrupted, drones being shot down, and drone operators being found and killed. Yet, those things are happening.
I still wonder what happens after drones win the battlefield. At some point enemy combatants will stop direct engagement and go insurgent. The United States military has lots of recent experience with that. What weapon systems come into play at that point?
What happens if an enemy can sweep aerial drones? How does a battle progress if drones are not the deciding factor?
What is the cost of delivering a munition by drone versus other methods? Are gun tubes a lot cheaper per shot?
@Trisaw You continue to bring up very interesting points of discussion. Your comments about extant requirements and conversations with real Marines are helpful.
I am trying to avoid making this discussion political but remain very concerned that high level politicians in the United States are not giving very complex military problems sufficient consideration.
Science fiction stuff like heavily armored flying tanks and killer humanoid robots do not interest me when discussing current military procurement. Those technologies are impossible or a long way off.
A real concern of mine is gutting the current military force in order to pursue some future military force that may or may not work. I want a functional force at all points in time. Procurement must facilitate a force that works now, a force that works in 5 to 10 years, and research towards a force of the future.
Politicians in the United States need to accept that one country cannot defend the entire planet. The British tried that and lost their empire. The Germans made way too many enemies way too quickly. Western nations need to double down on working together for the collective good.
…
Okay. That is out of the system. I am still curious, for those of you with a military background who keep up in this stuff, do you feel the M10 is still a good idea? Does it fulfill a serious requirement?
3 Likes
Yes, a lot of politics being discussed, and it’s hard to avoid the issue of how people work in the office. OK, but let’s try.
The timing of the cancellations is horrible. Just when these new AFVs’ productions are starting to ramp up, they are canceled. That’s pretty bad. It indicates that civilian DoD leadership has no faith in the newer updated systems.
The $200-$1,000 FPV drone seems to spook members in National Security into thinking that tipping the balance of warfare for cheaper and better can win wars, just as the US Navy is encountering in the Red Sea by shooting multimillion dollar Standard interceptor missiles and losing three $70 million F-18s to mishaps and to cheaper drones and ballistic missiles that “Work well enough.” US bean and bullet counters are taking notice about the huge cost imbalance.
//////////
Back to the M10. “Mobile Protected Firepower” nomenclature makes sense—it’s mobile; it’s armored and protected; it’s heavy firepower that human arms can’t carry. Horses in WW1 and before were used in warfare because humans can’t carry the heavy weapons and loads in their bare hands. Then came armored cars and tanks to carry heavier weapons into battle. The issue is…will enemy FPV drones destroy M1A2SEP tanks and kill the crews inside? If a top-attack on the M1A2SEP turret happens, will the crew inside die? That is a highly classified “Top Secret” answer. How about the M10 Booker? How about the AMPV? How about the JLTV? We already know the answers to this. If given a large enough explosive, anything can destroy an AFV, just like IEDs. But that didn’t stop the production of AFVs once the US Army figured out the IED counters. Aerial weapons have always made it miserable for ground troops, and if you can’t attack from above, you can still attack from the ground like using small UGVs.
Now the M2A3 Bradleys can fire Coyote C-UAS missiles from the same TOW box without modifications. There are laser dazzlers against optics and blinding spotlights. Even acoustic LRADs are predicted to damage enemy FPV drones’ electronics and gyroscopes. There are other C-UAS equipment, but they need armored mechanical horsepower to carry into battle, or else you’d have that comical movie “Starship Troopers” where the mobile armored infantry on foot was eaten by armored bugs and nothing could stop the bugs. The RCV family of robots was meant to haul cargo and 30-40mm autocannons for the infantry, but that too was canceled. It wasn’t “legacy.”
I’ve seen C-UAS systems online and on YouTube that can counter the drone threat, and they seem to work pretty well during tests. Most likely the US Army won’t send them to Ukraine because they’re cutting edge with AI and C-UAS software, but they do show up at expos and Defense shows.
The problem with robot tanks is that Russia has some of them and they were tested to work for about 100-250 meters, hardly useful in urban combat where buildings and obstructions caused the trailing human operators to lose control of the robot tank. RCV-Heavy was meant to be an uncrewed robot tank similar to the M10 Booker, but RCV-Light, Medium, and Heavy got canceled…RCV-Light and Medium were tested to work.
4 Likes
Enemy FPV drones…there’s also robot horses and motorcycle gangs of insurgents with rifles, machine guns, and RPGs. But these cannot carry heavy cannon firepower without wheels or tracks, hence the need for AFVs.
3 Likes
OR…he knows that under No Circumstances will the USA willingly commit its troops to another ongoing conventional ground war campaign anywhere in the world in the foreseeable future.
Cancelation of all of that equipent would make sense if that is the case…drones or no drones.
So the funds would be best spent on something else for the military.
Factual statement, initially there was a desire to cut the US Military budget in half provided an agreement with Russia & China could be reached that they would do the same. Defense stocks in the USA dropped in February due to that idea being mentioned. This is not political, it is a statement of historical fact.
If a fast satisfying solution to Ukraine War had manifested (that was acceptable to all parties), the everyone cuts military spending in half idea might have had merit worth discussing. That’s not happened (so far) so instead increased military budget appeared necessary.
Trump-budget-proposal-defense-spending increase to 1 Trillion dollars for 2026.
I’d say our SecDef made the best decision possible based on the information available to him.
Probably a lot of decisions at that level regardless of who is in the seat, amount to picking the best of three bad options.
@Damraska, I believe the British lost their empire because they made the critical mistake of not abandoning France at the start WW1. Germany was going to dominate the center of Europe economically, it was inevitable. Even with two lost world wars and being divided by the Cold War, look where the EU is today. Much cleaner and better result for the UK & Empire to stay out of the WW1 mess. With the Kaiser calling the shots and still on the throne, the little corpral w/mustache either learns to draw and ends up an actual artist or becomes a house painter.
Sir Niall Campbell Ferguson wrote book about it etc that seemed to upset a lot of folks.
3 Likes
The Germans made the mistake with the Schlieffen Plan in that it involved invading Belgium, and Britain had given guarantees regarding Belgian territorial integrity, something which, in those days, would have involved us in the conflict regardless of the entente cordiale, which was not an alliance but agreements to resolve certain disputes with the intention of facilitating an improvement in Anglo-French relations. Fast forward exactly a century and Russia occupies the Crimea, and while the U.K. is a signatory to the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances (not guarantees) regarding Ukrainian territorial integrity these do not require a military response, allowing the U.K. to heed the lessons of history and restrict its response to diplomatic and economic support.
Regards,
M
3 Likes
and the world hopefully learns the lesson that words written on paper can be worth something or they can be worth less than the paper they are written on.
The world should have learned already when this happened:
Maybe we learn the lesson this time, I hope the EU gets its act together and becomes one unified defense force capable of defending …
3 Likes
Yes, indeed.
Germany made a whole LOT of mistakes before and at the start of the war.
Getting into a naval arms race with British etc setting the stage. IIRC (sometimes I don’t) General Helmuth von Moltke the Younger (aka lesser) also helped screw up their Big Beautiful “S” Plan by not following his assignment as he should have done. I believe he was supposed to fallback to help lure this opposites forward to help spread and thin the lines more than he did. He didn’t find the role of baiting the enemy GLORIOUS enough. Sinking the wrong ships, quite a laundry list of blunders.
Read Barbara Tuckman’s The Proud Tower & The Guns of August and Robert Massies Dreadnought nearly 30-35 years ago, some of it’s fuzzy now. However, all three were fascinating reads.
1 Like
You can’t fix stoopid.
3 Likes
The US Marines don’t want the M10 Bookers…I asked actual a Marine captain and colonels and that’s what they told me, unofficially. They are set on Force Design divesting tanks so they stick with the Marine Commandant’s desire not to have tanks (go figure).
I’ve been talking to several Marines, both retired and active duty, many who are or were infantry. They all agree that it’s a mistake that the Corps divested their tanks, and they all agree that they do not like the idea of not having tank support if Marines had to deploy into a hot spot.
Force design does have it’s place in that it adds a new and unique role to Marines, but it ignores the expeditionary force in readiness role which Marines have always specialized in. Currently, Force Design limits the role of Marines to fighting one specific enemy in only one combat environment.
As for “wanting” the Booker, my guess is if the higher ups had the option, they would likely prefer to go back to the Abrams. Unfortunately, it was cited as part of the decision to divest, that the increased weight and diminished fuel economy of newer variants of the Abrams would become a problem, and apparently it was easier to divest the tanks rather than overcome the disadvantages of deploying heavier tanks. However there was no attempt to discuss the M10, simply because the Booker didn’t exist and once the Marines settled on Force Design 2030, there was no role for any tanks at all, despite the fact that it leaves Marine infantry vulnerable.
The hypocrisy of the “Warrior Ethos” is that a warrior needs more tools than an upgraded MBT and a new IFV; the warrior Solider needs lighter armor than M1E3 and XM30 and I’m very surprised that SECDEF doesn’t realize this.
I don’t think there is a hypocrisy there, rather the system to acquire the tools is broken. The warrior always make demands for tools to do his job. but the higher ups in the leadership and political always make the decisions, either watering down their needs or outright eliminating them for some expedient reason, or they come up with tools we don’t use or need. Without getting into politics, the current SECDEF has been ordered to eliminate fraud and waste from the military. Remember these were the same group of idiots who spend thousands of tax payer dollars to buy what a typical American can buy for a few bucks at Home Depot, and it has to stop.
As a platform, the Booker may have had promise to fulfill it’s intended role, but my guess is the program itself to produce the Booker was probably way over budget (Like most other military programs, these days) and something has to give. So, the Booker got cancelled. How will the resolution play out? I haven’t the foggiest but if the 82nd -Or the Marines, ever gets tanks for their intended roles, it’s going to have to be acquired in a budget friendly way
Edro
4 Likes