If Ukraine defeats Russia they will have the capacity to cover a large part of the needs:
" By early 2025, Ukraine was reportedly producing 200,000 FPV drones per month"
1 Like
Some context: Ukraine is using/consuming 2,700 FPV drones per day (Kyiv Independent, late March 2025) and looking to produce ~5 Million this year. That means they could have surplus, and overwhelm Russian air defenses, C&C, artillery, and logistics systems. Could. Until they defeat the Russians, no one in the USA or elsewhere is producing enough for conventional warfare with our peer and near-peer competitors and their likely allies. NOW is the problem for the US Army, et al.
And the Russians are currently out-producing them.
2 Likes
The issue is not the bridge weights. That’s the explanation, not the reason. If the Booker was wanted and needed this would be a nonissue. The purpose of the Booker is not to parade around Ft Campbell. It is to provide combat support for Airborne troops. Just park them by the air strip. They don’t really even need to be on Ft Campbell. They will be flown into the combat zone. Doesn’t matter where they were flown from. Could just as easily be kept at Ft Knox. My gut feeling is someone doesn’t want it or the need for it is changing.
2 Likes
When you’re hitting those sort of numbers economies of scale would suggest the “per unit” costs are being driven down considerably. I wonder if this is one of the rare cases where the cost of the delivery system drops below that of the payload?
Cheers,
M
…and if the war in Ukraine ended very quickly, what might Russia decide to do…next now that Russia finally has a real military advantage…with all of the West lagging well behind in doctrine & production…
The question reminds me of that old “there’s a hungry bear in the woods, is he friendly?” add from ~1980
2 Likes
Very valid points…if the US Army and Airborne wanted the M10 Booker, they would have essentially made it work properly. Even a Google AI search on the M10 Booker’s cancelation didn’t yield any solid reasons as to why it was canceled.
As for drones, the M10, like the M2A4E1 can have “Iron Fist” Active Protection System with some turret modification redesigns. About 80 M10s Bookers exist and the US Army wanted 504 Bookers so the turret can still be redesigned for the 400+ more that needed to be built to deal with the drone threat.
Thus, the requirement for a mobile firepower armored vehicle in the 105-120mm gun range still exists and that kind of leaves the wheeled mobile gun systems with 90mm to 120mm guns, but the US Army has none of those. To top it off, as I’ve commented before, the RCV family with 30-40mm autocannon turrets was canceled. The unmanned option of carrying cargo, ISR sensors, wounded, and heavier armament that the infantry cannot carry was canceled—the whole family—at least the US Army can have canceled the RCV-Heavy unmanned tank option (not designed and built) and kept the light and medium variants. Furthermore, the TOW was canceled and TOW was the ATGM element to the XM30 which was not canceled. Something just doesn’t “link and sync” to make XM30 progress even further. Is XM30 going to fire Hellfire missiles for ATGM? Hellfires were removed from the M-SHORAD because they can’t stand ground vibration jiggling. Again, something doesn’t “link and sync” because it’s crippling the XM30 expedition with the cancelation of TOW.
There still exists nothing that can fire repeated hits than a direct action gun. Drones cannot do repeated hits, and I think people need to understand that FPV hobby drones can’t destroy everything in a single hit, especially in urban warfare, and especially with a multitude of guns from main cannon to COAX to rooftop anti-air machine gun. Yes, how long will a tank survive against a drone threat is warranted for discussion, but the requirement is still there for a mobile armored assault gun for light infantry forces and Airborne because these forces are suppose to advance to hold the ground and seize objectives. Releasing drone swarms may destroy enemy troops and personnel in the path, but the troops will still have to advance to conquer and occupy ground to achieve mission objectives. Airborne cannot just sit around and trade drone shots in a war of attrition because that won’t allow heavier follow-on forces to come in. A form of armored transport is still needed to move troops and human eyes and ears and mouths to talk to people because drones don’t have the human senses and physical presence to achieve language and hands and fingers to communicate, arrest, save, evacuate, repair, tend to, carry and haul, hook up, and deal with people; drones just perform ISR, carry cargo, and destroy.
4 Likes
They usually do this to grind down the defensive layers of turtle tanks (mobile sheds).
One drone to blow a hole in the shed, one drone to remove the ERA block, the next
drone to punch through the exposed spot. The crew in Russian tanks often bail out after
the first hard “knock” on the hull, they don’t hang around waiting for their ammunition
to blow up. This behaviour makes the tank more vulnerable since it stops moving and
becomes an easier target, the crew also leave the hatches open in their haste to get
away before the tank blows up.
The ‘Iron Fist’ and similar close in defensive systems could counter most of the drone
threat as long as the system can reload quickly so that it can shoot down the next
drone and the drone after that et.c.
3 Likes
That was pretty much my assertion in my post from last week.
They can’t just remain static - they will need to train in them, however…
Like perhaps 
keeping a specific number on alert, already as fully equipped as possible and ready to be deployed, near the airfield, while another group are used for training, and a third group are in for maintenance.
2 Likes
Send 6 to the Ukraine to test them in combat
3 Likes
It depends, yes? Mortar bombs are pretty inexpensive, and have been produced in their millions. Some for adapted RPG warheads, and hand grenades.
Anything is “possible”.
1 Like
Iron Fist is NOT currently (AFAIK) advertised as a hemispherical defense system against top-down munitions. The AESA radar coverage does NOT provide protection against LMs (loitering munitions) that are overhead. Israel/Elbit are studying lasers for c-UAS applicability. Furthermore, current systems have two-barrel launchers, and require (w/ one exception iirc) manual reloading.
Elbit and GD both advert the system as protection against incoming anti-armor rounds, including APFSDS.
Hemispherical protection will arrive, but mostly for deployment form some form of integrated SHORAD system.
1 Like
Seems like there needs to be some expedited research/development …
1 Like
It’s been ongoing for years. IF has the capability to detect threat at higher angles. The problem is each system now weighs 100+ kg per side. The AESA radars scanning envelope really is meant to protect against attackers in open terrain and an even cities. MOST of the development is on an integrated system (such as M-SHORAD on teh Stryker) wihci deplys with the armored fighting vehicle units and provide sthe longer-range detection and shoot down in AI-assisted HOTL (human on the loop) modes. Current US policy still wants a human who at least activates any fully autonomous (detect, IFF. Kill) system, as do most western countries.
It is The Way, so far. Layers, like onions and ogres.
2 Likes
Now that’s a Category XIV model!
2 Likes
That’s one of the worst photoshops I’ve seen in quite some time.
4 Likes
I once mooted a M18 Hellcat with 17pdr Achilles turret as a WIF? (more accurately a WTF??).
Cheers,
M
2 Likes
I am guessing the Army is choosing not to do much currently. I think the current administration and head of the pentagon are in a cutting mood. The Marines have already self-immolated by riding themselves of men and material. The Army may just be hunkering down.
1 Like
I find the lack of tie downs disturbing…
3 Likes
The M1A2E1 Iron Fist photo seems to show more than two munitions, six miniature ones to be exact, or 12 total.
Drones cannot do repeated hits,
@Uncle-Heavy Sorry, I meant that most $200-$800 FPV hobby drones cannot do repeated hits because they’re single kamikaze drones—impact them and they’re gone. NOW the builders are adding rotary munition droppers to the bottom for 2-8 mini munitions to be dropped so they now CAN do repeated hits, and of course there are the larger Chinese “Jiu Tian” mothership drones that can launch drone swarms and also wing pylon missiles so they too can do repeated hits, but Jiutian SS-UAVs are expensive and large drones.
The M10 Booker, M1A2s, and M1E3s can do repeated hits at the same spot until the ammunition runs out, and that is the advantage of a tank.
4 Likes