M10 Booker Combat Vehicle / Mobile Protected Firepower (MPF)

[Desertfox]

What I wonder is why the US didn't look at something like the Panhard ERC. At 8 tons and packing a 90mm gun, it should be able to do the mission of the M10 much cheaper and easier to transport.

 

[EmoBirb]

Well, this thread is about to be irrelevant. OSD is apparently directing the Army to terminate the M10 and a bunch of other programs.

https://www.wsj.com/politics/national-security/us-army-drones-shift-20cc5753

It's pay walled, what's the summary?

 

[Seragina]

What I wonder is why the US didn't look at something like the Panhard ERC. At 8 tons and packing a 90mm gun, it should be able to do the mission of the M10 much cheaper and easier to transport.

42 tonnes vs. 8 tonnes
It's obviously about the "armor" (Just look at the Sheridan )
Seriously thought, apparently 105mm is deemed neceesary for contemprary/future light armor. Also the recoil would be a problem as seen with the Stryker.

That said the Booker is and has been needed for ages. It's madness without.

 

[EmoBirb]

What I wonder is why the US didn't look at something like the Panhard ERC. At 8 tons and packing a 90mm gun, it should be able to do the mission of the M10 much cheaper and easier to transport.

Something like the ERC probably lacks in the protection department to be a viable concept for "Mobile Protected Firepower".

As for a wheeled approach, perhaps the ill fated Stryker MGS created a bit of reluctance towards that configuration.

Speaking of which, something like this might have actually been viable? Some model maker made a Bradley with the 105mm MGS lol and I dig it

 

[TomS]

It's pay walled, what's the summary?

Here's another version:

Hegseth orders 'comprehensive transformation' of US Army, merging offices and cutting weapons - Breaking Defense

"All of these parochial interests and all of these lobbyists that crawl around this building and crawl around Congress, they have succeeded for far too long, and so the first thing is, we are going to start to cut the things we don't want or need," Army Secretary Daniel Driscoll told reporters.

breakingdefense.com

Basically, M10 is dead, no more Humvee or JLTV procurement, AH-64D is divested (not clear if there would be more AH-64E). Grey Eagle is gone.

 

[Seragina]

Damn.
Drones are good as remote artillery but you still need armor and stuff to drive in and secure dirt. Not to mention patrol and man & secure (out)posts.

 

[EmoBirb]

Here's another version:

Hegseth orders 'comprehensive transformation' of US Army, merging offices and cutting weapons - Breaking Defense

"All of these parochial interests and all of these lobbyists that crawl around this building and crawl around Congress, they have succeeded for far too long, and so the first thing is, we are going to start to cut the things we don't want or need," Army Secretary Daniel Driscoll told reporters.

breakingdefense.com

Basically, M10 is dead, no more Humvee or JLTV procurement, AH-64D is divested (not clear if there would be more AH-64E). Grey Eagle is gone.

Might as well dissolve the Army in it's entirety then if they want to utterly gut it like that. Who do they think will fight their wars in the future? The US Moron Corps with their overly expensive but underwhelming toys?

First ERCA, then FARA, now this. Why would any contractor still want to do business with the US military at this point when the simply change their opinions every 4 years because of partisan politics that are symptomatic for their terrible political system.

"To build a leaner, more lethal force, the Army must transform at an accelerated pace by divesting outdated, redundant, and inefficient programs, as well as restructuring headquarters and acquisition systems [...]"

Has someone told him that the "leaner force" gets ground up and annihilated in every war? Imagine questioning such fundamental things like genuine infantry support while your Navy's Army has an Air Force for whatever reason. This is such a clown world lmao.

“We wanted to develop a small tank that was agile and could be dropped into places our regular tanks can’t. We got a heavy tank.”

It's literally 20 to 30 TONS lighter than the freaking Abrams while bringing comparable firepower to infantry units in order to provide effective direct fire support.

I'm not even American but I cannot fathom the sheer stupidity and incompetence.

Hagsad probably thinks he can hold and suppress positions with M113s with .50 cals

 

[shin_getter]

Airborne operations was never for near peers, only against (far) inferior powers. You can look at the history of soviet airborne ops in ww2, and how Crete was the limit for Germans (imagine dropping onto Britain) and that is with gross mistakes made by defenders. That said, overpowering weaker nations is the political goal at times, the question should be whether imperial games makes sense for voters.

I mention it for the third time now, but when we look at the battlefield in Ukraine I think it becomes abundantly clear just how humongously important infantry and it's support is in a modern peer conflict.

No, it shows how little infantry support changes things. The infantry holds the line even if it is only themselves and drones and missiles they have organically plus a bit of very outmatched artillery. On the other hand, spending the entire stockpile of cold war tanks and artillery stocks to support attacks moves the line only slightly with little reduction in infantry losses.

What didn't happen is the forces with all the expensive heavy support assets winning victories and the ones without folding on contact. No, even when Ukraine was short on heavy assets, the lines still held for long.

Tanks(or not tanks, whatever)aren't about saving money, tanks are about engaging emplacements that can only be engaged directly, and often only open up when directly engaged.

Why would an concealed emplacement open up on a tank it can't defeat? Conversely, if an emplacement can defeat a tank, it is merely using the expensive asset to scout.

There are also no emplacement that can only be engaged directly, conversely a 30+ ton vehicle with direct fire gun simply can not engage lots of positions due lack of access. This is unlike FPVs that can fly into windows and run down a tunnel to blast even underground positions.

It's a very straightforward solution to a problem: (1)whether you want to probe ground obstacles and machinegun bullets with bodies, and (2)since they're shooting at you - it is the most straightforward answer to shut them up.

Send in the drones. What are they going to do, shoot at you? You can have drones place bombs and do flamethrower attacks at every suspected position if they don't shoot at you. If flying robots doesn't do the job, land robots are available too.

The current defense schema isn't some liquid cooled machinegun banging away, it is infantry stumbling into very concealed positions in grenade range if the survive all the indirect fire. It is questionable if 105/120mm gun is even safe to use and there is no clear point target to shoot at until grenades are thrown. An autocannon that does area suppression may be more useful, but ultimately having safer infantry delivery method and better infantry or replacement to infantry is what helps.

There are other, more roundabout ways to solve a problem, but they take more time and coordination.
Pgms don't replace direct fire until and unless you basically forfeit direct attack as a way of conducting ground warfare.

Combined arms coordination is "difficult" and blamed for huge losses in conflict. Organic weapons like recoilless rifles, ATGMs, Organic drones and light vehicles with similar weapons also does the job but does not suffer from cross organization issues. If small guns are too weak for target set, cheap guided rockets on cheap platforms are available:

I mean, charging the other guy with swords unleashed is the fastest and very simple form of war, but people just gave up on that.

 

[Cjc]

Frankly i was never convinced that the Booker was a good idea, the tech is simply not there to create a vehicle light enough to be airdroped yet have enough armor to talkel treats that something like the lav can't handle. Leaving the Booker in a very awkward middle ground that it didn't seem anyone really liked. So I can't say I'm surprised it ended up getting cand consdering how the army has been trying and falling to get a vehicle like this going and has failed every time. You think they would learn something from this by now but instead it seems we are going to once again go through yet another round of transformational thinking in the army. Who knows maby in 5 years we will have carbon nano tube armor and the army can finally get its perfect tank.

 

[Ainen]

Airborne operations was never for near peers, only against (far) inferior powers. You can look at the history of soviet airborne ops in ww2, and how Crete was the limit for Germans (imagine dropping onto Britain) and that is with gross mistakes made by defenders.

Both your examples were against top tier peers, though.
There is nothing inherently wrong with airborne troops. There is something very wrong with modern military transports, which aren't really designed as assault craft.
Which is more a difference in role and need, as absolute majority of militaries in the world aren't capable of cross-domain assault(as opposed to unopposed landing) anyway, whether it is airborne, ampibious or whaterever.

Why would an concealed emplacement open up on a tank it can't defeat?

Otherwise, tank and accompanying forces will reach the goal of attack. If they won't fire, it's even better. Less unnecessary bloodshed.

There are also no emplacement that can only be engaged directly

First, there absolutely are. Second, the problem is not to engage, the problem is to find. Especially when most of fake and genuine positions are turning active only when actually attacked, otherwise that makes them valuable is hidden elsewhere.
Yes, there are very fresh (over a century, 1916-2025) approaches like "artillery destroys, infantry advances". Now it's drones and artillery.

Send in the drones. What are they going to do, shoot at you? You can have drones place bombs and do flamethrower attacks at every suspected position if they don't shoot at you. If flying robots doesn't do the job, land robots are available too.

The way to check everything suspicious is called WMD.
Doing it without WMD....i sometimes feel that people writing this don't really apply experience outside of their room to the practical problems of warfighting.

Combined arms coordination is "difficult" and blamed for huge losses in conflict.

Difficult isn't just difficult, it's also longer.

I mean, charging the other guy with swords unleashed is the fastest and very simple form of war, but people just gave up on that.

But you still, for now, need humans to occupy position.

You can do it methodically through combined arms, you can dig a tunnel, you can wait until your scientists deliver humanoid robot armies and tactical teleporters for your terminator squads.
All those approaches are totally viable. You'll just have wait the appropriate amount of time to take that position in front of you.
With some of those approaches, not even grandkinds of your grandkids will take that damn position.

Direct armored attack is the fastest way.

 

[Dilandu]

All this looks suspiciously like another round of competition for government money between different contractors. The whole idea that "lightened" M1A3 Abrams would be "better" than M10 Booker looks extremely dubious. It would be still too heavy and too costly to deploy in infantry-support role, and its production would be slow & tedious.

My IMHO, that a lot of money would be spend on M1A3, then Army "suddenly" realized that infantry still did not have armor support - and modern conflicts clearly demonstrated, that infantry could not operate without armor! - and would initiate another billion-dollar program to develope another "light tank".

 

[Ainen]

All this looks suspiciously like another round of competition for government money between different contractors. The whole idea that "lightened" M1A3 Abrams would be "better" than M10 Booker looks extremely dubious. It would be still too heavy and too costly to deploy in infantry-support role, and its production would be slow & tedious.

My IMHO, that a lot of money would be spend on M1A3, then Army "suddenly" realized that infantry still did not have armor support - and modern conflicts clearly demonstrated, that infantry could not operate without armor! - and would initiate another billion-dollar program to develope another "light tank".

Which is kidna ridiculous, since M10 does the job, and that it does not - XM1302 did(esp. given their difference in weight and basic specs).
It isn't buying two competing fighters, it's armored boxes on tracks for the job.

 

[Big_Zukini]

Here's another version:

Hegseth orders 'comprehensive transformation' of US Army, merging offices and cutting weapons - Breaking Defense

"All of these parochial interests and all of these lobbyists that crawl around this building and crawl around Congress, they have succeeded for far too long, and so the first thing is, we are going to start to cut the things we don't want or need," Army Secretary Daniel Driscoll told reporters.

breakingdefense.com

Basically, M10 is dead, no more Humvee or JLTV procurement, AH-64D is divested (not clear if there would be more AH-64E). Grey Eagle is gone.

All understandable except the JLTV. Why cancel that one? It's perfectly fine.


Also regarding M10:
They literally had the XM8 in the competition, with an optimized form factor and GVW for the mission. Worst case they could design something that's optimized and not from the 80's.
Then they pick a non-optimized conversion and say it's not good because it's not optimized.
You can't make this up.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Also regarding M10:
They literally had the XM8 in the competition, with an optimized form factor and GVW for the mission. Worst case they could design something that's optimized and not from the 80's.
Then they pick a non-optimized conversion and say it's not good because it's not optimized.
You can't make this up.

There wasn't enough space inside for the troops with all the gear they wear today. That was the single biggest issue with the M8/XM1302.

The M10's much higher weight bought you twice as much ammo plus enough space for all the internal electronics bits, so you're not smacking into the displays etc while wearing 4" of gear on top of you. Armor plus magazine pouches.

 

[bring_it_on]

All understandable except the JLTV. Why cancel that one? It's perfectly fine.

I don't think they've cancelled the JLTV. Probably adjusting the quantity and not buying more than need.

 

[Ainen]

There wasn't enough space inside for the troops with all the gear they wear today. That was the single biggest issue with the M8/XM1302.

The M10's much higher weight bought you twice as much ammo plus enough space for all the internal electronics bits, so you're not smacking into the displays etc while wearing 4" of gear on top of you. Armor plus magazine pouches.

I don't think there was any special problem with fitting crewmen as they are in XM1302(though not much else), they aren't equipped for contact combat after all.
As for the rest - obviously yes, but ... but it could be delivered and go to places where M10 could not.

It somehow changed into a sort of strange competition between a light and medium AFV(tank), when airborne wanted light one, and infantry - medium.
Decision to pitch them against each other(for what i'd assume are rather questionable savings) was guaranteed to lead to this result.

 

[Grey Havoc]

A lot of people will be shuddering at the disinterment of the term 'Transformation', and rightly so.

 

[EmoBirb]

No, it shows how little infantry support changes things.

Are we following the same war? Ukraine is bleeding territory and troops nonstop due to an infantry and associated support disadvantage. Infantry assaults in combination with armored support are only one part of the picture, true. Proper military aviation delivering ordnance on enemy positions and artillery together with drones softening up their position all play major roles too.

But in order to actually capture well defended positions you need plenty of infantry and they need support from various assets from multiple domains. And direct fire support from relatively survivable platforms goes along with that. Autocannons can't deliver the sheer impact 105/120/125mm can when it comes to simply bringing a large mass of explosives down range. Tearing down the position in large chunks and suppressing the enemy not through volume but through impact.

So it's a heavy disagree here from my side: if the Russo-Ukrainian War shows one thing, than that the side with more and better supported (across the spectrum) infantry holds the decisive advantage on the battlefield. The idea of "3 guys in a trench with a couple drones" works so well for Ukraine that they're bleeding territory non-stop since the fall of Bakhmut. Not to mention that this concept is born out of shitty circumstances for them with soldiers running low, domestic production of heavy equipment being near zero, many deserting etc.
It's not like that strategy of a handful of dudes trying to hold a trench against an assault was a choice, it's being out there between a rock and a hard place. Or between a plywood reinforced dirt wall and an infantry assault in this case.

So yes, infantry and especially it's support has been shown to be crucial in near peer warfare since 2022. And armored components which offer direct fire support and protection are an important part in the larger picture of modern infantry tactics. Just how drones have proven to be an important component of the larger whole. But a drone can't do what a tank/assault gun does and a tank/assault gun can't do what a drone does. There is some overlap under certain conditions, but overall they fill rather different needs and bring very different advantages and disadvantages to the table. So drones, MPF, artillery and airstrikes are in essence the stepping stones that pave the way for a successful and comparatively less casualty intensive infantry assault to take and subsequently hold a position which was previously occupied by the adversary.

And while I think the M10 filled that role well on paper, maybe it didn't. But the fact remains that this component remains missing if the M10 is canned. And there are seemingly no alternatives in sight. And it's not like the US is doing especially well in the other areas too, be it drones (missing fiber optic and radio controlled FPV types in adequate scales if even present at all, no Lancet like drones in service at reasonable costs) or artillery (artillery is a mess with the inadequate M109 being kept on life support after every attempt to replace is failed). And while the US has airpower to support infantry, how effectively can that be utilized against a peer adversary who brings thousands upon thousands of air, land and seaborne threats to your airpower to the table?

So all in all, as usual, US procurement is an absolute mess. They evidently don't know what they want or what's necessary in their eyes. And on the road to find that out, for like a week before changing their minds again, they just waste billions, create more programs that go nowhere and prove again that they're an utterly terrible customer to work with. But hey, money can be printed right?

Edit: forget to add something. Yes the M1 exists, and yes it could take up the role of direct fire support. Issue is that the M1 in it's current iteration is a chunk of around 70 tons of steel and composites. It cannot go everywhere and due to that weight it probably can't leave every space it found itself in either. On top of the weight being an overall logistical penalty even with regards to field maintenance, recovery etc. Something lighter is needed to be there directly with the infantry, while the Abrams is more so for heavily armored spearheads for large scale assaults. Russia and Ukraine can get away with using MBTs in these roles as their MBTs weigh a lot less than western MBTs. So they can actually go places, be towed out of a ditch easily and use infrastructure like bridges that would be prohibitive for heavier vehicles. And with 20-30 tons lighter, entire multiverses in terms of tactical mobility open themselves up for the Booker compared to the Abrams, while offering only slightly inferior firepower.

 

[EmoBirb]

A lot of people will be shuddering at the disinterment of the term 'Transformation', and rightly so.

Shuddering is an understatement

 

[Moose]

A lot of people will be shuddering at the disinterment of the term 'Transformation', and rightly so.

This era is going to be like Rumseld on cocaine. Well, more cocaine.

 

[Kat Tsun]

Considering that Campbell was home to multiple Armor DIVISIONs in the past which including the M60 till the 80s in natguard role and didn't become home of the Airborne til the mid 1970s...

Something smelly.

A ostensibly mobile light tank with the same mobility restrictions as an M1 tank is not a particularly compelling investment tbh.

Might as well dissolve the Army in it's entirety then if they want to utterly gut it like that. Who do they think will fight their wars in the future? The US Moron Corps with their overly expensive but underwhelming toys?

First ERCA, then FARA, now this. Why would any contractor still want to do business with the US military at this point when the simply change their opinions every 4 years because of partisan politics that are symptomatic for their terrible political system.

"To build a leaner, more lethal force, the Army must transform at an accelerated pace by divesting outdated, redundant, and inefficient programs, as well as restructuring headquarters and acquisition systems [...]"

Has someone told him that the "leaner force" gets ground up and annihilated in every war? Imagine questioning such fundamental things like genuine infantry support while your Navy's Army has an Air Force for whatever reason. This is such a clown world lmao.

“We wanted to develop a small tank that was agile and could be dropped into places our regular tanks can’t. We got a heavy tank.”

It's literally 20 to 30 TONS lighter than the freaking Abrams while bringing comparable firepower to infantry units in order to provide effective direct fire support.

I'm not even American but I cannot fathom the sheer stupidity and incompetence.

Hagsad probably thinks he can hold and suppress positions with M113s with .50 cals

The mobility restrictions of a 45 ton combat weight and 70 ton combat weight tank are essentially identical. Once you breach about 20-22 tons, you don't lose anything by not simply zipping up to M1's mass, because you're too heavy to triple load in a C-17 anyway. Reminder that 45 tons combat weight was the objective mass of the Block III tank at the lowest end. Booker weighing more than an M8 AGS was a terrible outcome that made its death inevitable.

After the poor showings of Ka-52 and TB-2 in Ukraine, the death of Grey Eagle and Apache were all but certain, it just took a new admin to force that one through. Future U.S. Army gunship will be a FLRAA or UH-60 with Spikes or something. FARA died for similar reasons. ERCA died because it had a very shaky business case without being backwards compatible with old stocks of ammunition. That was the entire point of using the XM282 tube in the first place.

Personally, I'm waiting for XM30 MICV to be axed and AMPV to go the way of the do-do.

 

[Ainen]

Loss of C-17 advantage kills it indeed. And that's without APS.
Otherwise, it was a sensible way to beef up infantry divisions.

 

[Big_Zukini]

There wasn't enough space inside for the troops with all the gear they wear today. That was the single biggest issue with the M8/XM1302.

The M10's much higher weight bought you twice as much ammo plus enough space for all the internal electronics bits, so you're not smacking into the displays etc while wearing 4" of gear on top of you. Armor plus magazine pouches.

In current form? Perhaps. I've never actually seen it or M10's insides.
But both were built for 3 crewmen which is no longer a necessity in 2025.
Through tech developed as part of the larger NGCV (family of vehicles), particularly for OMFV (Bradley replacement), 2 crew operation is permitted. Something demonstrated a long time ago.
You don't have to go for 2 crewmen if you don't want to in a 50 ton vehicle (Abrams replacement), but if you're low on volume and GVW budget then you hardly have a choice. And as with all 2 crew formats I've seen, that 3rd person gets shifted to maintenance work so you're not losing out on field maintenance.

WIth this added space, you could probably fit 2 crewmen quite comfortably in an M8.

 

[Jimmo952]

Might as well dissolve the Army in it's entirety then if they want to utterly gut it like that. Who do they think will fight their wars in the future? The US Moron Corps with their overly expensive but underwhelming toys?

First ERCA, then FARA, now this. Why would any contractor still want to do business with the US military at this point when the simply change their opinions every 4 years because of partisan politics that are symptomatic for their terrible political system.

"To build a leaner, more lethal force, the Army must transform at an accelerated pace by divesting outdated, redundant, and inefficient programs, as well as restructuring headquarters and acquisition systems [...]"

Has someone told him that the "leaner force" gets ground up and annihilated in every war? Imagine questioning such fundamental things like genuine infantry support while your Navy's Army has an Air Force for whatever reason. This is such a clown world lmao.

“We wanted to develop a small tank that was agile and could be dropped into places our regular tanks can’t. We got a heavy tank.”

It's literally 20 to 30 TONS lighter than the freaking Abrams while bringing comparable firepower to infantry units in order to provide effective direct fire support.

I'm not even American but I cannot fathom the sheer stupidity and incompetence.

Hagsad probably thinks he can hold and suppress positions with M113s with .50 cals

Lessons from the war in Ukraine is causing a rethink and change in priorities.

More drones. More long-range fires. More unmanned vehicles.

The same with the Navy. The war in the Red Sea is causing the Navy to realize they can't shoot all these little drones down with SM6s.

 

[Ainen]

IMHO, in this case it isn't as a rethink. In a short fact check, didn't deliver that it was supposed to. Ukraine, no Ukraine, doesn't matter.
It was supposed to bring two vehicles combat-ready(against the original requirement by 89th airborne for an air drop or at least c-130 transport). It does not, and doesn't even have APS (where Ukraine indeed comes up: it's a single drone pony, weaker than Bradley with ERA).

If army enderlying message was "we just want a medium tank", they hid it under MPF-not-a-tank so well, that explaining it became impossible.
If you can't explain your need in simple words, you don't really need it.

Which is a shame, it had a lot of potential to become a very reasonable vehicle for modern needs. M1 is anything but reasonable at this point.

 

[Jimmo952]

IMHO, in this case it isn't as a rethink. In a short fact check, didn't deliver that it was supposed to. Ukraine, no Ukraine, doesn't matter.
It was supposed to bring two vehicles combat-ready(against the original requirement by 89th airborne for an air drop or at least c-130 transport). It does not, and doesn't even have APS (where Ukraine indeed comes up: it's a single drone pony, weaker than Bradley with ERA).

If army enderlying message was "we just want a medium tank", they hid it under MPF-not-a-tank so well, that explaining it became impossible.
If you can't explain your need in simple words, you don't really need it.

Which is a shame, it had a lot of potential to become a very reasonable vehicle for modern needs. M1 is anything but reasonable at this point.

It is a rethink. Armored vehicles are bring shown to be very vulnerable in Ukraine.

The same with attack helicopters.

They will still have a place but it's a smaller place.

The money saved will be directed to weapons that the Army thinks are more relevant to modern war.

 

[EmoBirb]

The mobility restrictions of a 45 ton combat weight and 70 ton combat weight tank are essentially identical. Once you breach about 20-22 tons, you don't lose anything by not simply zipping up to M1's mass, because you're too heavy to triple load in a C-17 anyway. Reminder that 45 tons combat weight was the objective mass of the Block III tank at the lowest end. Booker weighing more than an M8 AGS was a terrible outcome that made its death inevitable.

After the poor showings of Ka-52 and TB-2 in Ukraine, the death of Grey Eagle and Apache were all but certain, it just took a new admin to force that one through. Future U.S. Army gunship will be a FLRAA or UH-60 with Spikes or something. FARA died for similar reasons. ERCA died because it had a very shaky business case without being backwards compatible with old stocks of ammunition. That was the entire point of using the XM282 tube in the first place.

There is an incredibly significant difference between a 40t tracked vehicle and a 70t tracked vehicle. It's not just about how many you can throw into your C-17, it's also about which bridges can be used, how well does the vehicle cope with difficult terrain. And if we look at the terrible showing of the likes of the M1 and Challenger 2 who proved simply to heavy for certain soil conditions and then too heavy to recover in a timely manner it's evident that 30t make a huge difference.

I'd also wonder who seriously considers the Ka-52s and TB-2s showings poor. The Ka-52 (and Mi-28) proved invaluable in repelling the attempted Ukrainian counter offensive. Picking up slowed down formations which were slowed down by mines and terrain. While the likes of a TB-2 or Orion perform extremely well against armor and infantry in environments with low air-defense density, like the early days of the Russian offensive or the Ukrainian incursion into Kursk. A MALE UAV of the Reaper-style pattern will always be vulnerable against sufficient AD, but that's simply the nature of the beast unless you invest heavily into a much more expensive stealth platform (which would still be threatened by short and medium range IR missiles).

I frankly don't know why some people expect do-alls and silver bullets. A piece of military hardware is developed for a specific environment and mission profile in which it's preferably used and optimally performs. For an attack helicopter that's to blunt the spear tip of an armored assault and picking them off. For a MALE UAV it's to loiter for long durations and make use of it's endurance to provide surveillance and if possible a strike solution against a designated target.

Small drones are low endurance, short range, highly susceptible to electronic countermeasures (unless they're of the fiber optic type) and cannot cope with less than ideal weather conditions. In case of the US they probably wouldn't even be cheap, the Americans forgot how to do stuff cheaply.

Now wake me up when someone develops a UAV that can effectively replace the attack helicopter and MALE UCAV, in like 20-30 years.

(also how is a Valor or Blackhawk supposed to be more survivable than an Apache? Doubtful they'd be much cheaper either)

 

[Kat Tsun]

There is an incredibly significant difference between a 40t tracked vehicle and a 70t tracked vehicle.

Not in strategic, and arguably operational, mobility.

I'd also wonder who seriously considers the Ka-52s and TB-2s showings poor.

The part where they stopped doing anything noteworthy after about August 2022. Ka-52s hung on longer, at least, until September 2023.

but that's simply the nature of the beast unless you invest heavily into a much more expensive stealth platform (which would still be threatened by short and medium range IR missiles).

P-ISR flies above 40,000 feet. Nothing is touching it and it would be the primary airborne sensor in a regional peer conflict.

For a MALE UAV it's to loiter for long durations and make use of it's endurance to provide surveillance and if possible a strike solution against a designated target.

This is impossible against even third world countries, like Ukraine and Russia, much less an actually dangerous threat like PRC or EU.

Now wake me up when someone develops a UAV that can effectively replace the attack helicopter and MALE UCAV

ZALA Lancet and Phoenix Ghost exist, yeah.

(also how is a Valor or Blackhawk supposed to be more survivable than an Apache?)

They fire from further away and have internal room for more weapon operators. A real argument is why have a helicopter fire weapons at all. One that might end up with America putting Spikes on trucks or something, probably by bringing back NLOS-LS.

 

[Ainen]

The part where they stopped doing anything noteworthy after about August 2022. Ka-52s hung on longer, at least, until September 2023.

Depends on suitable situations.
Last time ka-52s did significant armor kills was about a month ago, when they stopped new Ukrainian push into Belgorod early on...

This is impossible against even third world countries, like Ukraine and Russia, much less an actually dangerous threat like PRC or EU.

Entirety of Europe has less air defenses than Ukraine had before war(and now Ukrainian are even more modern, with more ammo than any eu country could even dream of), and still Orions are doing more or less daily strikes in Sumy region.

So I'd guess such operations against these 3rd world countries are doable.

 

[EmoBirb]

Not in strategic, and arguably operational, mobility.

The part where they stopped doing anything noteworthy after about August 2022. Ka-52s hung on longer, at least, until September 2023.

P-ISR flies above 40,000 feet. Nothing is touching it and it would be the primary airborne sensor in a regional peer conflict.

This is impossible against even third world countries, like Ukraine and Russia, much less an actually dangerous threat like PRC or EU.

ZALA Lancet and Phoenix Ghost exist, yeah.

They fire from further away and have internal room for more weapon operators. A real argument is why have a helicopter fire weapons at all. One that might end up with America putting Spikes on trucks or something, probably by bringing back NLOS-LS.

In the field the difference is immense. The reason UA MALE UCAVs stopped doing anything is because they burned through the airframes they had in their possession, with the remaining ones being held back as the frontline is an extremely hostile environment to such drones. But if they had more TB-2s in their inventory and if the Russians would attempt a deep incursion anywhere along the frontline, they could effectively be utilized like Forpost-R and Orion were in Kursk and Belgorod against Ukraine.

The Ka-52s stopped being a prominent as Russia stopped throwing them at the tip of the spear to get wasted. Now they're utilized more defensively which suits the concept of an attack helicopter and provides effective engagement opportunities with a lesser casualty risk.

The RQ-180 is more so a HALE type UAV and as far as we know lacks the strike capability. It's also safe to say it costs probably multiple times more than a Reaper or Orion and I could definitely see it approaching Apache territory with regards to cost if it's a true, high end, cutting edge stealth airframe provided by Northrop Grumman. Especially if it's as big as some theorize.

Since when did Ukraine and Russia become the third world? Lmfao.

And please don't tell me you actually believe the Lancet is a genuine substitute for an attack helicopter. Not even ZALA nor the Russian military believes that. The Lancet is basically a slow flying ATGM, and is also used as such. Something that's also acknowledged by concepts like launching derivatives from truck based launchers or aircraft like helicopters. If you really believe that it's highly unfortunate.

Also what weapon could possibly be integrated into a Valor or Blackhawk that couldn't be employed by a far more survivable Apache? Unless you suggest turning the former passenger compartment on either into huge internal weapons bays, then there would be merit to that.

Either way we're going increasingly off topic here.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

42 tonnes vs. 8 tonnes
It's obviously about the "armor" (Just look at the Sheridan )
Seriously thought, apparently 105mm is deemed neceesary for contemprary/future light armor. Also the recoil would be a problem as seen with the Stryker.

That said the Booker is and has been needed for ages. It's madness without.

The M1128 Stryker MGS didn't even use a low-recoil variant of the 105mm gun such as the M35. They just took a regular M68A1 probably off of some M60A3 or early M1 main battle tank and made some minor modifications. I believe some prototypes had a muzzle brake, but in the field they didn't have them.

I think designs like the Italian Centauro show that you can indeed put a 105mm gun on a wheeled 8x8 hull if you do it right, but the Stryker MGS was more like the Army and General Dynamics taking a lot of leftover components and throwing them together without much effort to fix the problems.

The mobility restrictions of a 45 ton combat weight and 70 ton combat weight tank are essentially identical. Once you breach about 20-22 tons, you don't lose anything by not simply zipping up to M1's mass, because you're too heavy to triple load in a C-17 anyway. Reminder that 45 tons combat weight was the objective mass of the Block III tank at the lowest end. Booker weighing more than an M8 AGS was a terrible outcome that made its death inevitable.

After the poor showings of Ka-52 and TB-2 in Ukraine, the death of Grey Eagle and Apache were all but certain, it just took a new admin to force that one through. Future U.S. Army gunship will be a FLRAA or UH-60 with Spikes or something. FARA died for similar reasons. ERCA died because it had a very shaky business case without being backwards compatible with old stocks of ammunition. That was the entire point of using the XM282 tube in the first place.

Personally, I'm waiting for XM30 MICV to be axed and AMPV to go the way of the do-do.

It's absolute insanity to plan everything off of the way events in Ukraine have unfolded. Should the US Army be trying to replicate the Ukrainians who despite their tenacity are still locked into a very static and costly war in which they lack the necessary resources and manpower to counterattack? Or the Russians who've wasted so much of their best equipment and units their army in poorly executed actions? There is this perceived need to plan for World War One with drones, but some of the lessons being taken away are just absurd. People once again proclaiming the death of the tank (or perhaps armored fighting vehicles in general) this time around. If the poor bloody infantrymen are expected to advance and take a position, are they going to be moving in unarmored trucks and just get slaughtered until (maybe) the drones and fire support they need shows up in force?

It's as if there is some impression that everything will be spotted and destroyed indirectly. Of course, when particular assets like Grey Eagles and FARA get the axe I wonder how they intend to have this complete awareness of the battlefield? Do they think small drones can solely do the job? That they won't be increasingly countered by advancements in electronic warfare, short range air defenses, and directed energy weaponry? Putting stand-off missiles on a utility helicopter isn't a gunship, it's a missile truck. If something like a UH-60 loaded down like that has to deal with up-close threats, then the advantages the foolishly retired dedicated attack helicopters had will be sorely missed.

At that point why commit to having an Army at all? Just invest everything in the Air Force? Of it seems like the current neo-reformist crowd thinks manned aircraft are obsolete and won't invest in any because some unmanned 7th generation solution to everything is just around the corner.

These proposed Army cuts seem just more indication nobody in charge has any idea what the hell they're doing as if the past 20+ years weren't clear enough indication. Maybe they're just looking for some excuse to go back to the size and capability of the 1920s US Army since events beyond these shores will never affect us again.

 

[Jimmo952]

The Army cannot ignore the technical innovation seen in Ukraine.

Doing so would be akin to early 20th century armies not coming to grips with the mass production of machine guns.

 

[aonestudio]

The Army cancels the M10 Booker, a 'light tank' that was too heavy

The M10 Booker was meant to be a light tank — if it was a 'tank' at all — but Army officials admitted this week "we got the Booker wrong."

taskandpurpose.com

The Army cancels the M10 Booker, a ‘light tank’ that was too heavy

The Army has officially killed further delivers of the M10 Booker, canceling not just a billion-dollar program to build a heavily-armed vehicle for fast-moving infantry units, but also putting a final answer to an age-old question: is the M10 Booker a tank? “Now that we’re canceling, you can...

www.yahoo.com

 

[Christopher Wang]

The Army cancels the M10 Booker, a 'light tank' that was too heavy

The M10 Booker was meant to be a light tank — if it was a 'tank' at all — but Army officials admitted this week "we got the Booker wrong."

taskandpurpose.com

The Army cancels the M10 Booker, a ‘light tank’ that was too heavy

The Army has officially killed further delivers of the M10 Booker, canceling not just a billion-dollar program to build a heavily-armed vehicle for fast-moving infantry units, but also putting a final answer to an age-old question: is the M10 Booker a tank? “Now that we’re canceling, you can...

www.yahoo.com

You have got to be kidding me. First the M8 AGS, then the Stryker MGS, and now this? I can understand the emphasis on drones as shown in the current Russo-Ukrainian War, but this flip-flop over having light tanks or assault guns for the infantry is ridiculous. It is more tiresome that the news articles keep repeating the claim that the M10 Booker was planned for parachute airdrops when it is actually meant to be air-landed on friendly-held airfields.

 

[shin_getter]

Really though, America is an island and was never serious about this whole army stuff except to invade Canada. This can explain why its technical choices are 30 years late and huge gaps are everywhere, but backfilling 30 year old ideas is still of low value in an era of change.

I'd also wonder who seriously considers the Ka-52s and TB-2s showings poor. The Ka-52 (and Mi-28) proved invaluable in repelling the attempted Ukrainian counter offensive.

That is really a meh value action since you can fit spikes/brimstones on a pickup (or any other vehicle or even manpacked) and do the same job. We never did get an AAR of Ukrainian brimstones but it should just work. F-16s with a full load of brimstones (60km range on latest variant oh my) would also be very cool, but I guess there isn't actual armor concentration left to smash in this war. F-16s also can do a dozen things attack helis can't in the mean time, and that is surplus at this point.

If the formation just need to suffer serious attrition and not have every vehicle picked out, there have been a good number of cluster and sensor fuzed rocket/artillery strikes on armor that also stopped attacks.

There is also issue with traditional attack helicopters is that they have do not have much more range than tactical ballistic missiles and both sides have their helicopters picked off on the ground. If the US wants a attack helicopter it should build it on FLRAA chassis. And thus also ends the joke of attack helicopters being too slow to escort the transports, the first and the more unique capability of attack helicopters.

A MALE UAV of the Reaper-style pattern will always be vulnerable against sufficient AD, but that's simply the nature of the beast unless you invest heavily into a much more expensive stealth platform (which would still be threatened by short and medium range IR missiles).

Stealth shaping is pretty cheap, no point not having that at least, while RAM prices have gone down a lot too.

 

[Ainen]

That is really a meh value action since you can fit spikes/brimstones on a pickup (or any other vehicle or even manpacked) and do the same job.

It can, if it's going to be there where it needs be in time, with stable external targeting feed in the same location.

Maneuvering them will happen in tactical interdiction zone, as will any resupply.

Helicopters are just faster, carry everything on themselves from much further away(more convenient supply logistics, covering much larger area/frontage, from the safer rear out of immediate threat zone).

Also, as a personal note - as heavy as helicopter losses were during the initial phase, they weren't even remotely comparable to AFV losses.
For basically 100% assault success ratio(Hostomel and dams) and some absolutely crazy stunts (continious Mariupol resupply), losses of some 6 helicopters(only two transport) between 4 behind the lines operations on two sides were basically negligible.

Even now, degree to which helicopters are affected by FPV craze is simply incomparable to AFVs, which are properly stuck in search of new lockbreak solutions.

Aerial losses are relatively high profile, but it's worth remembering that for every helicopter lost in Ukraine by either side, there was more than one armored column(I. e. company or more).

But it doesn't touch booker anyhow.
When infantry has to perform direct attack or maneuver, they do so on their transport. If armored column doesn't have a tank, it by itself is not much more capable than a middle eastern Toyota raid.

 

[EmoBirb]

These proposed Army cuts seem just more indication nobody in charge has any idea what the hell they're doing as if the past 20+ years weren't clear enough indication. Maybe they're just looking for some excuse to go back to the size and capability of the 1920s US Army since events beyond these shores will never affect us again.

Perfectly summed up the whole dilemma

 

[EmoBirb]

Really though, America is an island and was never serious about this whole army stuff except to invade Canada.

That is really a meh value action since you can fit spikes/brimstones on a pickup (or any other vehicle or even manpacked) and do the same job. We never did get an AAR of Ukrainian brimstones but it should just work. F-16s with a full load of brimstones (60km range on latest variant oh my) would also be very cool, but I guess there isn't actual armor concentration left to smash in this war. F-16s also can do a dozen things attack helis can't in the mean time, and that is surplus at this point.

There is also issue with traditional attack helicopters is that they have do not have much more range than tactical ballistic missiles and both sides have their helicopters picked off on the ground. If the US wants a attack helicopter it should build it on FLRAA chassis. And thus also ends the joke of attack helicopters being too slow to escort the transports, the first and the more unique capability of attack helicopters.


Stealth shaping is pretty cheap, no point not having that at least, while RAM prices have gone down a lot too.

So the US is just ceding their super power claims and global influence, got it. Because with an army you can't really maintain presence or intervene anywhere in a meaningful way. The air and sea power of the US can't even bring the Houthis down. You cannot win a war solely in one domain, you have to at least gain an advantage in two if not in all three of the traditional domains (air, land sea, ignoring space and the digital domain here). And while the Army may be less relevant than for example the Navy in a potential war against China, which seems to be number one nightmare scenario currently, it would still be necessary to have a strong land based fighting force that is suited for the current battlefield demands. And that includes direct fire support, armored components, helicopters and not just drones and assault rifles. I'll keep the rest short, as it's (again) OT:

An F-16 costs much more to procure and maintain than an attack helicopter of the same period/modernization grade. An F-16 needs large, pristine runways, the AH-64 doesn't. Fighter pilots are kinda expensive.

Ballistic missiles are extremely valuable and very effective, but generally speaking they are reserved for predetermined strikes against infrastructure, equipment and logistics hubs. You rarely see Iskander-M or the less capable ATACMS being called in by infantry as fire support lol. While tanks, IFVs, SPGs, Drones and Helicopters are being called by infantry regularly.

Stealth and cheap are two mutually exclusive things. Just like advanced avionics and cheap, or gutting the army and being competent. The RQ-170 most likely wasn't cheap, the S-70 isn't cheap, the MQ-20 Avenger IIRC is significantly more costly than a regular Reaper, until the F-35 no manned stealth aircraft ever was cheap and the F-35 is costly and intensive to maintain after an acceptable purchase price in relation to it's capabilities (after 1000 were produced with cost and manufacturing spread across multiple countries).

 

[EmoBirb]

So, if the M10 gets actually canned, the question remains what's the next step.

Something on the Bradley chassis as Plan B (akin to what I posted at the beginning of this page), given that the Army is fond of the chassis and the Bradley is numerous and very popular

A completely new competition for a vehicle that's going to be considerably lighter.

Or the army just says fuck it and hopes that the 60t M1E3 can do the job and won't be an overweight burden for infantry formations.

The last option would just be not doing anything and in any future wars the government would send the sons and daughters of Americans towards fortified enemy positions in humvees and M113s.

 

[shin_getter]

It can, if it's going to be there where it needs be in time, with stable external targeting feed in the same location.

Aircraft is neat for rapid response, however the helicopter offer no advantages with modern munitions with long range lock on after launch. If it were the age of wire-SACLOS, fast airplanes can't really utilize them and have problems of flying above the horizon to be shot at by AA. With munitions like brimstone or SDB-2, the launch aircraft can be at standoff ranges below the horizon.

Airplanes are simply cheaper with regard to all performance characteristics aside from hover, even if ESTOL is needed.

If data networks are available for your own territory, there is also no reason not to use a drone and this is probably the case since cuing of the attack basically is done via forward observer.

------------
Of course, ground options are also very valid because they are so much cheaper that you can afford to buy a lot to spread them out. With increases in ground weapons range, the numbers needed to cover a front reduces. There is order of magnitude increase in defense density if one replaces TOW with NLOS Spikes, just due to overlapping ranges and removal of LOS restrictions.

With stuff like rocket deployed mines that can cover a 100kms worth of front from one launcher, one wonders if armor can ever move fast enough to out OODA a intact defender. The successful attack likely require a disintegrated defender, and it goes back to the airplanes for this role with SEAD and interdiction. The air war is important and multirole fighter is always better buy than attack heli unless air superiority is ensured somehow.

Simple, don't buy helicopters unless hover is absolutely necessary for its mission.

There is one unique way helicopters can contribute however, and that is transports dropping ATGM teams in the path of attacking forces.

Also, as a personal note - as heavy as helicopter losses were during the initial phase, they weren't even remotely comparable to AFV losses.
For basically 100% assault success ratio(Hostomel and dams) and some absolutely crazy stunts (continious Mariupol resupply), losses of some 6 helicopters(only two transport) between 4 behind the lines operations on two sides were basically negligible.

With conservative use of aircraft, the loss rates is naturally low. The more damning part about (attack) helicopters is lack of relative impact relative to other aircraft. In the standoff attack schema, it is the multiroles tossing glide bombs that is inflicting the most damage, and it is also the category of aircraft that is most versatile. There is nothing like raw payload and superior kinematics, while hover is a dangerous gimmick that no harrier pilot would try in a real fight. Even helicopters attacks generally use the pitch up - diving rocket attacks that can be replicated by airplanes with much better performance-cost ratios.

But it doesn't touch booker anyhow.
When infantry has to perform direct attack or maneuver, they do so on their transport. If armored column doesn't have a tank, it by itself is not much more capable than a middle eastern Toyota raid.

Middle eastern toyotas do mount 106mm RR, if not a iranian proxy with ATGMs out the wazoo (155mm class HE warhead if one wants a position rekt)

Sure the crews die a lot more, but on the scale of the infantry. With enough vehicles and some tactics, some vehicles will get a chance to shoot at static targets no problem since it is vehicles that have the initiative.

Some part of me wonder if evolution of tanks armor generally reflect tank crews complaints and the proper strategic solution should just be small arms resistant vehicle with big weapon so that every infantry formation gets coverage before anything else.

So it's a heavy disagree here from my side: if the Russo-Ukrainian War shows one thing, than that the side with more and better supported (across the spectrum) infantry holds the decisive advantage on the battlefield.

A nation fighting another at less than 1/10 the GDP and 1/3 the population and it hasn't been decided in 3+ years and, hell the movement of the front is slower than WW1. This is not decisive.

So yes, infantry and especially it's support has been shown to be crucial in near peer warfare since 2022... But a drone can't do what a tank/assault gun does and a tank/assault gun can't do what a drone does.

An aircraft carrier can not provide persistent all weather on-call heavy firepower like battleships. A gun can not provide the shock morale effect of a charge with cold steel or match the latter's supply efficiency. Anti-ship missiles can't provide the volume of fire of dive bombers over multiple sortie cycles.

Yet, some capabilities are important, while others are less.

Direct fire support is not particularly powerful when most of the killing power is in indirect fires. Artillery, drones, mortars, even 40mm AGL does most of the killing. Small arms inflicts little, and even perfect direct fires that shuts down small arms won't move the loss columns much, much less a medium tank without APS that'd get rekt by all the popular indirect fires in actual use.

So the US is just ceding their super power claims and global influence, got it.

MAGA is about global influence being seen as useless to the average US right wing voter.

Why spend money over other people's problems?