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

The theory and practice of the Profession of Arms through the ages.
User avatar
jemhouston
Posts: 5152
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2022 12:38 am

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

Post by jemhouston »

https://taskandpurpose.com/news/m10-boo ... cancelled/

Weight and right to repair strikes again. I think we've discussed the later a few times.
Image

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."
Matt White, Patty Nieberg

Published May 2, 2025 4:43 PM EDT

Members of the North Carolina Air National Guard assess an Army M10 Booker Combat Vehicle before it is loaded onto a C-17 Globemaster III aircraft, at the North Carolina Air National Guard base, Charlotte-International Airport, August 3, 2024. Portions of this photo were masked for security reasons. (U.S. Air National Guard photo by Staff Sgt. Reanna Hartgrove)
Members of the North Carolina Air National Guard assess an Army M10 Booker Combat Vehicle before it is loaded onto a C-17 Globemaster III aircraft in North Carolina on Aug. 3, 2024. Army photo by Staff Sgt. Reanna Hartgrove.
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 call it whatever,” Army Secretary Dan Driscoll told reporters Thursday, confirming the program’s end.

Cancelling the Booker matches one element of an overhaul ordered by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth in how the Army develops and buys weapons.

In a 4-page memo released April 30, he ordered the service to “divest outdated formations, including select armor and aviation units across the Total Army.”

That apparently included the Booker, which discussed Driscoll Friday.

“We got the Booker wrong,” said Driscoll, adding that the Army already has taken delivery of roughly 80 of the tanks. “We wanted to develop a small tank that was agile and could do [airdrops] to the places our regular tanks can’t.”

But the Booker, at 38 tons, can’t be airdropped.

“We got a heavy tank,” said Driscoll. “What’s historically happened is we would have kept buying this to build out some number of Bookers, and then in decades in the future we would have switched. Instead, we went to the Pentagon leadership and we said, ‘we made a mistake, this didn’t turn out right. We’re going to stop. We’re going to own it.’”

Right to Repair
Another issue that irked both Army officials and lawmakers stuck with the bill for the Booker was the so-called Right-to-Repair terms in its maintenance plans. The contract under which the Booker was purchased required that the Army use the Booker’s builder, General Dynamics, to address a wide range of parts and maintenance issues that Army mechanics could have addressed on their own.

“If you look at kind of comparable industries for the civilian sector, I think tractors went through this five, eight years ago,” said Driscoll. “You had farmers who were having a hard time repairing their equipment. The exact same thing is true for soldiers. We have many instances where, for two dollars to twenty dollars, we can 3D-print a part. We know how to 3D print a part. We have the 3D printer, but we have signed away the right to do that on our own accord, and that is a sinful activity for the leadership of the Army to do to harm our soldiers. And so that is the type of thing that we are no longer going to be willing to concede to the private industry.”

Sen. Elizabeth Warren was a particular critic of the Booker’s Right-to-Repair language, citing it in Driscoll’s January confirmation hearing.

“When right-to-repair restrictions are in place, it’s bigger profits for giant defense contractors, but also higher prices for DoD and longer wait times for service members who need to get equipment repaired so they’re ready to go,” Warren said in the hearing.

Named for two Armor heroes
The tracked M10’s armament includes a 105mm main gun, a coaxial 7.62mm machine gun, and a .50 caliber machine gun. At under 40 tons, it is light enough that an Air Force C-17 can fly two of them, versus the plane’s limit of a single M1 Abrams at a time.

The M10 was the first major weapons system in the U.S. military named for a service member from the post-9/11 wars. The name Booker honors two soldiers killed in combat, including one from the initial invasion of Iraq in 2003. Staff Sgt. Stevon A. Booker was a tank commander posthumously awarded the Distinguished Service Cross for his actions during the Thunder Run raid on Baghdad that opened the Iraq war. Pvt. Robert D. Booker, an infantryman in World War II, was posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor for heroism in combat in Tunisia in 1943.


Developed beginning in 2018 as the Next Generation Combat Vehicle, the Army awarded a $1.14 billion contract to General Dynamics in June 2022 to build the first 96 vehicles for the service.

The Army planned to buy roughly 500 of the tanks, with the goal of equipping each of the service’s Infantry Brigade Combat Teams with 14 of them.

Matt White Avatar
Matt White
Senior Editor
Matt White is a senior editor at Task & Purpose. He was a pararescueman in the Air Force and the Alaska Air National Guard for eight years and has more than a decade of experience in daily and magazine journalism.

Nik_SpeakerToCats
Posts: 1692
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2022 10:56 am

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

Post by Nik_SpeakerToCats »

Fell into 'Uncanny Valley' between heavy enough to be 'serious' and light enough to be nimble ?

Bit like RN's flawed battle-cruisers, those infamous 'Egg-shells armed with Mallets'...

Has any-one managed to 'square that circle' for AFVs etc ??
If you cannot see the wood for the trees, deploy LIDAR.
kdahm
Posts: 1333
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2023 3:08 pm

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

Post by kdahm »

The thing should have been down selected at the detail design point. 38 tons is not just a little bust on the weight limits. According to Page 4-2 (176) of FM 4-20.116 (FM 10-516) Reference Data for Airdrop Platform Loads, the limit for both the C-5 and the C-17 is 60,000 lbs on one load platform. The data sheets in Chapter 3 have several pieces of equipment that hit up to 40,000 lbs, but nothing much heavier. The record airdrop is reportedly a 77,000 lb experiment in 2010.

So the maximum effective weight goal for the vehicle would have been 25 tons, with two or three tons available for poor weight management.
User avatar
M.Becker
Posts: 2122
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2022 7:13 pm

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

Post by M.Becker »

25(27) -> 38. Not a near miss but at least they killed it fast. In case the want to try again, here's a vehicle to start from.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanque_ ... no_Mediano
Nathan45
Posts: 432
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2022 9:02 pm

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

Post by Nathan45 »

Make a s-tank but made of titanium. :D
Straker
Posts: 55
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2023 7:36 pm

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

Post by Straker »

Not exactly a surprise. I really don't understand how the requirements were published without more specification as to the armour levels and modularity required to control weight. It's competitor was frankly a better fit for the role and would have been when adopted then cancelled as the M8 in the 1990's.

I do wonder at the decision making process to enter a vehicle into a competition and allow it to compete that in its base AFV form (ASCOD > AJAX > MPF) exceeded the weight requirements before the change to a 105mm turret which increased weight. Also another programme where it was initially expressed as being an "off the shelf" system which the M10 clearly wasn't.

The problem was that writing the requirements to go for a single producer would just be lawsuits in waiting nowadays. Give it a couple more years and we will have another competition with another M8 variant entered again.

I'd also observe that the consolidation of supplier numbers has really negatively effected competitions like this. Allowing multiple entries by the same company would I suspect have meant that CV90-120 would have been entered as well as a refreshed M8 by BAE.
Rocket J Squrriel
Posts: 872
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2022 5:23 pm

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

Post by Rocket J Squrriel »

I believe the basic armor version of the M8 was airdroppable. They could add more layers depending on the need.
James1978
Posts: 1480
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2022 8:38 pm

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

Post by James1978 »

Rocket J Squrriel wrote: Tue May 06, 2025 12:14 am I believe the basic armor version of the M8 was airdroppable. They could add more layers depending on the need.
Correct.

From Wiki - M8 Protection:
* The Level I (basic) armor package consisted of ceramic armor tiles[76] and protected the vehicle against small-arms fire and shell splinters. All-around protection protection is provided against rounds up to 7.62 mm AP and protection against 14.5 mm rounds is provided over the frontal arc. It was designed for the rapid deployment role and could be airdropped from a C-130 cargo aircraft. All-up weight was 39,800 lb (18,100 kg).
* The Level II armor package consisted of additional plates of titanium, hardened steel and expanded metal. All-around protection was increased to protection against 14.5 mm rounds and 30 mm rounds over the frontal arc. At an all-up weight of 44,270 lb (20,081 kg), Level II-armored AGS could still be carried by C-130 and C-141 cargo aircraft. but could not be air-dropped.
* Level III armor is mounted atop Level II armor,[112] and consists of bolt-on armor boxes and is designed for contingency operations.[7] It provides protection against light handheld anti-tank weapons such as rocket-propelled grenades over selected areas, and cannon rounds up to 30 mm. Level III-armored AGS systems cannot be transported by C-130. All-up weight is 52,000 lb (24,000 kg).
Nik_SpeakerToCats
Posts: 1692
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2022 10:56 am

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

Post by Nik_SpeakerToCats »

Eyes more wonky than usual tonight...

I read that as...

"They could add more lawyers depending on the need."
:roll: :roll: :roll:
If you cannot see the wood for the trees, deploy LIDAR.
Nightwatch2
Posts: 1162
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2022 4:50 am

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

Post by Nightwatch2 »

Nik_SpeakerToCats wrote: Tue May 06, 2025 2:27 am Eyes more wonky than usual tonight...

I read that as...

"They could add more lawyers depending on the need."
:roll: :roll: :roll:
that's in the hearings that will follow after contract cancellation.....
User avatar
jemhouston
Posts: 5152
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2022 12:38 am

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

Post by jemhouston »

Nik_SpeakerToCats wrote: Tue May 06, 2025 2:27 am Eyes more wonky than usual tonight...

I read that as...

"They could add more lawyers depending on the need."
:roll: :roll: :roll:
If you use them as armor, is that bad? Adding them to protest the cancelation is bad.
Rocket J Squrriel
Posts: 872
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2022 5:23 pm

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

Post by Rocket J Squrriel »

jemhouston wrote: Tue May 06, 2025 10:26 am
Nik_SpeakerToCats wrote: Tue May 06, 2025 2:27 am Eyes more wonky than usual tonight...

I read that as...

"They could add more lawyers depending on the need."
:roll: :roll: :roll:
If you use them as armor, is that bad? Adding them to protest the cancelation is bad.
They could also file injunctions to forbid antitank rounds/missiles from being fired at it. :lol:
User avatar
jemhouston
Posts: 5152
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2022 12:38 am

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

Post by jemhouston »

Rocket J Squrriel wrote: Tue May 06, 2025 10:37 pm
jemhouston wrote: Tue May 06, 2025 10:26 am
Nik_SpeakerToCats wrote: Tue May 06, 2025 2:27 am Eyes more wonky than usual tonight...

I read that as...

"They could add more lawyers depending on the need."
:roll: :roll: :roll:
If you use them as armor, is that bad? Adding them to protest the cancelation is bad.
They could also file injunctions to forbid antitank rounds/missiles from being fired at it. :lol:
In facie armorum lex tacet.
Calder
Posts: 1131
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2022 10:03 pm

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

Post by Calder »

Nathan45 wrote: Mon May 05, 2025 6:25 pm Make a s-tank but made of titanium. :D
Actually this sort of the question I can in here to ask. How much weight could be saved if we dropped the turret and used an autoloader with only a 2-3 man crew? Which now that I think about it is basically an S-Tank.
kdahm
Posts: 1333
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2023 3:08 pm

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

Post by kdahm »

Calder wrote: Wed May 07, 2025 9:28 pm
Nathan45 wrote: Mon May 05, 2025 6:25 pm Make a s-tank but made of titanium. :D
Actually this sort of the question I can in here to ask. How much weight could be saved if we dropped the turret and used an autoloader with only a 2-3 man crew? Which now that I think about it is basically an S-Tank.
Not enough.

The 105mm gun is too big for the desired weight. The amount of armor is too much for the desired weight. The extra crew person probably only accounts for around 500 lbs at most, and an autoloader would weight at least that much.

What they needed to do is scale the gun down to something in the 50mm to 76mm size, drop the armor thickness by a bit, and keep the same powerplant.
Kunkmiester
Posts: 339
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2022 1:16 pm

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

Post by Kunkmiester »

kdahm wrote: Wed May 07, 2025 10:16 pm
Calder wrote: Wed May 07, 2025 9:28 pm
Nathan45 wrote: Mon May 05, 2025 6:25 pm Make a s-tank but made of titanium. :D
Actually this sort of the question I can in here to ask. How much weight could be saved if we dropped the turret and used an autoloader with only a 2-3 man crew? Which now that I think about it is basically an S-Tank.
Not enough.

The 105mm gun is too big for the desired weight. The amount of armor is too much for the desired weight. The extra crew person probably only accounts for around 500 lbs at most, and an autoloader would weight at least that much.

What they needed to do is scale the gun down to something in the 50mm to 76mm size, drop the armor thickness by a bit, and keep the same powerplant.
That would be another layman question, why the 105? AP? Dare I suggest a Javelin launcher of you really want an anti armor capability(Bradley vibes)?
Demon Lord Razgriz
Posts: 32
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2022 8:58 am

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

Post by Demon Lord Razgriz »

IIRC, it was to use the stockpile of 105s the Abrams were originally armed with.
JBG
Posts: 224
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2022 7:54 pm

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

Post by JBG »

Demon Lord Razgriz wrote: Wed May 07, 2025 11:40 pm IIRC, it was to use the stockpile of 105s the Abrams were originally armed with.
Bad procurement systems and people plus know nothing bean counters generally produce bad outcomes. And that is the opinion of a govt lawyer, though not one working in anything like defence. Somethings are universal though the sums in defence, and indeed in infrastructure, too easily result in CF situations.

Jonathan
User avatar
M.Becker
Posts: 2122
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2022 7:13 pm

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

Post by M.Becker »

Demon Lord Razgriz wrote: Wed May 07, 2025 11:40 pm IIRC, it was to use the stockpile of 105s the Abrams were originally armed with.
It was designed for the canceled M8.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/M35_tank_gun
Post Reply