Army Scraps M10 Booker Tank: Dead on Arrival After High Hopes

The Army has recently decided to halt a light tank project, the M10 Booker, despite having invested over a billion dollars and just as it was set to transition into full-rate production.

The M10 Booker was poised to be the first new battle vehicle introduced to the military in forty years.

In a memorandum issued at the beginning of last month, the Army revealed its decision to stop the procurement of the M10 Booker and officially declared the program’s cancellation on June 11.

“Reflecting the current global events and strategic goals detailed in the Army Transformation Initiative, the U.S. Army has terminated the M10 Booker’s low-rate initial production. The project will not proceed to full-rate production as initially anticipated,” stated the Army.

The Army initially sought a vehicle to address a firepower deficiency within its infantry units. After an analysis led by Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster, who was at the forefront of future-oriented initiatives within the Training and Doctrine Command, the need for a Mobile Protected Firepower vehicle became apparent. This new light tank was designed to improve survivability and firepower against enemy firearms and lightly armored vehicles and was intended to be deployable from a C-130 aircraft.

However, the evolving requirements for a vehicle capable of operating in diverse terrains and providing enhanced lethality led to the design of a tracked vehicle, which ultimately could not be airdropped as initially planned.

Army Secretary Daniel Driscoll discussed the challenges of overcoming past investment biases in a June 9 interview with Defense News at the Pentagon. “The concept of sunk cost fallacy, where previous investments lead to continued, albeit suboptimal, commitments, is a common human struggle,” he explained.

Driscoll noted that the M10 Booker was intended to be a revolutionary light tank but developed into something more medium-sized. “It became a kind of Frankenstein creation that neither we, the Army, nor the manufacturers were too pleased with,” he admitted.

Historically, the Army would have continued with the procurement despite these misgivings, according to Driscoll. “We would have just made it work,” he said.

Now, the Army is recognizing its mistake, Driscoll added.

Originally, the Army had allocated more than $4 billion for this project, planning to purchase between 362 and 504 units, as per earlier budget reviews. Initial research and development costs were estimated at around $1 billion. However, following a rapid prototyping competition between General Dynamics Land Systems and BAE Systems, which accelerated the delivery of several vehicle prototypes for soldier assessments, the total R&D costs were adjusted to between $349 million and $460 million.

To date, over $1 billion has been spent on the development of the M10 Booker, with turrets manufactured in GDLS’s Lima, Ohio facility, and hulls in Saginaw, Michigan, while final assembly took place at the Anniston Army Depot in Alabama.

This cost evaluation does not account for potential additional expenses from a concurrent initiative to acquire a new recovery vehicle compatible with the M10 Booker.

According to the most recent budget figures, the Army had ordered 84 vehicles between fiscal years 2022 and 2024, with plans to order an additional 33 in fiscal year 2025. The total for low-rate initial production stood at 96 vehicles.

An Army spokesperson clarified that the termination of the low-rate production will not be abrupt. “There are several M10 Bookers near completion that the Army will still accept,” the spokesperson confirmed to Defense News.

Currently, the Army possesses 26 M10 Booker production vehicles. The final count will be determined once the vehicles in the final stages of production are officially accepted by the Army.

Despite typically slow acquisition processes, the Mobile Protected Firepower program moved quickly, posing risks but also allowing for mature designs from industry leaders like GDLS and BAE Systems, which based their proposals on previously fielded chassis. This accelerated approach facilitated a 14-month period from contract award to delivery of initial prototypes, enabling thorough evaluation by soldiers.

“The Army plans to redirect the remaining funds originally allocated for fiscal year 2025 to hasten the deployment of crucial war capabilities, expecting significant cost savings to materialize in the next 18-24 months,” the Army stated. The outcome of the ongoing contract termination process will decide the fate of the remaining assets,” they concluded.