Nothing about the M10 “light” tank made sense, given the current threat environment American forces face.
As of last week, a weapons platform that the United States Army never really wanted—but was forced to spend nearly $2 billion on over the course of its development cycle—has finally been put out of its misery.
The M10 Booker tank—which a Pentagon spokesman confirmed would see no further orders on Thursday—was originally envisioned as a light tank. Owing to the broken nature of the military’s acquisition system, the “light tank” grew to 42 tons over the course of its development. In short, what was supposed to be a cost-effective light tank became just the opposite.
The Pentagon’s Acquisitions Approach: Buy First, Design Later
Development on the M10 Booker program was undertaken by General Dynamics Land Systems in 2022. The Army intended to have 500 units of the purportedly cheap light tank by 2024.
What the M10 suffered under was part of a growing and disturbing pattern in which the requirements of a new platform change after the contracts have been signed. Oftentimes, the Pentagon bureaucracy cannot make up its mind about what it wants from a particular system. Accordingly, rather than wait to sign the contract and begin the process of building the new platform until they can agree upon requirements, acquisitions decision-makers will plow ahead in the short-run and postpone important decisions about the platform until later. This is roughly akin to moving the goalposts in the middle of a game.
This painful and costly pattern has played out before. After the Navy resolved to buy its incoming Constellation-class frigates, it decided to change all the requirements for the new warship—after construction had already begun! As a result, the Constellation is massively over-budget and will not be delivered on time. The pattern is at all points of the Pentagon.
This is why President Donald Trump’s recent budget request for $1.01 trillion for the defense budget next year is so offensive. The Defense Department doesn’t need more taxpayer money. It needs to be constrained until it brings their acquisitions programs under control. And just how did the Pentagon blow through $1.8 billion from 2022, when the M10 Booker was initiated, to 2025, when it was finally canceled?
About the M10 Booker “Light” Tank
As for the M10 Booker itself, it remains unclear just how helpful this system would have been in the grand scheme of things. It was to be lighter and more maneuverable than the Army’s Main Battle Tank (MBT), the M1 Abrams. It was to be equipped with a 105mm M35 cannon, lighter than the Abrams’ 120mm gun but more powerful than the M2 Bradley’s 25mm cannon. The Booker’s main gun was to use rounds like the M900 (depleted uranium, anti-armor) and M1040 (canister with tungsten spheres for infantry). Its secondary weapon was going to be a 7.62mm M240C coaxial machine gun and a .50 caliber M2 commander’s machine gun. And its control system would have been the same as the M1A2 Abrams.
General Dynamics designed the M10 Booker to have modular armor for adaptability. As originally intended, the Booker was to be far lighter than that of the Abrams, and thus far more vulnerable to anti-tank weapons like missiles or drones—making active defensive measures vital for survivability. The tank would have had smoke grenade launchers, ammunition blowout panels, and an automatic fire suppression system, too.
An M10 Booker would have been equipped with Safran Optics 1’s PASEO Commander’s Independent Tactical Viewer (CITV) for enhanced situational awareness. The Army wanted advanced thermal viewers and sensors for night and urban combat operations. It was to be powered by an 800-horsepower diesel engine, with a top speed of 40 miles per hour and a range of around 350 miles.
But nothing about the M10 made sense, given the current threat environment American forces face. In Ukraine, both the Ukrainians and the Russians have been highly effective in using both drones and anti-tank weapons against light vehicles.
It’s safe to assume that any future war the Americans find themselves in will involve similar tactics being employed. So the notion that the Americans would spend nearly $2 billion on a system that lacked the same firepower as an MBT—and was more susceptible to anti-tank and drone attacks than heavier MBTs like the M1 Abrams—was the stuff of idiocy.
Secretary Hegseth Has the Right Priorities
For his part, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has stated that the cancellation of the M10 is part of a larger restructuring he was overseeing at the Pentagon. In a memo on the topic, Hegseth stated that he intended to shift the Pentagon’s focus from traditional assets, such as manned tanks or helicopters, and toward advanced drone capabilities.
Whatever one thinks of Secretary Hegseth’s tenure so far, he is fundamentally correct on this topic. Hegseth’s views on the need to fundamentally reorganize the force structure of the U.S. military and embrace unmanned systems are lightyears ahead of where other defense leaders are.
We should all be happy Hegseth put the M10 boondoggle out of its misery. To follow on, his team should spend considerably more time reforming the broken acquisitions process at the DoD. That’s where the real issues arise—and until that is addressed, the military will continue to have boondoggle projects like the Booker forced upon it.
About the Author: Brandon J. Weichert
Brandon J. Weichert, a Senior National Security Editor at The National Interest as well as a contributor at Popular Mechanics, who consults regularly with various government institutions and private organizations on geopolitical issues. Weichert’s writings have appeared in multiple publications, including the Washington Times, National Review, The American Spectator, MSN, the Asia Times, and countless others. His books include Winning Space: How America Remains a Superpower, Biohacked: China’s Race to Control Life, and The Shadow War: Iran’s Quest for Supremacy. His newest book, A Disaster of Our Own Making: How the West Lost Ukraine is available for purchase wherever books are sold. He can be followed via Twitter @WeTheBrandon.
Image: Wikimedia Commons.
