Light tank MPF received the designation and went into series

58
Light tank MPF received the designation and went into series
One of GDLS MPF prototypes, 2020


Over the past few years, a promising light tank Mobile Protected Firepower has been developed in the interests of the US ground forces. To date, the customer has completed the competitive stage of the program and ordered a small-scale production of new equipment. In addition, the combat vehicle received an official designation. All this brings the moment of admission closer. tanks to the troops and the beginning of their operation.



Under the new designation


Now the US Army is celebrating another anniversary of its founding. On June 10, as part of the festive events at the base of Fort Belvoir (Virginia), a solemn ceremony was held to assign the official designation to a new model of armored vehicles adopted by the ground forces. The light tank, formerly known by the name of the MPF program, will now carry the M10 designation and the Booker name.

As with the Stryker armored vehicles, the new tank was named after two American servicemen who distinguished themselves in combat. The first is Private Robert D. Booker, a member of the North African campaign. He died in Tunisia in 1943 and was posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor. The second is Staff Sergeant Stevon A. Booker, a tanker and participant in the fighting in Baghdad in 2003. He was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross (posthumously). It is emphasized that for the first time a combat vehicle is named after a fighter who died after the September 11 attacks.

The new M10 Booker is officially referred to as a combat vehicle, without a more precise indication of the class. Unofficially, this product is often called a light tank, but the army does not agree with this classification. So, on the eve of the naming ceremony, on June 8, the Deputy Minister of the Army for Procurement and Logistics, Doug Bush, during a press conference, called for the abandonment of "religious disputes" on the topic of classification and put an end to it - the MPF is just a combat vehicle (Combat Vehicle).


Maj. Gen. Glenn Dean, Executive Director of the Ground Combat Systems Program, clarified this position. He recalled that in the past, the US Army used light tanks as reconnaissance vehicles. The new M10 should solve fire support tasks, etc. Therefore, having an external resemblance to light tanks, the Booker does not belong to them.

At the production stage


The MPF program started in 2015. Its goal was to create a new armored fighting vehicle weighing 32 tons with a 105 or 120 mm caliber gun, as well as with enhanced protection. In the future, such armored vehicles were supposed to complement the full-fledged main tanks M1 Abrams in the troops and differ from them in greater tactical and operational mobility and mobility.

At the end of 2018, the competitive stage of the program began, BAE Systems and General Dynamics Land Systems participated in it. In the spring of 2020, both companies presented two types of experimental equipment. Over the next two years, the army conducted comparative tests of various kinds. In March 2022, the BAE Systems project was excluded from the competition, and in June the GDLS development was officially named the winner.

As the winner of the program, GDLS received a contract to start production at a low rate (LRIP). According to this document, by the end of October 2024, the company must manufacture and transfer to the customer 26 MPF / M10 armored vehicles with a total cost of approx. 320 million dollars. 18 tanks will be built from scratch, and the remaining 8 will be converted from the vehicles of an experimental batch that previously participated in the tests. The first Bookers will be handed over to the customer before the end of this year.


Tank M10 Booker at the ceremony on June 10

Attached to last year's contract is an option for LRIP production of another 70 light tanks worth approx. USD 820 mln. The terms of equipment delivery, if the option is converted into a fixed contract, are not specified. The average cost of each car within the two documents does not exceed $11,9 million.

It is reported that no later than the summer of 2025 (in the 3rd quarter of fiscal year 2025), the US Army will receive the first battalion set of 42 armored vehicles. A few months after that, by the end of the year, they are going to launch a full-fledged serial production - this also indicates the approximate timing of the option.

The current plans of the Pentagon include the purchase of 504 light tanks of the new model over the next 12 years. The operation of such equipment will be entrusted to specially formed separate battalions, according to various sources, of two or three companies. Companies will receive 14 vehicles each; they are planned to be given to infantry brigades (Infantry Brigade Combat Teams) for reinforcement and fire support.

The MPF program was created with an eye to the distant future. The service life of the equipment is defined as 30 years. For the production and operation of the entire fleet of M10 Booker tanks, personnel training, maintenance, etc. for all the time they plan to spend 17 billion dollars in current prices. Thus, the construction and operation of each machine will cost taxpayers $ 33 million.


Not a light tank


GDLS won the MPF competition with an original armored fighting vehicle project based on available components. So, in the tenth years, the company repeatedly showed Griffin I / II technology demonstrators at exhibitions. The second version of this project involved the use of a modified ASCOD 2 chassis and the turret of the M1A2 SEP v.3 tank with other weapons.

During the development of a new "light tank" under the MPF program, the Griffin II project was significantly redesigned taking into account the wishes of the customer. As a result, the desired appearance with the required characteristics was obtained while maintaining the continuity of the design and unification. Based on the results of the tests, new adjustments were made, as a result of which the final look of the new M10 Booker armored vehicle was formed.

The M10 product in serial form is a tracked armored vehicle with enhanced protection and large-caliber weapons. The combat weight during the development exceeded the initial limits and reached the level of 38 tons. At the same time, the installation of additional means, such as add-on armor or an active protection complex, can bring this parameter up to 42 tons.

The hull and turret received the maximum possible protection for their mass. The type and characteristics of the armor are unknown. Overhead elements are installed on top of the vehicle's own armor. Announced the introduction of one of the modern KAZ. It is assumed that all this will protect the tank not only from small-caliber weapons, but also from anti-tank systems.


The fighting compartment and the turret hull are made using the solutions of the M1A2C tank. The turret carries a 35 mm XM105 gun. It uses unitary shots of various types, fed manually. It is assumed that such a gun will allow you to hit a variety of targets, incl. obsolete tanks. The fire control system was borrowed from the latest version of the Abrams, but reconfigured for a gun of a different caliber.

A diesel engine of the MTU brand with an HP 800 power is placed in the bow compartment of the hull. and an Allison automatic transmission. A six-roller undercarriage with an individual hydropneumatic suspension was used; drive wheels in front. Declared maximum speed on the highway up to 65 km / h and a cruising range of more than 300 km. Due to the large mass, the "light tank" cannot swim.

Interim results


At one time, the Mobile Protected Firepower program caused controversy in certain circles. First of all, the very concept of a "light" tank was criticized. Thus, stringent weight requirements, which later had to be revised, imposed significant restrictions on the achievable level of protection and firepower. In addition, questions arose about the role of such equipment on the battlefield, up to doubts about its necessity due to the presence of full-fledged M1A2 MBTs.

Nevertheless, the Pentagon consistently carried out all stages of the program without responding to criticism. To date, the department has chosen the most successful project, placed an order for small-scale production of new armored vehicles, and also assigned them an official designation. Now there is no doubt that the new M10 Booker in the foreseeable future will get into the troops and go into operation. How useful such equipment will be for the army, time will tell.
58 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. -8
    14 June 2023 04: 30
    For conducting combat operations in the second echelon, when the enemy’s defenses are suppressed, or they don’t have anti-tank weapons, it will do. In any other case, it's just a great goal. A sort of modern version of old tanks like our T55 / 62 in terms of armament, and taking into account the mass, armor protection will be a maximum equivalent of 800 mm, taking into account hinged armor and dynamic protection.
    1. +1
      14 June 2023 04: 55
      Quote: Thrifty
      For conducting combat operations in the second echelon, when the enemy’s defenses are suppressed, or they don’t have anti-tank weapons, it will do.
      In general, due to optics / electronics, they will leave.
      Quote: Thrifty
      A sort of modern version of old tanks like our T55 / 62 in terms of armament, and taking into account the mass, armor protection will be a maximum equivalent of 800 mm, taking into account hinged armor and dynamic protection.

      Only the price tag is a little (joke) different ...
      1. -1
        14 June 2023 20: 02
        Quote: Vladimir_2U
        In general, due to optics / electronics, they will leave.

        With such a gun, he will not pose any threat to modern MBTs.
        Quote: Vladimir_2U
        Quote: Thrifty
        For conducting combat operations in the second echelon, when the enemy’s defenses are suppressed, or they don’t have anti-tank weapons, it will do.

        And where would one find such a wonderful theater of operations? smile Today, even African rebels have anti-tank weapons in stock, and tandem warheads of grenade launchers are so common ... and for this misunderstanding, a conventional RPG will be enough.
        KAZ?
        No one has yet demonstrated its 100% reliability.
        Quote: Vladimir_2U
        due to optics / electronics

        Only against tanks of the 50s - 60s and light / medium armored vehicles.
        Quote: Vladimir_2U
        Only the price tag is a little (joke) different ...

        12,5 - 13,3 million a piece ?? belay
        These are two modern sophisticated MBTs!
        In service with the airborne forces and the MP corps?
        So it is written there in black in English with a Russian translation - for arming infantry brigades as a fire reinforcement vehicle ... what
        And the saws squealed with joy. fellow bully
        It would be nice for the convenience of air transportation and transportation by landing ships ... but laughing for INFANTRY. good
    2. +10
      14 June 2023 05: 37
      I wouldn't call this car light. This is an airmobile tank. T / e, which does not require additional improvements after being transferred to the service memta, unlike Abrams.
      1. +4
        14 June 2023 06: 27
        as I understand it, this car is called light because of the 105 mm guns and much less protection than the American MBT. it seems to me that the protection there will be inferior even to the t-64, although the mass has increased from 38 to 42 tons, this is actually like our obt, at least in the early 90s.

        and so it turned out to be an expensive toy, not for the front edge of the battlefield with very dubious qualities, I would say here in the words of Viktor Stepanovich Chernomyrdin.
        They wanted the best, but it turned out as always.
        --------------------
        if they wanted to strengthen the power of light mobile formations, they had to make a good art system (self-propelled guns) on a wheeled chassis with a 155mm cannon. But this is not a misunderstanding
        1. -2
          14 June 2023 20: 10
          Quote: Graz
          something seems to me that the protection there will be inferior even to the t-64,

          I think that it will be no higher than that of the T-55 \ 62. Do not forget - there is no AZ there, therefore the reserved space is much larger, which is why the overall dimensions. And the engine is only 800 l / s. , the speed is only 65 km / h.
          It can rather be compared with the "Leopard-1" - the same gun, the same weight, therefore, the armor is no better. The engine is 50 - 100 l / s more powerful, but ... at the same time, the maximum speed ... is only 65 km / h versus 70 km / h for Leo-1.
          They were given the terms of reference for a tank weighing 32 - 35 tons, it turned out 42 tons, and with the dynamic protection complex and KAZ, perhaps all 45 tons will be. lol
          Like our modern MBTs. bully
          Don't let them go crazy. good
      2. 0
        14 June 2023 19: 43
        In my opinion, there is no problem to immerse m1 in c-5. Therefore, m1 is also airmobile)
      3. 0
        19 November 2023 11: 51
        -Aron: This is an airmobile tank.
        The Yankees are creating airmobile infantry brigades, something between the Airborne Forces and motorized rifles.
        THESE naiad tanks with light howitzers, mobile mortars on buggies, etc., are capable of helping a unit in a collision with the enemy and “making a splash,” right up to the collapse of the rear.
    3. -2
      14 June 2023 06: 18
      "abrams" turned out to be the most cunning, while their NATO counterparts are burning in the steppes of Zaporozhye, they are basking in the sun at bases and warehouses in California. The United States, as usual, skillfully threw the allies, and they will also weld on deliveries to Europe devastated by armored vehicles. One word merchants.
    4. +2
      14 June 2023 10: 23
      With such a weight, there won’t be even 400 mm, it’s just a mobile gun, since the Americans realized from experience that tanks don’t attack positions, but more often shoot from afar, and for ATGMs, that Abrams, that it’s on the drum, are still pierced targets. But the main thing here is the price, this is how much you can steal on deliveries.
    5. +1
      14 June 2023 12: 28
      Rather, the first T-64. But the resistance of the armor should be higher. After all, more than 50 years have passed.
      1. +2
        15 June 2023 11: 49
        There is not only armor and a gun, but above all modern guidance and communication systems.
    6. +2
      15 June 2023 15: 35
      And then what is our Octopus? Buggy covered with cardboard?
    7. 0
      17 August 2023 22: 13
      Put on the T-55 KAZ, an observer drone, a new FCS, a thermal imager, and you will be happy))
  2. IVZ
    0
    14 June 2023 05: 39
    Land gunboat for "banana" regions with increased operational and strategic mobility.
  3. +3
    14 June 2023 06: 24
    there is no doubt that the new M10 Booker in the foreseeable future will get into the troops and go into service. How useful such equipment will be for the army, time will tell.
    . But do modern technologies make it possible to create at least something that can last on the battlefield, where INTENSIVE, PONOSALE COMBAT OPERATIONS ARE CONDUCTED for more than the allotted MINUTES, HOURS, maybe DAYS ???
    The soldiers are now seriously equipped, the field of the field is saturated with various means of fighting everything and everyone !!!
    1. +1
      14 June 2023 06: 34
      this is still the Americans did not take into account the experience of the NWO, with all sorts of kamikaze drones flying fpv, lancets
      1. +2
        14 June 2023 08: 15
        Experience, once again experience ... and tomorrow will be the next, next.
        You always have to stop at something, otherwise it would not have been possible to create, implement, use and crash any MODERN technology!
  4. +4
    14 June 2023 06: 39
    How useful such equipment will be for the army, time will tell.

    China adapted the Type 15 (ZTQ-15) to the terrain of southern China and the plateau bordering India.
    1. +3
      14 June 2023 09: 54
      So this is originally a special "mountain" tank. They had no choice but to fight on something in the mountains. MBT won't get in there. Well, for air transportation is well suited, lightweight.
  5. 0
    14 June 2023 07: 26
    In Turkey, Kaplan MT has almost the same weight. Domestically, it is named anti-tank installation. You can say an analogue of this sample.
    1. +4
      14 June 2023 08: 45
      There are dozens of "analogues" to this M10. We can talk about the return of the conditional division into light / medium / tanks.
  6. +7
    14 June 2023 07: 40
    "the cost of one M1A2 SEP Abarms, which is at least $8,6 million" - the newest of those that are ...
    For the production and operation of the entire fleet of M10 Booker tanks, personnel training, maintenance, etc. for all the time they plan to spend 17 billion dollars in current prices. Thus, the construction and operation of each machine will cost taxpayers 33 million dollars

    go nuts .. even if half is training and maintenance .. but more expensive than a normal tank !? The US military-industrial complex is about a LOT of money ..
    1. +2
      14 June 2023 15: 02
      I think the lion's share of the price will be devoured by KAZ. Which itself costs like a tank. And of course it’s nonsense, for that kind of money, I want to know what it costs so much more (except for KAZ)? Even if the K2, super sophisticated with electronics, is several times cheaper.
    2. +2
      14 June 2023 21: 10
      This amount is based on 30 years of operation, during which time each tank will undergo dozens of major and minor repairs. Will change more than one trunk. Fires thousands of projectiles. As I understand it (maybe I'm wrong of course), this amount takes into account a wagon of spare parts, training of many crews, etc ....
    3. 0
      15 June 2023 07: 27
      Quote: 2 level advisor
      "the cost of one M1A2 SEP Abarms, which is at least $8,6 million" - the newest of those that are ...
      For the production and operation of the entire fleet of M10 Booker tanks, personnel training, maintenance, etc. for all the time they plan to spend 17 billion dollars in current prices. Thus, the construction and operation of each machine will cost taxpayers 33 million dollars

      go nuts .. even if half is training and maintenance .. but more expensive than a normal tank !? The US military-industrial complex is about a LOT of money ..

      The actual "production/maintenance" ratio starts from "1/5" and with modern species goes to the level of "1/10".
  7. 0
    14 June 2023 07: 42
    It seems that the Americans began to suspect that 70 tons of weight for MBT is too much. Wangyu that this is a trial balloon before the new MBT.
    1. +3
      14 June 2023 09: 45
      And why wang, the Abrams X prototype of the next fourth generation weighs 51 tons.
  8. 0
    14 June 2023 08: 29
    I will assume that if the engine is located in front, then a heavy infantry fighting vehicle / armored personnel carrier will be developed on the basis of the tank. Which, at 38-42 tons, is very good. This machine will be able to operate with tanks in the same battle formation.
    1. +3
      14 June 2023 08: 42
      Hmm ... So it is made on the basis of the ASCOD 2 BBM.
      1. 0
        14 June 2023 08: 52
        Thank you, something I missed this moment.
      2. +1
        14 June 2023 09: 51
        The second version of this project involved the use of a modified ASCOD 2 chassis and the turret of the M1A2 SEP v.3 tank with other weapons.
        On the cart it is clear that it is not him.
    2. 0
      14 June 2023 09: 47
      It won’t work, the rear location of the tower, four crew members, you can’t shove it there like an airborne squad.
    3. +2
      14 June 2023 10: 27
      Yep, as a target. An infantry fighting vehicle should not go with tanks in the same formation, just as tanks should not go on the attack for a breakthrough. The task of the BMP is to bring the soldiers, land them and further support the offensive or defense from afar, otherwise the destruction is quick.
  9. +8
    14 June 2023 09: 44
    Well ... As it is customary to write among historians of military shipbuilding: "Any attempt to build a very strong cruiser leads to the appearance of a very weak battleship"
  10. 0
    14 June 2023 10: 21
    New class: HRNM (neither fish nor fowl). Nedotank re-BMP. We have tens of thousands of these, just a little modernized.
  11. -1
    14 June 2023 10: 56
    Our Octopus will be more powerful, decorate it with fashionable things, arenas and the like, and here is our light tank, which also floats!
  12. +1
    14 June 2023 11: 47
    The average cost of each car within the two documents does not exceed $11,9 million.

    The Americans do not make cheap weapons, and here is a wonderful example, given that some of the equipment is used from Abrams, this is the most expensive tank in the world
  13. +1
    14 June 2023 12: 30
    The Americans, apparently, are embarrassed to admit that they have essentially made a medium tank. For Abrams began to weigh completely indecent. Soon the Royal Tiger will seem small.
  14. 0
    14 June 2023 13: 43
    It looks like a recycling program for old Abrams turrets, replacing them with new turrets with automatic loaders. Emoticons.
  15. -1
    14 June 2023 19: 38
    It seems that the Americans invented the t-62m.
    1. 0
      14 August 2023 20: 19
      In-in, regardless of you, I wrote the same thing.
  16. +2
    14 June 2023 20: 27
    A full-fledged medium tank, in a modern design. I think such machines will still show themselves.
  17. 0
    14 June 2023 21: 49
    By 2030 they will make a "nine-star" with a KAZ, an UAV and ... a loader. Ryabov will write a blasphemous review - the tank is weak, and we will soon have Armata!
  18. +1
    14 June 2023 23: 24
    I could not understand what niche the tank was created for. Protection is not like a tank, but just like a good BMP. Armament is weak (especially in the performance of 105 mm). And the weight is comparable to some existing MBTs.
    And then I looked - the first batches were tested and tested in the 82nd airborne division. Most likely, its niche will be comparable to the role of our octopus - a tank-like self-propelled gun. Only if our octopus can parachute, then they limited their M-10 to the possibility of fast air transportation.
    1. 0
      30 September 2023 13: 07
      And Octopus is a self-propelled gun. Anti-tank.
  19. +4
    15 June 2023 01: 57
    I read dozens of reviews. Briefly: There, in the Pentagon, only donkeys are sitting :) And why are couch experts (of which some were only at monthly training camps in the army) not invited as freelance consultants in "their" MO?
  20. +1
    15 June 2023 17: 07
    And our Octopus was decommissioned before the special operation, it didn’t pass the test for 20 years, and this is the result of the octopus in flight.
    1. 0
      15 July 2023 08: 16
      Naturally. Why do we need an octopus if there is t55 / t64 / t72 / t90, etc.?
      1. 0
        14 August 2023 20: 44
        The octopus is not a tank, and the replacement is not for tanks, but for old rapiers, the calculations of which, due to the fact that the guns are on the front end, are vulnerable to everything from mortars and drops from copters to AGS, Ptur and even heavy snipers ....
        At the same time, it surpasses the T-55/62 many times in power, both with a land mine and with a crowbar.
        At the same time, it is cheaper, lighter and more mobile ...
        It is clear that it is mainly for the airborne forces and marines, who have little artillery and they will be happy with everything in general, but I assure you that in the anti-tank units of the art brigades / divisions they will be torn off with their hands. Yes, rapiers are now replacing the t-55, but where is the t-55 and where is the octopus, neither in terms of suo, nor in terms of firepower, nor in mobility can the t-55 be compared, the only thing the t-55 has is better protection against heavy fragments, but worse than the suo, mobility is worse, there is no production of spare parts and accessories, even here the scales are not on the side of the t-55 ...
        1. 0
          14 September 2023 22: 05
          Everything is true, but for the Octopus it is necessary to train crews separately, invent new tactics of use and bring it to the command of all levels, so that the Octopus is NOT USED AS A REGULAR TANK.
          Otherwise, the result will be wrong.

          The Americans went through all this in World War II in Europe.
          They made thousands of Octopus-like tank destroyers with a typical design: a body with bulletproof armor, a standard (or slightly more powerful, longer) tank gun, in a rotating spacious turret open on top (bulletproof armor, slightly thicker in the front) with a developed counterweight on the its stern side.
          NONE of the allies of the Americans BUYed this equipment from them!
          Manufacturers from the United States honestly and stubbornly offered, the allies honestly and tediously tested, but neither the British nor ours began to take this strange technique. For it is not clear where (and why) to stick it into your troops ...

          And the Americans knew where to put such equipment in their army.
          They came up with a new type of units: tank destroyer battalions, which, in theory, stop quick breakthroughs of German tank and mechanized columns: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_destroyer_battalion_(United_States) - there is a clear map on the use of such battalions of 36 tank destroyers (in three companies of 12 pieces each).
          Roughly speaking, they acted like this: A German column breaks through the defenses of infantry units of the US Army, they are trying to hold the throat of the breakthrough, and towards the German column from the rear, from the side at full speed, one or two such battalions of tank destroyers, directed by reconnaissance, are hurrying along the roads. They take up positions near the roads and ambush German tanks/equipment from afar, running away as soon as shells begin to explode nearby. Then they take the next line, again in ambush, shoot when it’s convenient for them and then run away again...

          In our army, we don’t like this kind of specialization, so I think the Spruts will obviously be required to play the role of MBT and “hold the front” at any cost.
          1. 0
            21 September 2023 22: 12
            For the task of stopping a breakthrough by tank units, there are “Chrysanthemums” and similar products, plus helicopters and attack aircraft, again remote mining to help.
            Light tanks, as I see it, are needed to go behind enemy lines, including by overcoming water obstacles without the use of ferry and bridge structures.
  21. 0
    15 July 2023 08: 11
    Oh, how many experts have come running. Why even compare technology. What does it give?

    Let me explain to you the logic of the Pentagon. The US Abrams MBT was in fact useless due to the mass and range of ammunition. The niche of "infantry support means" turned out to be empty, it was logical to fill it. And so the M10 was born.
    Yes, in terms of security, this is a fat BMP, but what's the difference? The main thing is that it can be dragged to the battlefield without arranging logistical hell. All the same, the US strategy involves either a war with the Papuans or a regression of the enemy to the Papuans by driving air raids into the Stone Age.
  22. 0
    25 July 2023 19: 24
    So that mattresses are not designed, in the end you still get a huge barn for a horse price tag.)))
  23. 0
    14 August 2023 20: 17
    I understand correctly they want to invent the t-62?
  24. 0
    17 August 2023 22: 09
    At present, any armor is stitched. The time of heavy tanks has passed, as well as the time of knights. They were replaced by reytars with two pistols and a cuirass. And something similar will come to replace the MBT. With a tethered drone and KAZ and an uninhabited tower
  25. 0
    18 August 2023 19: 14
    42 tons. Here's a light tank for you. belay This tank is more of a quick response. Loaded quickly. And to another continent. Entirely with BC and those staff.
  26. 0
    31 August 2023 20: 14
    800 HP 42 tons ... maybe enough in some flat desert ... hi