US Army News and updates general discussion

Terran

Well-Known Member
Would be interesting in hearing opinions from members on this article. The author is very pro rockets versus cannons.

Interesting, although I question. The author seems to take the zero sum theory of Artillery Rockets vs Cannon artillery.
Well it’s true that rockets do lay down more destruction per volley vs cannon the price point on artillery shells is still fairly cheap and accuracy is still viable. They have a faster rate of reloading and Reality is almost never a zero sum game.
Since the Start of Ukraine war every armies commentary has been on the need of both Rocket and Gun Artillery. Especially on the shortages of shells and rockets not one over the other.
Now if we zoomed in on the US Army it’s in a major series of redevelopment and modernization in particular the Army’s “Big six” priorities which lists “Long range Precision fires”. A portfolio of programs that included ERCA (now canceled Extended Range Cannon Artillery XM1299) and AMDL (basically a HIMARS unmanned).
It also seems they included a number of other modernizations including new shells and rockets.
The Army picked its “big six” based on the assumption that in the Peer versus Peer conflict it envisioned the U.S. would be facing a foe at or just below the Current U.S. technology standards but in a strong numerical position. This is why when you look at the Army programs many include aspects that are clearly meant to “Overmatch”. Attempts at pushing technology so that the effective engagement ranges of U.S. military forces easily reach beyond and over power those of its foreign equivalent.
In the Artillery branch of the Army however the decades of post Cold War spending hit hard fast and decisively knocking the Army into a position where much of its capability are actually the inferior.
It’s not that the U.S. army hasn’t modernized its artillery systems. In shells MLRS/HIMARS even upgrades to the M109 and procurement of the M777 have taken place it’s that the pace and form is often been more of a push in a different direction from where the army feels it needs to be in a PVP conflict.
In the 1990s after the end of the Coldwar the Army shifted from a PVP focus vs the now defunct Soviet horde to the smaller more rag tag armies and forces of lesser satellite and despots that populate the former Soviet empire and Middle East. As part of this the XM2001 Crusader 155 mm 52 caliber gas turbine powered Self propelled gun system weighing in at 46 tons was scrapped as the Army started what would become the XM1203 Nonline of sight Cannon a 29 ton 38 caliber hybrid part of the FCS manned vehicles program. The aim being to try and produce a medium weight armored force that could Rapidly deploy to a crisis and provide just enough firepower to show of force out of a conflict. That program was of course it’s self canceled. The Army instead would modify the M109 to the A5 standard introducing the M284 cannon and a 39 caliber standard. At this point in time well the British made more or less the same decision with the 39 caliber 155mm AS90 the Germans were already on the PZH2000 with the L52 with many foreign M109 conversions to the L52 gun in the 90s and 00s.
Then upgrading the Chassis with the A7.
Right now the Army is in the rebound from the failure of ERCA, looking at its options of dropping a L52 in it or replacing M109A7.
(Personally I favor the latter with a Licensed Hanwha K9 variant and K10. When the Army was doing the XM1299 ERCA demonstration they found that the M109A7 was a little small and had to redesign their intended Automatic loader reducing ammo capacity.)
With the Bonus of deciding if it feels that it should buy in on a wheeled SPH like CAESAR or Archer to supplant M777s for lighter units.
That’s not even mentioning the Turreted Mortar demonstration.
 

Terran

Well-Known Member

Following on here from my last post. The Army is apparently going on a demonstration tour of 155. Like going on a speed dating course after the breakup with ERCA…
So we know they are going to see BAE Archer, Hanwha K9A1, Elbit Sigma, Rheinmetall RCH155 and Maybe the KNDS GDLS 10x10 Piranha 155.
BAE has also promised to show the Army an improved Paladin.

You might recall a few years back the Army did a previous demonstration United States Army’s 155mm Mobile Howitzer Shoot-Off Evaluation. Where they demo’s BAE Systems’ ARCHER, Elbit Systems of America’s ATMOS Iron Sabre, Nexter’s Caesar, AM General’s Brutus, and the NORA B-52 M21 system. So how is this different? Well not sure. The only obvious thing is weight. Archer is about 39 tons the previous demonstration participants were lighter with Nora at about 34 tons, Atmos at about 24, CAESAR at 18-32 depending upon host vehicle and Brutus is about 16 tons.
This new demonstration most seem to be about 40 tons with K9 at 47 tons.

This might be Conformation bias on my part. As I am predisposed to the Idea the U.S. Army should have two types of SPH a lighter one to replace towed systems with a faster set up and breakdown to be attached to units like light Infantry and and Medium weight formations. As well as a Heavy to fit the role of the M109 in armored units.
 

MARKMILES77

Well-Known Member
Where is there any mention of M10 Booker being cancelled? The letter from the Sec. of Army mentions very few specific programmes to be cancelled (at this time). The letter is more a statement of intent which will no doubt be subject to many changes and reversals over the coming years.
Task and Purpose]
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 Friday, 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.

Screenshot 2025-05-03 at 08.49.44.png
 
Last edited:

Terran

Well-Known Member
If they don't want Apache, Booker, Humvee, JLTV and others, raises the question of what sort of army do they want?
First it’s a memo, everything mentioned has potential to be reinterpreted. It’s also the case that some of the things listed might be simply older models they are looking to replace.
In the case of Apache it’s the D model they want to divest. The E model is newer and easier to maintain, more suitable to the modern day.

Humvee has been due for either replacement or major overhaul for years. JLTV was supposed to be that but it became more an all terrain MRAP light. AM General ( who makes the Humvee and JLTV A2) and GM defense have been circling the Humvee with possible replacements for years. AM General has been pitching a vehicle they call the NXT 360/Humvee Saber where they basically took the Humvee’s general dimensions and designed a completely new vehicle in it.
GM Defense on the other hand last year rolled out a prototype based on the Chevrolet Silverado 3500 HD ZR2 rebuilt into a boxy monster of a pickup truck (it looks like what Halo’s Master Chief would drive after he retires to a Farm.) GM calls it the Next Generation Tactical Vehicle.
JLTV has two versions the A1 and the A2 with the A2 moving to a hybrid. So that could be a case of pushing to divest the A1.
Booker is clearly doomed. To heavy and it showcases one of the biggest issues of Army expeditionary mobility the C130 is to small. Well the C17 is too few and too big.
The Booker and I doubt its BAE competitor could never hope to succeed as intended. To heavy to expedition to light to survive.

AMPV I think is a case where you will see an argument. It’s also on the list of potential targets but it fills a vital gap. Especially with the M113 fleet being scrapped or donated.
 

Ananda

The Bunker Group
649835c065b9ce0018a4b1e1.jpeg0640ff5221776e6a8d81f994f15ca57f.jpgHarimau_Medium_Tank,_13th_Cavalry_Battalion,_Indonesian_Army._2.jpg

Current design for 105mm Light-Medium tanks are US Booker, Chinese VT-5 and Turkiye-Indonesia Kaplan-Harimau. Those all have similar weight of 35-40 tons, depends whether they are on light configuration or heavier one with add on armour.

There are couple others Light 105mm Tank in the market, but they are mostly base on IFV, while those three above are build from begining as Tank.


Just like other media articles on reason of cancelation, Booker considered too heavy. However what's the US Army expectation at first anyway ? I believe 30+ - 40+ are already in minimum range for a Tank to operate. Japan type 10 also in 40+ range and close to 50 in full armour configuration, making the lightest current generation MBT. That's already include more advance lighter ceramic composite armour.

China want to use VT-5 on Tibet plataeu up to Himalayan range. While Indonesia aim to use Kaplan/Harimau for jungles and outer islands with less infrastructure condition. Expecting Modern Tanks to be transporable by C-130 simply not make sense from begining, no matter how much you have reduce the weight design.

So there are places on conditions where those Light-Medium Tanks still can be usefull. Are this simply another Political decisions overide previous parameters set up ? Somehow I sense that's more determining factor.


Add Dylan article cause in the end paragraph I believe it's summarise what's wrong with Booker program.

The M10 program’s failure highlights the risks of rapid acquisition in the absence of infrastructure compatibility and evolving mission clarity. As the Army recalibrates its vehicle portfolio, attention is likely to shift toward more flexible and infrastructure-aware solutions. M10 program’s failure highlights the risks of rapid acquisition in the absence of infrastructure compatibility and evolving mission clarity. As the Army recalibrates its vehicle portfolio, attention is likely to shift toward more flexible and infrastructure-aware solutions.
Evolving mission clarity vs Rapid acquisition program. Are US Army wants Light Tank or Airlift deployable armoured assets. That's supposedly being clear from begining. Modern Tank even being call Light weight, is never can be airlift easily.
 
Last edited:

FormerDirtDart

Well-Known Member
First it’s a memo, everything mentioned has potential to be reinterpreted. It’s also the case that some of the things listed might be simply older models they are looking to replace.
In the case of Apache it’s the D model they want to divest. The E model is newer and easier to maintain, more suitable to the modern day.

Humvee has been due for either replacement or major overhaul for years. JLTV was supposed to be that but it became more an all terrain MRAP light. AM General ( who makes the Humvee and JLTV A2) and GM defense have been circling the Humvee with possible replacements for years. AM General has been pitching a vehicle they call the NXT 360/Humvee Saber where they basically took the Humvee’s general dimensions and designed a completely new vehicle in it.
GM Defense on the other hand last year rolled out a prototype based on the Chevrolet Silverado 3500 HD ZR2 rebuilt into a boxy monster of a pickup truck (it looks like what Halo’s Master Chief would drive after he retires to a Farm.) GM calls it the Next Generation Tactical Vehicle.
JLTV has two versions the A1 and the A2 with the A2 moving to a hybrid. So that could be a case of pushing to divest the A1.
Booker is clearly doomed. To heavy and it showcases one of the biggest issues of Army expeditionary mobility the C130 is to small. Well the C17 is too few and too big.
The Booker and I doubt its BAE competitor could never hope to succeed as intended. To heavy to expedition to light to survive.

AMPV I think is a case where you will see an argument. It’s also on the list of potential targets but it fills a vital gap. Especially with the M113 fleet being scrapped or donated.
I believe the HMMWV replacement is already in service
The article discusses ISV variants identified by the 101 Abn Div's "Mobility Brigade" experimentation to replace the legacy HMMWVs and LMTVs (I find this a bit questionable)
C2, Lgt/Med Mortar carrier, Anti-tank carrier and cargo/adaptable flatbed variants
 

Terran

Well-Known Member
I believe the HMMWV replacement is already in service
The article discusses ISV variants identified by the 101 Abn Div's "Mobility Brigade" experimentation to replace the legacy HMMWVs and LMTVs (I find this a bit questionable)
C2, Lgt/Med Mortar carrier, Anti-tank carrier and cargo/adaptable flatbed variants
The ISV is only a partial replacement for Humvee. The truth is even the Jeep from WW2 wasn’t replaced by just one vehicle. They moved from the Ford and Willys MB to the M38 and M38A1 then the M151 but you also had M422, M751s, there were US Army Ford Broncos, International Harvester Scouts, Dodge and Chevy vehicles in the 60s and 70s.

I would make a case that the Replacement for the Humvee is similarly likely to be about a dozen vehicles SOF units and lighter air vehicles deploying MRZR, GDOTS Flyers. GM Defense’s ISV/IUV/ICV and variants for airborne and light infantry but also in partnership with a larger vehicles. JLTV A2 and even Strykers taking the top as protected vehicles. That may seem odd by if you think about it the Stryker brigade units predecessors were Humvee and 2 1/2 ton truck mounted infantry. Infantry who today are better protected in the Stryker.

In the case of the ISV the issue is payload. Its payload is 3,200 lbs. the current Humvee is closer to 5,200lbs. The ISV is designed to fill a “not quite”. It’s smaller than JLTV or Humvee but larger than MRZRs so it can easily fly in C130, CH47 even slung under a Blackhawk but not so in a V22.
It has options that it can be configured for that 81mm mortar for example but a Larger vehicle like the Humvee or JLTV can host a 120mm mortar system like the Elbit SPEAR.
The ISV is open top to save weight it’s just roll bars and equipment racks. Humvee Saber and GM Defense’s NGTV can be armored against small arms well JLTV is a full on MRAP. Humvee could carry a full ambulance shelter where ISV is likely to be rigging litters to the hood.
 

Terran

Well-Known Member
Couple small arms updates and aviation update.
The MV75! That’s the official designation of the V280 Valor production FLRAA

The numbering is a little odd as one would have expected a number in the line of the V22 so maybe a V28 but instead they seem to have done a novelty number based off the Helicopter numbering. As the 75 is reference to 1775.

Next the XM7 and XM250 are now officially the M7 and M250. Project Manager Soldier Lethality Announces Type Classification Approval for Next Generation Squad Weapons (NGSW)

Finally the Army has apparently awarded a winner in the xTech Soldier Lethality competition this program is the successor of the XM25 program. The finalists were a team of Barrett rifle, Mars inc against an offering from FNH USA.
Mars/Barrett won with AMTEC Corp working on the ammunition. The launcher fires a 30x42mm smart grenade from the shoulder from a 5 round magazine.
 
Top