Thread 64259819

She never even was given a chance...

>>64259819 (OP)
Get a new hobby warriortard

>>64259834
You guys are really still talking about that guy

US military procurement is 10-20 years behind what the next war requires in terms of equipment. In other news water is wet, the sky is blue, and everyone else is half a century behind in technology and capabilities if not further.

>>64259819 (OP)
Why was it so heavy?

>>64259867
>>64259867
>US military starts heavily utilizing drones in 1990
>China and Russia start adopting drones 2015
dumb fuck

>>64259867
>everyone else is half a century behind in technology and capabilities if not further.
The chinks have succeeded in creating air-liftable mobile protected fire support where the Stryker MGS and Booker failed. Granted the Booker was supposed to be fit on a C-130 and the Type 15 is only moveable on a heavier plane, but still. At least they have something that can show up to the party.

The booker would've been completely bad ass and a kino pairing with airborne units.

>>64259916
>stryker mgs and booker failed
They didn't fail. Stryker had some problems that maybe could have been fixed with further development, but the booker was exactly what they asked for and was air liftsble in a c-130 as was required

>>64259915
>>US military starts heavily utilizing drones in 1990
1944

>>64259925
>was air liftsble in a c-130 as was required
It was so heavy a c130 could only lift one when they wanted it to lift two. Also it was so heavy it destroyed the infrastructure on base

>>64259916
Implessive.

>>64259916
Oh wow they finally figured out how to make Sheridans good for them, they've finally acheived what the US did in 1969. Air liftable assets don't mean anything when you can't acheive air superiority to use them, and naval superiority to supply them where they'd be used.

Only a billion or so dollars spent on this obvious non-starter. Blatant MIC welfare. Thanks, goyim.

>>64259930
Booker never fit a C-130 and was never intended to. It was the C-17 they wanted to load two into, and the report wasn’t can’t currently as much as may not be able to in the future due to climate change. Cancelation probably has more to do with the god awful repair contract Textron managed to get and Ukraine showing it really wasn’t an amazing design for a modern battlefield. A light heavy vehicle with a smaller gun might’ve been nice for Afghanistan but the lack of natively integrated aps or drone countermeasures kills it for the modern battlefield, and the increased weight of strapping those on makes it an even worse value proposition vs an Abrams than it already was. It also wasn’t nearly enough of a capability gain over the Stryker MGS to justify being about twice the mass

>>64259915
What's 35 + (10 to 20)?

>>64259916
The Type 15 weighs 36 to 42 tons depending on configuration, while the Booker weighs 38 to 42 tons depending on configuration. They're essentially identical in mass and capability, assuming the chinks didn't cheap out on sensors and electronics (they did). The Booker has all of the same onboard systems as the Abrams and will be compatible with all future Abrams upgrades.

Also, the Booker was never at any point in its development intended to be transported in a C-130 or to be airdropped. It was not supposed to be a Sheridan replacement, because the Sheridan was dogshit and everyone involved learned their lesson the first time.

>>64259916
Those are intended to fight the Indians in the Himalayas. They are ideal for that purpose.

>>64259978
The Booker was compatible with Trophy APS from the Abrams, there's no reason it couldn't have been installed. The Booker's problem wasn't its unsuitability for its role, it was a combination of the maintenance contract (it was General Dynamics, not Textron) at a time when Congress started to care about those things, and DoD wanting to cut the budget and at the same time gear up for war with China where the Army isn't expected to be a major player.

>>64259896
Burger's like heavy stuff like their women. Can't blame nature.

>>64260008
Not only was it compatible, it was intended. They just didn't install them right away because they wanted to secure more units before they started using them on less important assets

>>64260008
The issue with Trophy is that hanging it off the side isn’t exactly a light setup, and the entire value proposition of a Booker was the lighter weight. Every extra pound added hurts it far more than other vehicles in inventory when its main value vs an Abrams is ease of transport. Even without the Air Force updating C-17 guidelines I would bet that the weight creep every vehicle experiences with upgrades in service would’ve pushed it away from fitting two on one C-17 and defeated the entire purpose of the thing. I’m glad to see it go for the same reason I was glad to see FARA get cancelled, I don’t think the value added would’ve been worth the spend. Maybe something in the same ~40 ton bracket with an unmanned turret, integrated aps and anti drone systems would be worth it but even then I think the XM30 with the 50mm will end up giving most of the value while also being able to haul infantry.

>>64260021
>>64260042
I'm pretty sure Trophy APS was actually included the 42 ton configuration. Payload capacity of a C-17 is 85 tons.

So what's gonna happen to these goofy bastards? Scrap yard? Used for training? Sold to Ukraine or someone else?

>>64260119
Shouldn't it be obvious? for the masters of golemerica

>>64260126
Why the would the Israelis want the Booker when they have a gorillion Merkava variants with better armament and armor?

>>64260132
Why would the Americans want the Booker when they have a gorillion Abrams variants with better armament and armor?

>>64260132
to use 105mm

>>64260042
It looks cool

>>64260112
They’re expecting that to drop by ~10% or so in the next 10-15 years due to climate change unfortunately

>>64260197
Climate challenge?

>>64260211
I looked it up.

>>64260197
Wait how?

>>64259819 (OP)
I understand the idea behind it and I didn't even think it was a bad one.


But why the fuck didn't they just slap a 105 on a modified AMPV hull or something

>>64260281
Air won’t be as dense if it gets hotter is what they’re saying, won’t be able to carry the full rated payload on an increasing number of days. I remember one of my teachers in grade school was an F-4 mechanic in Vietnam and he said on the really hot days they’d sometimes have to jettison bombs on the runway to take off in time

>>64259960
Wow I guess that's why the PLAAF, and PLAN have been the priority for modernisation for the PLA! Crazy right?!

>>64259995
>assuming the chinks didn't cheap out on sensors and electronics (they did). The Booker has all of the same onboard systems as the Abrams and will be compatible with all future Abrams upgrades.
They did not, China produces thermals, and other sensors for dirt cheap prices, the Booker also used the French Safran sight for gunner, and commander, which is not the same as the Abrams.

>>64259896
everythings heavier now because everything requires more capability. look at how both the Leo and Abrams have crept up in weight which each iteration

>>64259867
That's not too bad. Australia is 20-30 years behind.

>>64260281
Some grad student wrote an article about how if you use the most severe prediction from an outdated climate change model (that she specifically chose to use because the most modern version of it is much more conservative, and stated as much in the paper), that the C-17 will only be able to fly with its maximum capacity a couple of months out of the year and never over the equator. That paper was referenced when Hegseth decided to cut the program for financial reasons, which is the source of the "it was too heavy to be airlifted" meme, which was always obviously bullshit if you took it at face value.

>>64260513
Every time I think I can't get our government can't get more retarded they always manage to surprise me.

>>64260536
I'm not sure how much credence the government actually gave it. The Air Force published it in their journal but that doesn't necessarily mean they're deciding policy based on it. I think it was just a convenient justification to cancel the program for other reasons (namely Hegseth wanting to cut the Army budget because he doesn't think they're useful and the Army being unwilling to give up NGSW).

>>64260613
I don't know I do really feel like the Booker was such a clusterfuck of a program that it's cancellation isn't unreasonable, I just hate that nobody can give a straight answer as to why it did finally get cancelled. For fuck's sake nobody can even agree if it was ever intended to be airdropped in the first place.

>>64260668
Dunno why I made such a bad typo, point is that I'm more confused by this whole affair than anything.

>>64259840
>angrily replies within 40 seconds
This is what actual mental illness looks like.

>>64260668
Genuine question, we had the same thread made by the same schizo a literal hundred times and you think anyone is still coming to these threads to spoonfed answers to people?

>>64260696
I don't browse /k/ all that often so I haven't noticed if this is some schizo's pet topic or not.

>>64260699
The schizos name is warriortard, he hates it when you mention his name, because he thinkt the feds or some other obscure entity tracks him through mentions of his name. You wanna guess how he got the name? Yep he made over a hundred threads were he seethed about the irrelevant Warrior APC. He seethed so much about that thing and brits, that you must conclude one drove over his dick, squashed it flat and then never answered his calls the next day.

>>64260668
>airdropped
Never a requirement, no. Anyone that suggests otherwise is just confusing airdroppable with air transportable. BMD's are prectically at the extreme limits of realistically air droppable and they weigh 13 tons. I think around 20 tons can be done. Anyway, well below the weight of most vehicles we would consider for the task it was assigned

>>64260363
>assuming the chinks didn't cheap out on sensors and electronics (they did).

>They did not, China produces thermals, and other sensors for dirt cheap

Fucking lol.

>>64260303
It's retarded. How did the developers not realize their design was going to be either horribly underweight or severely under equipped? Like do the math before you build it

>>64260685
Lol

>>64260699
I made the thread because I don't come here often anymore either but I thought it's an interesting topic. As you can see I was instantly attacked and accused of being someone I'm not because anon doesn't like the thread topic. That's why I don't come here anymore because posters are so focused on battling imaginary enemies like warriortard that you can't have any polite discussion.

>>64260902
Lets be real you are either the tard or some troll that thinks he did the funny.

>>64259925
be me
Army supply sergeant, Fort Nowhere
life used to be simple: boots, socks, a few gallons of CLP
then “tank modernization initiative” drops
now I have to track 47 flavors of Abrams

first upgrade: slap on some TUSK armor
easy, right?
nope.jpg
two dozen pallets of “reactive armor tile, left-handed” and none for the right side
tank crews rolling around looking like half-armored Mad Max props

next program: “Urban Survival Kit”
literally just a snowplow bolted to the front
engineer tells me “it’s basically innovation”
costs more than my house

command decides to experiment
“let’s stick Trophy APS on it, like the Israelis”
APS arrives, but only three units
now I’m issuing a sign-out sheet for anti-missile systems
“hey Sarge, can my platoon borrow the one working APS this week?”
“nah, 1st Cav still has it checked out, due back Thursday”

it spirals out of control
“Future Vertical Integration Kit” = a drone duct-taped to the commander’s hatch
“Stealth Option” = rattle cans of Krylon from Home Depot
guy in R&D insists it makes the M1A2 “fifth-gen”
I just nod and initial the paperwork

budget season comes
half my warehouse filled with spare turbine engines, half with unmounted machine guns
still no replacement socks for the grunts
priorities.txt

eventually crack under pressure
stop calling myself Sergeant
start calling myself “M1A2 (she/her)”
apply CARC paint as war paint
crew hears me making “whrrr–clunk–turret spin” noises in the motor pool
tell junior NCOs my pronouns are “Abrams/Abrams-self”
they salute me because Army regs haven’t caught up yet

final straw
Pentagon memo: “Next upgrade program: hybrid electric Abrams”
they hand me a box of Prius batteries and say “make it work”
tfw I’ve become the first openly trans-tank in U.S. service
tfw budget line item lists me as “experimental platform, 1 ea.”
tfw I finally belong

>>64260472
Our bullpups count as being +20 years ahead though. So it evens out.

>>64260934
You have no enemies.

>>64259896
high fructose corn syrup

>>64260946
Thanks, chatgpt.

>>64260668
The source of the "Booker was supposed to be airdropped but it's too fat" meme is this article: https://www.defenseone.com/policy/2025/04/army-made-tank-it-doesnt-need-and-cant-use-now-its-figuring-out-what-do-it/404877/

The tl;dr: is that supposedly the Booker is ultimately the result of the very last unit in the Army that still operated Sheridans requesting a new replacement for it right as the piece of shit was finally being euthanized, decades overdue. When determining what the requirements for this new infantry support tank would be, the Army immediately threw out the idea of being air droppable, because that was the source of all of the Sheridan's problems and the reason why it was a Soviet-tier piece of shit that should have stayed in the 70s.

So people read this article, or other articles paraphrasing it, and assume that the Booker was cancelled because it didn't meet the program requirements, but that's actually bullshit. It's like saying that the F-35 is the result of A-10 pilots requesting a new ground attack aircraft as their A-10s were being retired. Yes, that's one of the roles that the F-35 is capable of, but it's capable of much more than that, and it's not like the F-35 wouldn't have been developed if A-10 pilots hadn't asked for it (obviously this is all hypothetical, A-10 pilots will pilot their A-10s directly into the scrap heap and refuse to ever fly anything else). Likewise, the M10 was not developed specifically for a group of boomers in the 82nd Airborne that wanted a new Sheridan, although the role of the Sheridan is one that the Booker would have filled. It was actually developed because of experience in Iraq where the Army and Marines both used Abrams tanks in an infantry support role, which is a role in which they were effective but not intended for. The Booker was to fill the role that was identified for a powerful direct-fire gun with greater survivability than a Stryker and lower logistical burden than an Abrams.

>>64260281
Hot air is less dense which means the flow of air over the wings produces less lift reducing the max takeoff weight. Some airports even have to cancel flights completely during heatwaves. Picrel.

>>64261191
It's so retarded for people to live there

>>64261278
:(

>>64261293
What would you do without air conditioner

>>64259819 (OP)
whats the point if the tank is tilted a little bit, and that fat front heavy turret turns to one side and fires...

looks like a flip hazard to me

>>64261308
Sweat

>>64261308
The neat part is they stop working right around 120 anyway

>t.my buddy went to uti

>>64261311
>front heavy turret
It isn't though.

>>64261319
How do you go to urinary tract infection

>>64261360
You don't. It comes to you.

The Booker will be dumped to Taiwan and the Philippines in the coming war.

>>64260934
This

How we almost always have one of those fake-discussion Booker threads in the catalog and how the thread stays alive way past its expected lifetime is also too apparent.

>>64262152
Why are you bumping the thread? You must be warriortard!

>>64260513
>That paper was referenced when Hegseth decided to cut the program for financial reasons, which is the source of the "it was too heavy to be airlifted" meme, which was always obviously bullshit if you took it at face value.
These hypocritical dumb fucks believe in climate change, when it fits their agenda, but other than that it is still communist hoax. So basically this alcoholic domestic violence enthusiast is acting on commie behalf. Makes you really think.

>>64260536
They are just wanting to cut costs and using any BS excuse possible

>>64263616
It wasn't Hegseth specifically who quoted that paper, that came from an interview with Alex Miller, Army CTO, in this article:
>>64261095
>The sour cherry on top, he added, arrived when the Air Force changed its load restrictions so that the Army could only put one M10 on a C-17, rather than the two the service had counted on.
As far as I can tell, no such policy change has occurred. Other articles have cited this interview and the Benton paper, and all of my searching for any change to the C-17's load rating has only turned up references to the Benton paper without any indication of an actual policy change.