Key Points and Summary on M10 Booker Future – After the U.S. Army abruptly canceled the M10 Booker light tank program, a new problem has emerged: what to do with the 26 “orphan” vehicles already built.
-These light tanks, a billion-dollar solution now without a problem, should be sent to Ukraine.
-While the Bookers’ survivability against Russian drones and missiles is a major concern—especially after the near-total loss of Ukraine’s M1 Abrams fleet—sending them into combat is a better option than letting them collect dust.
-The move would give the beleaguered platform a chance to prove its worth.
Extra M10 Booker Light Tank Could Find Itself on Ukrainian Battlefield
There is more topsy-turvy news for the beleaguered M10 Booker light tank: The program has been canceled, but the U.S. Army already built 26 vehicles.
There is a question now about what to do with the excess. Should the Department of the Army send them to the troops, or could they perhaps be sent to Ukraine?
Exporting them to the Ukrainians would make sense.
Volodymyr Zelensky’s forces need all the help they can get.
The Booker was meant to be air dropped from C-130 cargo planes, but they became heavier medium tanks once more armor and survivability systems were added.
Twenty-six of the remaining armored vehicles may not make a significant difference in the war, but they wouldn’t hurt and could bolster some defensive efforts at the front.
There are Good Use Cases for the M10 Booker
Bookers are also good reconnaissance vehicles and could be the eyes and ears of a vanguard of Ukrainian tanks should the home team ever punch through Russian lines. They could also serve in reserve duty and then move fast to shore up defensive positions as Russia continues its summer offensive.
But They Could Be Destroyed by Anti-tank Missiles and Drones
One question about the Bookers heading to Ukraine is their survivability against anti-tank missiles and loitering drones. Russia’s kamikaze unmanned craft have wreaked havoc on the M1 Abrams tanks that the United States gifted to Ukraine. Nearly the entire force of 31 tanks have been either destroyed or damaged beyond repair. A lighter tank may not be able to last long on a battlefield as armored vehicles have become more of a liability rather than a dominant asset.
Need for Training on a New Platform
Plus, the Ukrainians would have to be trained on the operation of the M10 Booker. This probably wouldn’t take that long – perhaps only two to three months as the Ukrainian tankers have shown prowess operating American armored vehicles like the Bradley Fighting Vehicle. The United States would also need to provide a pipeline of Booker spare parts and ammunition, plus teach maintenance crews how to repair and care for the armored vehicle.
It Looked to Be Primed for Use in Airborne or Air Mobile Missions
In February of 2024, the Army took possession of its first M10 Booker. Hopes were high that it would be an integral part of airborne, air mobile, and light infantry units. These combat teams were seen as under-armed for the modern battlefield. A C-130 could drop the Booker into areas where there would be a need for lightning strikes and then defense of territory. The classic airborne mission of seizing an airfield would be one example in which the Booker could shine by providing security after the air base was taken over by paratroopers.
The U.S. Army plowed over a billion dollars into the Booker program. This was to be the first light tank to enter service in over 40 years. However, on June 11 this year, the Army announced that the program would be terminated.
“In response to current world events and in support of the strategic objectives outlined in the Army Transformation Initiative, the U.S. Army has issued a termination for convenience of the current low-rate initial production of the M10 Booker combat vehicle and will not enter into full-rate production as originally planned,” the Army said in a statement.
The “current world events” stipulation in the announcement is telling. This is likely referring to the war in Ukraine, in which armored vehicles are at a significant disadvantage.
The Airborne Mission Was Seen As a No-Go
Additionally, the M10 Booker became increasingly heavier, and concerns arose about whether it could be airdropped with airborne and air assault units.
The Army wasn’t sure how it would arrive at the battlefield at a moment’s notice, robbing soldiers of speed and surprise that are the hallmark of light infantry strikes.
The program had big goals. The Army originally wanted to buy between 362 and 504 Bookers by investing $4 billion. The service branch was to receive 84 between 2022 and 2024, but only 26 were built. A recovery vehicle was also planned to rescue stranded and damaged tanks. This would have required even more spending.
Unfortunately for the Army, a production line is still running, which will also provide another batch of M10 Bookers that were already under contract. They are a solution in search of a problem.
These Bookers could be sent to Ukraine, though. It doesn’t make sense for these armored vehicles to sit idle while Kyiv could put them to good use.
President Trump could use drawdown authority for a donation, or the Pentagon could sell them to Ukraine.
Send the M10 Booker to Fight Russia
Let’s give them a chance to battle the Russians. There is nothing to lose by sending them to Eastern Europe.
They may not be heavy enough to survive on the battlefield, and manufacturers would likely be forced to build “cope cages” – extra top armor to defend against diving kamikaze drones.
However, I like the Booker for use as a reconnaissance vehicle that can also protect armored personnel carriers for a counter-attack against Russian forces.
There would be a learning curve for Ukrainian soldiers to become experts in their operations, but the friendly forces have shown they adapt well to new tanks. Send the Bookers to Ukraine and perhaps everyone could be surprised at how well they do.
That’s better than holding them back in storage without ever deploying them to battle.
About the Author: Dr. Brent M. Eastwood
Brent M. Eastwood, PhD is the author of Don’t Turn Your Back On the World: a Conservative Foreign Policy and Humans, Machines, and Data: Future Trends in Warfare plus two other books. Brent was the founder and CEO of a tech firm that predicted world events using artificial intelligence. He served as a legislative fellow for U.S. Senator Tim Scott and advised the senator on defense and foreign policy issues. He has taught at American University, George Washington University, and George Mason University. Brent is a former U.S. Army Infantry officer. He can be followed on X @BMEastwood.
More Military
We Almost Touched the F-117 Stealth Fighter
Jim
July 22, 2025 at 1:12 pm
Survivability is always an issue, but some missions are by their very nature are more dangerous.
Parachute drops of tanks in support of airborne troops is a dangerous mission. If this is what the Booker’s role was supposed to be, then it failed upon being too heavy due to increasing the survivability of the tank and crew.
If you want a light tank to drop from airplanes, it will be more dangerous for crews once on the ground due to the necessity of lightweight.
What to do now?
Send them off to Ukraine, but don’t expect we’ll get them back… maybe that’s the point, we don’t want them back.
Hold one or two back as museum pieces, but send the rest to Ukraine, fine.
But the next time, if there is a next time, developing a lightweight tank (I understand not all army planners think a lightweight tank is necessary) it must stay lightweight and designers & engineers must simply recognize parachute drop capable lightweight tanks are more dangerous for crews once on the ground.
That’s war.