Richie Ramos (
Thu, 15 Jun 2000 19:28:32 +0800

>1. You are right about the weight issue. The army wants the FCS to be
>only 17 tons (the latest ver. of the M1A2 is almost 80 tons). This is
>mainly to allow the FCS to be transportable by a C-130. The physical
>size should be reduced by 50% over the M1 as well.

The idea here is to make it a fast deployment vehicle...with the current
C&C technology, fast deployment means that one can set up positions faster.
 Very important.

>2. reduce the signature (visual, sound, and IR) by 50% over the M1

visual is easy...sound...well, they've got to use that reverse sine emitter
thingie, and as for there a way to use the anti-IR technology
in aircraft to tanks?

>3. 200% increase in ability to move over any terrain. (sounds like legs to

That's gotta be legs or instead of two tracks, you have four smaller
ones...or something like that. Sounds like a Fuchikoma thing to me.

>4. road speed 125 kph / cross country 90 kph

Isn't this doable already?

>5. range 750 km (250km over the abrams)

hmmm...that's either more fuel efficiency, or a larger gas tank....

>6. operate independently to fight 3 battles over a 7 day period with
>only 1 resupply
>7. crew of 3, or even better--2

Gunner and driver only? that's kinda hard....

>8. have a non-lethal capability (this reflects the peacekeeping role
>that has become more important, but really--what do they want? I
>guess it could fire really big tear gas canisters?)

Or gigantic rubber shells, LOL!

>9. incorporate multiple protection layers. (e.g. systems to disrupt
>the optics of enemy gun sights, or missiles. And an Active defense
>system to knock down incoming projectiles)

hmm...sounds very anime-ish. Active defense could be likethe anti-missile
defenses of ships...but optical disruption?

>10. The FCS should be able to defeat targets beyond 5 km for direct
>fire, 15 km for indirect fire.
>11. Ready to be in service by 2012.
>Now what is interesting is that these parameters are as specific as
>it gets. That is to say this FCS doesn't have to have treads, a gun,
>or even be a single unit(e.g. a command unit behind the lines, and a
>robotic unit to confront the enemy). Whatever meets the specs is okay.
>So that means it is possible--theoretically--for a mobile suit to
>replace the M1 abrams (hey, I'm bringing it back on topic!)
>-James Boren

Yeah, but the tonnage is the problem...gundams are heavy.....

I am NOT a starving writer.

Richard "Richie" Ramos
Associate Editor
Localvibe -- Changing the way you see your city!

contact nos.:
ofc: (632) 4167486
fax: (632) 4167479
cel: 0917-4024780
hse: 7231308 (emergency use)

Gundam Mailing List Archives are available at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Jun 15 2000 - 20:15:57 JST