Richie Ramos (
Thu, 15 Jun 2000 23:31:07 +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
>> 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.
>Actually, the direct result is that it is more deployable. You could put
one in
>a C-130 and land it at a rough strip almost anywhere. At a recent wargame set
>in 2015 I visited, they were able to deploy two FCS-equipped divisions within
>48 hours from Cyprus and western Turkey to southeastern Turkey using Future
>Transport Rotocraft (would have same carrying capacity as C-130).

damn. that's fast. Talk about upping the timetable.

>> >3. 200% increase in ability to move over any terrain. (sounds like legs to
>> me)
>> 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.
>Sorry, right now, all I've heard of is tracks or wheels.

interesting. good question: how many wheels? don't they have to take so
much stress?

>Mind you, this is a 'networked warfare' concept, where one 20-ton C&C vehicle
>would control other robotic firing, sensor, etc 20-ton robotic vehicles.
>Without so much sensors or weaponry on the manned vehicle, you can put a
>engine, and be more mobile. Likewise the same is true for the robotic
>which dont have crew compartments and all the associated stuff.

so you get rid of the human factor in most vehicles, but have a central
command vehicle?

>> >5. range 750 km (250km over the abrams)
>> hmmm...that's either more fuel efficiency, or a larger gas tank....
>They talk a lot about fuel cells and electric drives.

damn. that would be better, and less explosive.

>> >7. crew of 3, or even better--2
>> Gunner and driver only? that's kinda hard....
>Again, see above. More like a driver and unit commander. Right now they think
>two C&C vehicles with associated robotic vehicles would replace a platoon or
>company's worth of tanks, etc. There will also likely be at least one troop
>carrier vehicle, making this a combined arms team.

hmmm...that's small would the remote units be?

>> >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?
>The most unsophisticated active defense system throws up a wall of bullets
>(sorta like a Claymore) to destroy or divert the incoming round. More
>suphisticated ones would shoot one bullet or missile at the wound. The big
>problem right now is that so-far, no active defense system can deal with
>high-velocity long-rod rounds. Too fast, too much residual momentum even
>it is hit.
> Neil Baumgardner

so what can theoretically deal with such a weapon?

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 Fri Jun 16 2000 - 00:18:30 JST