Future Combat Systems ---- USA

[PlasmaKrab]

Hello Kevin,

I have nothing against new icons (except for the time it take doing), but are you sure something is doable from these pre-concept mockups? Apparently no one agrees yet if the thing will be tracked or wheeled. Oh, sorry, just checked, seems that the latest preview will be the ugly brown tracked box with Ratel-like driver post.
For good pics see:

http://www.jedsite.info/misc/foxtrot...cs-series.html

Hey, I guess the concept will go refining over the time, so I may give that a try when I am free from other icon-related obligations
That means, if you don't mind waiting, then, maybe...
Come on, I guess you can find someone else in between, or am I the only one still interested in icon design in here?

Besides not knowing what the final beast will look like, the FCS will pose another (big) problem, i.e. the networked communication and above all targetting, and the ground unmanned and above all remote-controlled units.
All things currently undoable with this game...

But stay tuned, apparently better info is bound to bubble up anytime now

Cheers,

Plasma

[kevin]

Plasma,

Oh ye of little faith. One can simulate all the C2I mods somewhat easily.

1st --> Since the player has a "God's eye" view of the battle field, IVIS systems are not a problem

2nd --> Since the game does not simulate active radar detection, vision can be boosted to simulate UAV's, sensors, etc.

3rd --> We know from open sources FCS will be: 20 tons, less armored (than MBT), engage and kill targets at 6K meters, etc. There is a wealth of info if one digs.

The only things I'm missing are the desiginations.

Kevin

[kevin]

P.S. Thanks for the website info and the other icon mods.

[PlasmaKrab]

kevin said:
Plasma,

Oh ye of little faith. One can simulate all the C2I mods somewhat easily.

OK, let's discuss that

1st --> Since the player has a "God's eye" view of the battle field, IVIS systems are not a problem

If you mean that the commander ("Lt Col Player") has an instant view of the whole batle field and collects the inf from every sensor at once, right.
Actualy, that is much easier to do in a video game than on the field.

2nd --> Since the game does not simulate active radar detection, vision can be boosted to simulate UAV's, sensors, etc.

Boost vision of units to simulate other attached units? Sounds weird but might do the trick for now. Just not quite as good as what you could expect . What about ground-launched one-shot UAVs/FOGMs? Maybe time for a new weapon class?

3rd --> We know from open sources FCS will be: 20 tons, less armored (than MBT), engage and kill targets at 6K meters, etc. There is a wealth of info if one digs.

Alright, the global concept is not a problem, though it can still change until fielding time!
Besides, take a look in MOBhack, check ALL 20 tons, medium armour, KE gun vehicles, and dig out their icons.

See what I mean with unfinished design? I don't rely enough on my mediumnic skills to extrapolate an icons from such general info. That is why I would have personnally waited until release of the first prototype.
From this point it is easier to deduce the final result (i.e. more intricate, ugly and EXPENSIVE ).

And, can you put the FO logic far enough as to count as laser designators, unit-to-unit data link and so on? So one unit can do the FC and the othr one the firing? Remember Apache/Kiowa teams?

Well, do as thou willst, I personnally will wait and see [img]/threads/images/Graemlins/icon10.gif[/img]

Thank you, Kevin, for putting my feet back onto the right path...

Regards,

Plasma

[Listy]

Hehe, Didn't we have this conversation recently Krab?

Something about FRES....

[PlasmaKrab]

C'mon

But when you insist, that's just the same for your FRES!

You bring yourself to no good end by modelling things from pre-project mockups and private venture advertising!

Particularly now all the governments have discovered about 3D design, you can publicize a project in no time, to get everyone in awe, before even thinking about the way of bolting the two first plates together! Fancy worn-off textures don't do for a CAD layout of the fuel circuitry, for one.

And take a look at the JED database, for example, and look at all the things that never, ever went into production, and never will.
http://www.jedsite.info/content/jed1.html

They're easy to spot, they're the ones with one single black&white pic and no user listing
And such things are already clogging the oobs in the game: export versions, funny variants never to be funded, things that reached pre-prod stage and were found useless or not working...

We're not talkng WW2 when everyone fielded any old project, hoping at least to surprise the enemy!

Now that won't prevent me from having a look at these things for modelling purposes
All I meant is that it is still too soon for the FCS.
But the FRES begins to pop up... Let's work on a hull, since no one knows what will be put on it, or for what purpose...

Cheers all,

Plasma

[Listy]

We do know, kinda whats going on it. It's basicly destined to replace the FV432's.

So that's a comand post, ambulance, Troop carrier and AT versions, plus a Recce version.

The ACAVP has a fox turret on it, so we can guess all thsoe spare fox turrets from the Sabre program will be lying around. The AT version will probaly either mount TOW, Swingfire or Javelin, I'd go with Javelin as it's an new program that's currently being brought, and it would help lower the logistics load on it's intended area of opperations.
The APC is faily easy.

The Other Version the Big gun tank destroyer.. Meh. I still don't think the hull will take something that huge.

[PlasmaKrab]

Listy said:
So that's a comand post, ambulance, Troop carrier and AT versions, plus a Recce version.

Mmh, already ambulance and CP are out of sight for this game heew:

The ACAVP has a fox turret on it, so we can guess all thsoe spare fox turrets from the Sabre program will be lying around. The AT version will probaly either mount TOW, Swingfire or Javelin, I'd go with Javelin as it's an new program that's currently being brought, and it would help lower the logistics load on it's intended area of opperations.
The APC is faily easy.

Do you really think they will put the Fox turret on an ACAVP chassis? The thingis nearly 40 years old!
I gather the British MoD planners these days tend to be tight and have strange ideas, from what you told, but that pushing it quite far!

From the pics I saw the turret looked really Warrior-like to me. Then again, you may be in a better position to judge these things

What about the dnmaed TRACER thing? Are both program going to merge? They seem to be in nearly the same niche, and that's a bad thing for fundings!
Only one can survive

Look at this turreted version: the Warrior is still worth its weight, the MRAV is coming soon, so there is no need for a third IFV. Therefore the thing must be for recon. So basis metal from Fox turret with delirious optoelectrical sensors plugged in?

The Other Version the Big gun tank destroyer.. Meh. I still don't think the hull will take something that huge.

Well, What about the MGS on a Piranha III hull? Seems to be working, except some rumors say better not fire 3 or 9 o'clock got to check that, there's been so much lobbying on that thing...

Hey, what about an ATGM version with TRIGAT-LR?
I heard the program was up and about at last!

[oragus]

Plasma I am still doing icons here and there, so you're not alone. lol... Just thought I would let you know....lol

[Djuice]

MRM-KE is designed for 105mm and 120mm cartridges and comprises an interchangeable sensor component using multi-mode Semi-Active Laser (SAL), GPS and MMW guidance, a common rocket motor and a kinetic penetrator packed into the warhead section. The MRM will be fired by a tank as a conventional round, as it starts it flight, the round will acquire GPS position followed by mid-course updates and at the peak of its trajectory, ignite the rocket motor to accelerating to achieve maximum lethality. The round will be able to maneuver by employing impulse thrusters to maneuver and hit at the target's center. It is designed for effective range of up to 7.5 km. MRM-KE was first tested in August 2004.

MRM CE - Raytheon, developing a CE version of the MRM fitted with a SAL seeker, performed a first successful test of the new projectile in June 2006, fired at a moving tank at a range of 8.7 km. The semi-active laser seeker projectile survived gun launch, then acquired, tracked and maneuvered toward the moving target. This was the first test shot in a planned series of SAL projectiles fired from a M1A2 SEP as Raytheon continues to mature its semi-active laser seeker capabilities. The MRM-CE will be able to engage battlefield targets at extended ranges, including beyond line of sight, autonomously or designated with external laser target designation. The MRM-CE is a key component of the Army's FCS (Future Combat Systems) vehicles and a potential spin-out to M1A2 Abrams SEP.