The latest Army Times (June 2, 2003) has computer photos of the latest proposed Future Combat Systems. Very neat looking vehicles that all share a common chassis. The vehicle is shown with an early M1 track, but mentions that both wheels and tracks are under consideration. The command and control variant is shown with an 8 wheeled chassis.

The dimensions will be 8.5 feet tall, 8.3 feet wide and 20.8 to 21.3 feet long depending on variant. Weight is 22-24 tons, again depending on variant. There are six variants pictured: tank w/120mm gun; command & control vehicle; IFV; 120mm mortar carrier; 155mm howitzer; and a reconnaissance vehicle. Not pictured, but mentioned are an ambulance and a recovery and maintenance vehicle.

Neat looking vehicles that you master scratchbuilders could produce with ease. Myself, I'll have to wait for the kit.

Here is link to the online article. Alas, no pictures...

http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=0-ARMYPAPER-1881507.php

I wish I could get a copy of that issue...

Gunnie

Sabot, I read the online article its interesting I don't know if you have any answers but I wonder how the requirements vary between the FCS and the current Stryker (sp?) vehicles? I interpet the FCS vehicles would be years away from deployment yet the need is here now. Since the Army needs a "Light Tank" with a large gun wouldn't it make sense to deploy the M8 AGS into production? it has commonaltiy using Bradley components and there is twenty some prototypes already built. If a better gun vehicle comes along thats great but the M8 is here now and ready for service. I'm all for the best in equipment but whats stopping the M8 from production at this time? Sorry I'm just confused.

Just did a quick Google Image search for Future Combat System & found the following :

http://www.uniteddefense.com/pr/gra_fcs_t.htm

and

http://www.janes.com/defence/land_forces/news/jaa/jaa021030_1_n.shtml

Don't you just love the web,

Happy modelling :-)

Thanks for the links Ant, and welocme aboard...

Uh-oh

I hope they are not considering replacing heavy units entirely. I know the Stryker system sounds almost exactly like this as well...what is the difference?

And I notice it does not explain survivability nor anti-jamming capability...I suppose that is still inthe works, so there are no details, but this sounds like a SNAFU in the works...

Isn't the "lighter, smaller, faster, with big-gun " idea what we have all criticised the russians for doing?