thanks for posting, I'm going to quote some of your thoughts to stimulate disscusion, I hope you don't mind as its not personnal in any way but does show the different sides to the HT thought process.
It has to have frontal forks to detonate buried mines before the main body hovers over them. (OK, OK, some believe that a hovertank hovers over mines without detonating them, which is true, but still...).
An Anti Grav vehicle (AG) may not detonate a mine as in effect it has over come gravity by shielding its weight (or mass) from the attraction of gravity, but that may mean it has become more suseptable to magnetic initiated mines.
A conventional Hover vehicle that uses directed thrust will be just as prone to certain mines, Bar mines with tamper switches or pressure mines set to a lighter pressure as the Hovering vehicle will be exerting a downward pressure from the air or jets that it is using to ride apon. ( As an example, The downward pressure from a Chinook Helicopter coming in to land is anough to unbalence a standing soldier) Trip wires will stll be a problom.
I wonder if any Vietnam historians/ vet's on these boards know if any conventional hovercraft set off mines?
It has to have surface-to-air missiles
* It has to have a large anti-air laser (no puny gun) for anti-air and missile defence
* It has more weapons than the main gun
All these items sure look good but... the increase in weight will mean a massive increase in engine size and fuel consumption. Also look at todays conventional tanks, very few have the numorous weapons you describe despite the ability to have so many on board. The possible reasons are:-
1. Weight- as described increased weight means lesser agility or levels of armour or an overall increase in engine size and fuel.
2. Task over load on the crew. Automated weapons could aliviate this but a Tanks main task is engaing other tanks. Air def vehicles can do the AA role.
3. More weapons means more varied ammo with the requirment to have storage for it all, which goes back to the weight and size issue.
I use the ringed-range approach to offense and defense, like an onion slice with long-range and close-in weapons.
I like your thoughts, and if we take Agilty, Protection as well as Firepower as the three areas of consideration the layer approach can still be used, Many of todays tanks have a defensive aide suit ( DAS) that combines threat detection with threat supression, countermeasure and screening with out any recourse to the main weapon. add to that the need to correctly ID threats and friends, aquire targets and then process them for a first round kill: all the while staying as undetected as possible yet able to flee or if engaged survive damage, I'm sure you'll agree the 'Onion layer' pricipal is very much adhered too already.
I hope the above gets a few agreements or counter views, so thanks again Cenebar
and obviously its only my thoughts so model away and enjoy your build / this challenge.