Mostly this seems to advocate the US adopting the Trophy system from Rafael although it does mention there are other vendors in the picture.<p>The fundamental point, which is also made in Dunnigan&#x27;s &quot;How to Make War&quot; is that the cost of fortification goes up faster than the cost of attack capability, so you can only match scale if you use two attack systems. Or to put it in terms of this article, if you added 50 tons of armor to a tank it might be impervious to RPG fire but also unable to move effectively.<p>The cost of building a guided munition has gone down with the miniaturization of sensors and compute power, and a number of field deployed systems (like Iron Dome and Trophy) have demonstrated that calculating intercept solutions has given the designers of such systems the ability to defeat or at least mitigate very near threats.<p>But given that I wonder just how many &quot;army on army&quot; sorts of wars will be waged. Looking at the tactics of modern day insurgencies they hit civilians rather than military forces.<p>Back in the day there was a front line of multiple opposing armies engaged in control over a battlefield while their aircraft went behind the lines and bombed the cities to degrade infrastructure. Today there is no &quot;front line&quot; just bombs going off in cities degrading infrastructure. And no visible army (well its fine when its attacking but between attacks it blends in).<p>As a result, the militaries of the world are developing strategies for moving around killing people without themselves being at risk. This tank strategy is already deployed in Israel. The ultimate answer to that seems to be remotely operated robotics. No threat to the operator, and equipped with a variety of offensive weapons to dealing with threats to others.<p>I am not looking forward to the day where you have a self driving tank which is impossible to kill. But when I look at the road we&#x27;re on, I see that we are headed to that place.