Chances of Armata VS Apache/Thunderbolt/Frogfoot

Draschel:  I was actually wrong, T14 gun-tube  ATGM can reach out to 12km ranges, with a designated illumination. The whole idea of MBTs being dead is Horse-  While not too great for populace to see in peacekeeping....They are incredibly useful in infantry support, and combined arms. Tanks not produced to just kill tanksCountries still producing and upgrading, things like 2A7, M1A2 Sep v3 / 4, T90 MS, K2, Oplat-2They are still willing to go further ahead in MBT design, production, spending Removing a manned turret, and have an autonomous automated design like T14 / T15 is catching on. This frees up crewman space, frees up necessary turret armor as being unnecessary, and focused into a crew capsule. This allows for more space for dual feed gun ammunition automation, greatly improves longevity of crew by separating them from engine and ammunition compartments, and allows for new additions of subsystems because of weight savings. Such as ground radars, larger engines, backup powerpacks, APS defenses, laser warning receivers, or even provision for 2-3 infantry, like pseudo-IFV SPAAG systems of course are linked in with cavalry companies. Not really in the USA  I mean, as something like the AA Linebacker Bradley was a flop, but a dedicated SPAAG. More popular in getting produced and maintained across Europe and Russia/China. The problem with SPAAG are their vulnerability, expense, lack of versatility. Something modern like Tunguska or Type 95, are still essentially thin skins like a Shilka generations before, and are lucky if even with ballistic protection beyond 0.50 cal. This causes alot of concern for front line units. Though something like Loarza actually has T-72 hull and protection, it pays for it by being 46 tonnes and again.....the turret is a thin skin. Tunguska is okay, integrating missiles and autocannon, but because we see a trend of heavier IFV, up-gunned IFV it makes sense IFV modular variants should just replace SPAAG. Like a more sensible AA Linebacker, or CV90 (T15 armata) If tanks are thought as obsolete, attack helicopters and close support fixed wing planes aren't any different. They are incredibly vulnerable. Why have these battlefield loitering units? When mid-altitude fast, high capacity F15E, F18E/F, SU35, JH7 can just be working in tandem with infantry support and observers, dispensing guided bombs. Trouble with air defenses, well before air superiority is a thing to use GA planes, SEAD planes need to clear the way. Oh, and attack helicopters and fixed wing battlefield support craft are fish food for air superiority and multi role fighters. Perhaps not in stupidly depicted circle dogfights that interception just won't do, but stand off beyond LOS engagement, using AWACS. Again, something fighter bombers and strike fighters can do in a pinch, while attack craft won't.  Also another thing becoming normal, comparable to drones.....are AFV  ROWS  turrets. Same principle. And again, bad for attack aircraft just as drones are bad for AFV. Thing is, a ROWS is more flexible, doesn't have a timeline of a drone. With their digital control, target acquisition using tank next generation CCTV and image intensifiers, what is to stop a ROWS with 14.5mm or 20mm autocannon immediately becoming an AA gun if drone/Attack craft are spotted.We know this already. Navy CIWS operate in the exact same way, just more firepower.