The_Capt

These comments do not make any sense:

First off the RA would need to push an encirclement nearly 200kms long.  That is being attacked from without while trying to take a city of 1.4 million and 350 sq kms of urban terrain.  For reference, Mariupol was 166 sq kms and the Russian were controlling it for hundreds of kms both land and water side...and it still took them over 3 months and an ungodly number of losses to take.  In fact there are some theories that Mariupol tied down so many RA forces that their summer '22 failed and it set the conditions for the losses in Fall '22.  Kharkiv is 3-4 times the problem, and the UA was nowhere near as well armed and experienced back in '22. "Encircling Kharkiv" is so militarily stupid that the Russian's might even try it but it may cost them so much as to create conditions for operational collapse elsewhere.
As to LOCs, one need only look at the map to see all of the interior lines that are still open. There is both MSRs and rail.  As to terrain, a quick look shows that the terrain to the west of the city is the same rolling tank country we have come to suspect...with no tank play likely.  To the east there is a major water obstacle that will tie in a right flank tightly.
I mean unless the UA collapses completely this is a major operation to pull off...think a couple hundred thousand troops and air superiority.
Finally, this is the double standard.  The UA establish a bridgehead south of Kherson and it is "a minor raid".  The RA make some minor bridgehead gains on the border and "they are encircling Kharkiv!" In reality this is a secondary front that the RA is trying to open up, likely in the hopes it can take some pressure off the south.  But like everything else, RA offensive-wise, these will likely be nips and bites.  Unless the UA collapses completely, at which point this is all pretty academic in the entirety of Eastern Ukraine.  Of course we have no indications of impending UA collapse, but hey why let that stand in the way?

And we are back to why it is not "ok" for fighting aged males to be hanging out in other countries while Russia mauls their home nation.  Regardless, we will have to see how this develops.  What is odd is not only how the Kharkiv thing has gone off, but why there?  A major urban center is not a place to try for a break out,  There is a lot of open country side on this extremely long frontage, so why move there.  Obvious answer is to freak out the Ukrainians and force them to push resources to respond.  Straight up war-by-terror, threaten large civilian populations, get a reaction that forces resource reallocation.
So my next thought is "to what end?"  If the RA can actually pull the UA back enough they might get an operational collapse they can exploit.  But what does that look like?  The RA has not demonstrated any acumen on operational level manoeuvre since Feb '22, and "acumen" is a gross overcompliment based on how that went.  Since then they have collapsed, harassed, denied, and made minor tactical gains.  So we really do not know if they can really exploit what they are doing here.
But let's not drink the copium too deeply. This is strategic/operational shaping by the RA. The fact that they still have the initiative and are able to do this is not good news.  Now shaping is not an immediate sign of success - ask Lee at Gettysburg - but it definitely demonstrates that the Russians are still in this thing.  The UA needs to remobilize and quickly.  They have ISR but it appears to be watching the RA walk forward.  They need capability at this point to counter.
No matter how one spins it, this proxy war just took a weird turn.  So here I agree with FancyCat - West needs to stop playing grab @ss and get back into this game or things could get very bad, very quickly.

Ok, so what is going on then?
Right now, Ukraine is supposed to have over 150B euro in aid in motion, while another tranche of what looks like 140B euro (if one adds in latest from US)
https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/
That is approaching 140+ billion per year of this war.  Ukraine's entire national GDP in 2021 was 200B.  It is effectively subsidized for 2/3rds of its entire economy to fight this war for the last two years.
So where did it all go?  Did it not show up?  Do we have evidence of this?  Why after coming up on 280B euro is the UA lacking equipment and vehicles?  Things are not adding up here.

The ridicule wasn't on the poor Boxer, it was on the test and video.  This is the tech porn that gets rolled out at every trade show as industry tries to sell something because they built it, not because it will work.
Things have "essentially changed" and we need some serious rethinks - that is my premise after watching this war very closely for over two years.  Now there are two camps around this: those who agree and those who disagree.  For those who disagree some just have not seen enough evidence...ok, well time will tell.  And then there are those who disagree because they do not want it, no matter what, for any number of reasons.
 If history is any indication, we will take an agonizing long and expensive route to shift to wherever war is shifting towards.  But warfare shifts.  It has in my lifetime and will continue to.  I can recall old officer's and NCOs decrying that "GPS is just a fad!  Gimme a map and compass!" Ok, fine, whatever.
I would like to think we can all agree that the shifts in this war alone have been awe inspiring even if what we do about them is unclear.  
 

Ok.  I guess my first question is “what does this really give us?”  I like the idea of mixed potent light tanks but these are still 1) highly visible, 2) will have long logistics tails and 3) very expensive - you specifically are porting tech from F-35s (eg transparent hulls).  So for all that money we get:
- a 105 direct fire gun
- a 40mm gun
- ATGMs 
- and a drone control platform
The problem immediately is that I can get all that effects-wise with distributed light infantry, PGMs and drone swarms at much less cost and far harder to see and hit.  We just had a video of the drone control platform being four guys in a basement.  The direct fires support is already being replaced by PGM artillery and FPVs…and ATGMs are..well already man-portable.  Why stick them on a heavy vehicle when I can simply put them on fast dismounts all over the place?  I can put them on a quad bike for mobility. Or better yet a UGV.
To my mind this is a novel re-think of the system that assumes we still need the overall system to deliver effects when it is becoming clear we really don’t.  I do not see how this new tank platoon is going to fare much better in say 10 years. Drones will be fully autonomous by then with new forms of stand-off attack. ISR will be even more ubiquitous. PGMs will be everywhere. These are lighter than current MBTs but still are 30t hot steel that rely on ground movement and direct fire. This kind of looks like trying to invent a better horse in 1918.

And we are back to why it is not "ok" for fighting aged males to be hanging out in other countries while Russia mauls their home nation.  Regardless, we will have to see how this develops.  What is odd is not only how the Kharkiv thing has gone off, but why there?  A major urban center is not a place to try for a break out,  There is a lot of open country side on this extremely long frontage, so why move there.  Obvious answer is to freak out the Ukrainians and force them to push resources to respond.  Straight up war-by-terror, threaten large civilian populations, get a reaction that forces resource reallocation.
So my next thought is "to what end?"  If the RA can actually pull the UA back enough they might get an operational collapse they can exploit.  But what does that look like?  The RA has not demonstrated any acumen on operational level manoeuvre since Feb '22, and "acumen" is a gross overcompliment based on how that went.  Since then they have collapsed, harassed, denied, and made minor tactical gains.  So we really do not know if they can really exploit what they are doing here.
But let's not drink the copium too deeply. This is strategic/operational shaping by the RA. The fact that they still have the initiative and are able to do this is not good news.  Now shaping is not an immediate sign of success - ask Lee at Gettysburg - but it definitely demonstrates that the Russians are still in this thing.  The UA needs to remobilize and quickly.  They have ISR but it appears to be watching the RA walk forward.  They need capability at this point to counter.
No matter how one spins it, this proxy war just took a weird turn.  So here I agree with FancyCat - West needs to stop playing grab @ss and get back into this game or things could get very bad, very quickly.

Sometimes I wonder how much you even think through your answers.
So the 35mm round they are using had a clever end-muzzle switch to set the detonation ranges, this is how the 35mm round knows when to detonate - it is fed the info by the targeting systems onboard...cool.
https://www.rheinmetall.com/Rheinmetall Group/brochure-download/Weapon-Ammmunition/D108e0721-Ahead-KETF-35x228-PMD062-RWMS.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rheinmetall_Oerlikon_Millennium_Gun
Now a 35mm shell is 1.38 inches across.  A .50 cal round is 12.7mm, so slightly less than half.  Now if we only had an HE .50 cal round...hmm..oh wait...we do...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raufoss_Mk_211
So the insurmountable engineering challenge is to take the fuse that is in a 35mm shell and somehow - using dark magic from the far side of the moon perhaps - and put a version of it in an existing .50 cal round.  Why do this?  Well the .50 gun is a lot more prevalent than the 35mm, it is lighter and it has a higher rate of fire...and it is cheaper.
So we are already using a smart fuze on a flying piece of plastic...we need another smart fuze.  One can buy, carry and shoot .50 cals a lot faster and cheaper than a 35mm space gun.  Hell gimme a good old 20mm AGL, same idea.  Oh wait, I know this is all crazy hi tech hand waving, they could never fit anything like that into a .50 cal shell...oh wait you right, they stuck a fire and forget guidance system on one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EXACTO
 
In 2014, FFS.  Now I am basically making your side of the argument for you.  We need this, precision small kinetic rounds at range in combination with CUAS CAP.  I want them on cheap mass producible fast light armor.  You want them on a 7m Euro 25-30 ton beast.
But it is good to see the western military school of "any solution has to be as expensive and large as possible" is alive and well.
 

It you see the problem of course, an automated massive gun on a heavy platform.  Gimme a good old M2 on some cheap truck with an auto targeting turret.  Then if we get it wrong it does not cost a multimillion dollar platform.
The idea of an automated turret is not a bad one but this was a clear BS demo as it manages to shoot down drones flying in a neat little line.  In reality they are going to come in fast and low from every direction.  That Boxers turret will be spinning like mad.  Or we will see a ground formations like B17s blazing away in all directions.  Better than nothing but not the solution.  
As I have said before the damned solution is other UAS that can track and engage incoming FPVs, likely fully autonomous.  Put em up like CAP and go from there.  Now what we put in the center of the bubble remains the major question. Could be Boxers, could be lighter armoured track like those BVs.
Why is it some people appear to take this personally?  Look at the battlefield.  Look at what has been happening for over two years now.  More important look at was not been happening.  This is not like we have seen a few snapshots and are wildly extrapolating. We have watched hundreds, maybe thousands, of examples, too many to fake. The evidence is too great here that the battlefield has shifted…ok, so what?  We get on with dealing with it.

Sometimes I wonder how much you even think through your answers.
So the 35mm round they are using had a clever end-muzzle switch to set the detonation ranges, this is how the 35mm round knows when to detonate - it is fed the info by the targeting systems onboard...cool.
https://www.rheinmetall.com/Rheinmetall Group/brochure-download/Weapon-Ammmunition/D108e0721-Ahead-KETF-35x228-PMD062-RWMS.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rheinmetall_Oerlikon_Millennium_Gun
Now a 35mm shell is 1.38 inches across.  A .50 cal round is 12.7mm, so slightly less than half.  Now if we only had an HE .50 cal round...hmm..oh wait...we do...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raufoss_Mk_211
So the insurmountable engineering challenge is to take the fuse that is in a 35mm shell and somehow - using dark magic from the far side of the moon perhaps - and put a version of it in an existing .50 cal round.  Why do this?  Well the .50 gun is a lot more prevalent than the 35mm, it is lighter and it has a higher rate of fire...and it is cheaper.
So we are already using a smart fuze on a flying piece of plastic...we need another smart fuze.  One can buy, carry and shoot .50 cals a lot faster and cheaper than a 35mm space gun.  Hell gimme a good old 20mm AGL, same idea.  Oh wait, I know this is all crazy hi tech hand waving, they could never fit anything like that into a .50 cal shell...oh wait you right, they stuck a fire and forget guidance system on one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EXACTO
 
In 2014, FFS.  Now I am basically making your side of the argument for you.  We need this, precision small kinetic rounds at range in combination with CUAS CAP.  I want them on cheap mass producible fast light armor.  You want them on a 7m Euro 25-30 ton beast.
But it is good to see the western military school of "any solution has to be as expensive and large as possible" is alive and well.
 

It you see the problem of course, an automated massive gun on a heavy platform.  Gimme a good old M2 on some cheap truck with an auto targeting turret.  Then if we get it wrong it does not cost a multimillion dollar platform.
The idea of an automated turret is not a bad one but this was a clear BS demo as it manages to shoot down drones flying in a neat little line.  In reality they are going to come in fast and low from every direction.  That Boxers turret will be spinning like mad.  Or we will see a ground formations like B17s blazing away in all directions.  Better than nothing but not the solution.  
As I have said before the damned solution is other UAS that can track and engage incoming FPVs, likely fully autonomous.  Put em up like CAP and go from there.  Now what we put in the center of the bubble remains the major question. Could be Boxers, could be lighter armoured track like those BVs.
Why is it some people appear to take this personally?  Look at the battlefield.  Look at what has been happening for over two years now.  More important look at was not been happening.  This is not like we have seen a few snapshots and are wildly extrapolating. We have watched hundreds, maybe thousands, of examples, too many to fake. The evidence is too great here that the battlefield has shifted…ok, so what?  We get on with dealing with it.

Sometimes I wonder how much you even think through your answers.
So the 35mm round they are using had a clever end-muzzle switch to set the detonation ranges, this is how the 35mm round knows when to detonate - it is fed the info by the targeting systems onboard...cool.
https://www.rheinmetall.com/Rheinmetall Group/brochure-download/Weapon-Ammmunition/D108e0721-Ahead-KETF-35x228-PMD062-RWMS.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rheinmetall_Oerlikon_Millennium_Gun
Now a 35mm shell is 1.38 inches across.  A .50 cal round is 12.7mm, so slightly less than half.  Now if we only had an HE .50 cal round...hmm..oh wait...we do...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raufoss_Mk_211
So the insurmountable engineering challenge is to take the fuse that is in a 35mm shell and somehow - using dark magic from the far side of the moon perhaps - and put a version of it in an existing .50 cal round.  Why do this?  Well the .50 gun is a lot more prevalent than the 35mm, it is lighter and it has a higher rate of fire...and it is cheaper.
So we are already using a smart fuze on a flying piece of plastic...we need another smart fuze.  One can buy, carry and shoot .50 cals a lot faster and cheaper than a 35mm space gun.  Hell gimme a good old 20mm AGL, same idea.  Oh wait, I know this is all crazy hi tech hand waving, they could never fit anything like that into a .50 cal shell...oh wait you right, they stuck a fire and forget guidance system on one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EXACTO
 
In 2014, FFS.  Now I am basically making your side of the argument for you.  We need this, precision small kinetic rounds at range in combination with CUAS CAP.  I want them on cheap mass producible fast light armor.  You want them on a 7m Euro 25-30 ton beast.
But it is good to see the western military school of "any solution has to be as expensive and large as possible" is alive and well.
 

I wish I could say that love of a platform or system is only an amateur wargamers disease.  I have already seen the reflexive signs of the upcoming arguments.  We will dress them up but in reality we have built identities around these platforms/systems.  Asking someone to change a strong identity, one designed to weather war, is a tall order.  We have generations of senior officers who grew up with the tank as the core of the land warfare tactical system.  Hell, we were still counting them as a metric of combat power in the lead up to this thing.  Even now, I think they are still a threat, but more like nukes...if conditions get to the point that they can be employed, this war is already over.  If the UA collapse and we see a ring of steel outside Kharikiv, or if the UA drives tank columns into Crimea, these are not a sign that "tanks work!" They are a symptom of a much larger collapse. A collapse that had little to do with the tank, or even mech itself. 

Sometimes I wonder how much you even think through your answers.
So the 35mm round they are using had a clever end-muzzle switch to set the detonation ranges, this is how the 35mm round knows when to detonate - it is fed the info by the targeting systems onboard...cool.
https://www.rheinmetall.com/Rheinmetall Group/brochure-download/Weapon-Ammmunition/D108e0721-Ahead-KETF-35x228-PMD062-RWMS.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rheinmetall_Oerlikon_Millennium_Gun
Now a 35mm shell is 1.38 inches across.  A .50 cal round is 12.7mm, so slightly less than half.  Now if we only had an HE .50 cal round...hmm..oh wait...we do...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raufoss_Mk_211
So the insurmountable engineering challenge is to take the fuse that is in a 35mm shell and somehow - using dark magic from the far side of the moon perhaps - and put a version of it in an existing .50 cal round.  Why do this?  Well the .50 gun is a lot more prevalent than the 35mm, it is lighter and it has a higher rate of fire...and it is cheaper.
So we are already using a smart fuze on a flying piece of plastic...we need another smart fuze.  One can buy, carry and shoot .50 cals a lot faster and cheaper than a 35mm space gun.  Hell gimme a good old 20mm AGL, same idea.  Oh wait, I know this is all crazy hi tech hand waving, they could never fit anything like that into a .50 cal shell...oh wait you right, they stuck a fire and forget guidance system on one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EXACTO
 
In 2014, FFS.  Now I am basically making your side of the argument for you.  We need this, precision small kinetic rounds at range in combination with CUAS CAP.  I want them on cheap mass producible fast light armor.  You want them on a 7m Euro 25-30 ton beast.
But it is good to see the western military school of "any solution has to be as expensive and large as possible" is alive and well.
 

The primary issue with APS is not detectability, the system is already on a large hot vehicle made of metal.  The primary issue is that there are too many ways to counter it with cheaper technologies.  First method is to simply do multiple attacks at one and overwhelm the system. With ATGMs that was much harder, with FPVs not so much. Second is to use submunitions on terminal attack, or EFP for standoff.  Then there is good old artillery, no APS is going to stop an artillery shell - let alone a SMART type round. And then there is the fact one needs APS on everything, both fighting vehicles and logistics.
APS is likely going to be one element of a suite of defences but in the end I have significant doubts that it will be able to re-establish battlefield symmetry.  The major problem with our current mech based conventional tactical system is that it is under conditions where the enemy can be wrong many times (cheap many) and we can only be wrong few (expensive few).  This extends beyond land warfare and into the air and sea as well.

Yeesh, I do not even know where to start on this one.  Autonomous unmanned systems aren’t 21st century pigeons we send over the trees to see in a few hours. The whole thing is still hooked into an integrated C4ISR network. I mean if you deny that then the guns or anything else are just as useless.  
As to “calling them up”, well couple ways to do this much faster than guns. First is to do battlespace management as opposed to in the loop human targeting.  This would see a glorified JTAC building kill boxes and then assigning resources to them.  Fully autonomous UAS carry their own ISR and targeting abilities and would be let loose within a kill box. Deconfliction and prioritization are going to be tricky but nothing algorithms cannot solve in time.  This is basically a mobile flying minefield.  One can do it with both air and ground systems.  Or you let them off the leash in hunter killer mode and do sweeps along an entire frontage.  See something, kill it.  That nightmare is right around the corner.
So basically one automates the entire OODA loop at a certain level.  There are variations of this - last mile etc, but the concept is essentially the same. Endurance is the other issue but here the individual platforms are more akin to ammunition. Ukraine and Russia are putting hundreds of thousands of these systems per month into the air right now, that is how they are solving for persistence.  Future systems could be hybrid, waiting on the ground pulling in solar power, while spotters fly up to illuminate and receive any new peer to peer targeting data.
Everyone seems to be getting all wound up on the platforms and hardware, this is a mistake.  The revolution is the impact data and processing is having.  Smart everything’s are hunting individual Russian soldiers down right now. Ukraine built an ad hoc JADC2 hooked into western C4ISR that is denying a bafflingly large frontage, ground and air, to a much more conventionally powerful opponent.  UAS are the new bullets, but it is the underlying C4ISR system that is going to shift warfare forever.  How long until we see unmanned guns?  Mortars?  ATGMs?  The combination of networking and cheap, light powerful forward data processing is the big “wow” here.  It is what makes what we are seeing with UAS possible.
Finally back to OODA loops.  So I think it is the other way.  The side clinging to human-in-the-loop down at too low levels is going to lose the OODA race.  Autonomous systems can detect and react faster than a human based system - it is why we invented missiles.  So while one side is happily holding onto the good old radio and gun crews, the other has already released loitering systems that can target and strike without the need for a human being.  Who do you think is going to win that race?

It you see the problem of course, an automated massive gun on a heavy platform.  Gimme a good old M2 on some cheap truck with an auto targeting turret.  Then if we get it wrong it does not cost a multimillion dollar platform.
The idea of an automated turret is not a bad one but this was a clear BS demo as it manages to shoot down drones flying in a neat little line.  In reality they are going to come in fast and low from every direction.  That Boxers turret will be spinning like mad.  Or we will see a ground formations like B17s blazing away in all directions.  Better than nothing but not the solution.  
As I have said before the damned solution is other UAS that can track and engage incoming FPVs, likely fully autonomous.  Put em up like CAP and go from there.  Now what we put in the center of the bubble remains the major question. Could be Boxers, could be lighter armoured track like those BVs.
Why is it some people appear to take this personally?  Look at the battlefield.  Look at what has been happening for over two years now.  More important look at was not been happening.  This is not like we have seen a few snapshots and are wildly extrapolating. We have watched hundreds, maybe thousands, of examples, too many to fake. The evidence is too great here that the battlefield has shifted…ok, so what?  We get on with dealing with it.

It you see the problem of course, an automated massive gun on a heavy platform.  Gimme a good old M2 on some cheap truck with an auto targeting turret.  Then if we get it wrong it does not cost a multimillion dollar platform.
The idea of an automated turret is not a bad one but this was a clear BS demo as it manages to shoot down drones flying in a neat little line.  In reality they are going to come in fast and low from every direction.  That Boxers turret will be spinning like mad.  Or we will see a ground formations like B17s blazing away in all directions.  Better than nothing but not the solution.  
As I have said before the damned solution is other UAS that can track and engage incoming FPVs, likely fully autonomous.  Put em up like CAP and go from there.  Now what we put in the center of the bubble remains the major question. Could be Boxers, could be lighter armoured track like those BVs.
Why is it some people appear to take this personally?  Look at the battlefield.  Look at what has been happening for over two years now.  More important look at was not been happening.  This is not like we have seen a few snapshots and are wildly extrapolating. We have watched hundreds, maybe thousands, of examples, too many to fake. The evidence is too great here that the battlefield has shifted…ok, so what?  We get on with dealing with it.

Agreed - we need more than a controlled demo to know this is mature tech. Also agreed that it can get overwhelmed - the drone CAP should be the first line of defense and the turret should catch anything that makes it through. They key is to share information between the drone CAP swarm and the vehicle to make sure they cooperate efficiently (and you don't shoot your own drones)

It you see the problem of course, an automated massive gun on a heavy platform.  Gimme a good old M2 on some cheap truck with an auto targeting turret.  Then if we get it wrong it does not cost a multimillion dollar platform.
The idea of an automated turret is not a bad one but this was a clear BS demo as it manages to shoot down drones flying in a neat little line.  In reality they are going to come in fast and low from every direction.  That Boxers turret will be spinning like mad.  Or we will see a ground formations like B17s blazing away in all directions.  Better than nothing but not the solution.  
As I have said before the damned solution is other UAS that can track and engage incoming FPVs, likely fully autonomous.  Put em up like CAP and go from there.  Now what we put in the center of the bubble remains the major question. Could be Boxers, could be lighter armoured track like those BVs.
Why is it some people appear to take this personally?  Look at the battlefield.  Look at what has been happening for over two years now.  More important look at was not been happening.  This is not like we have seen a few snapshots and are wildly extrapolating. We have watched hundreds, maybe thousands, of examples, too many to fake. The evidence is too great here that the battlefield has shifted…ok, so what?  We get on with dealing with it.

It you see the problem of course, an automated massive gun on a heavy platform.  Gimme a good old M2 on some cheap truck with an auto targeting turret.  Then if we get it wrong it does not cost a multimillion dollar platform.
The idea of an automated turret is not a bad one but this was a clear BS demo as it manages to shoot down drones flying in a neat little line.  In reality they are going to come in fast and low from every direction.  That Boxers turret will be spinning like mad.  Or we will see a ground formations like B17s blazing away in all directions.  Better than nothing but not the solution.  
As I have said before the damned solution is other UAS that can track and engage incoming FPVs, likely fully autonomous.  Put em up like CAP and go from there.  Now what we put in the center of the bubble remains the major question. Could be Boxers, could be lighter armoured track like those BVs.
Why is it some people appear to take this personally?  Look at the battlefield.  Look at what has been happening for over two years now.  More important look at was not been happening.  This is not like we have seen a few snapshots and are wildly extrapolating. We have watched hundreds, maybe thousands, of examples, too many to fake. The evidence is too great here that the battlefield has shifted…ok, so what?  We get on with dealing with it.

Talk about your highly curated propaganda (insert roll eyes).  UAS flying in line formation high in the sky right across on open range.  These are not even close to the conditions we can see in RL.  This sort of thing is all about selling.

The primary issue with APS is not detectability, the system is already on a large hot vehicle made of metal.  The primary issue is that there are too many ways to counter it with cheaper technologies.  First method is to simply do multiple attacks at one and overwhelm the system. With ATGMs that was much harder, with FPVs not so much. Second is to use submunitions on terminal attack, or EFP for standoff.  Then there is good old artillery, no APS is going to stop an artillery shell - let alone a SMART type round. And then there is the fact one needs APS on everything, both fighting vehicles and logistics.
APS is likely going to be one element of a suite of defences but in the end I have significant doubts that it will be able to re-establish battlefield symmetry.  The major problem with our current mech based conventional tactical system is that it is under conditions where the enemy can be wrong many times (cheap many) and we can only be wrong few (expensive few).  This extends beyond land warfare and into the air and sea as well.

Good questions but way too soon to really know.  I would be very surprised if it wasn’t picked up, but human error is still a thing.  And maybe the UA is simply stretched too thin and is scrambling to respond now.  
Of course in the “hey ISR and drones are making it weird” column…why are these RA troops largely dismounted in the first place? Maybe they went all dispersed infantry infiltration, which may have worked.  But this advance is at a walking pace, why did they not go mech if this whole line was that poorly defended?  Unmanned may have fulfilled it promise simply by forcing the RA to walk in the first place.  Why wasn’t this a major mech spearhead like doctrine calls for?
My honest guess is that someone dropped the ball here.  Not a system failure, just plain old human error. Intel gets ignored or disbelieved. Kit only works if people actually use it.

I wish I could say that love of a platform or system is only an amateur wargamers disease.  I have already seen the reflexive signs of the upcoming arguments.  We will dress them up but in reality we have built identities around these platforms/systems.  Asking someone to change a strong identity, one designed to weather war, is a tall order.  We have generations of senior officers who grew up with the tank as the core of the land warfare tactical system.  Hell, we were still counting them as a metric of combat power in the lead up to this thing.  Even now, I think they are still a threat, but more like nukes...if conditions get to the point that they can be employed, this war is already over.  If the UA collapse and we see a ring of steel outside Kharikiv, or if the UA drives tank columns into Crimea, these are not a sign that "tanks work!" They are a symptom of a much larger collapse. A collapse that had little to do with the tank, or even mech itself. 

I think this is the crux of the issue right here.  If you do not believe ISR is so ubiquitous that tanks still have space on the modern battlefield then any revisioning starts to make sense.  To my mind the evidence is too large to ignore that this is not the case.  Beyond RUSI and other academic assessments there is the simple fact that we are seeing essentially a deadlock on a frontage over 800km long.  Both sides are employing force-to-space levels unheard of...and yet nothing is able to move.  We should be seeing moves/c-moves and all sorts of manoeuvre given the levels of breathing room...but we are not.  Why?  Well military conservatives tend to fall back on "well Russian and Ukraine simply do not know how" which gets weaker and weaker everyday.
How?  ISR.  I have no idea how much processing power is required but both sides clearly have it, why else would they be unable to concentrate to manoeuvre? They forgot how? Same goes for airpower.  The RuAF is massively overmatching the UAAF yet cannot do much more than lob glide bombs 50+ kms back.  This is modern AD but it has to be plugged into something.
Finally, even if it isn't on the battlefield in this war...what about the next one?  What possible indication do we have that this trend has culminated and we are going to see less ISR on the battlefield of tomorrow?  It is not the steady stream of social media, it is the fact that neither side can move when according to all modern doctrine they should be able to.  While people are arguing over the tank I see the horrible reality that ground warfare (and air to an extent) is broken.
I am saying you cannot mask military traffic by using civilian shields.  And yes, we might have to clear civilian traffic 100kms back because that is what the enemy can see and hit.
We seem to be agreeing on swarm, but you want to swarm with a multi-million dollar set of platforms.  How long can we sustain a swarm centered on a tank platoon that costs as much as a flight of F35s?  This is basically trying to stuff the tank into a swarming concept because we want tanks, not because we need them.
Again, I am not seeing what these new tanks are adding for the cost. I can get direct and indirect fires via other lighter faster platforms, indirect fires and unmanned already?
So you have a new tank that has "more amor" in different locations and now hybrid electric cold engines pushing a 30ton (how "more armor" and "less weight" works will be interesting).  You have thrown in a statement like "more resistant to indirect fires and drones while maintaining mobility" like it is simply a matter of design.  You are arguing with physics and on the losing end.  A small cheap drone can carry more chemical kinetic power the tank can handle everywhere. But the drone can strike anywhere and apply it to just about any location on the tank, including mines in front of the tank. You are trying to have massive survivability, mobility and low visibility here, and years of tank design have proven one cannot have all these factors maximized at the same time.
Finally, there is firepower.  If I need 105mm worth of HE - that is about 2kgs of HE wrapped in a shell to throw it out 2-3kms (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/105×617mmR) - then why don't I simply stick 2kgs of HE (or shaped HEAT) onto an FPV for a fraction of a fraction of the cost of a quad tracked, transparent hulled, hybrid electric, multi-spectral invisible 30 ton tank with some new amor that can be 50% lighter?  "But a tank gun can throw it at 700 m/s"  Well sure, but for the cost of this next gen F35 tank I can buy and employ a few hundred thousand drones.
Hey man, you said "sanitize".  And the threat from ATGM teams is against heavy vehicles, not other ATGM teams and drone swarms.  The easiest way to avoid getting ones tanks hit and "ruining an attack" is to not have tanks as the core of your tactical system. 
Well you clearly think pretty highly of your own idea if I am reading this right, there is that.  I think you have proven that we still need vehicles to carry C2 and support forward as a bubble pushes out.  Where we disagree is that it need to be this "radical reinvention" of what is going to be 1) extremely expensive, 2) a Rube Goldberg level of complexity to maintain (quad tracks...really?") and is 3) likely to be just as slow and visible as any tanks we have right now.  Why can I not put all of what you are proposing on light armor that is much faster and cheaper?  We already saw this in the Kharkiv break out. It was not tanks, it was infantry/SOF in MRAPs.  I want more of that and enough of them that I can sustain losses over time.
Minefields.  Yes, they will be a problem for Year 1, day 1 of the next war.  If Ukraine had several hundred thousand drones that could carry and drop mines on 22 Feb, do you honestly think they would not have used them?  In fact mines are likely to make a major comeback because when plugged into a C4ISR architecture and supported by....everyone say it together...indirect fires, PGMS, infantry and unmanned systems, they work so well that modern breaching doctrine fails and doctrinal force multiplication stops making any sense at all.
You asked for critiques and hole poking, you are getting it.  Your proposed system is really has the appearance of a hammer looking for a nail.  The core assumption that we even need a tank is already been established within your proposal, yet what you are proposing does not address the fundamental issues with that assumption that we are seeing everyday on the battlefield in Ukraine, and every indication we have points to accelerating trends in these directions (ISR, precision, lethality and reach). 
To summarize, your proposal, my critiques are:
- Does not demonstrably show how these new tanks/tank platoon will perform any better than what we already have.  You are far too vague on how mobility-survivability-visibility will be optimized for the future battlefield. It appears you are advocating a "free lunch" concept.  I am not seeing net competitive advantage here against an opponent that can deny terrain with todays technology let alone tomorrows.
- I see some very significant engineering challenges in: armor, engine/power pack and drive trains.  You also are proposing some very complex and advanced ISR and targeting equipment, but I think these are well developed elsewhere so porting them over is likely a lesser concern.
- Tactically, this system does not solve for the Denial Asymmetry we are seeing.  It is waiting for another system to solve that problem so it can then do what it is designed for. Problem is that whatever system can solve for Denial Asymmetry will also likely be able to do what these tanks can, so there is real risk of redundancy.
- It is a very expensive redundancy risk.  An F35 comes in at roughly $83 million per platform.  A modern M1A2 Sep 3 comes in at around $24 million.  What you are proposing will likely be in this league of costs.  And for this we get a 105mm HE gun, a 40mm gun, a drone platform and C-UAS platform that needs a significant C-ISR and C-UAS enterprise to survive, let alone thrive.  To my mind if we can build that C-ISR/C-UAS enterprise we can put this firepower and mobility on much cheaper extant platforms.
- Operational costs will also be very significant.  Maintenance of complex systems such as these will drive a much higher logistics load, at best it will likely be the same as the one we currently have, which we know is too heavy.  Your hybrid electric idea is actually being fielded (https://www.army.mil/article/254124/army_advancing_first_hybrid_electric_bradley) and on a 30 ton chassis.  This will reduce fuel requirements (by 20%) but these are still combustion engines with the heat and sound vulnerabilities.   I would shoot to get logistical burden down to that of an MRAP, at which point this tank platoon becomes competitive. Again though, I am not sure why I need a tank here when this engine on a high mobility light armor vehicle is already in reach.
- Offsets/Risk. An opponent could neutralize this entire system with existing cheap and readily available systems.  ATGMs, indirect fires, UAS/UGV and mines, carrying loads of stand-off EFP and/or smart submunitions are likely going to counter this proposed system at a small fraction of comparative costs. Given the low density of production of this new tank platoon, driven by costs, means an opponent can be wrong many times but our forces can only be wrong a few times, perhaps once. This system would likely be niche and used rarely, much like low density specialized engineering vehicles.  We could find ourselves in a scenario where they are on a critical path but this would not be the norm, nor should it be.
More bluntly put - too expensive, too visible, not enough benefit compared to other systems.  And too reliant on another system (C-ISR/C-UAS complex) to be able to do its job, to the point that the enabling system can likely do its job for it.
Finally, there is one wildcard out there, cyber.  Cyber has been tepid in this war, we know it is happening but neither side has been able to weaponize the domain to the point where enemy ISR is shut down, for example.  If cyber were able to re-set a battlefield by eliminating or highly degrading an opponents C4ISR then traditional manoeuvre could be back on the table.   Of course if we have complete C4ISR superiority, I still do not see why we cannot simply push our own bubbles with impunity but fast manoeuvre with a level of armor could make a re-emergence.  But we would have to see cyber actually perform as advertised - an operational/tactical tool as opposed to strategic shaping tool within conventional warfare.