I do agree that people do not know where armour is going in the near future. I do however suggest that a, "steady as she goes, " approach might just be a sensible response, given how some thinkers were demonstrated to be wrong regarding the utility of armour, heavy armour in particular, in combat situations in the recent past. There had been those who thought that light, highly mobile (and often wheeled) light armoured vehicles were what was needed and that MBT's were of less use. The thinking apparently being that the light vehicles could use their mobility to get into position to engage hostiles, while carrying sufficient direct fire capabilities to carry out the tasks needed, and then maneuver to avoid/evade return fire.An article in ASPI suggests we need a light tank, rather than the Abrams Australia’s new tanks are overkill and overweight | The Strategist (aspistrategist.org.au) The authors suggests it's a steady as she goes approach because no one knows where armour is going as we enter the age of AI/autonomous systems.
Given all the up-armouring packages developed for vehicles like the Stryker family, that would suggest that supposed advantages of mobility for protection were quite literally outweighed by actual increases in armoured protection. My personal suspicion is that the USMC, who has announced an intent to get out of operating MBT's and leave those for the US Army, will find themselves once again fielding MBT's in at least small numbers to support Marine deployments that require armour support.