Sod it. Let’s have direct fire (120mm should do it), indirect fire (missiles plus 120mm mortar), smoke, chaff, sharks with lasers, attack dogs, a helipad, tea room, tennis court and soft furnishing/break-out area. 1,000t GVW do you?It would have the potential to defend itself if spotted, then drop a load of love from above when bugging out. An proper offensive option is always nice to have rather than waiting to get a heavy armoured back up
Nowhere is the need to defend being dismissed. What should be being dismissed is the very small number of occasions on which a reconnaissance vehicle would have to engage at a high off-axis angle versus the very real advantages of an MMS. The vision systems even without an MMS will likely far outrange the effective range of the main gun, even 40mm CTA, and especially if engaging AFVs - and not just heavy armour.
Which bit of ‘an’ asset not ‘the’ asset is being missed here? It’s all getting a bit World of Tanks.
Want an indirect-fire option? Call the artillery or the air force. Want a direct-fire option? Call in the armour boys and girls. Want to watch and report in greater safety? Then do it from a distance or from on high.
Reconnaissance. Your main weapons are your sensor systems and comms links.