The future combat vehicle's planned capabilities are impressive, but assuming the technology can be developed, it's at least ten if not 20 years away.
The weapons you describe don't address the problem of increasingly sophisticated ATGM's. Fortunately, Saddam acquired few Kornets due to the embargo and relied on old RPG's. That's not the case with other potential adversaries. Sending Strykers or Bradleys with no tank cover into that environment would be suicide. It makes no sense to shift to less survivable vehicles in a more lethal environment. We can't assume we'll always go up against an enemy starved of technology by a 12 year embargo, but may go up against an A-Team armed with the latest Russian-developed technology. So, there's no alternative to maintaining a tank force until FCV is available.
One lesson we did learn from tank warfare, was in WWII. He that has the MOST NUMEROUS tanks, with the best tactics, can overwhelm an enemy with the BEST tanks.
The goal of the future combat vehicle (or actually a system of complementary vehicles) is to be able to project force rapidly and lethally anywhere in the world. The only way the Army figured it could do this was to have something light enough to be carried on a C-130. Thus, the primary constraint on the future combat system are to be about 20 tons, instead of 70, and smaller dimensions as well.
This approach is completely different from past combat vehicle design approaches. which instead specified lethality and vulnerability requirements, and let the system grow to accomodate them.
As such, the new approach is viewed by some as high risk, in that it will need to rely on many advanced lethality and [anti-]vulnerability technologies to make a 20 ton vehicle just as survivable as the current 70 ton M1 platform.
I know the guys who designed the M1-Ax armor packages and you can be sure that they are busting hump to try to figure out ways to build a better mouse trap for less weight.