Chapter 4: Equipment Options
- This page is a section of TC 7-100.4 Hybrid Threat Force Structure Organization Guide.
The Hybrid Threat Force Structure (HTFS) organizational directories provide example equipment types and the numbers of each type typically found in specific organizations. The purpose is to give trainers and training planners a good idea of what a Threat Force Structure should look like. However, training requirements may dictate some modifications to this baseline. Therefore, training planners have several options by which they can modify equipment holdings to meet particular training requirements.
Contents
Baseline Equipment
For each organization in the HTFS, the online organizational directories list “Principal Items of Equipment” in a document and/or list “Personnel and Items of Equipment” in a spreadsheet chart. (Figures 4-1 and 4-2 on pages 4-2 and 4-3 show the equipment list for a motorized infantry company in both formats.) In most cases, this equipment corresponds to Tier 2 in the tier tables of the Worldwide Equipment Guide (WEG) online. However, some elite units, such as Special-Purpose Forces, may have Tier 1 equipment. On the other hand, insurgent and guerrilla organizations typically have older, less capable equipment. (For more information on equipment tiers, see Equipment Tier Tables in the section on the WEG later in this chapter.)
Note. For illustrative purposes, this TC contains several examples from the online HTFS organizational directories and the online WEG. Readers are reminded that even the baseline OPFOR organizations are subject to change over time. The equipment found in those organizations can also change. Therefore, readers should always consult the online directories for the latest, most up-to-date versions of organizational and equipment data. (See page 4-4 for a link to the online WEG.)
For larger units, equipment lists in the HTFS directories take the form of a spreadsheet that provides a quick overview of the holdings for subordinate units and equipment totals for the unit as a whole. When the organization chart indicates multiple, identical units subordinate to a particular organization (using stacked blocks), the spreadsheet column for those particular subordinates indicates equipment totals already multiplied by the number of such units present. The heading with the subordinate unit name at the top of such a column indicates that multiplication by adding an annotation, for example “(x2)” or “x3),” after the name of the subordinate unit type.
Note. In a unit with multiple subordinates of the same type, one or more of these like subordinates may be augmented or decremented in different ways in the process of task- organizing. In such cases, users will need to replace this column in the spreadsheet with multiple columns reflecting the differences created.
Footnotes linked to the equipment nomenclature in the “Equipment” or “Personnel and Items of Equipment” column in equipment lists may serve one of two purposes. Sometimes, such a footnote indicates additional information about that piece of equipment or a possible substitute for it. In other cases, it may indicate possible variations in the quantity of that particular item of equipment.
The OPFOR order of battle (OB) must meet the training requirements, based on the menu of possible organizational parts provided in the directories. If a particular piece of equipment is not appropriate for a specific scenario, trainers may substitute another system according to the guidelines in the WEG. However, such substitutions are subject to approval by the trainers’ OPFOR-validating authority. Training planners should exercise caution in modifying equipment holdings, since this impacts on an OPFOR unit’s organizational integrity and combat capabilities.
Worldwide Equipment Guide
The Worldwide Equipment Guide (WEG) is accessible online by means of the following link to the Army Training Network: https://atn.army.mil/dsp_template.aspx?dpID=311 ; then click on “Worldwide Equipment Guide.”
The WEG directories consist of three volumes: Volume 1, Ground Systems; Volume 2, Airspace and Air Defense; and Volume 3, Naval and Littoral Systems. These directories are maintained and continuously updated, as necessary, by the Complex Operational Environment Threat Integration Directorate, U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC C-TID). The TRADOC C-TID is designated as “the responsible official for the development, management, administration, integration, and approval functions of the OPFOR Program across the Army” (AR 350-2).
Equipment Data
The WEG contains technical data on the capabilities of systems identified as “Principal Items of Equipment” in the HTFS organizational directories and/or in the equipment tier tables or substitution matrices of the WEG. On the following three pages are examples of the kind of information the WEG provides. The three systems chosen as examples are highly capable in today’s operational environments. They are widely proliferated and are likely to be encountered by U.S. forces in real-world areas of conflict. Therefore, they are good candidates for inclusion in HTFS used in training that is realistic and relevant for the OE.
| Ammunition Types
.50-cal cartridge Raufoss Grade A Ball (M2/M33) AP (M2) AP-I (M8) API-T (M20) Tracer (M10/21) SLAP (M903) MP (MK211 Mod 0) |
Typical Combat Load
30 | ||
| SYSTEM
Alternative Designations: None Date of Introduction: Early 1980s Proliferation: Widespread (27+) Description: Weight (kg): Empty (w/o magazine): 14.75 Length (mm): Overall: 1,448 Barrel: 736 Rate of Fire (rd/min): 20 Operation: Recoil Feed: 10-rd detachable box magazine Fire Mode: Semi-automatic only SIGHTS Name: Unertl Type: Optical (matches trajectory of .50-cal Raufoss Grade A) Magnification: 10x Name: Swarovski Type: Optical (with ranging reticle) Magnification: 10x42 Night Sights Available: yes AMMUNITION Name: Raufoss Grade A (match)(DODIC A606) (USMC) Caliber/length: .50-cal BMG/12.7-mm x 99-mm (NATO) Type: Standard operating round Range (m) (equipment-size targets): Maximum (w/scope): 1,800 Muzzle Velocity (m/s): 854 Name: MP NM140 (Nammo) MK211 Mod 0 Caliber/length: .50-cal BMG/12.7-mm x 99-mm (NATO) Type: Multipurpose Range (m) (equipment-size targets): Maximum (w/scope): 1,800 Armor Penetration: 11 mm @45° @1,000 m Fragmentation: 20 fragments after hitting 2 mm steel Incendiary Effect: Ignition of JP4 and JP8 Accuracy: <15 cm @ 550 m Muzzle Velocity (m/s): 915 |
Name: AP-S NM173 (Nammo)
Caliber/length: .50-cal BMG/12.7-mm x 99-mm (NATO) Type: Armor piercing Range (m) (equipment-size targets): Maximum (w/scope): 1,800 Armor Penetration: 11 mm @30° @1,500 m Accuracy: <15 cm @ 550 m Muzzle Velocity (m/s): 915 Name: M903 (Olin) Caliber/length: .50-cal BMG/12.7-mm x 99-mm (NATO) Type: Saboted Light Armor Penetrator (SLAP) (actual bullet is tungsten .30 inch penetrator wrapped in a .50-cal plastic sabot) Range (m) (equipment-size targets): Maximum (w/scope): 1,500 Armor Penetration: 19 mm (.75 in) @1,500 m Accuracy: INA Muzzle Velocity (m/s): 1,014 Name: M8 Caliber/length: .50-cal BMG/12.7-mm x 99-mm (NATO) Type: Armor piercing incendiary Range (m) (equipment-size targets): Maximum (w/scope): 1,800 Armor Penetration: 20 mm @ 100 m Accuracy: <25 cm @ 550 m Muzzle Velocity (m/s): 881 Name: M20 Caliber/length: .50-cal BMG/12.7-mm x 99-mm (NATO) Type: Armor piercing incendiary-Tracer Trace (m): 91 to 1,463 Armor Penetration: 20 mm @ 100 m Accuracy: <25 cm @ 550 m Muzzle Velocity (m/s): 887 VARIANTS Model 95: Bullpup bolt action, 5-round magazine | ||
NOTES
The M82A1A provides maneuver commanders with the tactical option of employing snipers with an antimateriel weapon to augment present 7.62-mm antipersonnel sniper rifles. Recoil equals 7.62x51-mm levels. The USMC uses Raufoss Grade A ammunition, but the rifle is capable of firing any standard 12.7x99-mm Browning machinegun ammunition.
| Ammunition Types
105-mm grenade HEAT (tandem) HE thermobaric |
Typical Combat Load
3 As needed | |
| SYSTEM
Alternative Designations: Vampir Date of Introduction: Late 1980s Proliferation: Former Soviet Union Description: Crew: 2 Caliber (tube) (mm): 105 Weight (w/o sight) (kg): 11.5 Length (transport) (mm): 1,000 Length (firing) (mm): 1,850 Life of Tube/barrel: 300 Rate of Fire (rd/min): INA Fire From Inside Building: INA Maximum Target Speed (km/h): INA Emplacement/displacement time (min): <0.25 SIGHTS Daysight: Name: 1P-38 Type: Iron, optical, and LRF-based FCS Magnification: INA Location: Left side Sighting Range (m): 500 Weight (kg): .6 Name: Simrad IS2000 or similar sight for RPG-29 Mounted Type: LRF-based FCS with ballistic computer Magnification: INA Location: Left side Sighting Range (m): 800 m for this mount Weight (kg): INA Night Sight: Name: 1PN51, 1PN52 standard RPG-29 or RPG-29N Type: II sight Weight (kg): 2.1 Name: KN250F or similar sight for RPG-29 Mounted Type: 3 gen II clip-on sight designed to work with daysight Magnification: 1 X Location: Left side Sighting Range (m): 600-800 for vehicle targets, 300+ man Weight (kg): INA |
AMMUNITION
Name: PG-29V Caliber (warhead): 105 Type: Tandem HEAT (shaped charge) Range (m): Effective: 500m, 800 for RPG-29 mounted (used by OPFOR) Penetration (m): Armor: 750 + (650 behind ERA) Concrete and brick: 1.5 + Brick: 2 + Earth: 3.7 + Length (mm): INA Complete Round Weight (kg): 6.7 Muzzle Velocity (m/s): 280 Other Ammunition: A multipurpose HE thermobaric grenade is also used. Blast effects are the same as the TBG-7V. VARIANTS RPG-29N: Night sight only variant RPG-29 Mounted: For use as a mounted crew-served system. This variant can fit on a vehicle with a pintle mount, or be dismounted to a tripod ground mount. The RPG-29 Mounted variant has a fire control system with an optical sight, laser rangefinder and ballistic data computer for increased range and precision. This increases the effective range of the mounted system to 800 m against a stationary target with a hit probability of 80%. The system can fire at all (including moving) to its maximum range, even with a reduced Ph. This variant would be expected to include HE in its mix of grenades . For Tier 1 and Tier 2 COE OPFOR, RPG-9 Mounted is the crew weapon in Weapons Squads and other supporting tactical units. In later time frame, this system or equivalent could become the standard squad ATGL for maneuver forces. RPG-32/Hashim: New Russian/Jordanian ATGL to launch RPG- 29V and HE thermobaric grenades. The launcher base is a short tube extension with optics and trigger assembly, which attach to the the grenade canister, resulting in a shoulder-launcher with up to 700 m range. Grenades come two per carry case. This is another example of an expanding AT trend of fitting large lethal warheads onto ATGLs. Another example fitting canister on launcher base is PF-98 (pg 1-34). | |
NOTES
The RPG-29 replaces SPG-9 as an all-purpose small unit artillery against the gamut of targets, including vehicles, personnel, buildings, and any other direct-fire targets within range - including helicopters.
The RPG-29 can be broken down into two parts for one soldier carry. It can be made ready to fire within a few seconds. A folding bipod is provided to assist aiming during prone firing. RPG-27, PG-7VR for RPG-7V, and RPG-32/Hashim use the same (PG-29V) warhead.
EQUIPMENT TIER TABLES
The WEG contains Tier Tables for the various categories of equipment found in Hybrid Threat organizations. Training planners can employ these tables to adjust the level of capabilities of equipment from the baseline shown in the HTFS organizational directories. Within each functional category of equipment, there are four tiers representing different levels of capability, with Tier 1 representing the highest level of capability and modernity.
Note. Niche systems and niche technology upgrades provide capabilities that exceed the general capability level of the overall force. For example, a Tier 3 force might have a few systems from Tier 1 or 2. Applying a niche technology upgrade to one or more subsystems of a Tier 2 legacy system could raise its level of capability to the equivalent of a Tier 1 system. (See the sections on Equipment Upgrades and Emerging Technology Trends later in this chapter.)
Tier 1 reflects systems across the different functional areas that a major military force with state-of- the-art technology would generally have. At Tier 1, new or upgraded systems are limited to those robust systems fielded in military forces or currently developed and marketed for sale, with capabilities and vulnerabilities that can be portrayed for training.
Tier 2 reflects modern competitive systems fielded in significant numbers for the last 10 to 20 years, with limitations or vulnerabilities being diminished by available upgrades. Although forces are equipped for operations in all terrains and can fight day and night, their capability in range and speed for several key systems may be somewhat inferior to U.S. capability.
Tier 3 systems date back generally 30 to 40 years. They have limitations in all three subsystems categories: mobility, survivability, and lethality. Systems and force integration are inferior. However, guns, missiles, and munitions can still challenge vulnerabilities of U.S. forces. Niche upgrades can provide synergistic and adaptive increases in force effectiveness.
Tier 4 systems reflect 40- to 50-year-old systems, some of which have been upgraded numerous times. These represent equipment typically found in forces of Third World or smaller developed countries. Use of effective strategy, adaptive tactics, niche technologies, and terrain limitations could enable a Tier 4 OPFOR to challenge the effectiveness of a U.S. force in achieving its goals. This tier includes militia, guerrillas, special police, and other forces.
To achieve specific training objectives, trainers and training planners can substitute other equipment for those items listed in the baseline. Equipment tier tables and substitution matrices list alternative systems with varying levels of capability and modernity. The baseline systems, as well as those listed in tier tables and substitution matrices, are built in large numbers and proliferated throughout the world. (That is part of the criteria for their inclusion in the WEG.) Thus, the country of origin or an actual country possessing such systems does not necessarily pose a threat to the United States. However, these widely used systems provide an OPFOR with capabilities that could present a challenge in U.S. Army training.
Table 4-1 provides a sample of systems listed in the Tier Tables (from volume 1 of the WEG). This example is based on the assessment of tiers in 2006.
Hybrid Threat organizations and equipment must support the entire spectrum of OE training scenarios for the U.S. Army. The Hybrid Threat, as described in the 7-100 series, represents rational and adaptive adversaries, and offers flexibility for use in training applications and scenarios for U.S. training. The main part of the WEG deals with systems that are widely proliferated in the current timeframe. Lists of equipment on the Tier Tables offer convenient baseline examples arranged in capability tiers for use in composing OPFOR equipment arrays for training scenarios. Each volume of the WEG also has a chapter on Emerging Technology Trends. Tables in those chapters offer an extended capabilities tier for the near and mid-term.
| Tier 1 | Tier 2 | Tier 3 | Tier 4 | |
| Main Battle Tank
Amphibious Tank Tracked HACV Wheeled HACV |
T-90S
Type 63AModernized 2S25 AMX-10RC Desert Storm |
T-72B (Improved)
Type 63AM AMX-10 PAC 90 AMX-10RC |
Chieftain
M1985 AMX-13 EE-9 |
T-55AM
PT-76B M41A3 EE-9 |
| Towed Light Howitzer
Towed Medium How/Gun Self-Propelled Howitzer Multiple Rkt Launcher Heavy MRL 1-Round Rkt Launcher Amphibious SP How |
D-30
G5 G6, AU-F1T Prima 9A52-2 9P132 2S1 |
D-30
2A65 G6, 2S19 Prima 9A52-2 9P132 2S1 |
D-30
2A36 2S3M BM-21 9P140 9P132 2S1 |
D-30
D-20 2S1 Type 63 Fadjr-3 9P132 2S1 |
The Tier Tables were developed in order to portray systems for adversaries with differing budgetary levels and force capabilities. Systems in a tier reflect more or less comparable levels of modernity, for use with a force at that level of capability. Each tier provides an equivalent level of modernization for systems across different functional areas. The tier tables are also another tool for Exercise Designers to use to alter systems in simulations to reflect different levels of modernity. One can find an item of equipment at Tier 2 in the baseline equipment list for a given Threat organization, note its counterpart at a higher or lower tier, and then substitute to build the same unit (for example, division, brigade, battalion) for a different tier. The key to using the tables is to know the tier capability of the initial organizations.
A Threat Force Structure should contain a mix of systems that realistically vary in fielded age and generation. Given the modern reality of budget constraints on military spending, the WEG authors have tempered depiction of new, expensive systems to a fraction of any force. The more common modernization approach within the higher tiers is to upgrade existing systems.
The Tier Tables are less concerned with systems’ age than realistically reflecting a capability to be addressed in training. Not all systems and functional areas have to be modernized equally or simultaneously. The Hybrid Threat may have one system 10 to 20 years older than others in a functional area. In a given time frame, military forces often will emphasize upgrades in one functional area while modernizing or maintaining lower tier levels in other functional areas.
Some systems are used in common in lower and higher tiers. For instance, because of the need for improved anti-armor, air defense, and precision artillery munitions, these capabilities are shared across several tier levels. Older 4x4 tactical utility vehicles that are 30 to 40 years old still offer effective support capability, and may extend across three tier levels. Common use of some Hybrid Threat systems also reduces the database maintenance requirement.
No force in the world has all of its systems at the most modern tier. Even the best force in the world has a mix of state-of-the-art (Tier 1) systems, as well as mature (Tier 2), and somewhat dated (Tier 3) legacy systems. Much of the latter systems have been upgraded to some degree, but may exhibit the limitations of their original state of technology. Even modern systems recently purchased may be considerably less than state-of-the-art, due to limited military budgets and limited user training and maintenance capabilities. Thus, even new systems may not exhibit Tier 1 or Tier 2 capability. As forces later field systems with emerging technologies, legacy systems may be more suitable for employment in certain conditions, or they may be upgraded and continue to be competitive. Adversaries with lower-tier systems can use adaptive technologies and tactics, or obtain niche technology systems to challenge the advantages of a modern force.
A major emphasis in the OE is flexibility in use of forces and in doctrine. This also means that the Hybrid Threat, given rational and justifiable force development methodology, has the flexibility to adapt the systems mix to support doctrine and plans. The tiers provide the baseline list for determining the force mix, based on scenario criteria. The Hybrid Threat compensates for capability limitations by using innovative and adaptive tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTP). Some of these limitations may be caused by the lack of sophisticated equipment or integration capability, or by insufficient numbers. Forces can be tailored, in accordance with Hybrid Threat doctrine, to form tactical groups and other task organizations.
Systems Substitution Matrices
In each volume of the WEG, a Systems Substitution Matrix table provides comparative data for users who would like to substitute other systems for Threat systems listed in the baseline organizational directories. For each system, the table shows the system name, its tier level, and the WEG page on which data for that system begins. Within each functional area, systems are displayed in groups (with spaces separating the groups) of systems of like type that could be substituted for one another. Within each group, the system shown in italics is the one listed in TC 7-100.4 as the baseline system (normally Tier 2) in some Threat organization. Within each grouping by type, most systems are listed in tier order, and can be substituted to fit scenario requirements. Some systems span the boundary between two tiers (for example, “3-4”). Other systems can be used at more than one tier (for example, “3 and 4”). Table 4-2 provides a sample from the Systems Substitution Matrix in volume 1 of the WEG. Tiers shown in this example are based on the assessment of tiers in 2006.
Trainers also should keep in mind that substitutions of major weapon systems may also affect the types and numbers of supporting and related systems. For example—
- A towed artillery system needs an appropriate prime mover vehicle.
- Some air defense systems need radars that are not on the weapon platform.
- An under-barrel grenade launcher needs to be compatible with the assault rifle on which it is mounted.
- A mortar system may need an aiming circle/goniometer.
Within each functional category of equipment, there are four tiers representing different levels of capability, with Tier 1 representing the highest level of capability and modernity. Not all tiers of a given system category may be represented in the WEG.
Equipment Upgrades
An exercise designer has the option to make selective adjustments such as use of niche technology upgrades (for example, in tanks, cruise missiles, or rotary-wing aircraft) to offset U.S. advantages. (See the Equipment Upgrades chapter in each volume of the WEG). Forces may include niche systems that exceed the general capability level of the overall force. For example, a Tier 3 force might have a few systems from Tier 1 or 2. As the “current” timeframe shifts each year, more systems from higher tiers could be expected to be added to the force. The WEG authors will always be ready to assist a developer in selecting niche systems and upgrades for use in Hybrid Threat portrayal. The scenario developer should be cognizant of the need to justify changes and systems selected. With savvy use of TTP and systems available, all tiers can offer challenging threat capabilities for training.
| Tier Page | Tier Page | |
|---|---|---|
| Armored Personnel Carriers
BTR-80A ....................................................2 2-15 BTR-90 ......................................................1-2 2-16 BTR-T Heavy APC......................................1-2 2-19 BTR-80 ......................................................3 2-14 Pandur .......................................................3 2-23 WZ 551A ....................................................3 2-25 VTT-323 .....................................................3-4 2-24 BTR-60PB ..................................................3-4 2-13 BTR-D Airborne APC ..................................3-4 2-18 M113A1.......................................................3-4 2-21 YW 531H/Type 85 ......................................3-4 2-27 BOV-M ........................................................4 2-10 BTR-152 .....................................................4 2-17 BTR-60PA ...................................................4 2-11 MT-LB .........................................................4 2-22 YW 531A/531C/Type 63-II...........................4 2-26 Infantry Fighting Vehicles BMP-2M Modernized .................................2 2-39 BMP-3M IFV............................................Near Term 2-43 BMP-3 UAE IFV ..........................................1 2-41 Kliver IFV Turret..........................................1 2-49 BMD-3 Airborne ..........................................2 2-31 Marder 1IFV ................................................2-3 2-45 Warrior IFV ..................................................2-3 2-47 AMX-10P IFV ...............................................3 2-28 BMP-2 IFV ...................................................3 2-37 BMP-1P IFV..................................................3-4 2-35 BMD-1/BMD-1P Airborne .............................4 2-29 BMP-1 IFV ...................................................4 2-33 |
Main Battle Tanks T-72B/T-72B (Improved)...........................2 4-23 Challenger 2 ............................................1 4-5 T-90M ......................................................1 4-33 T-90S........................................................1 4-31 T-80U .......................................................1-2 4-29 Chieftain Mk 5 ..........................................2-3 4-7 Leopard 2.................................................2-3 4-11 T-64B .......................................................2-3 4-21 T-80B .......................................................2-3 4-27 Type 96.....................................................2-3 4-39 T-72M1 .....................................................3 4-25 AMX-30 .....................................................3-4 4-3 Leopard 1A1.............................................3-4 4-9 M60A1/M60A3 ..........................................3-4 4-13 T-55AMV....................................................3-4 4-17 T-62M .......................................................3-4 4-19 Type 59-II...................................................4 4-37 T-34 ...........................................................4 4-15 Heavy Armored Combat Vehicles 2S25 Self-Propelled AT Gun.....................1-2 5-9 Type 63A Mod Amphibious Tank..............1-2 5-21 AMX-10RC Armored Recon Veh..............2-3 5-12 AMX-10 PAC90 Fire Support Veh.............3 5-11 EE-9 Armored Recon Veh.........................3 5-14 M1985/PT-85 Light Tank...........................3 5-17 AMX-13 Light Tank....................................3-4 5-13 Scorpion Trkd Combat Recon Veh............3-4 5-20 M41A3 Walker Light Tank..........................4 5-16 M36 SP AT Gun.........................................4 5-15 PT-76B Amphibious Tank...........................4 5-19 |
Upgrades enable military forces to employ technological niches to tailor their force against a specific adversary, or to integrate niche upgrades in a comprehensive and well-planned modernization program. Because of the competitive export market and varying requirements from country to country, a system may be in production simultaneously in many different configurations, as well as variants fulfilling other roles. In light of this trend, Threat equipment selected for portrayal in training simulations should not be limited to the original production model of a system. Rather, training planners should select a version of the system that reflects the Hybrid Threat’s overall strategy and modernization plans and likely constraints that would apply.
An adaptive Hybrid Threat will introduce new combat systems and employ upgrades on existing systems to attain a force structure that supports its plans and doctrine. Because the legacy force mix was selected in accordance with earlier plans and options, the use of upgrades will always be an attractive option, compared to costly new acquisitions. Equipment Upgrade chapters in the WEG consider only upgrades currently available (or marketed with production and fielding expected in the near term) for systems in Tiers 1 through 4. However, the WEG’s Emerging Technology Trends chapters anticipate a wider variety of upgrades that could be applied to currently fielded systems.
Emerging Technology Trends
The equipment data and Tier Tables in the WEG reflect legacy systems that are fielded and available to various forces worldwide at the time the latest version of the WEG directories is posted on ATN. As time passes, new systems and whole new technologies will be fielded and available to the Hybrid Threat. (See the Emerging Technology Trends chapter in each volume of the WEG.)
The most notable difference between the Hybrid Threat force mix and that of U.S. forces is that the Hybrid Threat would typically have a broader mix of older systems and a lower proportion of state-of-the- art systems. Rather, the Hybrid Threat typically relies more on adaptive applications, niche technologies, and selected proven upgrades. The Hybrid Threat will retain expensive legacy systems, but with affordable upgrades and technology niches. A judicious mix of equipment, strategic advantages, and sound Hybrid Threat principles can enable even lesser (lower-tier) forces to challenge the capabilities of U.S. forces.
Threat systems must represent reasonable responses to U.S. force developments and developments in other countries. A rational, thinking Hybrid Threat would study force developments of its adversaries, as well as approaches of the best forces worldwide, then attempt to exploit and counter them. For instance, U.S. Future Combat System technologies would trigger the Hybrid Threat to modify equipment and tactics to counter them. Given economic constraints, the Hybrid Threat has the option of incrementally adding higher-tier systems to lower-tier units, as selective upgrades. However, it might also upgrade legacy systems with subsystem technology upgrades in order to keep pace with state-of-the-art systems fielded by U.S. forces or possibly by its regional neighbors.