{
  "id": "R44741",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "R44741",
  "active": true,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 586929,
      "date": "2017-01-18",
      "retrieved": "2020-01-02T14:55:18.466032",
      "title": "Selected Foreign Counterparts of U.S. Army Ground Combat Systems and Implications for Combat Operations and Modernization ",
      "summary": "Many nations maintain armies whose ultimate responsibility is to defeat other nations\u2019 combat formations on the battlefield. In order to accomplish this, nations indigenously develop, maintain, and improve a variety of ground combat systems or purchase them from other nations. Ground combat system development and improvement is informed by existing and emerging technologies and budgetary factors as well as observations from current land conflicts. As this process is also intended to address potential future battlefield threats, beliefs as to what the future combat operational environment will look like, as well as what future technologies might be available for military use, also influence a nation\u2019s developmental efforts.\nThe U.S. Army\u2019s current fleet of main battle tanks (MBTs), tracked infantry fighting vehicles (IFVs), tracked self-propelled (SP) artillery, and multiple launch rocket systems (MLRS), which constitutes the nucleus of the Army\u2019s armored ground forces, were developed in the 1970s and fielded in the 1980s to counter the Soviet Union\u2019s and Warsaw Pact\u2019s numerically superior ground forces. The combat performance of these vehicles against Iraqi forces during Operation Desert Storm in 1991 reaffirmed for many the role these systems would play in future Army ground operations.\nU.S. Army leadership notes for the first time since World War I, that the Army does not have a new ground combat vehicle under development and \u201cat current funding levels, the Bradley and Abrams will remain in the inventory for 50 to 70 more years.\u201d Regarding armored vehicle development, the Army suggests \u201cour enemies, and even our friends and allies, have not remained static and, in fact, even our allies are modernizing to such an extent that they have outpaced us in some areas.\u201d This comment raises the possibility that in the not-too-distant future, foreign armored vehicle design and capabilities could surpass existing U.S. systems.\nObservations from current conflicts as well beliefs as to what future conflicts might look like help determine what types of improvements should be made to existing combat vehicles in terms of lethality, survivability, mobility, and maintainability. They may also lead to a conclusion that an entirely new combat vehicle will be required to address current and potential future threats.\nComparison of selected U.S. and foreign ground combat systems and observations from current conflicts as well beliefs as to what future conflicts might look like raise implications for U.S. ground combat system modernization. Some of these implications include the following:\nthe possibility U.S. ground combat systems could be outpaced by foreign systems;\nthat increasingly capable foreign ground combat systems could be an option for acquisition; \nthe reemergence of air attack, artillery, and electronic warfare (EW) as ground combat system modernization concerns: and \nthe consideration of system level issues such as\nForward Looking Infrared Radar (FLIR) and Fire Control Systems (FCS); \nActive Protection Systems (APS);\nnew and Cluster Munitions Ban-compliant artillery rounds and rocket warheads; and \ndigitally enhanced and longer-ranged artillery and rocket systems.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": true,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44741",
          "sha1": "9f752648538c01cf6d924a49ff2c22e9a73be537",
          "filename": "files/20170118_R44741_9f752648538c01cf6d924a49ff2c22e9a73be537.html",
          "images": {
            "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R44741_files&id=/1.png": "files/20170118_R44741_images_983eb53534e8e8569a0adf27ff637fecc942db19.png",
            "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R44741_files&id=/2.png": "files/20170118_R44741_images_5393c12acd02b7263047d46e5fc9b06750560d4a.png",
            "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R44741_files&id=/0.png": "files/20170118_R44741_images_3b1a84e04e335ec5c0074c1bc878c1958abd3f0e.png",
            "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R44741_files&id=/3.png": "files/20170118_R44741_images_407ccaec42c36bbfb709c8b42a7c94247654c3e5.png"
          }
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44741",
          "sha1": "c829278fd5a85277934922389a5cbf6caaeeb289",
          "filename": "files/20170118_R44741_c829278fd5a85277934922389a5cbf6caaeeb289.pdf",
          "images": {}
        }
      ],
      "topics": [
        {
          "source": "IBCList",
          "id": 4902,
          "name": "Air, Land, Sea, & Projection Forces"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Foreign Affairs",
    "National Defense"
  ]
}