Todays tech grew up on yesterday's battlefields

Military vehicle design is a balance of learning lessons from past conflicts and preparing for the unpredictable demands of future battlefields. Here, Roger Brereton of Pailton Engineering highlights the JLTV as a prime example of this dilemma — a vehicle shaped by the lessons of conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, yet more versatile than its critics often recognise.

New acquisitions are often heavily influenced by the past, risking obsolescence in rapidly changing environments. For some critics, the US military’s Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV) is a case in point. Born from the need for better protection in the post-9/11 conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, the JLTV embodies both the strengths and limitations of designing military hardware based on historical experience.

Some have argued the JLTV is too heavy and insufficiently mobile for the future operating environment envisioned by the US military. However, is this a fair assessment of a vehicle that saved thousands of lives in the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars and, despite its weight, is more agile than the Humvee that preceded it?

Learning lessons

The JLTV was conceived in response to the vulnerability of the Humvee (HMMWV) to roadside bombs and Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs), which posed serious threats to troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Humvee, originally designed as a general-purpose vehicle, lacked the armour needed for modern asymmetric warfare. In response, the US military fielded heavily armoured Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles (MRAPs), but these were cumbersome and unsuitable for many terrains.

The JLTV was designed as a compromise, combining the mobility of the Humvee with the protection of the MRAP. Its V-shaped hull, capable of deflecting blasts, and modular armour offered significant survivability against IEDs and mines — critical when driving through conflict zones. In this sense, the JLTV is undeniably a product of past conflicts, shaped by the asymmetric threats that dominated the post-9/11 era.

Optimised for the future?

While the JLTV is rooted in lessons from recent conflicts, it also incorporates several features aimed at making it adaptable to future operating environments. Its modularity enables upgrades to armour, weapons systems and communications equipment, making it versatile enough to respond to emerging threats. For example, the US Marine Corps is planning to field anti-ship weapons mounted on JLTVs.

The JLTV is designed to integrate into modern network-centric warfare systems, where real-time data and communication across platforms are vital. This ensures that it can function in a variety of roles, from troop transport to a mobile command post or reconnaissance platform.

However, critics argue that the JLTV’s weight — which can reach up to 9,500 kg or 21,000 lbs — could limit its usefulness in future conflicts that require speed and agility. While designed for superior off-road mobility, its weight raises concerns about its tactical and strategic mobility. Heavier than the Humvee, the JLTV is still transportable by C-130 aircraft but cannot be externally airlifted by helicopters over long distances, which could complicate rapid deployment in certain scenarios.

In future conflicts, particularly in the Indo-Pacific or Eastern Europe, where adversaries may have advanced capabilities, mobility and rapid response might outweigh the need for heavy armour. Critics of the JLTV point out that in highly contested environments, precision-guided weapons, drones and cyber capabilities could diminish the importance of traditional armour protection. Instead, lighter, more mobile or even unmanned vehicles may be more appropriate.

The challenge of predicting the future

To the extent that some of the above criticisms about weight are true, they fail to acknowledge the inability of military planners and vehicle design engineers to successfully predict future conflicts. While critics of the JLTV are predicting the Asia-Pacific region becoming the priority, the same arguments were made over a decade ago and turned out to be, at best, premature.

President Obama’s “Pivot to Asia” strategy in the 2010s anticipated a shift in US focus toward the Indo-Pacific and great-power competition with China. Instead, the US found itself continually preoccupied with the ongoing conflict in Afghanistan and the regional instability in the Middle East and North Africa region that followed the Arab Spring in 2011, precisely the conflicts for which the JLTV was suited.

Flexibility is key

In assessing whether military vehicles like the JLTV are designed for yesterday’s wars, the answer is not straightforward. The JLTV’s origins in past conflicts are clear, but it also has the potential to evolve to meet future demands. Its mobility, even with its weight, is impressive, and its modular design offers flexibility that could allow it to stay relevant as threats change.

However, as future conflicts may require greater agility and speed, the JLTV's weight could prove to be a limitation, particularly in high-tech, near-peer conflicts where the ability to rapidly deploy and manoeuvre might be more critical than heavy armour protection.

The unpredictability of future operating environments makes it difficult to design the perfect vehicle. Instead, military vehicles must be adaptable and able to perform across a wide range of scenarios. The JLTV, with its mix of protection, mobility and modularity, strikes a reasonable balance. However, its ultimate success will depend on its ability to continue evolving as the nature of warfare itself changes. In military vehicle design, the key is not necessarily predicting future wars perfectly but ensuring that vehicles are flexible enough to fight in whichever conflicts do arise.