In 2020 the US military requested an eye-popping $247 billion dollars for acquisition programs. The United States fields not only the world’s most expensive military, but also the best equipped one. But equipped for what?
After nearly two decades of “forever wars” in the Middle East, and amid large, continuing commitments to Iraq and Afghanistan, the US military machine has slowly optimized itself for the conflicts it has become accustomed to, and acquisition programs still reflect the needs presented by those conflicts. The Joint Light Tactical Vehicle, or JLTV, is an example. The military plans to buy over fifty thousand of these vehicles in total. It will eventually replace the bulk of the services’ Humvees and stay in service for decades. However, it is increasingly clear that the JLTV, largely due to its size and weight, is not ideal for the future operating environment that the Army and Marines envision. It is a vehicle designed from the bottom up for the simmering counterinsurgencies in the Middle East with limited applicability in the Pacific or European theaters.
From MRAP to JLTV
In the months after the 2003 invasion of Iraq, improvised explosive devices (IEDs) quickly became the most prevalent weapon insurgents used against US and coalition forces. The immediate response was to send all of the M1114 armored Humvees that the Army and Marines had to Iraq and order more. This armored variant of the Humvee had been developed after the US experience in the Balkans and the 1991 Gulf War. While helpful, these vehicles still did not provide enough protection for occupants. Existing armored vehicles like the M1114 were designed to protect soldiers and Marines from expected conventional threats like small arms and rocket propelled grenades, not large IEDs buried under roads and along routes used by US forces.
Over the course of the war in Iraq, 60 percent of all US casualties were caused by IEDs, and they caused 50 percent of the US casualties in Afghanistan. US military vehicles at the time were vulnerable to these weapons. IEDs could be made from a variety of widely available materials, like artillery shells or even fertilizer, and triggered with radios, cell phones, pressure plates, or even garage door openers. More sophisticated explosive weapons called explosively formed penetrators—widely believed to have been supplied to insurgents by Iran—proved especially effective even against up-armored Humvees.
Initially, many troops fashioned their own “hillbilly armor” for their vehicles by bolting on extra scrap metal and ballistic glass to their Humvees or lining a vehicle’s floor with sandbags to better protect themselves against buried IEDs. In an infamous exchange between Iraq-bound National Guard soldiers and then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld about the lack of adequately protected vehicles, the secretary told the soldiers, “You go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time.”
In 2005, Marine leaders in Afghanistan wrote an urgent need statement for vehicles that could protect troops from IEDs. But it wasn’t until early 2007 that the effort to acquire better-protected vehicles moved forward when it became a pet project of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. Gates championed the Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicle program personally, making sure defense officials knew that “the MRAP should be considered the highest priority Department of Defense acquisition program.” The program was sped along by Gates’s personal involvement, ruthless prioritization, and the removal of regulation—thousands of vehicles were ordered, costing billions of dollars. For example, the Defense Department waived a restriction on imported steel allowing procurement from more countries and foundries, and got industry to ramp up production of the heavy-duty tires that MRAPs needed.
By 2008 Marine leaders like Commandant of the Marine Corps Gen. James T. Conway III were complaining about the weight of the vehicles. “Those vehicles weigh 40,000 pounds each in the larger category,” Conway noted. “Frankly, you can’t put them in a helicopter and you can’t even put them aboard ship.” He added, “As expensive as they are, that is probably not a good use of the taxpayers’ money.” MRAPs were much better armored than their predecessors, but that meant that they were also heavier.
Advocates of the program point to the relatively short time it took for MRAPs to be fielded in Iraq and Afghanistan by a department that can take decades to field other new platforms. It is frequently cited as a case study of successful, rapid acquisition, even though some critics labeled the program a “boondoggle” because of the vehicles’ high price tag. Ash Carter, the deputy undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology, and logistics under Gates, lauded the program, calling it “one of the most important acquisitions to come off the line since World War II.” While these vehicles likely saved hundreds or thousands of lives, they are increasingly abandoned as the United States continues to draw down in the Middle East. As the United States’ involvement in its post-9/11 ground wars has wound down, the military has left thousands of MRAPs in the Middle East because they are too expensive to move. It has transferred many more to law enforcement agencies in the United States under the 1033 program. Ironically, some of the vehicles left behind in war zones have been repurposed by ISIS as improvised explosives. In short, albeit at the high cost of a million dollars each, MRAPs served their purpose as a stopgap capability and saved lives in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Now, the US military has turned its attention to the JLTV, a “light” vehicle in name only. As a Marine program manager said, the vehicle has a “factory curb weight of 16,000 pounds, [and when] fully dressed out [is] 21,000 pounds. The first thing we do is take the ‘L’ out of JLTV, because it’s not [light].” It comes in a four different versions and is a significant improvement on the MRAP family of vehicles in terms of mobility and protection. Because it is intended to replace several different MRAPs with a single type of vehicle it will reduce the logistics burden. Most importantly the JLTV has a V-shaped hull that directs IED blasts away from the vehicle. But by the time it had overcome issues in testing and was arriving on the battlefield, the United States had drawn down and redeployed most of its troops from Iraq and Afghanistan and DoD had shifted its focus away from the Middle East to Europe and the Pacific, where it anticipated the potential for a very different type of fight. Perhaps it is unsurprising, then, that both the Army and the Marines have indicated they will reduce their JLTV orders.
The Pacific
Years after the United States decided to “pivot” to the Pacific, the military was still largely preoccupied with the fight against ISIS in the Middle East. In 2018, the Department of Defense codified its shift to great power competition, which meant prioritizing China and Russia. The Marine Corps has led the military in reorganizing for a Pacific fight. In 2019, new Commandant of the Marine Corps Gen. David H. Berger released his planning guidance in a bold document that heralded changes to the service in order to support its new operational concept, “Expeditionary Advanced Base Operations.”
In the Pacific the Marine Corps will need a lighter, more agile ground combat force that can rapidly deploy and seize key maritime terrain. It seems unlikely that in a conflict with China IEDs will be a significant threat to US forces compared to the modern weapons employed by the People’s Liberation Army. Gen. Berger has also said that the Marine Corps needs to lighten its equipment. “We have to get rid of legacy things in the Marine Corps,” he told Marines. “We’ve got to go on a diet.” He explicitly called out “big, heavy things,” “things that don’t fit aboard ship,” and “manned logistics vehicles”—all labels that can apply to the JLTV.
The Marine Corps has also realized that JLTVs are not ideal for the amphibious operations that are central to its identity. The Office of Testing and Evaluation found not only that could the JLTV only accomplish “shore-to-shore amphibious operations on a non-contested beach,” but that “fewer JLTVs can fit on Maritime Prepositioned Force ships than [Humvees].” So the force will have to cut other vehicles from its prepositioned stocked in order to make room for the JLTV.
According to a recent report, the growing weight of US tactical vehicles like the JLTV is one of the primary factors straining US sealift—the ability to deploy the military overseas. Marines have also had issues fitting JLTVs and their predecessors onto their amphibious ships that were designed with Humvees in mind.
Second-Order Effects
The services have also seen that the decision to field the JLTV has had ripple effects across their acquisition programs. Partly because the JLTV is so heavy, the Army and Marines were both pursuing new heavy-lift helicopters. The Army has since canceled its program but the Marines are moving ahead. A former Marine heavy-lift Program Manager put it this way: “Why is the Marine Corps buying the 53K? Very simple. Our gear has gotten a lot heavier.” He narrowed in on one item in particular: “The vehicle of the future is the JLTV. It’s even heavier. It’s in the 16,000-pound range, depending on what configuration it’s in, and that’s why the Marine Corps is buying 53K because we have to be able to move that equipment from ship to shore.”
Meanwhile, Secretary of Defense Mark Esper decided to cut the Army’s heavy-lift replacement program because it too was rooted in requirements from Iraq and Afghanistan—specifically, the need to carry the JLTV:
Why the [heavy-lift replacement]? Got to carry a heavier payload and fly higher in a hotter climate. What was the heavier payload? JLTV. What drove JLTV? IEDs in Afghanistan and Iraq. . . . In many ways they were designed for a different conflict. . . We’re in this transition period and some folks are caught in that transition, and that’s what we’re up against.
An Alternate Future
Ultra-light vehicles like the Utility Task Vehicle currently used in Marine infantry and special operations units is a much better fit for the types of operations envisioned by the Marine Corps in the Pacific. These vehicles are far cheaper than the JLTV because they are commercially available. They are small and light enough to be carried internally on the MV-22 Osprey aircraft, yet can still carry at least four Marines or soldiers and their gear.
The Army and Marine Corps are already eyeing lighter tactical vehicles to operate with the JLTV, a sign that the JLTV is not meeting all of their needs. Both services want tactical vehicles that can be internally transported by their helicopters but still carry troops and their gear. The Marine Corps is also seeking to adapt the JLTV to its vision of a Pacific fight by using the JLTV chassis as the base for an autonomous anti-ship missile platform called a ROGUE Fires Vehicle.
The services have also made clear that while they plan to procure tens of thousands of JLTVs, the venerable Humvee will continue to stick around. The previous commandant of the Marine Corps, Gen. Robert B. Neller, told reporters that the “Humvee is going to be around for a while,” with its use depending on “what the threat is.” Retired Maj. Gen. Robert Scales, an adviser to the Close Combat Lethality Task Force, said of the HMMWV, “In a European scenario, for which the Humvee was designed, it’s perfectly fine,” and that it didn’t need to be replaced with the JLTV for that theater.
Long after the “aftermath of these improvised bombs” passes into history as the enduring image of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, the JLTV—a vehicle designed to survive them—will remain in service with the US military. If the JLTV is in use as long as the Humvee has been, soldiers and Marines will be riding in them into the 2050s, even though the JLTV is optimized for conflicts that the United States is now deprioritizing and it is a poor fit for the future operating environment envisioned by the military. For better or for worse the JLTV is here to stay, and the services will buy tens of thousands in the coming years. If the MRAP is remembered as a case study in rapid acquisition, hopefully the JLTV won’t become a case study in myopic acquisition.
Walker D. Mills is a Marine Corps infantry officer currently serving as an exchange officer in Cartagena, Colombia.
The views expressed are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the United States Military Academy, Department of the Army, or Department of Defense.
Image credit: Sgt. Nathan Franco, US Army
I actually think this piece misses the point about the JLTV. The JLTV may be heavy compared to a Humvee, but it's very very light compared to a tank. As the Marines (in particular) divest from their heaviest equipment (including tanks) it makes perfect sense to purchase the most survivable vehicle possible that is air deliverable by helicopter. Furthermore, purchasing these, by no means precludes the purchase of UTVs which in military procurement terms are practically free… and wouldn't even constitute a rounding error.
As for War in the Pacific… Where precisely do our illustrious battle planners envision this war taking place? In the SCS??? There are no tactical land vehicles (of any variety) that are relevant for that conflict. In Taiwan or Korea? Well, you'd far rather be in a JLTV than a Humvee, that's for sure, but the Air Force and Navy are simply more relevant to those potential conflcits… and again Army and Marine land vehicles aren't particularly important.
But the truth is that like the cold war, by far the most likely conflict involving "Great Powers" will be a proxy battle somewhere else, whether that's in Africa, Asia South America or the Middle East, that's where these vehicles really come into their own… because those conflcits will look more like Iraq than not. Instead of sending an Armored Brigade with Tanks and Bradley, it's far cheaper and easier (lighter) to move JLTV's and the net effect may not be substantially different. Besides, when has a soldier ever said, "I really wish my vehicle offered me less protection!"
It is very heavy, but I promise you line that vehicle up with any other vehicle, it will blow it out of the water in terms of handling, acceleration, and braking, along with its capabilities with different terrain, and fording capabilities. This thing is a BEAST
I think you are missing the point of the entire article. Did you not read it? It's too heavy. Its more than twice the weight of the Humvee which it's supposed to replace. Don't even try to compare a JLTV to a tank. Compare it to a Humvee and you would probably understand why…
I find this odd. Yes, the Marines may face less IED's but they will face MORE (actually trained and accurate) rifle, missile and cannon fire. From the ground and from the air. The idea that the need for armor (and it's weight) is somehow lessoned seems counter-intuitive.
Go ahead and help your mother with lunch if you can find your way out of the basement….MARINES NEED NEW AND IMPROVED EQUIPMENT..THE BATTLEFIELD IS REAL…
( MARINE DAD)
marines need the low profile v hull vehicle in Aliens 2, with the monster auto turret on a top track to go from tank to turret tucked on the back of the vehicle you could get under branches and keep below shit shooting at you. THEN MAkE IT ALL UNMANNED, ALL THE HUMAN SPACE FOR GAS AND BULLETS, keep our guys driving them from LAS VEGAS in a DRONE CONTROL Sea Container hahaha.
Nice article
Casspir
. The concept of mine resistant light vehicles came from South Africa in the late 1970s-early 1980s. The South African Army had to drive over long distances over low quality roads to get to the fighting around Angola. The enemy mined the roads. The South Africans, with the aid of foreign advisors, developed wheeled vehicle that could make the long rough drive to Angola – and survive land mines. They built a number of low cost efficient reliable vehicles from the Casspir truck to the G6 SP howitzer. US Army intelligence dutifully reported on these vehicles in great detail. The reports were ignored by the US Army system developers. (Not invented here syndrome) When the serious IED threat in Iraq showed up in the US news media, in bloody detail, many of the concepts developed in South Africa were quickly used to develop US equipment much better able to survive mined roads. The Iraqis then had to switch to massive devices and roadside attacks which were easier to detect and some times jammed. The South African part of the US & Allied anti-IED story has been ignored. The US Marine system developers (an impressive group of problem solvers) would do well to visit Pretoria.
Why not build an 8 rotor drone capable of picking up 100,000 pounds (2 MWRAPS and support equipment) and transporting it at least 600 nautical miles? It could be made big enough to carry 6 JLTV's and cargo also, thus solving both logistics problems. Give it a range of 1,400nm so it can go 600nm and return, and have fuel to spare.
The MRAP was the wrong approach to IEDs, from the outset. We tried to find a novel solution to an old tactic – an IED is essentially an expedient landmine, but we made it something special.
Largely modeled off a South African school bus design (admittedly, from Rhodesian and South African APC origins), the added weight of the MRAP further committed us to travel on established roadways – we canalized ourselves for the enemies’ leisure.
Any experienced demolitionist, given access to enough demo, will not be deterred by extra armor or a V-shaped hull. If he can’t break it, he’ll throw it high enough into the air that it kills everyone inside when it lands. By limiting ourselves to road travel, we handed the momentum to the enemy saboteur.
It’s refreshing to see a push to lighter armor and more mobility over flashy acquisitions that further restrict our options on the ground.
Sometimes the U.S. Military does things so backwards or myopic or just can't see the truth if handed to them or stares them right in the face. The math doesn't quite add up.
The M1117 should haven't been produced ASAP to combat the IEDs in Iraq and Afghanistan, but they limited the M1117s to the MP Units. Industry should have stepped up production of them with more than just Textron producing M1117s. Armed with a .50cal and 40mm grenade launcher in the turret, the M1117 can seat five and still fight. But the U.S. Army had to wait and produce the expensive MRAPs with their open turrets and large size, weight, and expense.
The TARDEC Ultra Light Vehicle (ULV) at 14,000 lbs has the protection of a MRAP. I don't know if it's V-Hull, but it's toted to survive IED, RPG, mine, and small arms. It wasn't made. The ULV is too late for Iraq and Afghanistan, but it can supplement the JLTV and is a ton lighter. Gross weight is 18,200 lbs whereas the JLTV gross weight is 21,000 lbs. I mean…ULV…is…right..here…as of 2014.
Then there is the AM General's HMMWV NXT 360 which is a beefed-up version of the HMMWV, and that weighs in at 15,500 lbs and seats four. It doesn't have a V-Hull, but it sure is more survivable than the basic HMMWV.
The problem with the JLTV is that it shares the same issues with the HMMWV and MRAPs in that it has an open turret and most don't carry more than a .50cal, 7.62mm, 40mm grenade launcher, or TOW launcher. The armament is the same against Insurgents and peer nations…that won't fly unless fitted with a 30mm RWS autocannon. Using Tactical Trucks against heavy mechanized forces is like bringing a handgun to a machine gun fight.
The MRZRs/ UTVs are even worse with no IED, mine, or armor whatsoever to protect against anything explosives, shrapnel, or ballistic. Besides being unarmored, they're under-armed with nothing more than carbines or a 7.62mm M240 medium machine gun. Uh, Chinese IFVs are meant to shrug off 12.7-14.5mm fire at the least. I doubt that the USMC will produce the German Wiesel 2 APC which should be around 10,500 lbs and only shrugs off 7.62mm fire at the most. Armor can probably be increased sacrificing weight and mobility.
The Textron M5 RIPSAW with 30mm has a GVW of 8,500 lbs and THAT is what the USMC needs, but it is unmanned and can't carry Marines. Can it be modified to carry Marines by extending it?
Should the USMC buy the Carmor MANTIS at 14,000 lbs and can seat five? There is a 6X6 APC version too that should weight more.
There are other options out there besides the JLTV. The UTV could qualify.
Why wasn't the TARDEC 30-ton CAMEL 8X8 built? It can transport nine soldiers in the rear, a TC, and a driver. The main problem with it is that the primary gun is way too high up on the roof so bow or chin machine guns might be needed. Sure it is heavy, but this CAMEL is probably one of the most secure and well-designed armor protected 8X8 out there. It could be a C5ISR vehicle or a drone mothership.
Is the JLTV a iron man suit? No, but what the author is completely oblivious to is the cutting edge hydraulic shocks that it comes with and what they can do.
Simply take a look at a trophy truck shock and then take a look at one from a HMMWV. The difference can’t be overstated.
Not nearly as compentant as some, but I think we still need the v-shaped hull. They worked well against mines as well not just IEDs in Rhodesia. Near peer may not rely on IEDs but theyll have mines.
Anyone who thinks the US military has seen the last of IEDs is absolutely delusional. Anyone we can expect to fight in the next 50 years will have SOF and irregular forces planting IEDs in the way of US troops.
The "Road Rage" incident involving the Russian armored vehicles against US special forces M-ATVs and MRAPs on the road proves that the notion of depending solely on JLTVs and other lightly armored vehicles as the sole attacking force is folly and poor philosophy. Just the sheer mass and firepower of a tank is enough to crush any 4X4 tactical truck, let alone mention the weak machine gun armament adorning many of these "Guntruck" MRAPs that cannot even challenge a tank. Tank cannons will always be faster to shoot, reload, and fly-to-hit than any ATGM tube launcher mounted on a truck.
The fact that hundreds to thousands of MRAPs were left behind in Iraq because it cost too much to ship them back to CONUS shows the poor logistical planning in evacuating and lending them to the nearby Allies, lest to mention if any Allies really wanted them after the withdraw. Armor in itself is precious, especially armored steel that can resist medium to heavy machine gun fire. It's a sad fact that finances and budgets determined which vehicles were abandoned due to shipping costs.