Enough with the cupholders…and the Toyota pickup lovers. This vehicle is 10X as reliable as HMMWV. Has onboard & exportable power; will run circles around HMMWV off-road; fully ready for whatever comms one wants to put on; can increase or decrease the armor; in short, light years ahead of HMMWV. It’s not perfect...no system is. But far, far from obsolete...will be around for 30-40 years.
I used the HMMWV extensively in Iraq, I never hated it. Yes the armor of the JLTV is a great upgrade and life saver, but other than that I thought the HMMWV was great.
"Some warfare experts see questionable value in simply adding more armor and horsepower."
Being better protected, especially in memory of the troops being forced to up-armor their own vehicles, is questionable?
Getting a wounded comrade to safety during the Golden Hour is questionable?
Who are these supposed warfare experts?
Hopefully for the troops, Boeing had absolutely nothing to do with it.
9
Technology is great if you have thousands of competent technicians to build and support it.
Guess what, we don't. Instead we have overworked and underpaid techs supervised by grandstanding managers, salespeople and puffed up executives. The chaos in medical technology should be a warning, with medical staff unable to comprehend even the basics of their equipment - yes, it does need power to work! - while techs are the ones having to worry about information security.
When will it be that technology outstrips our ability to keep it functional? I'd say about 5 years ago, maybe 10.
9
@Daedalus
To be fair new technology can be used to simplify the overall design. If designed correctly, computer-based controls can remove a lot of mechanical parts, and can sometimes enable better failure modes. For example, the computers of some Ford engines will cycle the cylinders on and off to maintain a safe temperature if the cooling system fails.
But I agree with your general point, when I read about the fancy active suspension that this has, my first thought was that it would add a lot of new failure points and new things to maintain. Hopefully they've engineered it robustly enough and have built graceful failure modes.
7
@Daedalus I don't know where this person gets his information. He had one experience at a previous place of employment? People today make so many assumptions it boggles the mind.
@Andrew
Simpler is better in lousy conditions. You want something you can fix fast and easy. You do NOT want something that is effectively disabled by a simple failure somewhere.
1
If you have to have the truck automatically re-levelled before you can open the doors, it seems that in combat people are going to be stuck in a can a lot of the time.
17
One of my neighbors, a WWII combat veteran and a pretty good engineer refused to ride in another neighbor’s prized 1972 Bricklin, as he immediately figured that the heavy, electrically opened gullwing doors would trap occupants in any kind of an electrical failure. The windows, of course, were electric as well. Some people see these things. Often, large design staffs cannot. I guess on this new jeep, the hatch on top may be the way out. Or not.
9
@WJG
Weapons, armor, and transportation for use in battle should be built for the worst alternatives or they will become hazards to those who use them. Loss of electrical power must be expected and cannot be allowed to turn the vehicles into death traps.
2
@WJG Literally in the middle of the article: "the JLTV also has a combat override switch that the driver can use to take all control away from the computer"
3
And following in the steps of it's predecessor, how long before one of these monsters will be tailgating me on the L.I.E. for my only doing 80?
19
@peter
That's what I was thinking. Chip away at the fuel efficiency standards some more and with current truck tax incentives these will be a hit.
1
This truck was approved by planners in 2006 and just now reaching military bases? 13 years just seems way too long from conception to reality. It would be easy to say it's the government's fault, but look at Boeing, they shot themselves in the foot. And this is the country that put a man on the moon. We've lost our way folks.
22
@Jerry How do you think Boeing, Lockheed, Raytheon and the rest of the defense contractors make so much money? It's not by delivering products to the American taxpayer on time and under budget.
25
The technology continues to advance and the problem is it takes a long time from the drafting board, to the test models to development of a production facility. These things are totally custom and have some technical wizardry we won’t see for years in our run of the mill Toyota.
6
@apparatchick It isn't just the manufacturers. An analysis of shipbuilding cost over-runs a few years ago was laid mostly at the feet of the Navy who made constant changes to specs.
3
How about the old Jeep it worked for years. Quick and nimble too. Great MPG. It doesn't leak oil like the Humvees did and do all the time. Of course the armor isn't there. I guess you could use in safer places.
It is a long way from the WW 2 Jeep.
1
From the comments, it looks like we had a visit from Consumer Reports.
Someone asked what the MPG is. Seriously?
3
The cost is $399,000 per vehicle by one source
49,000 vehicles at $399,999 is $19,551,000,000
that's 19.5 BILLION dollars
Meanwhile our enemies are driving around in Toyota pickups with a 12.7 mm machine gun mount welded in the back. They might cost $30,000 - less used. No need for a brand new one in combat. Our own Special Forces have used these in combat.
Think of IED's as low cost drone attacks. Set off remotely, low risk to controller. Wait and vehicles come to you.
IED's have been responsible for half of the deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan
An IED is typically a of couple 155 mm artillery rounds. Add a few more to make up for the increased armor and the cost of that IED is maybe $500 - though weaponry is lying around all over the MIddle East from looted national armories so cost to the user is
likely close to nothing.
You will never be able to completely protect soldiers no matter how much you send. Someone will always find a way to destroy whatever you build for a fraction of what you build.
4
Let's look at some numbers:
49,000,000 x $399,000 (price per JLTV) = $19,511,000,000
so this is going to cost 19.5 BILLION?!?!?!
Only the military gets to build what they want (not necessarily what they need or should have) without any regard for cost.
Half the people we're fighting are running around in Toyota Pickups with a 12.7mm machine gun welded on the bed. Our own Special Forces have used the same behind enemy lines.
You can get those for less than a TENTH of what we're paying for a new JLTV
The cost of a couple 155mm artillery shells (typical of an IED) is a few hundred dollars. That's a 13,000 to 1 return on investment for our enemies destroying one of these things.
Half the US deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq have come from IED's.
Think of them as low tech (and far less expensive) drone strikes. A remotely set off bomb destroys a vehicle with minimal risk.
So the US now uses heavily armored vehicles to protect against IED's. But IED's get larger. It never ends.
I don't want to see US soldiers dying but these never ending wars are bankrupting the US. What have we accomplished with the TRILLIONS wasted on Afghanistan and Iraq? What happened to Bush's new Iraq, an ally of the US, a new model for the region? Our actions keep making things worse.
You'd think our military would be tired of being squandered on pointless wars.
And as far as 'terrorists' go: We've created more of them than there ever were before a so convenient 'new Pearl Harbor'.
2
So... detailed financials aren't welcome? We'll try a simpler version
The cost is $399,000 per vehicle by one source
49,000 vehicles at $399,999 is $19,551,000,000
that's 19.5 BILLION dollars
Meanwhile our enemies are driving around in Toyota pickups with a 12.7 mm machine gun mount welded in the back. They might cost $30,000 - less used. No need for a brand new one in combat.
Think of IED's as low cost drone attacks. Set off remotely, low risk to controller. Wait and vehicles come to you.
IED's have been responsible for half of the deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan
An IED is typically a of couple 155 mm artillery rounds. Add a few more to make up for the increased armor and the cost of that IED is maybe $500 - though weaponry is lying around all over the MIddle East from looted national armories so cost to the user is
likely close to nothing.
An 'insurgent' blowing up one of these things is getting a 10,000 to 1 return on HIS cost.
You can't outspend someone who believes he's defending his home and family - especially at this expense ratio.
I don't want to see US soldiers killed but you can't keep that from happening in war especially when your enemy is willing to die.
1
Either pay $400,000 now on armored vehicles, or many hundreds of thousands more later on medical care. @cynicalskeptic Try being less left-brained and analytic for a moment. Engage your heart and consider the human cost of being blown up by an IED. The heartbreak attending lost limbs or lives, a father or mother not returning from the theater of war. A father or mother having to bury their child. Now consider lost productivity of maimed or deceased workers. Consider what it would cost to rehabilitate someone injured in a lightly armored vehicle in one of those attacks. Go look up statistics from the VA on how much it costs to rehab amputees or vets with PTSD from witnessing killing and maiming. Then, run the numbers back through your cost-benefit analysis again. No matter how cheap and effective the enemies tactics, we bear the brunt of the costs as a nation, and have a duty to protect our people
14
@Todd
Since Vietnam the military has focused on limiting combat DEATHS. High death counts make wars unpopular and get the public's attention.
The problem is that wars kill people - on both sides.
(Note: It does NOT matter if you kill more people than your enemy does. We have killed far more people in ANY war over the last century than we have had killed.)
But if one side is willing to suffer more casualties than the other, they can still win. Vietnam clearly made that point.
We do all we can to keep people alive when they're injured. We've become very successful at doing so. We have blind multiple amputees, traumatic brain injuries, all kinds of injuries you'd never survive if injured on the street in any US city - as long as they don't die in combat. But how much help are we providing these veterans after they leave the service?
Suicides occur at levels that outpace combat deaths but aren't counted as combat deaths. If we truly cared about veterans we'd be dealing with THAT STATISTIC. We wouldn't be pushing them to sign statements saying they are fine and not in need of medical treatment when they are discharged.
It is admirable to do all you can to keep soldiers from getting killed, but perhaps the BEST way to do that is to keep them out of pointless wars you will never win.
Even vets think these wars were a waste - see 'Trump's Opposition to endless Wars Appeals to Those That Fought Them' in today's issue.
5
The Humvee was a piece of garbage that was inferior to troop carriers that had ben in use since the 1980's. This looks like a bit of bloated beast too, at least it has armour and is V-shaped.
How many gallons per mile?
1
Why not drones and robot soldiers?
1
Great lede!
340 HP for 10,000 lb vehicle with a 5,000 lb payload capacity? Thought it was a typo, but apparently it’s not. And not a turbocharger or supercharger in sight.
@Joseph Sachter
Maybe it's turbocharged lol
Ugh. More money not going to people.
1
"which is far costlier than the latest Lamborghini Huracan"
The NYT could not figure out the price either.
Wiki: US$433,539 (inc R&D) (FY15)
A June 2013 report by the Congressional Research Service estimated the program cost at $23 billion, or $400,000 per vehicle; military leaders contended the unit cost is to be $250,000
on 23 March 2016 with the U.S. Army ordering 657 JLTVs, along with kits and support. The $243 million order ($370,000 with armor kits)
Who knows?
We better bring them home after deployment and leave them behind at $400k ea.
1
Charlie didn't get much USO. He was dug in too deep or moving too fast. His idea of great R&R was cold rice and a little rat meat. He had only two ways home: death, or victory.
2
Oh, and it's made by Oshkosh Defense in case anyone is interested.
4
Call me picky, trivia oriented if you like. I missed just a couple of little details: cost per vehicle and how many troops does it carry?
Classified, or is it ossified out of the gate?
3
American youth looking for a cup holder in their vehicle ,their opponents not needing a vehicle or even a cup....
4
A combat vehicle needs an automatic leveler in order for troops to exit? I certainly hope there’s a manual jack as a backup.
6
“It’s fun, its powerful, and it’s safe.” A novel description of a fighting vehicle.
No mention of weight. If the doors weigh 400 pounds each then the rest of the vehicle must be in the 3 ton plus range. I hope the Pentagon has lots of portable bridges to be towed behind these JLTVs so they can cross rivers and streams in the Third World.
1
According to Wikipedia, there is an option for a remotely operated M2 Browning .50 caliber machine gun. That should be standard for urban operations. No sense exposing a gunner unnecessarily.
1
I fully realize it's "apple and oranges" but you can buy 443 white Toyota pickups with welded gun mounts in the bed for the price of one of these "gold watch" specials. And the Toyota does have cup holders...
4
@PGK
Not really. Toyota 'technicals' are the standard mode of 'transport' for 'insurgents in the Middle East and Africa.
Mount a 12.7mm machine gun or 20mm cannon and you've got a FAST maneuverable and cheap gun mount
2
How long before it's called The Jolter?
This is a lightweight article. Please explain what’s a better configuration for future conflicts with China and Russia? Stealth race cars. Also, development cycles on products like this are on the order of decades. Product design is predicated largely on anticipating future trends-hence there is always guesswork involved. I see little downside in a more capable, general purpose troop mover. Finally, comfortable troops are more effective troops. It’s long known systems like good climate control in cars reduce accidents. I see few issues here frankly, the troops welcome it, and the criticisms are half baked.
8
Many rich and crazy civilians will want one of these.
It is a mixed blessing to have doors that you have to wait a few seconds before you open them versus having the armor in the doors to protect you whether you're driving or sitting still.
Not practical or green, but they will be popular outside of the military.
Expect to have one tailgating you at 80 mph soon.
1
How are we gonna pay for full-deployment if Elizabeth Warren creams $800-billion out of the defense budget? Someone ought to ask her.
1
A plan to purchase "49,000 of these vehicles over the next ten years" is testament to our defective defense leadership.
Since our effects-based success in Desert Storm, a generation of leaders, including Jim Mattis, have been mired in a strategy best labeled: LMBOTG - Lots More Boots on the Ground.
Instead of extended, low intensity ground combat, we should be exploiting our asymmetric advantages in air, space, and sea-based systems, modifying rules of engagement to support standoff lethality, and non-kinetic, remote, and autonomous weapons.
I've flown, commanded, or planned in every US conflict between 1965 and 1995. Creating a force structure that can actually utilize 49,000 of these vehicles plus thousands of armored vehicle and helicopters is just plain nuts.
Consider, for a bit, if George W. Bush had responded to the 9/11 attacks, just as we always announced we would respond to an attack on the US: with a full nuclear retaliatory response on every site in Afghanistan suspected of supporting bin Laden and his associates.
We should remember that Osama bin Laden explicitly said in 2004 that his strategy was "bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy." 49,000 JLTV's and the troops required to operate, maintain, and fight them are on the road to that result.
5
Gas mileage: 3 mpg? Not a good thing.
1
SUV for the military, no healthcare for tens of millions of Americans. How to pay for MfA? Cut the bloated military budget by 90%, then in 10 years, that’s a $6.5 trillion savings. Rescind the tax cuts for the billionaires, after all, these SUVs are protecting their money, not me and the vast majority of Americans.
2
Bravo for the JLTV. Our troops will undoubtedly be more well served and protected by this vehicle than the Humvee. This vehicle offers a higher level of protection from most of our adversaries weapons. But it is a war fighting vehicle and there is NO such thing as a “safe” vehicle in a shooting situation.
The speed of this vehicle allow our troops to get out of the kill zone quicker.
In conversations with actual users of this vehicle they speak highly of it’s comfort level more so than its speed. They can patrol in it for extended periods of time wearing all of their personal protection gear and not be nearly as fatigued as they were in a Humvee.
And it’s assembled in the USA from mostly USA sourced or heavily modified foreign components.
Is this vehicle perfect.......No.......is it better than the Humvee......absolutely.
3
I'm a progressive. But, as long as our foreign policy and Western companies continue to pillage the 3rd world, and as long as we need oil, the men and women sent in to these areas to clean up the mess needs to be well-funded, well-paid and the VA needs to become some of the best medical and mental health services that are available (and be available that day or the next for an appointment. Our soldiers need the best equipment, armor, protection, the best weapons, the best support and the best food (and they shouldn't have to pay for it out of their own pockets.)
You can't just wave the flag around and say 'honor our troops' without putting your money where your mouth is and taking care of them in the field, and at home (both for themselves and their families). We have a duty to these brave people. They don't have a choice about where they are sent, but when they get there, I want them to have the best advantages we can provide them.
To do anything less is indefensible.
3
The Army says it offers the protection of an MRAP with off-road performance approaching that of a Baja racer.
Having been in the Army around the same time as the first Humvees were being issued, I can already presume that the JLTV is probably obsolete. Testers said the Humvees were light years ahead of the old M-151 Jeeps. But they were prone to break downs, frozen diesel lines and had a shoddy suspension. Simply adding armor and cup holders is probably not a good way to judge any tactical vehicle.
1
No stealth technology?
I look forward to purchasing the civilian version to replace my Hummer.
The humvee was a death trap in the actions involving lightly armed opponents in close quarter engagements. Heavy machine guns, rocket propelled grenades, mines, ieds, and gasoline bombs overwhelmed the light construction and focused the harm upon the occupants. The only vehicles that were able to withstand those challenges were armored personnel carriers and specialized armored transports purchased from South African sources. This vehicle makes sense for these kinds of wars.
The humvee would still be better for transporting infantry with huge armored formations in conventional big armored led battles. There is and has been since World War II a preference among the higher officers to focus resources on the warfare requiring many tanks and huge infantry formations. They want to direct all resources into that kind of warfare. It tends to underestimate the fact that the overwhelming amount of warfare has always been been lightly armed opponents, not the World War II big battles.
To me their ultimate value will come in terms of how few we really need, and how and where we use them. Will they be used to perpetuate armed conflict, or only defensively in a really close sense? The devastating Iraq invasion propelled the Humvee upgrades...do we see either the lies behind that war or the sheer deadly harm our vast military has caused, despite the good hearts of honorable veterans everywhere?
We make these things-- helicopters, artillery, armored vehicles, on and on-- to sell on the international market. We make them so that our military can protect us. To whom do we sell? Protect us where and how, exactly? With great freedom comes great responsibility.
Glad they're fun to drive though.
1
Wanna hazard any guesses as to what the world will look like when these things hit the military surplus auctions?
Glad I won't be around.
6
Strangely, this article does not list the modest 'sticker price' of $433,000. I wonder how much healthcare you can buy for that amount of $$$?
Also, if the JLTV is not relevant in tomorrow's high-intensity battlefield, what would be relevant? What would that look like? Why don't we get that? Why buy something that is already obsolete?
12
@Bob To compare combat vehicles to civilian healthcare costs is not right IMHO. Borders must be safe and strategic assets must be preserved at "any" cost. Without the protection, civilian life cannot be pleasant when a war or disaster strikes without notice. Those that protect civilians must be protected from harms way as they have families too.
People protecting civilians deserve the ultimate protection.
9
@Bob wrote: "Also, if the JLTV is not relevant in tomorrow's high-intensity battlefield, what would be relevant?"
It is relevant for low-intensity warfare such as what we have experienced since invading Iraq in 2003.
If, instead, thirty Chinese armored divisions were bearing down on our guys, we would want our guys in tanks, armored troop carriers, or bunkers, and we would be relying on other weapons and systems to eliminate their air power and reduce their armor.
1
@Raj
The long pole is always money; more expensive vehicles mean fewer can be procured. That said, for an armored vehicle (essentially a small APC, not just a truck) the price is not unusual. The cost of one F-35 would pay for over 100 JLTVs.
2
The phrase "roadside bomb attacks, which skyrocketed..." probably could use a different metaphor.
20
Lamborghini Huracan starts out at around $200K, while the JLTV is "far costlier"
At least Jeeps and HUMVEE's were American made.
The JLTV showed up from where?
@Bill. Mostly from the USA. The engine is a GM derived power plant which is modified for military use in the USA. The rolling chassis is made in the USA Midwest. Sure there are no doubt parts from outside the USA but by and large US workers are benefitting form the building of this vehicle.
6
It’s actually American. Made by Oshkosh Manufacturing.
@Bill Also the United States. You'll be hard-pressed to find DoD vehicles or armaments made elsewhere.
1
Great way to keep living beyond our means and running up the debt. Yay 'Merica.
19
@David I'm happier with keeping our young servicemen and women living.
17
@David The MIC is a beast which must be fed, and fat.
2
@David, being from an era of deuce and half and jeeps, the military needs a good ride (with cup holders). Maybe we can stop those expensive presidential golf outings and give the savings to the military to save a few bucks or build schools at Ft. Campbell.
2
There is more to the JLTV than how fast it goes. The Director of Operational Test and Evaluation at the Office of the Secretary of Defense issued a test report listing a number of deficiencies that must be resolved.
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-army/2019/02/22/the-newly-fielded-joint-light-tactical-vehicle-is-not-operationally-suitable/
7