Tactical vehicles evolve to fight in a hybrid battlespace

The modern battlefield no longer belongs solely to armor thickness and engine power. Drones circle overhead, electronic warfare degrades communications, and sensor networks feed commanders more data than any single operator can process in real time. Against that backdrop, two companies from opposite ends of the defense technology spectrum are betting that the next leap in tactical vehicle capability won’t come from a bigger gun or thicker plate, but from how quickly a crew can understand what’s happening around them.

Supacat, the British high-mobility vehicle specialist behind the combat-proven High Mobility Transporter (HMT) and Jackal platforms, has spent more than 45 years building vehicles trusted by armed forces to move personnel and equipment across the world’s most demanding terrain. Distance Technologies, a Finnish startup founded on glasses-free mixed reality and computational optics, has spent the past several years proving that same technology can turn a windshield or a driver’s field of view into a live tactical display, without goggles, without extra screens, and without pulling a soldier’s eyes away from the road ahead. In June 2026, the two companies signed a three-year framework agreement covering the integration of Distance’s augmented reality systems across Supacat’s HMT fleet, a partnership that follows an earlier 2025 collaboration bringing the same technology to Supacat’s Jackal platform.

That agreement sits at the center of a broader concept both companies now describe as the hybrid battlespace, a term for a battlefield where crewed vehicles no longer operate as isolated platforms but as connected nodes inside a much larger network of drones, sensors, autonomous systems, and command infrastructure. The Defence Blog spoke with Phil Applegarth, Director at Supacat, and Urho Konttori, Founder and CEO of Distance Technologies, about what that shift means for how tactical vehicles are designed, why information overload has become as dangerous as any physical threat, and where they see vehicle crews fitting into a battlefield increasingly shaped by autonomous systems.

The following Q&A was submitted and answered in writing.

Q: You describe tactical vehicles moving from simple mobility platforms to “digital combat nodes.” Could you walk me through the technologies that allow navigation, ISR feeds and real-time threat data to be integrated directly into the vehicle?

Phil Applegarth: The important point from Supacat’s perspective isn’t necessarily any individual technology. It’s the role the vehicle is beginning to play within the wider force. Modern tactical vehicles are becoming connected operational platforms. They need to exchange information via command-and-control systems, integrate with sensors, operate alongside autonomous assets and support crews who are making decisions in increasingly compressed timescales.

Our responsibility is to ensure the platform itself provides the flexibility to integrate those capabilities without creating sensory overload, while maintaining the qualities operators expect from a Supacat vehicle: exceptional mobility, reliability, durability and survivability.

That means thinking beyond the vehicle as simply a means of transportation. It becomes a platform capable of supporting digital capability throughout its service life, adapting as new technologies emerge and operational requirements evolve.

Urho Konttori: From our perspective, the challenge today isn’t gathering information. Military platforms already receive enormous amounts of data from navigation systems, ISR assets, mission systems, vehicle sensors and command networks.

The real challenge is presenting that information in a way that allows crews to understand it instantly.

Historically, that has meant multiple screens, multiple interfaces and operators constantly shifting their attention between displays and the outside world. Every time that happens, valuable time and focus are lost.

Our mixed reality technology takes a different approach by projecting relevant information directly into the operator’s field of view. Navigation guidance, vehicle information, mission updates or threat notifications can all be presented where they’re naturally visible without forcing operators to continually look down at separate displays.

Equally important is understanding what not to show. We don’t believe success comes from displaying more information. Success comes from presenting only the information that helps the operator make better decisions at exactly the moment it’s needed.

Courtesy photo by Distance Technologies

Q: How much does presenting AR overlays within the driver’s field of view actually reduce risk at speed over difficult terrain compared with traditional screens or handheld devices?

Phil Applegarth: Drivers operating across difficult terrain are already managing an enormous amount of information. They’re assessing the ground ahead, communicating with the crew, monitoring vehicle performance and maintaining awareness of potential threats, often while travelling at speed in demanding environments.

Anything that enables them to keep their attention focused outside the vehicle while accessing mission-critical information has obvious operational value.

Ultimately, it’s about supporting better decision-making without increasing cognitive workload. If technology enables crews to maintain situational awareness while remaining focused on manoeuvre, then it has the potential to become a very valuable capability.

Urho Konttori: From our perspective, it’s about reducing unnecessary attention switching. Every time a driver looks away from the outside world to check a dashboard display or another screen, there’s a momentary interruption in visual awareness. Those interruptions may only last fractions of a second, but in demanding operational environments they can make a significant difference.

Our objective is to remove as many of those interruptions as possible. By projecting contextual information directly into the driver’s natural field of view, operators can continue looking through the windscreen while simultaneously receiving the information they need.

Just as importantly, the technology should feel intuitive. If users have to consciously think about the interface, we’ve created another task for them to manage. Good interface design almost disappears, allowing operators to concentrate entirely on the mission rather than the technology supporting it.

Q: Estimates show that up to 80% of casualties in future conflicts could be caused by autonomous systems. How does this shape your development priorities?

Phil Applegarth: The broader point is that warfare is changing at an extraordinary pace. Recent reporting from the conflict in Ukraine has suggested drones are now responsible for a significant proportion of battlefield casualties, highlighting just how dramatically the threat environment has evolved over a relatively short period.

For us, the precise percentage is less important than what it tells us about the direction of travel. Vehicle crews are increasingly operating in environments where they must simultaneously monitor physical threats, aerial threats, electronic activity and information from multiple digital systems. That’s creating far greater cognitive demands on the individual operator than we’ve seen previously.

Our priority is therefore ensuring tactical vehicles don’t simply transport personnel, but actively support decision-making by enabling crews to receive and interpret the most important information more effectively while remaining focused on their primary task.

Urho Konttori: Whether the information comes from drones, autonomous systems, sensors or command networks, operators are having to process far greater volumes of information while making decisions under considerable pressure.

That fundamentally changes how we think about technology. Our goal isn’t to add another display or another stream of information. It’s to simplify the interaction between people and increasingly complex digital systems.

As battlefield data continues to grow, the competitive advantage won’t simply come from collecting more information. It will come from presenting the right information, in the right context and at the right moment so operators can understand it almost instinctively.

That’s really the philosophy that underpins everything we do. Technology should reduce cognitive burden, not contribute to it.

Courtesy photo by Distance Technologies

Q: How do you weigh large-scale autonomous systems against improving how crews interact with information at the platform level? Which do you see delivering greater practical value for ground forces?

Phil Applegarth: These are two sides of the same coin, and will evolve together. Autonomous systems are already demonstrating significant value across reconnaissance, logistics, surveillance and force protection, and that role will only continue to expand. At the same time, there will continue to be highly trained personnel making complex tactical decisions in dynamic and contested environments.

The real opportunity lies in ensuring those crews can work seamlessly alongside autonomous capabilities. Tactical vehicles will increasingly act as the hub that connects people, uncrewed systems and wider command networks. That requires platforms that are not only physically capable, but digitally enabled.

Working with Distance Technologies reflects that thinking. Future capability isn’t simply about adding new technology to a vehicle, it’s about integrating it in a way that genuinely enhances operational performance. If crews can receive and interpret information more effectively, they’ll be better placed to exploit the growing number of autonomous systems operating around them.

Ultimately, successful human-machine teaming isn’t about replacing people. It’s about ensuring technology enhances human judgement, enabling faster, more informed decisions when they matter most.

Urho Konttori: I completely agree. There’s often a tendency to frame autonomy as replacing the human, but that’s not how we see it.

For the foreseeable future, people will remain responsible for the most complex decisions on the battlefield. The challenge is ensuring they have the information they need, presented in a way that allows them to make those decisions quickly and confidently.

As autonomous systems become more capable, they’ll generate even more data. Without intuitive interfaces, that risks overwhelming operators rather than empowering them.

That’s where human-machine interaction becomes so important. We see our role as reducing the friction between the operator and increasingly sophisticated digital systems. The technology should work quietly in the background, allowing the person to remain focused on the mission rather than managing the interface itself.

Ultimately, the most effective autonomous system is one that complements human decision-making rather than competing with it.

Q: Given current trends in the growing role of drones and sensor networks on the battlefield, which specific threats have most influenced Supacat’s design decisions for tactical vehicles in recent years?

Phil Applegarth: The proliferation of drones has undoubtedly been one of the biggest developments we’ve seen over the last few years. Tactical vehicles now operate under much greater levels of observation than they did previously, placing increased emphasis on mobility, agility and the ability to manoeuvre quickly through contested environments.

At the same time, electronic warfare, persistent surveillance and increasingly sophisticated sensor networks mean crews are operating in a far more complex battlespace. Vehicles need to be prepared to operate in environments where communications may be degraded, where GPS cannot always be relied upon and where threats can emerge with very little warning.

That reinforces the importance of designing adaptable platforms. Modern tactical vehicles need the electrical power, digital architecture and physical flexibility to accommodate new sensors, mission systems and technologies throughout their service life.

The pace of innovation we’re seeing across modern conflict means adaptability has become every bit as important as protection or mobility. Future platforms have to be capable of evolving to outmatch emerging threats.

Urho Konttori: The biggest change we’ve observed is the speed at which operators are expected to understand and respond to what is happening around them.

Drones, distributed sensors and digital networks are dramatically increasing the amount of information available to crews. That’s undoubtedly a positive development, but only if operators can absorb that information quickly enough to act upon it.

We therefore focus less on the individual threat and more on helping operators make sense of an increasingly complex environment.

Whether the information relates to an aerial threat, terrain, navigation, friendly force positions or mission updates, the challenge remains the same. The operator has only a limited amount of attention available.

Our philosophy is that technology should help prioritise information, presenting only what is relevant at that moment and filtering out unnecessary complexity. We believe that will become increasingly important as the battlefield continues to evolve and digital systems become even more interconnected.

Courtesy photo by Distance Technologies

Q: What key gaps or challenges still need to be addressed for tactical vehicles to be fully integrated into a broader digital and autonomous force structure over the next five to ten years?

Phil Applegarth: One of the biggest challenges will be interoperability. Platforms no longer operate in isolation. Future tactical vehicles must integrate seamlessly with wider command networks, autonomous systems, sensors and allied capabilities. Achieving that requires open architecture, modular design and common standards that allow technology to evolve throughout a platform’s operational life.

Equally important is resilience. Digital capability should enhance operational effectiveness, but platforms must continue to perform when communications are degraded, when GPS is unavailable or elements of the wider network are disrupted. Military vehicles have always needed to be robust, and that requirement extends just as much to their digital capability as it does to their physical design.

Finally, procurement needs to recognise the pace of technological change. Vehicle platforms often remain in service for decades, whereas digital technologies evolve far more rapidly. Future capability therefore depends on designing adaptable platforms that enable quick updates and upgrades to assure minimum risk to platform availability. This considered design ensures rapid integration of new software, sensors and mission systems as operational requirements develop.

Working with specialist technology partners such as Distance Technologies is an important part of that approach. By combining expertise in tactical mobility with expertise in digital interfaces, we can develop solutions that are both operationally relevant today and flexible enough to evolve for tomorrow.

Urho Konttori: I think the biggest challenge is ensuring technology evolves around the operator, rather than expecting the operator to adapt to increasingly complex technology.

Over the next decade, military vehicles will receive information from autonomous systems, drones, ISR assets, AI-enabled decision-support tools and increasingly sophisticated command networks. If those systems remain fragmented, operators risk becoming overloaded rather than empowered.

The future lies in bringing those different information sources together into a single, intuitive experience. Operators shouldn’t have to think about which sensor generated an alert or where a particular piece of information originated. They should simply receive the information that matters, in the right context and at precisely the right time.

That will require closer collaboration across the defence industry than we’ve perhaps seen before. Vehicle manufacturers, software developers and technology companies all bring different areas of expertise, and future capability will depend on integrating those disciplines from the earliest stages of development.