Babcock International Group, in partnership with Supacat, has secured a contract to produce an additional 53 Jackal 3 High Mobility Transporter (HMT) vehicles for the British Army.

This new order will see the construction of a 6-wheeled ‘extenda’ variant, known as the Jackal 3(E), at Babcock’s Devonport manufacturing facility.

The Jackal 3(E) is a versatile, high-mobility weapons platform that is battle-proven, having been used extensively in Afghanistan. Designed by Supacat and built in the UK, the vehicle is capable of handling reconnaissance, patrol, and logistics tasks, with the new variant featuring an additional axle for increased load capacity.

Despite the extra axle, the Jackal 3(E) retains its exceptional off-road performance, reaching speeds of up to 120km/h.

Initially developed for Afghanistan, the Jackal can be used for deep reconnaissance, rapid assault, fire support, and convoy protection. The Jackal 3(E) will further enhance these capabilities, ensuring the British Army is equipped for modern combat scenarios.

Babcock and Supacat had already begun production on 70 Jackal 3s earlier this year, as part of the UK’s Land Industrial Strategy.

Tom Newman, Babcock’s Land Sector Chief Executive, commented: “This contract delivers a critical boost to the British Army with a vehicle that is the most capable and versatile in its class. Babcock is here to ensure that the British Army is ready to fight and win wars on land and while doing so, I am very proud that we are also securing jobs in the South West and delivering on the Land Industrial Strategy.”

Production on the Jackal 3(E) will begin in early 2025, with delivery expected in early 2026. Nearly all components for the programme will be sourced within the UK, with 50% of the supply chain coming from the South West, contributing to the region’s economy.

Supacat’s Managing Director, Phil Applegarth, added: “We are enormously proud that Supacat’s Jackal 3 ‘Extenda’ is now adding to the Army’s Land Fleet, supporting the intent of increasing lethality with a modular high-mobility platform. Our partnership with Babcock continues to bring significant benefits to both the UK and local economies through social value.”

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

62 COMMENTS

    • And 9 M270A Recovery too.
      Batteries up from 6 to 9.
      Part of Land Deep Fires program.
      Conventional gunnery also needs a lift, it cannot be much worse at present having given away most of the remaining guns.

      • There still the light gun replacement project set to seriously begin in the next decade; what that ends up being is in debate, some early tenders have suggested a very light SPG based on the Supercat Jackal chassis – expensive and likely wouldn’t come in numbers above 120 but would have very broad, modern capabilities. Others have been more conventional towed light guns with modern fire control, ammunition support and ergonomics – cheaper and could see numbers into the hundreds; potentially could fit out a modern RM artillery battery as well. Personally, I’d like to see a few hundred towed guns be bought and stored in numbers while a smaller number are kept operational in larger batteries then exist today – but that’s fantasy army games in my head.

        The Boxer RCH is coming and budgeted for by the end of this decade, the money allocated could buy just over 200 of them if they are bought at the same price Ukraine paid for theirs. Ideally 120-150 would be a great number to regenerate the RA to a fully fledged and numerically potent force.

        As per usual it’s just another capability gap to add to the list of many, light does exist at the end of the tunnel of this one however – if the huge MLRS purchase is anything to go by there is genuine commitment to building up the artillery again.

        • On RCH155 Id be amazed if there are more than 90, and wouldn’t be surprised at 60 or 70!
          We know the excuse by now. Better, more agile, more capable, less needed.
          There are only 2 Regiments, or 3 if 7 Bdes 4RA gets them. A few others for 14, trials, and small reserve.
          3×8 or 3×6 so 24 or 18 gun Regiments also seem to be a thing of the past. 19 has only 2 Batteries of Archer, and I think 4 RA has 2 Batteries of 6 Light Gun.
          Regiments in name only firepower wise.
          I’d love to question CGS on his plan to double then triple lethality, surely it cannot all be about modern targeting and SA, firepower must come into it.

          • The original budget for the mobile fires platform was £802 million, or equivalent to 77 Boxer RCH platforms at the stated £12 million per unit. The outgoing defense procurement minister James Cartridge said when the RCH procurement was announced that the program has been expanded and would now be worth up to £3bn by the end of the decade – equivalent to about 290 units if every last penny of that was to be spent just on the vehicles. A recent (but slightly questionable source from an article in the British Army Magazine – aimed at serving soldiers) claims the RA is set to receive 116 platforms by 2030, if true that would be just under half of the newly stated budget would be spent within the next 5.5 years (well under maximum budget) but, would mean there is further procurement potential for additional Boxers RCHs beyond 2030 – as it clearly states 116 *by* 2030 potentially implying there will also be additional units after that.

            How the RA will organize the new guns is up to anyone’s guess. Seeing as they are expanding the number of operational MLRS by over 3 times and the numbers of other systems operated by them (namely air defenses) are also under review for expansion I can only imagine the entire order of the Royal artillery as we know it will be changed within the coming decade and could ultimately become one of the largest parts of the British army.

            A final piece of speculation I’ve seen floating around is that the light gun replacement program has silently been integrated into the MFP and the new £3bn budget for it is also intended to cover the replacement of the 126 L118 guns as well. If true I’d imagine the end goal of the RCH program could ultimately end up being around >200 units (with the further deliveries beyond 116 (assuming that is the correct number) coming in the 2030s) and mean the 7 existing light gun regiments could reroll – in doing so the total sum of active guns & regiments would stay the same however, the number of 155mm SPGs would increase multiple times over, it would also act as a potential cost savings measure as the coming light gun replacement can then be cut without failing to replace them and a single system will then be standardized across the RA; all of this technically increasing the Royal Artilleries inventories & looking good for the press whilst it actually stays at roughly the same number it currently is at and another program can be cut without controversy.

            The last part is pure speculation I’ve seen passed around here and other places however, could have some truth – at this point there isn’t a massive amount of information on any of it. If the budget had stayed at £800m then I’d agree with your 60-70 vehicles guess however, with the new budget increase of <£3bn only getting 70 odd would mean we are spending £42m per vehicle, which is absurd even for British procurement (literally half the cost of a Typhoon and 1/5th the cost of a T-31 frigate each!).

          • Hi Rowan.
            Really interesting post.
            The 116 has been banded about before, and I too had seen it referenced in Soldier Magazine. ( I used to be a subscriber myself, long ago. ) I think that ref is back when the MFP was for up to 4 Regiments worth of guns.
            26RA has converted back to MLRS as part of the endless musical chairs/musical regiments game with that since 2010. It was a Bde Close Support asset but lost its AS90 guns when the Bde left Paderborn.
            3 RHA has joined it on MLRS, from Light Gun.
            So that leaves the Regs I outlined.
            I would be delighted if your second paragraph becomes reality with some serious expansion. The RA is my fav arm and has been neglected for decades. I cannot see how it happens without a huge restructure and more people recruited.
            There are rumours a 3rd AD Regiment forms. How, no one knows beyond the army, taking headcount from 5AAC was one suggestion. Beyond additional Batteries to existing formations, like a third Fire Battery per MLRS Reg so they have 6 rather than 2, I just cannot see it.
            The LDFP Land Deep Fires Program is now looking at 9 Batteries up from 6, 3 of which are reserve, so that would fit with my 3+3+3 in 101 RA the Reserve outfit to make the 9.
            I had not heard of these stories about LG being included. If so, the RCH155 is obviously not suited to two of the LG regs, 29RA and 7 RHA, supporting the Marines and Airborne/Air Assault forces.
            And as there are only 3 LG Regiments in the regular army, that is some kit headed towards the Reserve!
            Your points on the budget are valid, I’d not taken the increase into consideration. Knowing DE&S it would not surprise me the money they pay! Surely not!!

          • Hi mate, see my post to Rowan. We would not spend £42M per equipment. There is a lot of other stuff to fund out of the earmarked programme budget, before you buy a single production standard SPG.

          • Yes. I still only see a buy well below 100 guns, sadly.
            The Regiments to operate them either don’t exist or gave converted to other equipment.

          • The numbers have been announced – 116 RCH 155mm. Gid knows how they came up with that figure but 12 Batteries of 9 gun Bty (or 4 x Regt) or 19 Bty of 6.

          • Morning P.
            Sorry, can I ask the source? As I mentioned above, my understanding was that the 116 was just reporters digging up the old number when FMF 1st started, before some of the regiments involved got MLRS.
            I’ve not seen any official announcement beyond Rishi Sunaks grandstanding to look good.

          • Everyone seems to forget the guns that are not in the Field Force. Sorry to sound like a stuck record, but there are the guns in the Trg Org, those in the Repair Pool and those in the Attrition Reserve.

            I would be amazed if the 116 figure is accurate

        • why so many towed light guns? its very limited in range, not quick in and out of action and its range is poor. A mounted 120mm Mortar is better than the light gun. Higher rate of fire, under armour and latest can fire on the move. less for range and ease of deployment in jungle/mountains etc

          • We have, have had more Light Gun Regiments beyond those used to support the RM and Paras because when the 2010 cuts took effect they cut perfectly good AS90 guns and replaced them with the LG!
            Those being 3 RHA, 4RA.
            Add these to 29RA, 7 RHA and the Reserve LG Regs including those used by saluting Batteries and there are quite a few.
            It used to irritate me immensely that the CDS/CGS used to bang on about the Strike Bde concept, and Light Guns were its supporting artillery!
            Now those guns in 4 RA support 7 Light Mech Bde. I’d love to see the Archers put in it or another SPG acquired.
            A 120mm Mortar should surely only supplement the LG, and be used by the Infantry, as the LG has a longer range, and can be underslung and put in some hard to reach places like what happened in Helmand.

          • The light gun should never be used to support Armour etc, its ideal for 29CO/7RHA roles. On a battle field its range etc and weight of round is use less.
            As always some crazy guy at the top has brain wave and buggers it all up. We have too many light guns and we need 155mm Range, weight of fire, protection, in and out of action time on an SP mount. Not convinced the RHC155mm is good enough when its not tracked.
            That no tracked SP gun will come back to bite us one day, saying that no RCH155 have been ordered. So they a few years away any way.
            No light gun replacement even looked at, No new VSHORAD, SHORAD even looked at yet. And not enough Sky Sabre to go around and no long range ground based AD either.

          • and including non regular? the light gun is useless for any other than its light/airborne roles. Why we have more than 2 Regts of it is beyond me.
            Every one bangs on about it, but is not a weapon i’d want to work on modern mobile armoured battle field. And yes i have used it etc ideal for Marines/Paras and in jungle.Lacks range 17200m, lacks protection, slow in and out of action.

          • If you want to include Reserves (the term for “non regular”) it’s 5, but riddle me this: when was the last time a Reserve Artillery Regiment deployed in full? Artillery reservists are generally used as individual augmenters for regular regiments, so in that sense what they’re equipped with is fairly moot.

            You say it’s ideal for Marines and Paras, well congratulations that’s 2 out of 3 of the Regiments that are equipped with it, the last being 7 Light Mech, which is designed for out of area, non peer fighting alongside 16 Air Assault… sooo… seems a bit of a moot point again.

            (I’d also add that the Ukranians seem to like their Light Guns and M777’s).

          • “Why we have more than 2 Regts of it is beyond me.”

            I mentioned why, above and further up in my reply to Rowan, because of defence cuts of equipment like AS90, and reissuing with the L118.

            And it was issued to the TA, now Army Reserve too, as they do not have the allocations of major kit the regulars have, so the Light Gun is used for training and for salutes. The personnel deploy as augmentees so it is fine for this.
            It could be worse, at least the Regiments were retained!

          • And what bright spark though a 105mm Light was a good replacement for an AS90, the clever know it alls at the top.
            The light gun is ideal heli borne or light troops that is it. There is Supercat/Coyota 105mm light gun protype though, good idea if its ever ordered to replace most of the towed ones.

          • Well yes, it isn’t.
            I think it a mix of lack of money and downsizing as a mix of short sightedness from government and possibly the top brass saw less need for the heavier army elements, and HMG had mandated the heavy side of the army to be 1 Division in size.

            In the 2010 review 5 Armoured or Mechanized Brigades were reduced to 3, as 4 Mech and 7 Armoured had their heavier elements cut and they became Infantry Brigades in 1 UK Division. So of the then 5 AS90 Regiments, 2 became Light Gun, as the Brigades they now formed a part of were Infantry Bdes. AS90s do not go well with that type of formation.

            It is not a case of they thought they’d be good replacements, they got what we had going.

            Up to around 2005, we had 6 AS90 Regiments. The sixth of them went when 19 Mech became 19 Light, leaving the 5 which supported the 5 Bdes I mentioned above, 1,4,12 Mech, 7 and 20 Armoured.

          • Correct, the key take away is the entire formations got lighter, not just a random cut to the AS90 fleet.

            I’d note though that even pre-2010 there where still 3 Light Gun regiments in the regulars.

            Hell pretty sure 105’s featured in the late BAOR orbat supporting 2nd division and other follow on forces that where not armoured.

        • We bought 179 AS-90s in the early 90s. Usually replacement fleets are less than half that which went before, so we won’t get 200. I would guess at 60-75. i don’t think you are factoring in the cost of further development, testing, certification and running a bi-natonal project office.

  3. To my untrained eye these looks wildly vulnerable. I mean I know they’re well loved by the Army so obviously I am missing something, but those open cabs look totally exposed

    • I’m surprised these vehicles would be well loved especially winter time when it’s raining . Do they not have a canopy or anything

      • Their not. They were designed for use in Afghan and Iraq where it hardly ever rains ( although it is blo*dy cold at night ) . They are highly mobile and carry loads, ammo, food additional fuel etc. but an MRAP they are not. They are highly vulnerable to conventional mines, PMR , Mk 7 etc, because although the crew sit directly over the front wheel stations despite the V shaped hull. They were designed for IS/COIN scenarios and are prob sufficient for out of area Ops , Africa for example but in a conventional war in Europe where they are currently being deployed apart from rear area security IE force protection IMHO they have no role.

    • I can’t help feeling the same, having watched a number of videos of FPVs and cluster munitions hitting Russian troops assaults…
      If you’re missing something, then I am too.

    • I would think that the rapid development of drones, is making people think in regards to the vulnerability of large expensive tanks, to very inexpensive drones.
      Is the writing on the wall for tanks.

      • eh? So we move away from the large expensive tanks due to their vulnerability from drones and instead purchase extra Jackals (FFBNW sunroof) due their invulnerability to said Drone attacks?

    • I know we need to be careful about pulling too many lessons from Ukraine without question. But, from what I’ve seen, IFVs and artillery have been far more valuable to Ukraine than MBTs.
      Not sure that Jackal falls into either category to be fair, but still…

      • At the start of WW1 we were poorly equipped in Artillery. Our fire control, observation and lack of high calibre guns cost hundreds of thousands of lives. We were badly prepared and equipped. At the end of WW1 Artillery was the second biggest part of the army. Through WW2 Korea Falklands Artillery was key. In Ukraine we have seen the rise of the drone. One thing on their shopping list every time is 155 or such like ammunition. The basics don’t change.

        • True, even though it’s taken 2 years, the first NATO standard thing that Ukraine starts domestic production of is 155 mm arty rounds. Goes to show their importance!

    • We need a few more Ch2 upgraded, yes. On these, the 3 regular Light Cavalry Regiments don’t use Tanks. They need a light recc vehicle with good off road performance.
      The Light Cavalry, Armoured Cavalry, ground based ISTAR sensors, UAV, Drones, OPs with a couple of blokes in, all complement the other regards getting the best picture on an enemy.
      Previously the Formation Recc Regiments of the RAC all used CVRT variants, apart from some Fox equipped units going way back to BAOR times.
      So are these a downgrade on CVRT? Quite possibly, I don’t use them to say?
      They’re certainly an upgrade on WMIK.

      • Was going to say: these might not be going to the Light Cavalry.
        Infantry Recce formations still are on WIMIK, might be replacements for those.

        • Most welcome if so. I’d read of 2 and 3 Para having Jackal at one time.
          A few questions on areas I’m a bit vague on:
          Do all Light Infantry Bns have a WIMIK recc Platoon in their S Coys?
          I’d assumed the Foxhound Bns had Jackal already.
          1 RI spring to mind with their “Light Strike” role?

          • In Afghan yes, it was much less attached to roles at the time.

            Should do, we had WIMIK’s when I was on Foxhounds but that was a while ago, could have changed by now.

    • Yeah Chally 3 seems like it could be a bloody good tank but 148 is just not enough , we need at least the current 227 CR2 to restore the third BCT and deploy a viable Div. What we do need however is to replace Warrior with a viable IFV. CV90 gets my vote and it’s made by BAE. Failing that put a decent turret on Boxer like most of our allies have, 30/40mm not necessarily CTA.

      • I agree no doubt MOD of the day wish they went for the CV90, personally I’m not to sure if the Boxer but to late now I suppose 🙄

  6. This is good news to actually see additional vehicles bringing the total to around 120. I wonder if there is a capability to speed up the production in light of all the alarms currently going off around the World?

    • Doubt it. These are either going to be like for like replacements for vehicles in the Light Cav or WIMIK replacements in the infantry. Either way the mortar carriers will be coming from somewhere else.

      • With the portage systems the mortars are still grounded before use, so recoil shock is via the baseplate into the ground, the vehicle is just carrying the weight of the mortar, deploying/portage device ( which is essentially a very flash Crane system and fire control system/commuter) and ammunition.

  8. I fail to see what use these things are to anyone really, other than ‘run-arounds’ in the Sinai desert, for special forces peeps.

  11. Was Jackal/Coyote not on last years list of 13 vehicle types to withdrawn by 2030? due to phased out. Or has that list now been changed? .

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here