Babcock says the first Jackal 3 Extenda vehicles from the second production tranche have rolled off the Devonport line, marking a key milestone in the programme to deliver new high-mobility platforms to the British Army.
Fifty-three six-wheel Jackal 3 Extenda models are being built in partnership with Supacat, following the completion of tranche one which produced 70 standard Jackal 3s. Designed by Supacat in Honiton and manufactured in Plymouth, the programme maintains engineering jobs in the South West and aligns with the wider industrial strategy to retain sovereign capability.
The Extenda variant adds an extra axle for increased payload without compromising the platform’s cross-country performance. The Jackal 3 family is used for reconnaissance, patrol, logistics and as a weapons carrier.
Chris Spicer, Managing Director for Engineering and Systems Integration at Babcock, said the milestone reinforces the value of the programme to both the Army and local industry. “The Jackal 3 (E) provides the British Army with a formidable vehicle which enables troops to carry out a variety of missions. This is an important milestone in a programme which ensures our Armed Forces have a best-in-class vehicle – while providing skilled jobs in the South West and clearly demonstrating that defence is a real driver for economic growth.”
Supacat’s Head, Phil Applegarth, highlighted the supply-chain dimension. “We are proud to announce that, following the recent deliveries of Jackal 3 vehicles to the British Army, the next tranche of Jackal 3 Extendas are now rolling off the Babcock production line in Devonport. A resilient, collaborative supply chain, underpinned by a secure industrial and manufacturing base is vital for UK defence at this pivotal time.”
I still don’t understand in a war zone why any soldier would want to be in a vehicle with such little armour. Speed and mobility was the reason for using the snatch and that proved fatally wrong. Feels like lessons weren’t fully learnt from past problems with the snatch / original humvee. I suspect in a shooting war more troops will get killed and inquests held. I suspect made worse in the era of the drone.
To be fair, the orders for these were placed before war drones became a thing. What’s a girl to do when this week’s technological advance makes last week’s obsolete?
Before the Battle of Mogadishu?
Or the many deaths /injuries caused by the snatch in irag/afghan.
These? The 53 Jackal E are one of the few orders of kit from this current government, Drones were a thing since 2023 and before.
Jackal have their uses, like all assets.
There is also I understand the option to have an enclosed version, which the Army didn’t take up.
How much of that decision is based on dated thoughts of fast mobility can offset the risk (proved wrong many times in Afghanistan/Iraq) and now much is based on cost. Guess we will never know.
No idea. I always assumed the lack of roof armour was a desire for all round view?
I assume it is, but as with everything engineering choices are a series of compromises, but we seem to be the only country that feels that the increased visibility out weighs the risk of lack of armour.
These are the “Tag Axle” versions I was on about last Week DM. Allbeit I was referring to Motorhomes !
Wouldn’t mind driving one of these though, maybe through parts of Londonistan 😁
I can arrange that !
😀 Oh please !
Clarkson enjoyed driving one I believe.
Ha yes, I remember that ! It’s always a shame to me that he wouldn’t allow Bikes on the show. Especially given that both May and Hammond are big bike fans.
He did like my Cerbera though 🙂
Steve, Snatch was designed and developed specifically for Op BANNER (Northern Ireland); other than up against occassional massive milk churn IEDs it did the job, providing enough protection.
The issue was deploying them to a very different environment (Iraq, Afghanistan) where IEDs and RPGs were very commonplace.
The US had a small head start on us in developing superior Protected Mobility (PM) vehicles; we obtained ours quite quickly using UOR procedures.
Yes it was but lessons should have been learnt way before they were. Russian involved in Afghan was the first indication that lack of armour was a major problem and then various other conflicts. We waited until soldiers were dying and the media started reporting on them to actually order anything. Now seem to have reverted and only focused on ied and not other threats demonstrated by these various conflicts.
Snatch was a replacement for maclaron piglets in Northern Ireland their use in Iraq etc was always doomed to failure
If a drone can stop a tank, then the armour may not help – the first thing troops seem to do when a drone flies over head is bug out and take their chances on foot. I think a parallel can be found with the demise of the ‘real’ battleships, not T’s wet dream. Missiles made armour on ships obsolete, drones may make armour obsolete on the battlefield. Vehicles will need counter drone weapons and the troops need to be aware of their surroundings. That said the Jackal can take an armoured cab.
Large volumes of drones can stop a tank. Various troop carriers used by Ukraine have taken individual drone hits and survived. Not practical for an opponent to flood every vehicle with 20-40+ drones that is needed for a tank.
Very alarming that these have no armour protection from overhead & little horizontal protection too strikes. A sniper’s dream.
Especially considering they are also a fire support platform, that gunner is going to be extremely exposed.
Seeing these makes me feel we are equipping for the last war, not the next war! Open top in an artillery and drone rich environment, err no thanks!
I guess the danger is in thinking that the only role these may ever have is in a large scale european peer on peer war. The army has always needed a range of options as it never knows what war it will fight next. These suited afghan well as far as I know. Maybe the next war will be something totally unexpected where vehicles like these will prove to be just what we need. Who knows?
Not everything can, or needs to be super armoured and impervious to everything. These are meant for recce and resupply where speed and agility are required. If they are spotted they run away. IMO they appear to be good for their designated purpose which is not patrolling insurgent laden territory. My concern for the lack of cover is weather conditions, which I assume will primarily be central Europe. Being cold and drenched all the time would not exactly good for morale or health.
Get these done and then Babcock can gear up for the Patria order👍oh hang on!!
I think they are really niche vehicles for SF and 16 Air Assault Bde. Airportable in good numbers, not expected to take on formed enemy forces, using speed, manoeuvre, concealment to r3ach their objective.
I would still not fancy being in combat in one of these, feel the Foxhound would be a good bit safer with its armoured crew cell and v-shsped hull.