Babcock International Group (Babcock), the defence company and Supacat, a defence vehicle engineering company have officially launched production of 70 High Mobility Transporter (HMT) Jackal 3s for the British Army.
A manufacturing facility at Babcock’s Devonport site has been specially developed for this purpose and will produce 62 of the vehicles, with the remaining eight to be built at Supacat’s manufacturing facilities in Dunkeswell.
Production of the new vehicles is planned to be completed by the summer of 2024.
According to the firm:
“The project is one of the first contracts to deliver on the UK’s Land Industrial Strategy. Close working relationships between Babcock, Supacat the British Army and the Ministry of Defence’s (MOD), Defence Equipment & Support (DE&S) Team have ensured that the operational and safety requirements of the vehicle are fully met. In tribute to both the British Army and the Royal Navy, the new South West production facility has been named ‘The Raglan Building’ in recognition of the nearby Raglan Barracks which supported British soldiers on their way to overseas operations in the 1800s.
The facility is future-proofed and is ready for subsequent build programmes. Transformational innovation and technology have been optimised throughout the production line and includes the use of bespoke ‘Pulse’ software which maximises efficiency during vehicle assembly. It is anticipated that the advantages of being located in the South Devon Freeport will benefit the future through-put of this production facility for years to come. The Jackal 3 benefits from over a decade of development by Supacat for the UK and overseas customers since the last iteration of Jackal was delivered to the British Army. It has a number of enhancements to support operational requirements, including improved protection for the crew and an increased Gross Vehicle Mass for greater load carrying.”
Major General Darren Crook CBE, Director for the Land Equipment Operating Centre at DE&S said:
“This Supacat and Babcock collaboration will deliver modern fighting vehicles for the British Armed Forces and our allies, whilst developing and maintaining key land defence engineering skills in a much valued part of the South West of England. It is tangible evidence of the British Army’s Land Industrial Strategy and our purpose for Defence: ‘to protect the nation and help it prosper.”
David Lockwood, CEO Babcock said:
“At this time of global instability, the significance to the British Army of delivering the HMT Jackal 3 vehicle should not be understated. These Jackals will help keep the UK safe, whilst our technologically advanced production facility will support social value and economic prosperity in the region for years to come.”
Nick Ames, CEO Supacat said:
“As an SME based in South West England, it is an enormous privilege to have our product selected yet again by the British Army. The Jackal 3 is the product of 25 years of specific development and 45 years of corporate development. Every member of our staff takes enormous pride in the quality of the product that provides our soldiers with a leading-edge battle proven platform that they can rely on. That pride in quality also led us to our production partner for this project, Babcock. Our teams have worked, together with the MoD, tirelessly to a challenging timescale and with enabling technology, to support this procurement and we will continue to do so into the future to provide world class product to the British Army.”
What improvements do the 3rd version bring?
It’s always confuses me post afgan/iraq/Battle of Mogadishu that these don’t provide much cover for the soldiers on board.
Must admit that has been a thought in my mind ever since I became aware of these vehicles. Having seen the efforts Ukranian soldiers have gone to add a pod over the exposed machine gun position on their Bradley’s to at least resist small arms and machine gun fire, the exposed nature here does concern me somewhat. I guess the next question therefore is how close to danger these operate though as they are armed the way they are one presumes there is some expectation they will come under fire and in a European context one can never be quite sure where the enemy might be, it tends to be somewhat fluid often on a daily basis indeed. Can anyone ease these fears somewhat ?
Hi Spy, funny that you should mention this!
US Bradleys to get upgraded APS pending contract award02 February 2024
The US Army is a step closer to awarding General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems a sole source contract to upgrade Bradley infantry fighting vehicles (IFVs) with Elbit Systems’ Iron Fist active protection system (APS), following a pre-solicitation notice published on 18 January.
The announcement proposed an eight year, firm-fixed price, indefinite delivery contract worth an undisclosed sum, for the “B-Kit Iron Fist Protection System” in support of Project Manager Mounted Armored Vehicle (PM MAV).
A spokesperson for the US Army confirmed to Janes it does not yet have a sole source production contract in place for Iron Fist APSs for Bradley IFVs. “Any pending contractual actions are pre-decisional in nature and will not be disclosed at this time,” the spokesperson said.
Speaking to Janes , defence sources suggested the contract could equip up to nine US Army brigades with the Iron Fist APS, with priority given to brigades operating in Europe, given the ongoing conflict in Ukraine.
I guess I assumed these are for air transport, light role, i.e, Paras, Marines and general S.F use
I assume bolt on ballistic protection is available, depending on the nature of the deployment.
They are wheeled armoured vehicles.
We have 500 of these death traps on the books. Jackal 2 is currently issued to recce sections of our armoured units, RAF Reg. and others. Front line, forward edge first echelon units. The very role Ajax was intended to fulfil. So why in hell’s name are they buying more of these vehicles designed to fight primitive tribesmen up the Khyber Pass into Afghanistan.
Jeez! Talk about preparing to fight the previous war. MOD simpletons have done it again. Working for YOU!
Why not have a Foxhound for this role. Maybe a lightweight version.
Foxhound weighs about the same as Jackal 2 with similar overall dimensions. It doesn’t have the same cross country capability but it was really acquired to replace snatch landrovers with much better levels of protection.
Jackal is intended mainly for light deep reconnaissance. Supported by Coyote, it allows light forces to move long distances,off road, without a complex support chain.
In Afghanistan, US troops sometimes removed armour and doors from Humvees to improve mobility. In Iraq, with more operations in built up areas, they did the opposite, adding improvised armour that reduced mobilty and led to suspension failures. A more formal up armouring programme suffered similarly.
Jeez I’m hearing nothing that increases my confidence that these vehicles will be particularly useful in their nominal role.
Chinook can lift a Jackal I think.
To haul it out of trouble? Its seems to be a return to the Universal Carrier and White Scout Car theory. Give it some tracks at the back and it would be the business. One grenade and its all over though. Would the Ukrainians like some, I wonder?
Ease your fear?
Easy.
You don’t have to drive one. So why on earth are you worried!?
Well only worried for those who do and in turn our reliance on this who do keeping the Orcs from our door I guess. On that basis from what others and indeed you have said, I’m actually more worried. The thought of these things doing their nominated role in Ukraine gives me the collywobbles, mind you rather a lot of NATO plans for such a conflict seem to have entered the wastebin especially since the failure of the Summer offensive showed up many expectations didn’t translate well to modern (or indeed 1st WW) circumstances.
A simple molotov could gut one.
Or a well organised ambush. It might not take out all the troops on board but odds of atleast one getting hit seems high vs say the US equivalent.
Really!! Many experts on here I see, do you not think this has been thought about ie Non-flammable materials can be used ie clothing worn, paint used etc we have come along way since using the old landrovers etc
The open top is terrifying in the day of cheap drones. Even a basic frag grenade could be devastating. Really would not want to be riding in one of these around the front line, would feel safer on foot!
British thinking is speed whilst US is armaments, the same was argued about the snatch landrover and we know how that went.
The Jackal seemed to do relative well in Afgan, but add drones and that becomes a bigger issue.
Im sure there will be someone on this site that has been in both in a combat zone a jackal and a humvee or jltv.
Snatch LR was designed for NI – and did fairly well there. If only we did not have to deploy them to Afghan, but we had nothing better initially.
Drones? Why would the enemy waste a drone on a Jackal?
Drones come in all sizes and costs. Ukraine is regularly using ones that cost less than £100 to drop granades on Russian troops. Taking out a jackal and it’s crew would be a good return on the price.
OK. Jackal is a minor target – it has a crew of just 3 and 2 MGs. Might be worth our enemy using a cheapo drone though. Fair point.
I suppose ukraine has proven cheap light attritional drones are now a thing…especially for irregular forces and causing attrition. And the best proven way to fight western nations is with a body count…it’s our one weakness or seen as our weakness anyway..fighting the west’s technological edge or the professionalism of its armed forces head on is not the way to win..casualties on the other hand is something the west is very averse to..political will to suffer the consequences of war..has not been a strong point recently..so killing five squaddies in a jackal is a far more effective way to help “win” in the long term than knocking out a challenger 2, which the crew will probably all walk away from and the thing will be dragged back and repaired…on one really gives a shit if one challenger is knocked out recovered and repaired..start having multiples of flag draped coffins coming home and people start to ask questions politicians don’t like to answer….
Also some form of top protection is pretty well recognised as important for reducing casualties…but then it’s alway a balance of where you put the protection vs weight and in the last two wars the British army was in that big risk was blast frag from the floor…so a lot of weight on the floor protection ( which also raised the profile) and any adequate top protection that’s better than personal armour is going to be very heavy and high up….swings and roundabouts…but I think the British army is the only army that’s so heavily invested in an armoured protection vehicle without top protection….
But on a final note I get a little confused with where the British army is going with its armoured fighting vehicles..it’s heavily investing in very light armoured protection vehicles ( without top armour)..is moving to a wheeled APC ( an almost 40 ton wheeled APC but a wheeled APC none the less) to replace its 25+ ton tracked proper infantry fighting vehicle and for its recce vehicles its moved from a fast 8 ton tracked recce to purchasing what is essentially a 40 ton medium tank….I find the it a bit hard to fathom the doctrine behind all this to be honest…it all seems a bit piecemeal.
A very interesting ‘take’ on the Russo-Ukraine war. Certainly increasing inability to cope with high casualty figures is our Achilles heel. I remember seeing on the TV about a dozen hearses driving back through Wootton Basset, crowds of locals paying respects etc – but that started to sear our losses in the public’s mind. Then much footage of very badly disabled veterans dong all sorts of things like Invictus Games, trekking up mountains etc. Great for those guys to do those things but it was more imagery of the cost of war to the public (and the politicians?).
So your view that it is a bigger win for the enemy to take out the 3-man crew of a Jackal than to hit a tank and the crew survive to fight another day. Alternatively the weapon system that is likely to do the enemy most harm is the tank, so they would surely major on attacking tanks.
I do have trouble understanding the thinking behind Ajax – its like a dune buggy that has been partly armoured. But with emphasis on protecting against IEDs (and mines to some extent). But no protection against artillery splinters or mortar bombs. Was that because the Taliban did not have indirect fire weapons? Maybe. Trouble is a peer opponent has indirect fire weapons. Jackal also does not provide side or front protection above shoulder height for the two front crew, and none above waist height for the standing rear MG gunner. All that before discussion of drones. It may look cool and is certainly fast – but it is an odd hybrid, protection-wise of a softskinned vehicle and a conventional wheeled armoured or Protected Mobility vehicle.
Your last para – I share some of that confusion!
Ajax may well be very well protected and have a great sensor package and a good dollop of digitisation but it has too large a signature, is too expensive, has lessened strategic mobility, will have reduced terrain access, will be more difficult to buddy-buddy recover, and is far too expensive. [There is another flaw but that is best not broadcast].
Boxer is about the most expensive APC in the world, but is just an APC (the spiritual successor to the 1950s Saracen) albeit with a party trick (swappable mission module) – it is for the Mech Inf, and is not well suited for the Armoured Inf (AI). It will not do the AI role as well as upgraded Warrior would have done – our Boxer-mounted Inf will be without a stabilised 40mm cannon, and may have reduced tactical mobility.
Hang on, Ukraine is using them on the Chinese supplied golf carts the Russians are using in large numbers so these would be deemed prime targets by comparison. Most of the Kamikazi drones are small and cheap and even the standard switchblades were designed to attack soft skinned vehicles..
Thanks. I did see the video of the Ukrainian drone targeting a single Russian soldier next to his AFV, trousers down, having a crap. I almost felt sorry for him. Drones literally targetting everything. So whats to be done? Some want anti-drone systems on everything from MBT to motorbike. But we have never protected everything from bullet, grenade, mortar round or artillery splinters. The vast majority of the army are in soft skinned vehicles. Quite a dilemma.
Deck amour or lack of it proved fatal for HMS Hood.
Again speed was a priority over armour. I’m sure there are pros and cons of both approaches.
My thought is we found out the answer multiple times and we will probably have to learn it again.
Is it worrying that we no longer have deck armour and belt armour?
Hood was armoured for the war it was built to fight..essentially a war in which battleships and battle cruisers would be fighting at ranges in which the heavy guns would essentially hit on a flat trajectory…improvements in gunnery meant that she was always living an a world where she would take heavy gunfire at ranges which would plunge…that had been evidenced in battle as she was being built..but because she was so far along they finished her….up armoured her a bit but on testing knew her magazines would be penetrated by plunging shot ( they tested her armour set up against 15in plunging shells and it always failed)…in the end they never got around to up armouring her against the threat and she died to exactly the shot they knew she would…..
I wold have to agree.
But it is the old argument of move fast and keep mobile etc…..I guess these are supposed to be light enough to be air mobile in numbers.
It does feel a bit like yesterday’s solution. Even a kevlar roof, with an out set of kevlar chicken cage bars, would provide some blast and splinter protections without making the thing to (top)heavy.
I agree, the focus of the jackal is high mobility protection from mine and IED which was the risk in Afghanistan…the problem is a European theatre has a different set of risks…even without drones..the reason European armies moved away from open top recce ( which was common in WW2) was the experience of pre drone European wars in which open top recce in built up area or hilly mountains etc is a bad idea…add in the experience of cheap drones in Ukraine..I’m not sure no top protection is a good idea… modern recce really should have good IED protection, small arms protection and top protection from drone, arty and sniper… mobility does not really protect against any of these.
I’ll bet they cut a dash on Salisbury Plane or racing down the M4.
I knew an old soldier who was in Korea, when there was no front line and he was a driver for RCT. He said the Communists used to hide in the trees and drop grenades down on trucks.
He said he was the last vehicle and the vehicle ahead was hit and blew up damaging his own. He had to wait till they came for him but managed to kill his attackers at point blank after pretending to be dead.
That’s one serous bloke..
A solution to the Afghan IED threat before drones matured as a frontline threat. They aren’t a long term viable option to me. We seem to be completely heads in the sand over the threat drones pose.
We have provided a huge amount of drones, and anti drone technology to Ukraine. So quite the ‘UK is crap’ routine. This vehicle and its crews wouldn’t be anywhere near bad guys using drones. They are not designed for that type of operation.
Your words not mine you sad walter. You do know you don’t get to pick and choose where the bad guys may be using drones so can’t willingly avoid them? No, of course you don’t having never been near either a front line or drone in your life. Go bore someone else, you have nothing to say worth reading.
So what is their purpose 20 miles behind a supposed known front line then? In Kherson Oblast the main supply road north south but East of the Dnipro river so some distance from the supposed line of contact, is littered with fast moving vehicles of any kind that move along that road. Video shows burnt out vehicles every 100 yds or so.
The crew in a fully enclosed hull wouldn’t spot a drone until it struck. They would have a much better chance of seeing and countering it from an open platform that maximizes situational awareness. A bit like US troops in Vietnam sitting on top of their APCs rather than inside.
These are light reconnaissance vehicles with a very high level of cross country mobility. For heavy reconnaissance we are getting Ajax, which weighs 4x a Scimitar and 6/7 x a Jackal. In reality, none of these vehicle( nor Boxer) would survive an ambush with RPGs. They are a means of moving small numbers of ground troops long distances and offering some fire support if needed.
They can’t be much fun in really bad weather!
Seeing a drone is bloody hard unless it’s very close. Normally they are heard first but that’s not happening over the noise of an engine.
Now that’s the sort of response I expected to hear and there is a certain logic (esp if one accepts any upper armour/enclosure would be little more than a sticking plaster in reality) but in reality from video I have seen any number of Russian APCs etc have had troops on top and they have not seen a drone approaching them let alone able to do anything about it.
Fair point. But even much more heavily armoured vehicles have been destroyed by drones. Adding a roof and an APS to Jackal could double the cost and would reduce mobility.
This is not a platform primarily intended for peer/near peer combat. If we were to re equip only for the kind of warfare we are seeing in Ukraine, we would need APCs like Namer with APS to defeat drone attacks. ( But even such heavyweight platforms would be vulnerable to repeated attack by modern missiles).
For other types of operation, the kind that we are perhaps more likely to conduct, Jackal/Coyote is incredibly useful.
If we believe that we need to focus on fighting Russia, then logically we should turn the entire army into a BAOR mark 2, made up solely of heavy formations.
The open top is terrifying (to me) in the age of rifles, MGs, mortars….
I don’t think you would waste a drone on one though.
Waste? Drones are dirt cheap compared to the value of the vehicle, crew and the loss of an asset to the commander.
Some of the modified drones seen in Ukraine cost less than 1k, that’s a pittance in comparison to the damage they can inflict.
OK. If our enemies (rather than Ukraine, which is an ally) have <£1k drones, then it would be worth their while using it to attack a vehicle with a 3-man crew with 2 MGs, if there are no more significant targets around.
The Russians who were far behind Ukraine even 6 months ago on these cheap drones are using as many as Ukraine, the latter have admitted they are now their most feared weapon. Indeed a Russian surprise advance north of Advika last week has been put down to them using ‘invisibility cloaks’ to hide their infrared heat signatures at night from drones so they weren’t seen and attacked. Wonderif we have clocks big enough for these vehicles, hope Harry Potter’s on the job.
Thanks. Great dit about ‘invisibility cloaks’. How much ground did the Russians gain, I wonder. Not so much news about the war in Ukraine since the Gaza/Israel war.
An FPV drone costs less than 1000£. Go to reddit combat footage and you have there thousands of videos of Ukranians and Russians spending a drone killing just 1 infantry.
I am sorry to say but i think you are not well informed about what is going on.
There are also FPV drones that are not even “suicide” and just drop an hand grenade on the enemy trench.
That’s exactly the sort of drone I was thinking of, Ukraine have bought them and had them supplied by others, possibly including the UK, in their thousands. They can be picked up for less than 1k and easily carry a frag grenade. They can have a range of several miles as well, it’s easy enough to get them into the US stronger signal mode if you know how.
I’ve been around drones of various types for years, I know how hard they are to see, even covered in day glo markings and strobes they are damn hard to spot. As for hearing them? Not a chance over comms headsets, helmets and over the noise of engines, never mind the background noise of war.
Must be hell being in a vehicle knowing drones are around.
Depending on the vehicle and the level of protection it caries, life would not be so bad. Especially if buttoned down and equipped with the latest EW tech.
The control signals of civilian supplied systems are easy to detect, intercept and jam. Even easier than cell phones. Drones with small fragmentation charges cannot penetrate vehicles designed to withstand frags from 152/155mm artillery. As is the case with any APC/IFV worthy of the name. Even if they attack such a vehicle from above.
Those equipped with single/double shaped charge warheads are another matter but hardly fall under the category of “cheap drones.” The real threat would be the driver of a FPV drone reporting ones location to more conventional forces. They will have weapons capable of hitting properly armoured vehicles and causing real problems. Even then most will be mobility kills.
I strongly suspect that drones are so effective over Ukraine, because neither side has the level of countermeasures available to NATO.
The problem is when you are in a difficult position of having to use whatever is available to simply re supply or move troops around there are always going to be a great many targets available to attack successfully with even the most electronically unhardened cheap drone even if only a quarter are not resisted in some way that is some considerable damage being caused especially in light of the Western concerns for casualties others have mentioned.
In relation to this scenario even Ukrainian sources have said that the recent sinking of a Russian Corvette could almost certainly only have happened because the close in larger calibre automatic weaponry was notable by its absence, only ineffective small arms fire being seen on video. Equally Ukranians are using highly effective anti drone backpacks but how many units will have them in sustained fast changing warfare.
All valid points. But being in the difficult position postulated, is a clear failure of the acquisition process. Never mind the 7 P’s. Every military vehicle from the largest MBT to the smallest dispatch riders motorbike, should be equipped with anti-drone EW systems. Ships, aeroplanes, helicopters go without saying. It has to be one of the easiest lessons learned from this conflict. It’s a no brainer and urgent operational requirement like no other. Failure to act on this must go down as a Gumpism.
I’d be shocked, no I’d be horrified! If the MOD/DOD have supplied the latest anti-drone EW countermeasures to the non-NATO Ukrainians. There being no better way to show our hand. The Russians are far from idiots and once seen, will quickly develop their own counter. Rendering any advantage we have null and void. But then again, we were stupid-enough/mentally retarded-enough to gift them our current beautiful Challenger tanks. When the same principle was applicable.
The Gumpism has never been more relevant. “Stupid is as stupid does!”
OK. I have not seen video of a (presumably very cheap) enemy (ie Russian) drone targeting just one man. Perhaps I should look at Reddit as you say. I stand corrected.
As I say above the Ukranians are ‘wasting’ them on tiny Chinese supplied golf carts often the best or only way to get supplies to those at the front.
Ah yes, the on foot infanteer.
Historically fragmentation grenade proof apparently.
In your world maybe…
Less of a tempting target to a drone operator than a open topped vehicle though.
Sure about that? I think drone operators prefer static/slow moving squishy meatsacks that trying to hit a fast moving vehicle.
I’ve question for you, one clown to another.
Considering the vulnerability of 60t MBTs to top attack drones, how much protection are you expecting a sub 10t, air portable recce platform to have?
Or are you one of those clowns that think everything should be 100% protected from everything?
Maybe all battlefield roles should be conducted by uparmoured Challenger IIIs?
Can tell it’s the weekend, your mum’s letting you stay up late tonight…
Your mother has never had a problem with me staying up all night.
Let’s be honest with the range of drones now driving around the back line hardly seems safe. Wonder what the troops themselves feel about them.
My only deference might be (and what I thought I might hear in defence) is that on a vehicle of this type any added armour or indeed bodywork would only give a sense of security not effective security, but surely a modicum of protection while firing a machine gun from the threat of small arms fire or shrapnel might be deemed appropriate at the very least.
Exactly, the fact some clown thinks these won’t be exposed to drone threats is laughable.
The footage from Ukraine is proof of it. Drones aren’t just targeting tanks etc in the very tip of the front line. They are chasing down supply trucks and fuel trucks behind the lines, targeting mortar positions, even artillery have found themselves attacked by drones.
Cheap drones (from a military expense view, not throwaway expense for the average Joe like us) from the high street can be modded by an amateur hobbyist to boost their signal strength and have a range measured in miles, not mere hundreds of metres.
The threat they pose cannot be understated.
Just wait until coordinated swarms hit the battlefield, we must be only months away from seeing it, the tech is maturing rapidly, just look at how drones can put on light displays etc, then consider what they’d be like with a warhead on each one…
It’s not April Fools Day so I’m honestly not sure to laugh or cry at this one.
Lack of overhead cover and even less NBC protection is the blatantly obvious flaw with these vehicles. Haven’t they learned anything since 1914. I wonder how quickly these death traps would be replaced by CV90 or similar. If the acquisition muppets were going to crew them in a peer on peer conflict. Some input from Porton Down is urgently needed.
Or Bovington.
Tank museum has better experts lol
…certainly not any cover against the rain! They are of course wheeled armoured vehicles. But I have always puzzled at the lack of top protection – it has just got to be a weight saving motive.
seeing as drones are the in thing today I wonder how these would fair up against them, especially seeing how the Ukrainians are devastating a lot of Russian vehicle’s with a drone that costs a few hundred quid and a bit of explosive…
They’d be horrifically vulnerable being open topped!
I’d be much more concerned about NBC warfare. If we ever fight Russia or the Chicoms. Those vehicles are death traps.
I foresee shell splinters….
Or darts, or shrapnel or the longbow!
Trebuchets will be lethal, even Dennis the Menace catapults I fear.
“Help to keep the UK safe”
They insert that into almost every release, and it annoys the hell out of me!
HMG own attitude and lack of investment in conventional defence does NOT help, it endangers it.
VERY WELL SAID! Yes caps mean I’m shouting it.
Lets hope they don’t super glue any bolt heads like the submarine insulation scandal !
I have always been in two minds regards these, maybe a ex or current serving soldier can enlighten me?
So vulnerable to an airburst overhead or a FPV drone down on top?
I appreciate these are meant to be fast, can hide, and are open topped by design so assume that is for all round view. If the army wanted a roof, they’d have asked for it?
But they just seem like modern versions of ww2 jeeps to me, that replaced Scorpion and Scimitar CVRTs in regular regiments. Surely in effect a retrograde step in capability?
They do have their place to compliment other methods, from Ajax to ISTAR assets to drones to 2 blokes in an OP. But, to me, they are ideal in lighter formations like the Paras, BRS, and SF roles, like we have seen in the Middle East.
Do any other European nations operate a similar type in a non SF, raiding, regular recc role?
There is every possibility that this vehicle was developed before the Ukraine conflict, which has demonstrated the vulnerability of AFVs to aerial drone attacks. That being the case we should watch this space.
Wasn’t the copyright for the design of these Supercat vehicle family bought by Lockheed Martin which shows an American Company saw value in them but not sure what market they envisaged for them. So far can only see that Estonia are using them while waiting for big brother Coyotes for their special forces. Can see the logic in that highly mobile role mind.
Shades of fighting the last war here
SAS Desert Ops.
My Dad was in the FAA and actually refused to fly a Barracuda. Wise choice or I probably wouldn’t be here.
Looks like we need to offer crews extra thick helmets & those improvised shoulder protectors Walker invented for Home guard our of old car tyres.
Not to mention sweaters, scarves and brollies. Private Pike would definitely catch a chill in one of those on a Scandanavian jaunt. Perhaps it comes in a folding soft top model, with snow chains for the tyres.
As long ago as 2016 I seem to recall us looking into JLTV for the MRV-P requirement, but we decided not to go there. Even when Oshkosh lost the US Army contract at one point and we could have had a production run very much on the cheap, MRV-P remained on hold. Those had a lid on the top, even before Ukraine.
So we are buying a model that assumes the occupants’ visibilty is more important than that of the FPV drone or loitering munition about to kill them I’m sure there will be places near Catterick and London they’ll come in jolly useful.
Would love to know why they pulled out of the JLTV program. The price would have been insanely good as linked to the main US purchase and the vehicle appears to tick a lot of boxes.
Don’t quote me, but believe it was down to price why we didn’t purchase these.
Initially we though that we would be getting them at around £400k a go, but it then came to light that the actual price would have been closer to £850-900k a unit, hence we pulled out.
Not entirely sure what the increase in cost was about, but it frightened MOD off.
Sadly I fear Private Pike read this reply a few days back and is thus no longer with us.
Remember the days when we had Tanks 😕
Yes, but when we had Tanks, we also had Ferrets. So not really a comparison.
Hello DM, and Fox’s 🇬🇧
One of my favs, the Fox! And the Stalwart, though different role.
All back in the day 👍
Oh I loved the Stalwart, loved those old competitions back in the day on a Saturday afternoon watch them racing all manner of other off road army vehicles on a cross country track on Grandstand.
Stalwarts back fire nicely if some wally puts diesel in !
And I can testify you did get very wet and cold in a ferret as well😳😂
My father remembered the days we had tanks and was pretty uncomplimentary about them.
Meanwhile in France
https://defence-blog.com/french-army-orders-109-caesar-mkii-howitzers/
https://defence-blog.com/france-orders-more-serval-armored-vehicles/
We are a laughing stock
Presumably this is utility part of the Land Mobility Program vehicle rationalisation?
3rd version? This one comes works? Why do people spend sooo much time, reinventing the wheel?
As trendy as this may look, come back Stalwart Mk22!
Tried, tested, proven… funkier!
Jackal isn’t a (High Mobility) Load Carrier.
It’s big brother development 6by6 Coyote is mind.
70 in this batch apparently according to wiki there is an option for 240.
Would like to see us buy the version of the HMT Extenda Mk2 upfitted with a 105mm lightweight gun
70,70, what a waste of effort. 70 is a pointlessly small number, compare with the 1000 tanks the polish are buying with a much much smaller economy! If you are starting a production facility you may as well produce a sensible number, 1000 might make a start for the British army and sell a few thousand more around NATO. When will the government get rid of our pointless civil servants, spend enough money on defence instead of ridiculous concepts for having those who identify as martians fully represented in the NHS etc.
We are at war gentlemen, Russia, Iran, north Korea and soon to be joined by china
To be fair they have been ordering them since 2008 so already have a number 431 I just checked plus big brother Coyotes. Just think it’s a shame the full potential of this platform hasn’t been truly exploited be it with guns or HIMARS et al.
Even that is a drop in the ocean, we are at war, the russians and iranians have started, the north koreans and chinese are preparing to join in (already supplying weapons or parts – and with the chinese denying other countries they dont support parts). It is time our government stopped fannying around, paid our military enough, stopped the stupid prosecutions set up to make Blairs wife rich and built enough BRITISH military equipment to support an increased military. That would mean a thousand tanks of our own, tens of thousands of various drones, missiles, missile launchers, hundreds of planes, dozens of ships including probably 10 or so nuclear powered flat top catapult equiped versions of the QE class aircraft carriers, another 15 or 20 ark royal size carriers with drones and possibly harriers and so on, its not time to cut back some more.
We do NOT need people employed to make sure people that think they are martians have the right toilet or enough job opportunities, we dont need to fast track illegal immigrants into jobs where they can maim and injure people needing care and we dont need to go and fetch more of them from the French beaches – they arent the British army at Dunkirk!
Sadly our current government lost its way before they started and the previous one never found its way.
70 of these UK produced vehicles but 500 German built lorries, sums up the anti British civil service doesn’t it, when those lorries need a spare we better hope Germany hasn’t been subdued by russia
in a age of the importance of artillery and air burst munitions and drones , why would anyone make a roofless armoured vehicle .
Ah yes, the “regulars” in the comments section.
Never in the field of human conflict has so much been assumed by so many knowing so little.
No, it doesn’t fit the same job as Ajax. It’s going places you really aren’t going to be able to drive a ruddy great big “light” tank, delivered in ways Ajax won’t be, to places Ajax can’t go.
So please.
Stop bleating about it not having a “chicken mesh kevlar roof” or it’s got less armour than a Bradley. It’s not a “wheeled armoured vehicle”. You don’t have to be worried that it isn’t CBRN proof, it isn’t supposed to be.
It’s a J2 with a windscreen and an uprated roll over system. It does the same job as J2, lightweight recce.
It’s not designed to fight drones or tanks or aliens.
It’s not designed to fight things.
If you’re getting shot at in a Jackal, then you’re doing it wrong.
Well said! 👏👏 All the experts believing they know more than the British Army, and how it will use it’s vehicles and what the are designed to do. The Army wouldn’t put these types of vehicles and crews anywhere near any bad guys using drones ect.
You are right. I don’t understand better than the Army. In fact I don’t understand all. Why does it have armour if it isn’t prepared to be shot at? Why does it have guns, and why did the Jackal 2 bother to improve the arc of fire if it was never supposed to shoot anything?
And how are you supposed to avoid getting shot at when the sky is full of tiny cameras that have better situational awareness than the four blokes in the back of a 4 by 4? The Mk 1 eyeball has a lot going for it, but recce vehicles have sensors of their own because the data from multiple vehicles can be instantaneously fused into a combined picture, a trick the human eyeball can only achieve with its partner somewhere between the optic chiasm and the striate cortex; not in a local C2 vehicle.
Whoever we are fighting in the future, there’s a reasonable chance they will be armed by Russia, China or Iran. ISIL and the Taliban are the the past, the exception not the rule. Saying, as Robert does, it’ll never go anywhere near bad guys with drones will become increasingly limiting. Babcock in their announcement talk about the Land Industrial Strategy, which was published in May 22, which means it will have been written in 2021, pre-Ukraine. So again, you are right: it’s not designed to fight little green men. Perhaps it should be.
Stop using logic and common sense to support your argument. My own knowledge and research is more historically based on weaponry esp in the air rather than any expert knowledge on current weapon weaponry and systems, others here are better at that. However what I do know is there is a whole legacy of ‘experts’ making bad decisions and wrong. Conclusions particularly in peace time about actual weapons from 2pdr anti tank guns to the required armament of fighters or even the expected altitude they would be fighting at (15000 ft pre war) and thus the technology required, or an expected bomber range of 800 miles and thus escort fighters of that sort of range which indeed might have been logical till the fall of France. So sometimes having views beyond those supposed ‘experts’ has merit too. Certainly NATOs presumed strategy for a European conflict has to put it mildly been sorely tested this past 2 years.
This Supercat platform has a lot going for it by the way even as is it has great utility and flexibility that has not been truly exploited for a whole range of roles but questions on some decisions regarding its present form are I believe well founded in this case scenario but if it’s primarily for Special Forces I can see their logic but I suspect giving some to Ukraine to use might teach us a lot about how to further develop them or even make sensible changes overall.
Why does it have armour if it isn’t prepared to be shot at? Why does it have guns, and why did the Jackal 2 bother to improve the arc of fire if it was never supposed to shoot anything?
I mean, why do soldiers on a recce patrol carry weapons if they’re not intending on getting into a fight?
The answer is pretty obvious.
The enemy never gets the frago and doesn’t turn up to your orders, so doesn’t know that it isn’t supposed to shoot at you.
Also, the J2 arcs weren’t “improved”. You have always been able to fire over the front of a jackal, it’s just on the 2 the barrel of the .50 is infront of the driver/commander rather than behind them, so they’re not getting the thumping impulse when you do.
But you *never* fire over the front anyway. You fire off the back.
And the ring was moved up and forwards to allow for a proper seating area for 2 in the back, not to “increase the arcs”
And how are you supposed to avoid getting shot at when the sky is full of tiny cameras that have better situational awareness than the four blokes in the back of a 4 by 4?
Those 4 blokes in an open top vehicle are able to see much better around them than say…in a Boxer…
but recce vehicles have sensors of their own because the data from multiple vehicles can be instantaneously fused into a combined picture
Ah yes, the assumption that Jackals aren’t fitted with ISTAR.
What’s that well known phrase about assumptions again?
Agreed. As I said, there is a requirement for all types of recc and this has its place.
My concern was these have replaced armoured vehicles that had all the things the detractors wanted, armour, roof, main gun.
Where’s they were originally bought for light formations and SF to avoid road based IEDs.
And a number of servicemen did die in them due to IEDs though in reality nothing is immune in that regard. However in light of that and criticism at the time they were upgraded to Mk2 variants. So it’s always positive to question design decisions and be ready to update accordingly as and when required. Some of the criticisms have long been made about the armour on these vehicles is below head and shoulder level and waist level for the main gunner so we on here are far from being the first to question it and anticipate that weakness might be exacerbated in a European warzone where incoming is far less easy to suppress and coming from higher trajectories far greater a proposition. I’m sure special forces might have a different perspective to other users too.
More assumptions.
You know the armour is the same on J1 and J2…?
Got a question for you.
How much armour would you like to see on this light wheeled recce platform, so that it is capable of surviving “high angle incoming”?
Well, they kind of didn’t. They didn’t replace, nor are they a stop gap. The capability for tracked recce was gapped, awaiting Ajax
It isn’t an “either/or” deal.
So why is one of its stated roles convoy protection? I state that despite seeing merit in your argument up to that point by the way.
Depends on what you’re protecting the convoy against.
Ajax the only recon vehicle that needs a bridge-layer lol
Anyone remember when 40 tons meant you were a medium to heavy tank?
25+ years to design a bus! If this was 1939, old Adolf and Benito would have died of old age.
Apropos some of the discussions here:
“Supacat will unveil a closed cab version of its Jackal 3 High Mobility Transport (HMT) vehicle at Defence Vehicle Dynamics in mid-September 2024”
Shepard Media
Haven’t the UKR got enclosed cabs on the ones they are using to launch AA missiles?
Yes Supercat do produce closed cab variants of their vehicles the HIMARS variant proposed back in the noughties was one such variant but without checking I am not sure what platform that is be it Coyote or another base vehicle variant.
There are of course all manner of opinions out there, however I have been told that for the most part these vehicles are shite, and that the only reason they are building an extra 40 or whatever, is because its a cheap way of saying that the Army is getting new vehicles…
Just a theory…
Can you illuminate Tom, it would seem strange to me to persist with such a platform for over a decade and Lockheed Martin acquiring the rights to them enabling Supercat itself to invest in further developments if they were conclusively ‘shite’.*
Remember my father saying all UK tanks were crap and I saying what even the Comet and he claiming yeah that too. Well in reality that tank though maybe not the best was with its 17 pounder not by any means crap and remained in armed forces up to the 80s. Just think my father by long association had come to accept that British tanks were rubbish esp if they looked rather like the ones that actually were.
*Over 1000 of the base platform in use around the World doesn’t suggest it’s crap either.
Comet?
I’d have just said “Dad. Explain to me how Centurion was crap.”
Sure… it’s the opinion of my Nephew, who has driven them.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but I’d love to hear the reasons why HMTV is shite.
I mean, it’s not a very good main battle tank, which is what people seem to want it to be.
Wow, who asked it to be a battle tank? Anyhow…
This ‘vehicle type’ has been around in many different guises, as far back as the Saracen I believe. Then there was the the Saladin and all manner of types of armoured, semi-armoured, bugger all armoured vehicles.
This vehicle’s role is or was supposed to be a as a “deep battlespace reconnaissance, rapid assault and fire support” vehicle. Since the Ukraine war, it’s ‘role’ is probably obsolete now, which begs the question… why are we, the British taxpayer buying more of them???
That, is probably the most relevant ‘opinion’ and question here, regarding the Jackal program!
Wow, who asked it to be a battle tank? Anyhow…
Read this comment section. To make Jackal “perfect” it apparently requires:
1. Enough overhead armour to stop 155mm artillery and drone deployed munitions
2. Sufficient side armour to protect it from RPGs and IEDs
3. A fully sealed and positive pressured crew compartment to protect against CBRN.
4. A fully integrated, day/night 360 sensor suite.
5. A bigger weapon system.
Isn’t that a battle tank?
This ‘vehicle type’ has been around in many different guises, as far back as the Saracen I believe
Since the LRDG. HMTV, particularly the (shock horror!) unarmoured version, is a direct descendant of the pinkies used in WWII.
This vehicle’s role is or was supposed to be a as a “deep battlespace reconnaissance, rapid assault and fire support” vehicle. Since the Ukraine war, it’s ‘role’ is probably obsolete now, which begs the question… why are we, the British taxpayer buying more of them
Because the HMMWV has been hitting well above its weight doing exactly the same role, in Ukraine, possibly?
Mate. If the limits of your knowledge of the vehicle extends no further than “my nephew told me”, then you haven’t enough information to comment on Defence policy for the vehicle.
Frankly, most of the field army hasn’t a clue how to use jackal either, so there is that.
Fair comment George, and I concede the point that I do not have any in depth knowledge of these vehicles. (other than my nephew saying they were shite… when he was probably having an off day)
I do however, stand by my ‘observations’ made as a result of the Ukraine war, in that the primary role of this vehicle, is now obsolete, with the massive ‘leaps forward’ in drone technology.
Your nephew is likely amongst the current generation of CMC birthed “experts” that are too terrified to put the truck into off road settings. The vehicle isn’t shite, the armoured centre trains shite drivers and commanders in their never ending process to make Jackal DMI as relevant a promotion course as C2.
Observations on Reddit, most likely.
Apparently, drones are going to make everything obsolete. Except, they aren’t. Like all weapon systems since the dawn of projectile weapons, it is enjoying a “hey-day” until countermeasures are commonplace.
Like, I remember there was a point where missiles were going to make all aircraft obsolete.
50 years later, and that still hasn’t happened.
I’m not holding my breath with drones. As soon as laser or ECM based countermeasures are commonplace (2-5 years, tops), they’ll be just another tool in the box, but far from war winning.
To be fair who knows where land warfare will end up. It will however, be decided on the type of conflict itself.
Ukraine – almost a return to trench warfare, with drones.
Current Middle east conflicts – big guns, rockets, missiles and drones.
War at sea – rockets, missiles and drones.
Currently, arms manufacturers decide what countries will need to fight wars. They are the ones constantly promoting their wares, whilst telling governments what to invest in for future conflicts.
Laser weapons, rail guns plus all manner of other ‘future tech’ weapons always being touted, by arms manufacturers. Drones are already playing a massive part in warfare, especially since they have become cheaper to manufacture and easier to operate.
No one seems to have shown much interest in ‘miniaturisation’ for quite some time now. I do believe it’s ‘day will come (again) as it will open up all manner of possibilities for example, why make a 18 foot missile at a cost of however million £’s, when something half the size or smaller could do the job… probably a lot cheaper too?
Drones, missiles, and fast armoured protection for boots on the ground.
Nothing says you haven’t a clue what you’re talking about than contradicting yourself in your own post.
Currently, arms manufacturers decide what countries will need to fight wars
Or
Laser weapons, rail guns plus all manner of other ‘future tech’ weapons always being touted, by arms manufacturers
You have to pick one. But you can’t say both.
Notwithstanding you’re wrong on both counts.
Firstly, whilst defence contractors do advertise, it’s not like what they advertise (or even a portion of) gets picked up for manufacture.
Challenger III is an example of this. What Rheinmetall wanted to sell us (an autoloaded 130mm turret) and what we bought (an M1 Abrams with a Challenger II hull) are two very different vehicles.
Also, lasers are very much not “future tech”. Dragonfire is a thing, it’s been built, fired and tested.
It’s also not alone.
No one seems to have shown much interest in ‘miniaturisation’ for quite some time now
No. You haven’t seen anything miniaturised. There is a difference.
why make a 18 foot missile at a cost of however million £’s, when something half the size or smaller could do the job… probably a lot cheaper too?
Because most of a missile is fuel. Smaller missiles can’t do the same job as bigger missiles because they simply don’t have the same range, thus have a different engagement area and thus a different job.
That isn’t how ΔV works.
Example time, the AMRAAM / AIM-54 Phoenix. The AMRAAM is newer, smaller and lighter. Also has a smaller warhead, flies slower, lower and has much less range.
Ukraine – almost a return to trench warfare, with drones.
Current Middle east conflicts – big guns, rockets, missiles and drones.
War at sea – rockets, missiles and drones.
Has the Ukraine /Russia conflict not also hammered home the need for big guns, missiles and rockets? 155mm artillery and MLRS / HIMARs have made a much bigger impact than drones in terms of actual battle wins, particularly in areas where fixed wing can’t operate or is within range of precision tube fires.
It’s also completely turned the West (especially here in the UK) attitude of MBTs from being a pointless waste of metal and money to basically being a required component of war. Drones can’t hold ground, neither can they clear minefields. They haven’t replaced anything, anywhere.
fast armoured protection
I’ve got a question for you. What is “fast armoured protection”? The T-15? Merkava/Namer? 60ton APC variants of current MBTs?
We keep on adding side cover and limiting visibility, but not adding top cover. At the point that you add top cover to this recce asset, should you not stop and ask yourself if the real solution is something like the Fennek?
Jackal simply isn’t good enough for a Northern/Central European winter.
Question for you.
If main battle tanks from the T72 to the Leopard 2 are struggling with top attack munitions, how much protection would you like fitted to this light, wheeled recce platform?
I mean, Fennek struggles with RPGs, so I’m not sure how well you think it’s going to hold up against drones capable of killing MBTs.
It also doesn’t satisfy any of the MODs requirements for the programme that birthed HMTV, particularly its transportation requirements