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.”

Avatar photo
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
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

133 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Steve
Steve
15 days ago

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.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
15 days ago
Reply to  Steve

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… Read more »

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
15 days ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

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… Read more »

John Clark
John Clark
15 days ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

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.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
15 days ago
Reply to  John Clark

They are wheeled armoured vehicles.

George
George
15 days ago
Reply to  John Clark

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!

Jonno
Jonno
15 days ago
Reply to  George

Why not have a Foxhound for this role. Maybe a lightweight version.

Peter S
Peter S
14 days ago
Reply to  Jonno

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… Read more »

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
12 days ago
Reply to  Peter S

Jeez I’m hearing nothing that increases my confidence that these vehicles will be particularly useful in their nominal role.

Paul.P
Paul.P
15 days ago
Reply to  John Clark

Chinook can lift a Jackal I think.

Jonno
Jonno
15 days ago
Reply to  Paul.P

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?

George
George
15 days ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

Ease your fear?

Easy.

You don’t have to drive one. So why on earth are you worried!?

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
12 days ago
Reply to  George

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.

Frank62
Frank62
15 days ago
Reply to  Steve

A simple molotov could gut one.

Steve
Steve
15 days ago
Reply to  Frank62

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.

Marked
Marked
15 days ago
Reply to  Steve

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!

Steve
Steve
15 days ago
Reply to  Marked

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.

Last edited 15 days ago by Steve
Graham Moore
Graham Moore
15 days ago
Reply to  Steve

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?

Steve
Steve
15 days ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

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.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
15 days ago
Reply to  Steve

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.

Jonathan
Jonathan
15 days ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

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… Read more »

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
14 days ago
Reply to  Jonathan

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… Read more »

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
12 days ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

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..

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
12 days ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

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.

Jonno
Jonno
15 days ago
Reply to  Steve

Deck amour or lack of it proved fatal for HMS Hood.

Steve
Steve
15 days ago
Reply to  Jonno

Again speed was a priority over armour. I’m sure there are pros and cons of both approaches.

Jonno
Jonno
15 days ago
Reply to  Steve

My thought is we found out the answer multiple times and we will probably have to learn it again.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
14 days ago
Reply to  Jonno

Is it worrying that we no longer have deck armour and belt armour?

Jonathan
Jonathan
14 days ago
Reply to  Jonno

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… Read more »

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
15 days ago
Reply to  Marked

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.

Jonathan
Jonathan
15 days ago

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… Read more »

Jonno
Jonno
15 days ago
Reply to  Jonathan

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.

Jonathan
Jonathan
15 days ago
Reply to  Jonno

That’s one serous bloke..

Marked
Marked
15 days ago

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.

Robert Blay
Robert Blay
15 days ago
Reply to  Marked

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.

Last edited 15 days ago by Robert Blay
Marked
Marked
15 days ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

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.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
12 days ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

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.

Peter S
Peter S
15 days ago
Reply to  Marked

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… Read more »

Marked
Marked
15 days ago
Reply to  Peter S

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.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
12 days ago
Reply to  Peter S

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.

Peter S
Peter S
11 days ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

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,… Read more »

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
15 days ago
Reply to  Marked

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.

Marked
Marked
15 days ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

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.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
15 days ago
Reply to  Marked

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.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
12 days ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

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.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
12 days ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

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.

AlexS
AlexS
15 days ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

I don’t think you would waste a drone on one though.

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.

Marked
Marked
15 days ago
Reply to  AlexS

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… Read more »

George
George
15 days ago
Reply to  Marked

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… Read more »

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
12 days ago
Reply to  George

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… Read more »

George
George
12 days ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

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… Read more »

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
14 days ago
Reply to  AlexS

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.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
12 days ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

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.

George
George
15 days ago
Reply to  Marked

Ah yes, the on foot infanteer.

Historically fragmentation grenade proof apparently.

Marked
Marked
15 days ago
Reply to  George

In your world maybe…

Less of a tempting target to a drone operator than a open topped vehicle though.

George
George
10 days ago
Reply to  Marked

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?

Marked
Marked
10 days ago
Reply to  George

Can tell it’s the weekend, your mum’s letting you stay up late tonight…

George
George
8 days ago
Reply to  Marked

Your mother has never had a problem with me staying up all night.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
12 days ago
Reply to  Marked

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.

Last edited 12 days ago by Spyinthesky
Marked
Marked
12 days ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

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… Read more »

George
George
15 days ago
Reply to  Steve

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.

Jonno
Jonno
15 days ago
Reply to  George

Or Bovington.

pete
pete
13 days ago
Reply to  Jonno

Tank museum has better experts lol

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
15 days ago
Reply to  Steve

…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.

Andy
Andy
15 days ago

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…

Marked
Marked
15 days ago
Reply to  Andy

They’d be horrifically vulnerable being open topped!

George
George
15 days ago
Reply to  Marked

I’d be much more concerned about NBC warfare. If we ever fight Russia or the Chicoms. Those vehicles are death traps.

Mike
Mike
15 days ago

I foresee shell splinters….

Jonno
Jonno
15 days ago
Reply to  Mike

Or darts, or shrapnel or the longbow!

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
12 days ago
Reply to  Jonno

Trebuchets will be lethal, even Dennis the Menace catapults I fear.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
15 days ago

“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.

George
George
15 days ago

VERY WELL SAID! Yes caps mean I’m shouting it.

pete
pete
15 days ago

Lets hope they don’t super glue any bolt heads like the submarine insulation scandal !

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
15 days ago

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… Read more »

maurice10
maurice10
15 days ago

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.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
12 days ago

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.

Brom
Brom
15 days ago

Shades of fighting the last war here

Frank
Frank
15 days ago
Reply to  Brom

SAS Desert Ops.

Jonno
Jonno
15 days ago
Reply to  Frank

My Dad was in the FAA and actually refused to fly a Barracuda. Wise choice or I probably wouldn’t be here.

Frank62
Frank62
15 days ago

Looks like we need to offer crews extra thick helmets & those improvised shoulder protectors Walker invented for Home guard our of old car tyres.

Jon
Jon
15 days ago
Reply to  Frank62

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… Read more »

Steve
Steve
15 days ago
Reply to  Jon

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.

Deep32
Deep32
15 days ago
Reply to  Steve

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.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
12 days ago
Reply to  Jon

Sadly I fear Private Pike read this reply a few days back and is thus no longer with us.

Andrew D
Andrew D
15 days ago

Remember the days when we had Tanks 😕

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
15 days ago
Reply to  Andrew D

Yes, but when we had Tanks, we also had Ferrets. So not really a comparison.

Andrew D
Andrew D
15 days ago

Hello DM, and Fox’s 🇬🇧

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
15 days ago
Reply to  Andrew D

One of my favs, the Fox! And the Stalwart, though different role.

Andrew D
Andrew D
15 days ago

All back in the day 👍

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
12 days ago

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.

pete
pete
10 days ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

Stalwarts back fire nicely if some wally puts diesel in !

Jacko
Jacko
15 days ago

And I can testify you did get very wet and cold in a ferret as well😳😂

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
12 days ago
Reply to  Andrew D

My father remembered the days we had tanks and was pretty uncomplimentary about them.

Paul.P
Paul.P
15 days ago

Presumably this is utility part of the Land Mobility Program vehicle rationalisation?

Tom
Tom
15 days ago

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!

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
15 days ago
Reply to  Tom

Jackal isn’t a (High Mobility) Load Carrier.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
12 days ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

It’s big brother development 6by6 Coyote is mind.

Jacko
Jacko
15 days ago

70 in this batch apparently according to wiki there is an option for 240.

JOHN MELLING
JOHN MELLING
15 days ago

Would like to see us buy the version of the HMT Extenda Mk2 upfitted with a 105mm lightweight gun 

Dave
Dave
15 days ago

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… Read more »

Last edited 15 days ago by Dave
Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
12 days ago
Reply to  Dave

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.

Dave
Dave
12 days ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

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,… Read more »

Dave
Dave
15 days ago

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

Michael Hassall
Michael Hassall
15 days ago

in a age of the importance of artillery and air burst munitions and drones , why would anyone make a roofless armoured vehicle .

George
George
15 days ago

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… Read more »

Robert Blay
Robert Blay
15 days ago
Reply to  George

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.

Jon
Jon
15 days ago
Reply to  George

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,… Read more »

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
12 days ago
Reply to  Jon

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… Read more »

George
George
10 days ago
Reply to  Jon

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… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
14 days ago
Reply to  George

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.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
12 days ago

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… Read more »

George
George
10 days ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

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”?

George
George
10 days ago

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.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
12 days ago
Reply to  George

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.

George
George
10 days ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

Depends on what you’re protecting the convoy against.

pete
pete
10 days ago
Reply to  George

Ajax the only recon vehicle that needs a bridge-layer lol

George
George
8 days ago
Reply to  pete

Anyone remember when 40 tons meant you were a medium to heavy tank?

Jon
Jon
15 days ago

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

Jacko
Jacko
13 days ago
Reply to  Jon

Haven’t the UKR got enclosed cabs on the ones they are using to launch AA missiles?

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
12 days ago
Reply to  Jacko

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.

Tom
Tom
13 days ago

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…

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
12 days ago
Reply to  Tom

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… Read more »

Last edited 12 days ago by Spyinthesky
George
George
10 days ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

Comet?

I’d have just said “Dad. Explain to me how Centurion was crap.”

Tom
Tom
9 days ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

Sure… it’s the opinion of my Nephew, who has driven them.

George
George
10 days ago
Reply to  Tom

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.

Tom
Tom
9 days ago
Reply to  George

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… Read more »

George
George
8 days ago
Reply to  Tom

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… Read more »

Tom
Tom
8 days ago
Reply to  George

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.

George
George
8 days ago
Reply to  Tom

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… Read more »

Tom
Tom
7 days ago
Reply to  George

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… Read more »

George
George
6 days ago
Reply to  Tom

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… Read more »

Jason Barnes
Jason Barnes
10 days ago

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.

George
George
10 days ago
Reply to  Jason Barnes

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