http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...o-1769692.html

I thought the Jackal had a v shaped hull to deflect IED blast......

Not good enough for a 'New' wagon, but then just look how long it took to give the Brit army a decent Tank in WW II, late 44 if you count the Comet as up to the job, late 45 if you demand the Centurion.
john

*SHOCK*, defence "experts" spouting off again...exacty what is/where did he gain his vast experience of ops? Was Jackal really supposed to be a replacement for Snatch, as claimed in the article? Or are they actually two totally different vehicles designed for different roles?! Having the support we enjoy in the press at the moment is of course pleasant, but i get the feeling that after the slagging Snatch received people are jumping on the bandwagon against any other vehicle that someone catches it up in.
If the people we fight in that part of the world can manufacture IED's that will put an M1 Abrams on its roof with the turret 50ft away do you seriously expect us to be able to "IED proof" the man and what is supposed to be a fighting platform, not simply a pill box with wheels bolted on....?
The vast majority of people who have used Jackal rate it big time, and it's also interesting to note that US "them" rave about even our baseline WMIKs, dripping that their armoured SF HUMVEE and MRAP wagons are crap for what they are trying to use them for and how they wish they had some "mad max trucks" to go anywhere, see anything, shoot anything, and get out in a hurry".

I liked the quote "JACKAL2 and COYOTE due to be deployed last month...." were they? Considering both of those vehs were only showed to the Press and public a few months ago i think Mr North is a bit premature.
PANTHER is not replacing the bloody Land Rover!!!
Piss Poor reporting!

I'm no expert but I seem to recall from reading Arrse that the Jackal is generally quite well liked by the users?
I've long since given up paying much heed to what I read in newspapers, have I got he wrong end of the stick or is it genuinely a case of those who operate with Jackal are happy with it?

No vehicle will ever be truly mineproof - if it was it would be so heavy and slow that it wouldnt be a mobile vehicle.

Richard North is one of those frothing at the mouth lunatics who purports to know a lot, but whose fame seems to owe more to his friendship with Christopher Booker (an utterly raving Eurospectic lunatic, and I say this as a highly Eurosceptic person), than any real knowledge. Whenever he comes on here, his utter lack of real knowledge is quickly shown up and he makes a departure, huffing that we, the end users don't know what we're talking about.

Any article featuring Mr North is usually soft, strong, and durably long

Originally Posted by jagman

I'm no expert

Neither is Richard North

I too was under the impression, from what those who use the vehicles have had to say about them here on ARRSE that most are fairly happy with the protection v manoeuvrability v fighting ability of the Jackal. There is never going to be total protection against IED and all round vision and armourment has to be high on the list of priorities. Perhaps greater priority ought to be given to IED detection devices rather than just protection.

The Jackal looks bloody dangerous quite frankly, I take it no one in MOD procurement ever bothered to read that book about "Taming the Landmine"

Passengers are positioned too close over the wheels, no cover from ied blast and the poor fecker in the back is going to be a 75kg meat missile without being strapped in if they hit anything.

Problem is that decent landmine resistant vehicles don't even look vaguely sexy - this does and it'll kill people doing it.

Oddly enough the US Marines have bought this - but then they did always have common sense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casspir

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Buffalo_IED.jpg

Forgot to add - it's not 1942 and the LRDG were disbanded ages ago...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Buffaloied.jpg

Originally Posted by fozzy

Originally Posted by jagman

I'm no expert

Neither is Richard North

I'd noticed :D At least I have the good grace to announce my ignorance before I open my gob and shite falls out.

On a more practical note, it seems to me that it doesn't mater how tough you make the vehicle the bad men just make IED's bigger and bigger. Efforts are probably being better made in detection and neutralisation than in the impossible task of creating ever bigger armoured boxes.
Despite how nosey I am, I appreciate that these things are not to be discussed in public so I listen here on Arrse with interest and don't ask.
Surely at some point the boffins will devise an effective counter to IED's which has nothing to do with running around in 30 tonne vehicles trying to fit into the task a Land Rover once filled.
The sooner the better, but I have no doubts far wiser people than myself are exerting a great deal of effort in dealing with the issue. Constant up-armouring does not seem to be the whole answer.