5 dead soldiers used unsafe vehicle.

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by vvaannmmaann, Mar 17, 2009.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. All terrorists learn quicker than we respond. Merely up-grading the vehicle means that they increase the amount of explosive. If, as is suggested, this has a design problem then hanging extra protection will surely upset the dynamics and vehicles will become unstable. Maybe not unstable when operating but when an explosion occurs they may well tend to roll over easier than they are expected to.
    I thought the Rhodesians had sorted out the shape of vehicle hull needed to minimise the effects of mines and things?
  2. One of its best attributes is its speed. Add more armour- you rob it of its speed, and you end up with a fleet of yet more lumbering and inadequate patrol vehicles. Great.
  3. Oh FFS...

    While experts praise the Jackal as a fantastic off-road vehicle for Special Forces, they believe that a lack of alternative vehicles have forced commanders to use it for a purpose that it was not designed for.

    "The Jackal ignores all five of the basic principles of mine or blast protection and then seeks to overcome the basic design flaws with bolt-on armour, added as an afterthought. It cannot and will not work," said Dr Richard North, editor of the Defence of the Realm blog.

    "Not least, the front arches are blast traps, magnifying the impact of the blast rather then attenuating it and, with a cab-forward design on top of the arches, no amount of armour will provide protection."

    The instant expert has spoken.
  4. They did a pretty good job, but I think the size of the IED's in Stan are much bigger than those in Rhodesia

  5. In addition, if you try taking some of the more extreme shapes used in southern Africa against landmines and try using them against roadside IEDs, they won't work.
  6. As I understand it, they are not saying the Jackal is a bad vehicle, just that we are using it for some jobs it is not suitable for. So we need a few more well armoured vehicles for the road patrols and leave the Jackal as it is for the off-road tasks.
  7. meridian

    meridian LE Good Egg (charities)

    Richard North aside for a moment and I know we have discussed the ad nauseum but it seems to make a lot of sense to me when faced with a threat you develop a range of counters and if one of these is exposed then you move quickly to change.

    Although the details may be incorrect its hard not to have some sympathy with the general thrust of the article. With only a 100 odd jackals in theatre and for a relatively short time it does seem to be vulnerable, whether that is a design or deployment issue I am not sure.

    I cant help but think the protected patrol vehicle debate of mobility v protection still hasnt been settled in the context of Afghanistan and IED type explosions are without a doubt the largest cause of death and injury

    It is of course more than an acedemic exercise
  8. Indeed. And the key word in the above is minimise - there is no such thing as a 'mine-proof' vehicle.

    Whilst hull shaping and so on are all good for protection, no-one has yet been able to produce anything that marries up this type of protection with the kind of mobility achieved with Jackal.

    No doubt Dr North will produce a picture of an MRAP driving off-road as definitive proof that this is not the case, and that hundreds of UK soldiers are in fact talking out of their arrses when they state that in spite of better protected alternatives, they need Jackal to achieve their mission.
  9. The number of incidents involving Jackal do not necessarily indite the vehicle - consider perhaps that missions that it carries out puts in harm's way on a regular basis?

    I think you are right that mobility vs protection hasn't been completely sorted yet. However, I'm willing to believe the soldiers in theatre who tell us that they know the relative protection levels of the range of vehicle available, and yet they still need Jackals to fulfill a range of tasks.

    What we need is a purpose-built vehicle that combines the best of both world, but until someone builds one (which with LPPV in the offing, should be sooner rather than later) we have to make do with what we've got. The answer by the way, is not necessarily RG-32M or Cheetah, despite what Richard may think.
  10. Is there any particular reason why there isn't a mine clearance vehicle available similar to those used for clearing minefields in Mozambique/Angola/Namibia? or is it a question of speed?

    Seems strange that there is no modern day equivalent to the Crab/Rollers that where fitted to tanks in WWII
  11. meridian

    meridian LE Good Egg (charities)

    Cant disagree but the wider point is should we solely listen to the guys on the ground or take a wider range of views. The thinking is that the operation consumes the national wealth in terms of blood and treasure so do the bigger picture issues of casualties and cost trump local operational effectiveness. I can the appeal to some extent with that argument especially given the notion of an unclear strategy and the drip drip bad news of casualties. As we all know the currency of an insurgency is casualties so does casualty reduction take a higher priority in the debate.

    Interesting to see that the septics have recognised the mobility limitations of current designs and are looking at trying to achieve good levels of protection with much better mobility
  12. All vehicle design is a compromise. Design one to withstand mines - high off the ground, wheels away from the crew compartment, V hull and so on and you get something that falls over on rough ground and can't go round corners at any speed. So you can withstand mines, you just can't go off-road to avoid them.

    Design something to off-road and drive around at speed safely and you get a vehicle that sucks at mine protection. Any vehicle that places the crew above the wheels cannot offer as much protection as one that doesn't. So you can avoid mines right up until the point the terrain canalises your movements.

    The mythical vehicle that does everythibf is just that - it's this kind of wishful thinking that ignores the laws of physics that has wasted so much money on FRES for instance.

    To me the real question is why haven't we got more helos in theatre ?
  13. The Yanks have got something like that I think its a giant roller fitted to the front of a Hummer, it was mentioned in an article I'll see if I can dig it out.
  14. Any article quoting Richard North or Lewis Page as Experts should, IMHO, be treated with more caution than a 5 day old used nappy.