The Jackal

#2
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
 
#3
*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".
 
#4
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! :roll:
 
#5
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?
 
#6
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 ;-)
 
#8
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.
 

Schaden

LE
Book Reviewer
#9
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
 
#10
fozzy said:
jagman said:
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.
 
#11
"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" "

Depends on what you want the vehicle to do. Jackal is designed to do fast off road stuff, not sit and wait for an IED to explode on it.

What we forget is that we hear the odd report of Jackals being destroyed - that is an utter tragedy. We don't hear the many stories of the times when Jackals mobility has saved the lives of its crew.

We are at war. As harsh as it sounds, we will lose vehicles and people during a war. The media still think we can win this without loss - sadly we cannot. We can mitigate as best we can, but we will never be 100% perfect.
 
#12
jagman said:
fozzy said:
jagman said:
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.
I think you're right. I also think that the direction is being set by the media whipping up a frenzy over the effectiveness-or-not of our current armour perhaps diverting much-needed funds from detection and neutralization of IEDs.
The trouble is that reporting has become a 'let's sell newspapers' industry rather than a 'let's report the facts coupled with informed opinion' industry. Sensation sells newspapers so that is what they'll go for. I should imagine that research into detection and neutralisation goes on in ultra-secret so not much chance to whip up a media frenzy or debate the virtues of different detection devices/methods.
 
#13
Schaden said:
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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Buffaloied.jpg
We have bought BUFFALO but slightly diff spec. You should do what North and various tabloids do and research. Sorry to sound harsh but it gets monotonous JACKAL is this and JACKAL is that arguments.
 

Schaden

LE
Book Reviewer
#14
jim30 said:
"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" "

Depends on what you want the vehicle to do. Jackal is designed to do fast off road stuff, not sit and wait for an IED to explode on it.

What we forget is that we hear the odd report of Jackals being destroyed - that is an utter tragedy. We don't hear the many stories of the times when Jackals mobility has saved the lives of its crew.

We are at war. As harsh as it sounds, we will lose vehicles and people during a war. The media still think we can win this without loss - sadly we cannot. We can mitigate as best we can, but we will never be 100% perfect.
You go fast and off road against anyone with a lick of common sense I guarantee you a TM57 in your future at some little choke point - that thing is going to kill people.

We are at WAR!! Oh please next thing you'll be giving a speech about Dunkirk and all of us speaking German...if this country is at war then I suggest that resources are made available to combat the "real" threat - what you have here is a pr exercise in sucking up to the Yanks that has gone badly wrong.
 
#15
jim30 said:
"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" "

Depends on what you want the vehicle to do. Jackal is designed to do fast off road stuff, not sit and wait for an IED to explode on it.

What we forget is that we hear the odd report of Jackals being destroyed - that is an utter tragedy. We don't hear the many stories of the times when Jackals mobility has saved the lives of its crew.

We are at war. As harsh as it sounds, we will lose vehicles and people during a war. The media still think we can win this without loss - sadly we cannot. We can mitigate as best we can, but we will never be 100% perfect.
As sad as it is Jim, I have to agree with you.
 
#16
Is there anyone in the media reporting sensibly on this issue

One thing that keeps niggling at me though is we constantly discuss the mobility-firepower-protection triangle as if the relationship is linear, it simply is not a linear relationship between protection against what is the single most effective weapon deployed against us, the IED and weight, Look at some of the SA and Rhodesian designs, different era, different threat I know but some of the most survivable vehicles were lightweight and very mobile. As someone pointed out, the 70 tonne Abrams has been flipped on its roof by a massive IED but the same weight of explosive has been used against the lighter US MRAP types where everyone walked away so the evidence of the non linear relationship is there for all to see.

Arguments about one vehicle or the other aside though, where have most of the attacks happened. On roads, so the question can we use mobility as protection due to the nature of the terrain, arent we always being channeled onto roads and that is exactly where the threat lies. When Jackal was introduced it was exactly as stated above, a mobile all terrain fire platform.

So why are they being used as convoy escorts, the MoD reports many losses as such

Isnt it the case of right vehicle in the wrong place

There is nothing at all wrong with public debate, defence issues arent some closed shop club where only those in the know can have an opinion. Go back to the turn of the century and there were open debates, participated by the main in the street, the press and everyone else in between about the thickness of armour or calibre of main gun on RN battleships. The public pay the bill for our operations and care of the injured so its entireky valid they take part in the debate.
 
#17
Schaden said:
You go fast and off road against anyone with a lick of common sense I guarantee you a TM57 in your future at some little choke point - that thing is going to kill people.
If you go off road then you're probably going to hit mines/IEDs at some point. If you stay on road then you're probably going to hit mines/IEDs at some point.

Unless you're going to suggest never leaving camp again, then there's nothing we can realistically do to stop our forces coming into contact with mines/IEDs at some point. At the same time there is no vehicle in the world that is 100% proof against mines/IEDs.

Even Chally 2 and M1s have been lost to them so unless you're advocating the development of some aircraft carrier sized patrol vehicle with armour fifteen foot thick then at some point we're sadly going to lose soldiers to mines/IED.

The only thing we can do is to make our vehicles as resistant as possible to explosions or agile enough to use routes that are less likely to be mined. From what I've read on here and elsewhere, the Jackal is pretty popular with crews. They're not perfect, but for the role they are deployed in they're probably as good as it's going to get. If it was carrying more armour then it'd lose the speed and manoueverability that makes it popular with crews and eventually the enemy would just start planting bigger mines/IEDs and we're back to square one anyway.
 
#19
They're not perfect, but for the role they are deployed in they're probably as good as it's going to get. If it was carrying more armour then it'd lose the speed and manoueverability that makes it popular with crews and eventually the enemy would just start planting bigger mines/IEDs and we're back to square one anyway.
moving the wheels from under the seats and shaping the hull to a V shouldnt add armour, or slow it down or loose manoeuvrability though. performance should be pretty much the same but with a bit of added survivability for when that mine *is* hit surely?
 
#20
Toxicseagull said:
They're not perfect, but for the role they are deployed in they're probably as good as it's going to get. If it was carrying more armour then it'd lose the speed and manoueverability that makes it popular with crews and eventually the enemy would just start planting bigger mines/IEDs and we're back to square one anyway.
moving the wheels from under the seats and shaping the hull to a V shouldnt add armour, or slow it down or loose manoeuvrability though. performance should be pretty much the same but with a bit of added survivability for when that mine *is* hit surely?
Moving the crew behind the wheels means either throwing away usable volume or lengthening the wheel base, which increases weight. Either option restricts the drivers view of the ground in front of the vehicle.

A V-shaped hull either reduces usable volume or increases height and hence reduces stability.

Design is always about trade-offs, if you think you can do better let's see some detailed proposals.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads