UK Defence Forum

News, History, Discussions and Debates on UK Defence.

Jackal and Coyote MWMIK (Army)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 12613
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Jackal and Coyote MWMIK (Army)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 12 Mar 2020, 16:33

RetroSicotte wrote:https://www.janes.com/article/94847/uk-jackals-get-upgrade-for-un-mission-in-mali

Jackals upgraded with Thermal Masts. That's a HUGE capability leap for their role, and one sorely overlooked for years.


WE have this hugely capable fleet of vehicles, in numbers, and only now the ideas of using them, in NOT the direct fire zone, are coming to bear fruit
... I think TD had this thing (with a photo of the prototype) ten (minus ?) years ago

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2602
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Jackal and Coyote MWMIK (Army)

Postby RetroSicotte » 12 Mar 2020, 19:26

Cooper wrote:Why are we still pumping money into these open air death traps?

You'd rather they still use Land Rover WMIKs?

The troops I've spoken to love the Jackal. For its role in light warfare recce, intervention, and counter-insurgency, it's exceptionally capable and assuredly saved many lives while being a reliable, and very mobile platform.

User avatar
Cooper
Member
Posts: 241
Joined: 01 May 2015, 08:11
Location: Korea North

Re: Jackal and Coyote MWMIK (Army)

Postby Cooper » 13 Mar 2020, 07:26

RetroSicotte wrote:You'd rather they still use Land Rover WMIKs?


As I understood it, Panthers, Huskeys & Foxhounds were all meant to replace Land Rovers..

These things were a UOR purchase for desert conditions in Afghanistan, they are completely unsuited to the Northern European climate.

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2602
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Jackal and Coyote MWMIK (Army)

Postby RetroSicotte » 13 Mar 2020, 08:05

Cooper wrote:As I understood it, Panthers, Huskeys & Foxhounds were all meant to replace Land Rovers..

These things were a UOR purchase for desert conditions in Afghanistan, they are completely unsuited to the Northern European climate.

Jackals replaced the WMIK.

Foxhounds etc replaced the Snatch.

Jackals/Coyotes are not intended for front-line combat in a peer conventional war. They are for counter-insurgency, rapid intervention, and low scale hybrid warfare.

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 292
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Jackal and Coyote MWMIK (Army)

Postby RunningStrong » 13 Mar 2020, 08:53

Cooper wrote:Why are we still pumping money into these open air death traps?

Because soldiers love them? Well, except the guys doing road moves, but atleast the new virtus system helps with that.

Very lightly armoured, but that means you can move around the battlefield and avoid the worst of it. The mine protection is very capable, too.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 12613
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Jackal and Coyote MWMIK (Army)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 16 Mar 2020, 19:20

RetroSicotte wrote:Foxhounds etc replaced the Snatch.

+
RunningStrong wrote:The mine protection [of jackals] is very capable, too.


I must have been reading the wrong news: Jackals of which we have plenty were not mine protected enough (while otherwise v good)
- hence we had to have Foxhounds ... plenty pronto (which, just like Jackals are fairly open, which is not the way to maximise ballistic protection)

Which part of this did I get wrong?

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 4285
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Jackal and Coyote MWMIK (Army)

Postby Lord Jim » 16 Mar 2020, 20:51

I thought the Jackals, at least the Mk2 had a "V" shaped underside?
https://www.bing.com/images/search?view ... &eim=1,2,6
Aren't the Foxhound enclosed?

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2602
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Jackal and Coyote MWMIK (Army)

Postby RetroSicotte » 16 Mar 2020, 21:46

ArmChairCivvy wrote:I must have been reading the wrong news: Jackals of which we have plenty were not mine protected enough (while otherwise v good)
- hence we had to have Foxhounds ... plenty pronto (which, just like Jackals are fairly open, which is not the way to maximise ballistic protection)

Which part of this did I get wrong?

Foxhounds and Jackals are two comlpetely different vehicles that replaced completely different vehicles and are for completely different purposes.

There's no crossover, really.

User avatar
clivestonehouse1
Member
Posts: 64
Joined: 25 Jun 2019, 19:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Jackal and Coyote MWMIK (Army)

Postby clivestonehouse1 » 17 Mar 2020, 01:35

The Jackal has a V hull and sacrificial axles, not totally blast resistant but still a whole lot better than the repainted Snatch coffins that were initially used and cost many squaddies lives & limbs.
The Jackal were technically an interim measure until more suitable vehicles were available and served their purpose in a dangerous environment.
The problem is that the thicker the skin, the sharper the blade.
If Terry didn't get the desired results first time round they just upped the IED strength until they did.
There's only so much armour you can put on a high mobility vehicle until it no longer fulfills it's mission requirements so a balance of risk versus practicality unfortunately has to be reached.
I have old colleagues that survived hits in a Jackal suffering only broken bones whereas if it had been a Snatch LR then they would definitely been goners.
If Jackal saved just one life then is that not testament to their effectiveness?

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 12613
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Jackal and Coyote MWMIK (Army)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 17 Mar 2020, 07:55

RetroSicotte wrote:Foxhounds and Jackals are two comlpetely different vehicles that replaced completely different vehicles


I am only being insistent in order to reconcile what was said at the time and what is now being said. So, to that end: which vehicle did the Foxhounds replace? Surely not the Jackals (partly)...

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2602
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Jackal and Coyote MWMIK (Army)

Postby RetroSicotte » 17 Mar 2020, 08:09

ArmChairCivvy wrote:I am only being insistent in order to reconcile what was said at the time and what is now being said. So, to that end: which vehicle did the Foxhounds replace? Surely not the Jackals (partly)...

The Snatch Land Rover.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 12613
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Jackal and Coyote MWMIK (Army)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 17 Mar 2020, 08:33

Snatch replacement was ordered in 2010 (the theory part); what happened in practice between then and delivery to the front line?

... mood music included (I guess to underline the step change, up)

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2602
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Jackal and Coyote MWMIK (Army)

Postby RetroSicotte » 17 Mar 2020, 08:49

There was no direct clean line of replacement. What was Snatch and WMIK became Foxhound, Jackal, Coyote, Mastiff, Ridgeback, Wolfhound, Husky, Panther, Vector etc etc. And it all came at different times to each other gradually, serving alongside, some done faster etc.

But in role, the Foxhound does what the Snatch did, and the Jackal does what the WMIK did. As such they are broadly the direct replacements.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 12613
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Jackal and Coyote MWMIK (Army)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 17 Mar 2020, 09:27

Right, I think we got the convoluted story covered, although the army classifies Jackal as recce and WMIK as protected patrol. more specifically a "fire support and force protection Land Rover".

But homing onto the other part of the thread header, the Coyote (support) vehicle numbers are such that it could make an ideal gun tractor for our early entry forces, while at the same time reducing the plethora of platforms that the accompanying REME lads will need to keep going
- indeed, on the arty thread LJ once again suggested such a role
- wonder why the idea does not seem to be catching on? Perhaps the weight of whatever new (wheeled) platform will be chosen will warrant a new look into this (complementary) platform

Qwerty
Member
Posts: 109
Joined: 06 Apr 2018, 15:36
Location: Germany

Re: Jackal and Coyote MWMIK (Army)

Postby Qwerty » 17 Mar 2020, 09:46

Jackal Mk1’s we’re operating out of Kandahar AirField (KAF) from 2006.

They didn’t have a name back then.

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 292
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Jackal and Coyote MWMIK (Army)

Postby RunningStrong » 17 Mar 2020, 11:04

RetroSicotte wrote:There was no direct clean line of replacement. What was Snatch and WMIK became Foxhound, Jackal, Coyote, Mastiff, Ridgeback, Wolfhound, Husky, Panther, Vector etc etc. And it all came at different times to each other gradually, serving alongside, some done faster etc.

Many of those replaced Saxon, some of those were instead of Warrior/432 variants because we were short of wheeled capability.

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2602
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Jackal and Coyote MWMIK (Army)

Postby RetroSicotte » 17 Mar 2020, 16:00

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Right, I think we got the convoluted story covered, although the army classifies Jackal as recce and WMIK as protected patrol. more specifically a "fire support and force protection Land Rover".

But homing onto the other part of the thread header, the Coyote (support) vehicle numbers are such that it could make an ideal gun tractor for our early entry forces, while at the same time reducing the plethora of platforms that the accompanying REME lads will need to keep going
- indeed, on the arty thread LJ once again suggested such a role
- wonder why the idea does not seem to be catching on? Perhaps the weight of whatever new (wheeled) platform will be chosen will warrant a new look into this (complementary) platform


There was a time when there could have been in service:

- Jackal
- Coyote
- Soothsayer EW
- Repair/Recovery Vehicle
- Protected Patrol
- HIMARS Module
- M777 Portee
- Utility Roles

Could have been an excellent light family of vehicles, protected, very mobile, common parts, built in Britain.

But that was far too logical...

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 12613
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Jackal and Coyote MWMIK (Army)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 17 Mar 2020, 16:36

RetroSicotte wrote:Repair/Recovery Vehicle


Rumours have it that 30 or so of these could happen?

Well, the rumours also had it (when among many others the SV bridging version was cancelled0 that there would be 30 or so Warriors, converted to the (lighter) bridging role
- did not happen

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 4229
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Jackal and Coyote MWMIK (Army)

Postby Ron5 » 17 Mar 2020, 17:36

I'd say the M777 portee was a good one to miss on.

muttbutt
Member
Posts: 88
Joined: 07 May 2015, 22:07

Re: Jackal and Coyote MWMIK (Army)

Postby muttbutt » 18 Mar 2020, 07:11

RetroSicotte wrote:
Cooper wrote:Why are we still pumping money into these open air death traps?

You'd rather they still use Land Rover WMIKs?

The troops I've spoken to love the Jackal. For its role in light warfare recce, intervention, and counter-insurgency, it's exceptionally capable and assuredly saved many lives while being a reliable, and very mobile platform.

3 Para have recently gone back to Land rovers over their Jackals.... :eh:

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 292
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Jackal and Coyote MWMIK (Army)

Postby RunningStrong » 18 Mar 2020, 07:53

muttbutt wrote:3 Para have recently gone back to Land rovers over their Jackals.... :eh:

Paras shouldn't be in vehicles anyway!


As a note, is that just from photos of Kenya? I know artillery units have been on exercise with Jackal, and other units are going through upgrades, so it wouldn't surprise me if there's a shortage of available platforms at the moment.

jedibeeftrix
Member
Posts: 222
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:54

Re: Jackal and Coyote MWMIK (Army)

Postby jedibeeftrix » 18 Mar 2020, 08:23

given that only a fraction of them of jump qualified at any one point (and we lack the plane/heli resources to deploy them that way regardless), what [do] we do to make sure they're a useful mobile fighting formation?

leaving them in the tea-room with the rest of the immobile light-infantry seems like a great way to advertise themselves for the chop in the coming SDSR...

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 12613
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Jackal and Coyote MWMIK (Army)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 18 Mar 2020, 09:29

Light protected vehicles Jackal/ Coyote/ Foxhound we seem to have plenty of, and the projected JLTV numbers (timing still rather nebulous) would seem to provide leeway as how to deploy them. Looking at the OSDs, as per answer to written question
Vehicle Type


Planned Out Of Service Date

Snatch Land Rover (2A and 2B variants)


2024

Snatch Land Rover (Vixen Plus variant)


2024
... so the last of the fighting Landies should be gone in 4 yrs



Mastiff


2024
... and so too MRAPs, taking infantry into battle, at the same time

Jackal


2030

... fleet, I guess, is being well used. Funnily enough the almost-new Foxhounds are allocated the same OSD (??)

Panther


2037
... and therefore Panther (somewhere in storage?) will outlive them

What is not showing on the list (was not asked about?) is the hurry of getting rid of protected supply vehicles: Huskies and Wolfhounds, which would seem counter-intuitive in the light of the extended ranges of both tube and rocket artillery lately getting a lot of attention

muttbutt
Member
Posts: 88
Joined: 07 May 2015, 22:07

Re: Jackal and Coyote MWMIK (Army)

Postby muttbutt » 18 Mar 2020, 19:27

RunningStrong wrote:
muttbutt wrote:3 Para have recently gone back to Land rovers over their Jackals.... :eh:

Paras shouldn't be in vehicles anyway!


As a note, is that just from photos of Kenya? I know artillery units have been on exercise with Jackal, and other units are going through upgrades, so it wouldn't surprise me if there's a shortage of available platforms at the moment.

It's apparently a permanent thing, the LR are easier for air mobility etc...

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 12613
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Jackal and Coyote MWMIK (Army)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 18 Mar 2020, 19:40

muttbutt wrote:the LR are easier f


They can even make for a "radio car"... almost a command post
- but a Pinzgauer will make for a much better ambulance
- the biggest vehicle that a Herc drop platform can fit... there are no :?: news if this can/ will change with the A400M


Return to “British Army”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests