Jackal and Coyote MWMIK (Army)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Jackal and Coyote MWMIK (Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

Lord Jim wrote:Is something like a telescopic mount a possibility?
My first thoughts and concerns would be mine blast and lateral strength through recoil. I'm sure you could make it happen, and perhaps if you wanted to drive on/off an aircraft you might need it (but I think airbag suspension largely solves that).

User avatar
whitelancer
Member
Posts: 619
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:19
United Kingdom

Re: Jackal and Coyote MWMIK (Army)

Post by whitelancer »

RunningStrong wrote:Designers quite literally put it as low as possible, there really is no justification for putting it any higher than is absolutely needed to maintain 360 coverage and depression angles.
As I see it their are two main reason for the height of the weapon mount;
1 To allow for the maximum depression in order to engage very close range targets. This implies operating in close country or an urban environment where the visual signature of the mount is not really a problem. However if its a manned as opposed to a RWS it does expose the gunner to a considerable extent.
2 When taking up a hull/turret down position it allows you to engage the enemy while exposing the minimum target. In this instance your are reducing your visual signature which is a plus.

To gain these advantages you are seriously compromising the ability to remain undetected under different conditions. Height is much more important to the chances of being detected than the width or length of an AFV, a low profile should always be the aim. To use an analogy its like fitting F35b with a non stealthy gun pod, gives a useful capability with no down side if the enemy have no radars, but if they do it compromises your ability to remain undetected.

The answer in my opinion is to have a low profile mount for general use and a higher mount for the particular set of circumstances in 1 above, or preferable as I said above one that can be raised or lowered as required. Yes their will be some engineering challenges to overcome, but frankly I don't see that as a serious problem.
Which do you think will be easier to spot?
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Jackal and Coyote MWMIK (Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

whitelancer wrote: 1 To allow for the maximum depression in order to engage very close range targets. This implies operating in close country or an urban environment where the visual signature of the mount is not really a problem.
The CR2 in your picture is quite literally demonstrating the benefits of weapon depression in a hull-down, open-cpuntry scenario...
However if its a manned as opposed to a RWS it does expose the gunner to a considerable extent.
The Jackal exposes the crew to risk to maintain a lightweight design with extreme mobility and deployability. It's quite literally the raison d'etre...
Height is much more important to the chances of being detected than the width or length of an AFV, a low profile should always be the aim.
Given that not a single MBT has replicated the low profile of the S-tank, I would argue that a low profile is a lower priority than many other design aims.
The answer in my opinion is to have a low profile mount for general use and a higher mount for the particular set of circumstances in 1 above, or preferable as I said above one that can be raised or lowered as required. Yes their will be some engineering challenges to overcome, but frankly I don't see that as a serious problem.
When is that alternative mount fitted? Before or after you have to engage a target?

Which do you think will be easier to spot?
You're not comparing like with like in those photos. The AJAX wears a RWS when fitted for PSO, which includes the ECM. CR2 does exactly the same when fitted with a RWS and ECM. Guess what isn't the tallest item on the turret?

User avatar
whitelancer
Member
Posts: 619
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:19
United Kingdom

Re: Jackal and Coyote MWMIK (Army)

Post by whitelancer »

RunningStrong wrote:The CR2 in your picture is quite literally demonstrating the benefits of weapon depression in a hull-down, open-country scenario...
Yes and Challenger has 10 degrees depression, but why not more? Because more would require an increase in the height of the turret. Indeed Soviet/Russian tanks have less depression in order to minimise height.
RunningStrong wrote:Given that not a single MBT has replicated the low profile of the S-tank, I would argue that a low profile is a lower priority than many other design aims.
The S-Tank is more of a special case, its really a Tank Destroyer/Assault Gun rather than an MBT. Chieftain was deliberately designed to have the lowest possible profile consistent with other requirements for instance gun depression. Hence the reclining drivers seat. Challenger followed suit.
RunningStrong wrote:When is that alternative mount fitted? Before or after you have to engage a target?
You have to make a choice beforehand, depending on the nature of the operations you are engaged in, then live with the downside of your choice. I didn't say it was the best option.
RunningStrong wrote:You're not comparing like with like in those photos.
Not the best choice of photos I admit. I was just trying to give some idea of how prominent the RWS would be in a combat situation. Ideally it would have been pictures of Ajax in a hull down position with the RWS fitted and not fitted, against various backgrounds, just to show how prominent the RWS would be. You mention that the RWS fitted on Ajax was for PSO, fair enough, but then what was the point of fitting Barracuda camouflage, just for demo purposes, maybe! But then look at a pic of Ares its RWS just seems unnecessarily prominent to me.

Believe it or not the British Army did in the past try to keep its AFVs as low profile as possible. It seems now they have other priorities.

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Jackal and Coyote MWMIK (Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

whitelancer wrote: Yes and Challenger has 10 degrees depression, but why not more? Because more would require an increase in the height of the turret. Indeed Soviet/Russian tanks have less depression in order to minimise height.
Or the turret to be further forward. Or thinner glacis. Or fewer features on the glacis. Or a compact breech (like CT40). Or a roof bulge. It's really not that simple...
The S-Tank is more of a special case, its really a Tank Destroyer/Assault Gun rather than an MBT. Chieftain was deliberately designed to have the lowest possible profile consistent with other requirements for instance gun depression. Hence the reclining drivers seat. Challenger followed suit.
The S-tank is a tank. It's armed as a tank. It's armoured as a tank. It's designed to compete with... Tanks. It wasn't designed to assault anything. Very much the opposite.

There's a whole host of reasons to recline the driver, it's not just depression angle.

You have to make a choice beforehand, depending on the nature of the operations you are engaged in, then live with the downside of your choice. I didn't say it was the best option.
That's not the kind of theatre entry decision you make. You're working on the idea that they've mounted the RWS as high as they liked. It's not. It's as low as it can be to meet the user's need.
Not the best choice of photos I admit. I was just trying to give some idea of how prominent the RWS would be in a combat situation. Ideally it would have been pictures of Ajax in a hull down position with the RWS fitted and not fitted, against various backgrounds, just to show how prominent the RWS would be. You mention that the RWS fitted on Ajax was for PSO, fair enough, but then what was the point of fitting Barracuda camouflage, just for demo purposes, maybe! But then look at a pic of Ares its RWS just seems unnecessarily prominent to me.

Believe it or not the British Army did in the past try to keep its AFVs as low profile as possible. It seems now they have other priorities.
Yes, and that time was long, long before EO and RWS.

The PSO fitment includes the ECM equipment, same for CR2. It's taller than the RWS on either.

Not sure about your gripe with a RWS on an otherwise unprotected vehicle. If you can't achieve you're lookdown angles them you're very much at risk from infantry.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Jackal and Coyote MWMIK (Army)

Post by SW1 »





Don’t know why we aren’t using these as base for the MRVP programs

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Jackal and Coyote MWMIK (Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

SW1 wrote:base for the MRVP programs
Add armour to the LRV and 'all' payload is suddenly used up?

Would not be surprised if the recovery model becomes a 'Batch 3' purchase. However, just like with Boxer recovery variant, one will need to ask a question: if a vehicle can only recover another one of roughly its own weight class, how specialised can we afford to go within that generic capability
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Jackal and Coyote MWMIK (Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

I thought one plan was to purchase "Protected" MAN 8x8 or 6x6 Recovery Tractors to support Boxer and other medium and lighter platforms?

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Jackal and Coyote MWMIK (Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Ohh, I was about to include a video of the 'real thing' which is the 8x8
- and they do have the support as they are pretty much everywhere where the army goes
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Jackal and Coyote MWMIK (Army)

Post by SW1 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
SW1 wrote:base for the MRVP programs
Add armour to the LRV and 'all' payload is suddenly used up?

Would not be surprised if the recovery model becomes a 'Batch 3' purchase. However, just like with Boxer recovery variant, one will need to ask a question: if a vehicle can only recover another one of roughly its own weight class, how specialised can we afford to go within that generic capability
I don’t know on lrv what a split would be but was more thinking on the hmt series, between it with all the very many options and foxhound you would think all the roles can be covered. As we already have lots and they’ve been deployed together all over the world on fwd engagement and presence you’d of thought it a gd idea continue and develop further.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Jackal and Coyote MWMIK (Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

Looking at the videos, both platforms should be used to equip part of 16XX Brigade giving it the ability to have at least half the Brigade mobile as well as having the ability to move its heavier equipment far more easily. The ability to deploy these vehicles far more easily due to their weight and size makes the case even more so, as well as the fact that both platforms are both mature but retain plenty of capability grown potential.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Jackal and Coyote MWMIK (Army)

Post by SW1 »


Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Jackal and Coyote MWMIK (Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

Just been watching a video on the British Army's Jackal. It claims the variable height suspension system allow the Jackal to be carried internally in a Chinook. Surely not?

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Jackal and Coyote MWMIK (Army)

Post by mr.fred »

Lord Jim wrote:Just been watching a video on the British Army's Jackal. It claims the variable height suspension system allow the Jackal to be carried internally in a Chinook. Surely not?
It’s easy enough to look up:
https://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2011/07/ ... le-future/
Image

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Jackal and Coyote MWMIK (Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

An alternative that is in service with special-forces is the Supacat HMT Extenda, similar to the Jackal but with the ability to add on a extra axle assembly called a hamper. The variable height air suspension, key to its excellent mobility, also allows the ride height to be lowered so the vehicle can be carried internally in a Chinook.
- from that same @TD
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Jackal and Coyote MWMIK (Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

How many troops could a Coyote or Entenda in 6x6 form carry? Having an airmobile force that is also highly mobile once dropped off, operating one of these as well as Jackals would be a useful addition to 16 Brigade, have Platoon sized formation airlifted in theatre. Add both Cargo and Armed UGVs and suddenly 16 Brigade becomes a totally different beast!!

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: Jackal and Coyote MWMIK (Army)

Post by Timmymagic »

Posted in the MBDA thread as well...

Lets resurrect LIMAWS(R), LIMAWS(G) with the new M777ER and this...

Image
These users liked the author Timmymagic for the post (total 3):
SW1Lord JimDjpowell1984

jonas
Senior Member
Posts: 1110
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:20
United Kingdom

Re: Jackal and Coyote MWMIK (Army)

Post by jonas »

More orders :-

These users liked the author jonas for the post (total 2):
SW1Lord Jim

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Jackal and Coyote MWMIK (Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

Great news for UK industry.

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Jackal and Coyote MWMIK (Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

These users liked the author RunningStrong for the post (total 7):
SW1Ron5Little Jwargame_insomniacR686Lord JimJackstar

Jackstar
Member
Posts: 194
Joined: 19 Jun 2023, 17:02
United Kingdom

Re: Jackal and Coyote MWMIK (Army)

Post by Jackstar »

These users liked the author Jackstar for the post:
wargame_insomniac

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Jackal and Coyote MWMIK (Army)

Post by Tempest414 »

So is this taking over from Husky

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: Jackal and Coyote MWMIK (Army)

Post by Timmymagic »

HMT600 with legacy Asraam anyone?
For some reason I can't link the tweet...

Been in service in Ukraine for months killing cruise missiles and attack helicopters apparently...RAF appear to have worked out how to dispose of the older Asraam...



Image
These users liked the author Timmymagic for the post (total 2):
SW1wargame_insomniac

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: Jackal and Coyote MWMIK (Army)

Post by Timmymagic »

Here's the article it comes from....

How US Patriot defences are reducing ‘unstoppable’ Russian missiles to shrapnel​

Kyiv and Zelensky HQ were on the brink of evacuation due to airstrikes in December​

With a hypersonic missile slung under its belly, a Russian MiG-31K bomber roared into the air from Savasleyka airbase, 180 miles east of Moscow. It was less than 24 hours after suspected Ukrainian drones had struck at the Kremlin, and the pilot had orders to exact revenge.
The jet dropped its load as it raced towards the Ukrainian border. A short fall, blaze of flame and trail of smoke later, the Kinzhal, or Dagger, was arching towards the atmosphere in the direction of Kyiv. Ukrainian air defence command had only minutes to stop the Mach 10 ballistic missile from striking the seat of President Zelensky’s government.
“We have an air situation tablet and when there is an inbound ballistic missile, a computer immediately registers it and draws a zone where it is supposed to hit,” a lieutenant colonel in the capital’s air defence command said in his first interview with international media. The Times has agreed not to publish his name to protect his relatives in occupied territory.

A Supacat truck armed to fire Asraams
A Supacat truck armed to fire Asraams

“It calculates its target based on its trajectory. The system drew the centre of the circle exactly over the Maidan — they were targeting the government district precisely.”
President Putin described the weapon as “unstoppable”, yet it had never encountered American Patriot surface-to-air missiles, gifted to the Ukrainians just weeks before the May 4 attack. The Patriot battery’s automated systems engaged the $10 million weapon with their own missiles and within seconds the instrument of Putin’s wrath was reduced to shrapnel.
Ukraine now has more than two Patriot batteries which have revolutionised its air defences and breathed new life into the embattled capital, defeating a series of attacks designed to wipe them out with no losses. Ukraine has even been able to dispatch a roving battery north to the border, where it surprised the Kremlin by shooting down five aircraft over Russian airspace in a single day, then south to support the counteroffensive.
“Around Kyiv we now have the most powerful air defence system in the world. And in fact throughout history,” the colonel said, claiming 215 Russian missile and drone intercepts over Kyiv in May and June alone. “It’s Patriots, it’s Nasams, it’s German Iris, S-300, it’s French Crotale. The Russians have realised that banging your head into the wall where it’s thickest is pointless.”


British ingenuity is also playing a role in the city’s defences, the colonel revealed. The Ministry of Defence has supplied several Supacat trucks rigged by British engineers to fire advanced short-range air-to-air missiles (Asraam). They are deployed primarily to intercept swarms of Russia’s Iranian-supplied Shahed suicide drones, but some of the systems are also supporting Ukraine’s counteroffensive.
The high-mobility vehicles can enter an area where Russian attack helicopters are operating, shoot and move away. Unlike other systems like Starstreak, the Asraam do not require a line of sight and can lock onto targets themselves if fired into their vicinity.
Despite the array of advanced weaponry in Ukraine’s arsenal, the colonel warned that Kyiv would again be vulnerable this winter unless western partners drastically increased weapons production and urgently sent older, mothballed systems to Ukraine.
“You can’t plan a war with an annual production of 150-160 Patriot missiles. We fired those in a month,” he said, sounding the alarm that his men were running out of ammunition. “If we wait until autumn, until mid-October, they will hit the energy infrastructure again. This is a certainty. This winter will be even more difficult than the previous one.”
He disclosed that in December Ukrainian authorities had been on the brink of ordering the complete evacuation of Kyiv due to the intensity of Russian airstrikes. “Not many people know this, but Kyiv was on the verge of evacuation,” he said. “There was one battle that, in my opinion, determined the fate of Kyiv and the Russian campaign to destroy our energy sector, when 49 cruise missiles were launched at Kyiv.”
In a desperate 15 minutes on December 16, Ukraine fired dozens of missiles from its Soviet-era S-300, American Nasams and German Iris-T systems to save the city from total blackout in freezing temperatures.
“If we had allowed this strike to succeed, Kyiv would have had to be evacuated. And it is very difficult to evacuate two and a half million people,” the colonel said.
Without more missiles, his forces would be unable to protect those millions of people from sub-zero temperatures this winter, he argued, unleashing a new wave of Ukrainian refugees westwards toward the UK and the EU.


The colonel accused some countries in the West of failing to grasp the nature of Putin’s threat to Europe and the response required. He said he had been told by western officials his air defence requirements were “too expensive”.
“The Baltic states are the people who really understand. They give everything they can give, because they realise that if we don’t endure, then they will definitely not endure. You fight, we give, that’s it. The Poles are very good. The Scandinavian countries helped a lot, which is not publicised. The Finns, the Swedes, the Norwegians, the Danes, the British, but the rest of the world is very hard. I had an experience with the French, when they didn’t understand, they said ‘Why don’t you surrender?’ They asked that directly, ‘why don’t you give up?’ ”
The shortage of missile supplies is also threatening to derail Ukraine’s counteroffensive, he added, saying the army had run out of munitions needed to dislodge the Russians at the end of May, forcing troops to “storm fortified points head-on”.
The colonel accused politicians of counting coins over lives and considering only the value of weapons provided rather than weighing it against the cost of storing, maintaining or destroying weapons approaching obsoletion.
“We received Nasams rockets produced in 1994. In 2024, they will reach their service life limit. The disposal of an Amraam AIM-120B missile is $26,000 to $28,000. It’s easier to launch it, give it to us. Give us these missiles, we will use them,” he said.
“I talk to the military, the Americans, the British. They understand us, they themselves can’t understand why they gave us 400 M113 APCs when they have 6,000 idling. It doesn’t cost anything. It’s already just standing there. It’s going to be scrapped. It has to be maintained or decommissioned.”

The Americans have 1,100 Patriot launchers, with 40 older PAC-2 batteries in permanent storage that could completely protect Ukraine from Russian missiles, he said.
“They’ve already been paid for by the grandmothers of current US citizens. You either have them sitting around rotting away or you give them to us, we’ll use them somehow,” he added.
The Russians have adapted their tactics to avoid Patriot batteries, he said, focusing on striking cities far from the capital, such as Odesa, which are not yet covered. They are also upgrading old missiles with advanced technology and radar-absorbent skins. In recent weeks Moscow’s focus has been trying to take out the Ukrainian airfields from where British Storm Shadow missiles are launched, hitting command and logistical centres deep inside occupied territory.
“The strikes on airfields are a tribute to Storm Shadow. Thank you very much, UK, because they really proved to be very effective. With Storm Shadow, you launch a trap missile and an anti-radar missile. All at the same time in the same direction. So the Russians, if they try to intercept Storm Shadow, get an anti-radiation missile hit on their radar. Plus traps. Very, very effective stuff.”
The colonel said that Storm Shadows actually had double their published range, some 500km rather than 250km, demonstrating there was no reason for the US to continue holding out on providing Atacms missiles with a similar range, but which can be fired by Himars ground systems already in service with the Ukrainian military.
“There’s a question for American politicians — Atacms. Why don’t you give them to us? Tell me, why not, why not? We already have a thing here that can get further than Atacms,” he said. “Yes, there’s a huge price to fighting Russia, a country with a military budget greater than our state budget. We’re willing to pay for it — with our lives. If anyone thinks money is more important than our lives, please say so. Don’t make promises and then give us the bare minimum. Say it now and we won’t count on you.”
These users liked the author Timmymagic for the post:
Poiuytrewq

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Jackal and Coyote MWMIK (Army)

Post by SW1 »

You do have to wonder why we have made procuring a light mechanised vehicle so difficult when we have a base vehicle in service that has been shown to be configurable to a plethora of roles..
These users liked the author SW1 for the post (total 3):
Tempest414Little JCaribbean

Post Reply