Jackal and Coyote MWMIK (Army)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 768
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: 585
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
Member
Posts: 768
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: 585
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
Member
Posts: 768
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: 2688
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: 15912
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: 6250
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: 15912
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: 2688
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: 6250
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: 2688
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Jackal and Coyote MWMIK (Army)

Post by SW1 »


Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6250
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: 1146
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: 15912
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: 6250
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!!

Post Reply