UKF Release: Jackal MWMIK

[ck-claw 1]

Just did a quick test Daniel! (Afgan village/ACE/Jackals)

I drove a single Jackal into a group of opfor waiting at a road junction.

Lol and they did not open fire!!

They just stood there looking at me.

Soon as i jumped out  

Edit:-

Tested with same scenario but without ACE and all worked as should?

[RM Snipe 0]

Confirm same problem..  

We are currently testing ACE 1.04 with all config_core_ai files removed & replaced with truerangeai.pbo & it makes a big difference not to just with the Jackals.  

Dunno if its just me but Jackals are not enterable unless set as unlocked in editor, "default" seems locked.

[Daniel 0]

Thanks CK and Snipe!

Saw your posts on the ACE forums too Snipe, will look into that. I take it that since most AI is server side, it should only be the server's files that need changing?

EDIT:

Ah, that doesn't help. The problem lies with ace_config_vehicle, which is essential for ACE. It's down to the devs now.

[SD_BOB 10]

Hey guys, just have to say that i have experienced no such problems using the Jackals.  I have been using then on th Afghan Village in combination with some 3 Para guys.  Even in the provocation role (sitting on high ground, starting a fight) the AI seem to engage fine even from distance.

[ravendk 25]

ive been looking closer at the mission i was in.. for some reason the enemys are the default bis enemys. so the problem is hidden within ace

meaning. missions made in vanilla arma should work (apperently)

[[cede]aushilfe 2]

Add    "crewVulnerable = 1;" to the Jackals config and you will be fine using it within ACE as you expect it to be. Wont have a downside and can be used as a backup to make it work.

Edit: There is some strange config behaviour within ACE that is causing this issue, not following the rules of logic somehow.

Should be fixed in the next ACE patch unless there is a downside discovered.

[manzilla 1]

Aushilfe @ Mar. 11 2009,13:05)]Add    "crewVulnerable = 1;" to the Jackals config and you will be fine using it within ACE as you expect it to be. No downside

Investigating some unplaned behaviour regarding this atm but this will help in the meantime.

thank you

[[cede]aushilfe 2]

Should be fixed within ACE as well now.

[Daniel 0]

Thanks Aushilfe, much appreciated!

[MonsterXXX 0]

Aushilfe @ Mar. 11 2009,20:05)]Add    "crewVulnerable = 1;" to the Jackals config and you will be fine using it within ACE as you expect it to be. Wont have a downside and can be used as a backup to make it work.

Which section should I putting the "crewVulnerable = 1;" in jackals config?

any tutorial? Thanks!

[RM Snipe 0]

Aushilfe @ Mar. 11 2009,13:05)]Add    "crewVulnerable = 1;" to the Jackals config and you will be fine using it within ACE as you expect it to be. No downside

Investigating some unplaned behaviour regarding this atm but this will help in the meantime.

thank you

Doesnt work for me..  

Aushilfe @ Mar. 11 2009,20:05)]Add    "crewVulnerable = 1;" to the Jackals config and you will be fine using it within ACE as you expect it to be. Wont have a downside and can be used as a backup to make it work.

Which section should I putting the "crewVulnerable = 1;" in jackals config?

any tutorial? Thanks!

Insert code into CfgVehicles

[Messiah 2]

Been away on holiday gents, but appreciate the efforts to try and find a solution in my absence.

VCB weren't using ACE during the jackal testing, thus it was never picked up, and I test addons with vanilla arma, as one should, so again, it wasn't picked up.

I've got a 101 things to catch up on, but shall put some of the things that have been mentioned into the configs and see what happens.

[HamishUK 0]

Superb work chaps! The bar has been raised on quality of work in this game.

Am I correct in assuming you guys also have a defence contract going?

Sadly though the Jackal is now under massive flack from the media and certain Defence sources. Personally I never felt the open design was necessary and the cab should have been enclosed. Open top recce in a hot area is not a bright concept these days.

Quote[/b] ]Taliban successfully hunt the Jackal

Tuesday, March 17, 2009

Concerns over the safety of the new Jackal vehicle are rising after five British soldiers died while using the vehicles for operations.

Last summer then Defence Secretary Des Browne announced an urgent operational requirement for 120 Jackal vehicles as part of a £700m vehicle purchase.

While the vehicles are heavily armoured, they are open on the top and at the front and are designed more for off road activities rather than routine road patrols.

Defencemanagement.com has raised the issue of the open design with MoD officials in the past, noting that it would leave the driver and vehicle occupants vulnerable to explosions in front of them, RPG attacks, gun fire and shrapnel.

MoD officials insisted that the vehicles were safer than the more enclosed Snatch Land Rover. However some soldiers seemed apathetic over the possible safety problems, saying that sooner or later something would get them.

Vehicle design experts have said that the front arches of the vehicle can and do trap explosions rather than deflecting them, leading to a magnified impact.

"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 noted to the Telegraph.

"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 overwhelming problem though is using the Jackal on regular roads. The point of procuring the vehicles was to give commanders as much choice as possible on the battlefield. So the use of the Jackal on regular roads is befuddling. The Jackal is specifically designed for rugged off-road patrols in remote areas of Afghanistan. The regular use of it on roads has allowed insurgents to devise bombs powerful enough to breach the weaknesses in the design of the Jackal.

[Prydain 1]

Superb work chaps! The bar has been raised on quality of work in this game.

Am I correct in assuming you guys also have a defence contract going?

Sadly though the Jackal is now under massive flack from the media and certain Defence sources. Personally I never felt the open design was necessary and the cab should have been enclosed. Open top recce in a hot area is not a bright concept these days.

Quote[/b] ]Taliban successfully hunt the Jackal

Tuesday, March 17, 2009

---

Please post that article for us.

I cannot say I am 'in the know' but to me it has always been a weapons platform/recce vehicle, it is not really supposed to be taking fire. And that title "Taliban successfully hunt the Jackal" is typically jurno.

[Ducatisto 0]

Superb work chaps! The bar has been raised on quality of work in this game.

Am I correct in assuming you guys also have a defence contract going?

Sadly though the Jackal is now under massive flack from the media and certain Defence sources. Personally I never felt the open design was necessary and the cab should have been enclosed. Open top recce in a hot area is not a bright concept these days.

Quote[/b] ]Taliban successfully hunt the Jackal

Tuesday, March 17, 2009

---

Please post that article for us.

I cannot say I am 'in the know' but to me it has always been a weapons platform/recce vehicle, it is not really supposed to be taking fire. And that title "Taliban successfully hunt the Jackal" is typically jurno.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/4997657/Two-British-soldiers-killed-in-Afghanistan-blast.html

It was yesterday the news was posted regarding the 2 soldiers killed whilst in a Jackal, very sad news indeed, condolences to their families. But seeing the Jackal it really looks out of sorts whilst on the road.

[MehMan 0]

It's a recce vehicle, but for some reason it has been given duties as a fire support vehicle and such. A role unbefiting of it's character. It's not meant for that and as such things are going to go wrong because it's not a front line vehicle meant to take on a lot of fire, but a hit and run type of vehicle. I see it as a very evovled LRDG vehicle.

[HamishUK 0]

Superb work chaps! The bar has been raised on quality of work in this game.

Am I correct in assuming you guys also have a defence contract going?

Sadly though the Jackal is now under massive flack from the media and certain Defence sources. Personally I never felt the open design was necessary and the cab should have been enclosed. Open top recce in a hot area is not a bright concept these days.

Quote[/b] ]Taliban successfully hunt the Jackal

Tuesday, March 17, 2009

---

Please post that article for us.

I cannot say I am 'in the know' but to me it has always been a weapons platform/recce vehicle, it is not really supposed to be taking fire. And that title "Taliban successfully hunt the Jackal" is typically jurno.

Sorry cannot post the actual article as it's from our Defence Intranet. So just posted the main piece.

It is sensationalist journalism but also goes to show that the vehicle is being used in a role that it was not designed for. This in itself is nothing new in anything within the military but does go to show there are some severe procurement issues for the guys on the ground.

Let's face it the Challeneger II tank should also be out in Afghanistan as the Canadian's have ben using there Leopard II's very succesfully in many red-zone engagements. Currently the Challanger II's are sitting in Iraq doing very little right now.

Anyway we digress. The Jackal is a highly effective piece of kit used correctly. It does however need an armoured cab as topless recce vehicles are very BAOR old hat and really have no place in the current operational environment.

[miles teg 1]

I'm sure the motor-pool grease monkeys will rig up some extra armor panels as needed at least against small arms. Not much to do about RPG's other then use a bit of slat armor which doesn't always do the job. They're lucky that they have the option of just using this vehicle in open desert areas. Just imagine if they were driving this through a warzone with lots of woods and buildings. Then they'd be in serious trouble.

Something like the South African Ratel wheeled IFV would have probably been a bit more versatile, is well-armed (choice of 20mm or 90mm turrets) is extremely rugged, is combat proven, and has good anti-mine protection. But oh well. The grunts gotta use what they're given.

At least in the game, it does its job as long as (like in real life) you don't get too terribly close to the enemy and you keep moving if you get fired upon. Still I wish it had some gunshields or something to protect the gunner at least as he's usually the first to get taken out. I find that it's best used as a vehicle for a forward observer where you call in harriers to drop LGB's on targets and then move to another location.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[Messiah 2]

Hamish, the HMT400 from SUPACAT comes with a fully enclosed cab, so all I can work out is that the open cab design is so that the front weapon mount is viable, as well as the driver being able to use his personal weapon. As has been said before, its not 'meant' to be a in the thick of it fighting vehicle, there are of course other, better suited vehicles to be soaking up the rounds and keeping bods safe inside.

Quote[/b] ]It is sensationalist journalism but also goes to show that the vehicle is being used in a role that it was not designed for. This in itself is nothing new in anything within the military but does go to show there are some severe procurement issues for the guys on the ground.

sounds somewhat reminiscent of the Snatch. Both vehicles are ideally suited to their intended role, its just they tend to be shoehorned into roles they were never designed for.

Lets remember they're somewhat a replacement for the WMIKs, so I can only think thats its a marked improvement from them (besides maintenance and servicing issues - can't really fix a jackal with a big hammer and a kick)

I can't really comment on any contractual work, other than yes we've done VBS2 work and what you see in ArmA is the same content, but often reworked/better.

[HamishUK 0]

Hamish, the HMT400 from SUPACAT comes with a fully enclosed cab, so all I can work out is that the open cab design is so that the front weapon mount is viable, as well as the driver being able to use his personal weapon. As has been said before, its not 'meant' to be a in the thick of it fighting vehicle, there are of course other, better suited vehicles to be soaking up the rounds and keeping bods safe inside.

Quote[/b] ]It is sensationalist journalism but also goes to show that the vehicle is being used in a role that it was not designed for. This in itself is nothing new in anything within the military but does go to show there are some severe procurement issues for the guys on the ground.

sounds somewhat reminiscent of the Snatch. Both vehicles are ideally suited to their intended role, its just they tend to be shoehorned into roles they were never designed for.

Lets remember they're somewhat a replacement for the WMIKs, so I can only think thats its a marked improvement from them (besides maintenance and servicing issues - can't really fix a jackal with a big hammer and a kick)

I can't really comment on any contractual work, other than yes we've done VBS2 work and what you see in ArmA is the same content, but often reworked/better.

Don't disagree.

My point is that the Jackal for all it's great points will soon get bad press and become the new 'Snatch' if Platoon commanders are intent on using them in a role for which they were not designed for.

It's a difficult problem that is not easily overcome when procurement are not clearly identifying the 'needs' of the guys on the ground.

Great vehicle, but like a tank needs to be used in the correct way.

[da12thMonkey 1943]

It's a difficult problem that is not easily overcome when procurement are not clearly identifying the 'needs' of the guys on the ground.

Jackals were bought under a UOR. By definition UORs are there to fulfil the needs of blokes on the ground.

Commanders specifically asked for more light, mobile recce and fire support vehicles as the Land Rover WMIK was one of their most useful assets in combating the Taliban. Jackal delivers that in spades. No way you could fill that role with a Mastiff, Ridgback, Bushmaster or anything of that ilk; contrary to what Richard North would have you believe.

What indicates that the Jackals blown up by these mines and IEDs were operating in roles they weren't intended for anyway? The fact that they encountered an explosive device? The fact that they travel by road on the way between the FOB and the AO?

AFAIK the MoD hasn't published any specifics about the operations that the troops who died in these vehicles were tasked with when they perished, or where the vehicles were relative to roads or urban areas. It's bloody daft to think that just because Jackal can drive off-road, it's advisable that British troops no longer use roads to get from A to B.

The press do know that roads often occupy the space between the trees and fields and houses? You know, all the shite that British troops have to manoeuvre between when moving cross-country...

[HamishUK 0]

The MWMIK saga began back in the 1990's long before we were involved in Iraq or Afghanistan and before IED's and the like. It started as a good idea but lacked mature engineering and there were doubts about support. The whole process has taken about ten years. Half way through we slap on some armour . It is another example of the glacial pace of procurement. All the same soldiers must have mobility, be able to fight and dismount quickly, they also need protection. Some of these requirements are incompatible

Quote[/b] ]What indicates that the Jackals blown up by these mines and IEDs were operating in roles they weren't intended for anyway? The fact that they encountered an explosive device? The fact that they travel by road on the way between the FOB and the AO?

As I indicated above the fact the vehicle are vulnerable to IED's makes them no better than the Snatch in a country where these weapons are used with aplomb by the Taleban!

Regardless of what you or I think of the Jackal as a vehicle and how it performs the media is already tarnishing it with the 'Snatch' brush and it's lack of protection against the main killing device of the Taleban.

[Daniel 0]

Has anyone tested the Jackals with ACE 1.06?

[da12thMonkey 1943]

The whole process has taken about ten years. Half way through we slap on some armour . It is another example of the glacial pace of procurement.

We've only purchased a hundred and fifty-odd MWMIKs and very few people are being trained to provide support for them unless they're going on Ops with the vehicles. I'm not aware of any long-term investment in the vehicles' supply and maintenance chain beyond current operations end either; certainly not with the company I work for (whereas we provide support for recently matured, non-UOR procurements such as Panther, MAN SV and Bulldog, as well as future projects such as Warrior WFLIP). In this respect, Jackal's procurement doesn't reflect the standard process of procurement for anything other than a UOR.

Supacat's HMT has been on the cards for a wide variety of roles inside the regular army for many years such as Soothsayer and LIMAWS (HMT-600 and 800s), but there was little interest in HMT-400 MWMIK for anyone outside of UKSF until they were required to bolster current operations in Afghanistan.

The necessity for regular light infantry units (other than the Commandos and Paras) to have large numbers of WMIK vehicles was in doubt during the late 90s, and we were going to get rid of a lot of Land Rover MWIKs shortly before Iraq kicked off. It's only really been in the past 5 years that their role within the regular forces has been cemented.

Based on that, it seem unlikely to me that the MoD was courting the idea of Jackal all along; particularly since the existing Land Rover WMIK was (and still is in many respects) considered adequate for the role until operational tempo in Helmand started taking its toll on the vehicles. Something that required Ricardo to develop the extensive EWMIK upgrade program to allow them to cope with operations there.

Quote[/b] ]As I indicated above the fact the vehicle are vulnerable to IED's makes them no better than the Snatch in a country where these weapons are used with aplomb by the Taleban!

Regardless of what you or I think of the Jackal as a vehicle and how it performs the media is already tarnishing it with the 'Snatch' brush and it's lack of protection against the main killing device of the Taleban.

I'm not really seeing where you're coming from regarding the issue of IED protection on Jackal.

Are you yourself debating the rationale behind using such a vehicle or are you simply pointing out that the vehicle's representation in the media is poorly informed, with respect its comparison to Snatch?

You clearly understand that current operations are such that the vehicle is required, that this role is unique to the Jackal and Land Rover WMIKs, and that in order to perform the role it is intended for, Jackal must be deficient in the amount of armour necessary to cope with the parallel threat of IEDs. However, you still seem critical of their use in the knowledge that there are vehicles with better protection but substantially worse mobility available.

I'm just finding it a bit hard to see what point you're putting across.

@Daniel, I've not gone through great pains to test it with the newest version of ACE, but enemy AI do now fire small arms at the Jackals for me (without having to modify the Jackal's config for crewvulnerable). Which AFAIK was the only major issue with using it in ACE?

I believe Messiah's still going to include the config change in a future update to ensure compatibility with other mods that might override it like ACE did. However, the release of said update isn't expected soon.

[Daniel 0]

Thanks, that was the only issue.