UKF Release: Jackal MWMIK

[HamishUK 0]

Quote[/b] ]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.

Not entirely correct. The (M)WIMIK design concept has been an ongoing procurement project for over 10 years. The vehicles only part of the procurement project. WIMIK as you well know extends to the old Wolf Turbo design that you guys have already worked on. The concept is based on the installation kit and having a vehicle that would replace the old Series III recce rovers and Defenders from the 80's and 90's.

Quote[/b] ]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.

As above the HMT-400 is just the base vehicle for the concept. Matching the installation kit to the vehicle is a simple procedure once you have found the right vehicle for the job. It matters not if the vehicle is a Hummvee or a Defender 110.

Quote[/b] ]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.

No argument from me there. However the usefulness of this particular type of vehicle in the current combat environment is questionable. Back in the 90's the new concept was 24 Airmobile Brigade (of which I served with for a short while) and this was based on light AT mobility platforms. The Saker Sabre and Longline Strike Vehicle were two such 'dune-buggy' style fast attack vehicles that were used alongside the Supacat and Dinky. Both were deemed as totally unsuitable to the combat environment when Bosnia and Kosovo reared their ugly heads and were soon dropped from frontline units when it was realised how exposed the troops were on the ground.

Quote[/b] ]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.

The debate is not on how effective the Jackal is as a particular vehicle. I still have friends in 1 RA who has praised the vehicle itself for it's mobility and comfort. It's whether it is suitable to the operation tempo of Afghanistan? There was a lot of fault directed at UK Operations in Iraq when we carried on using light vehicles and the US switched back to heavy armour for protection. Since then we have seen UK forces switch back to heavy armour with the more extensive use of IED's.

Quote[/b] ]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.

Like I said the WMIK concept was born out of an idea for fast moving but heavily armed recce vehicles. A role not lost on the Jackal. However the design concept is found somewhat wanting in an environment where the biggest threat has been through IED's.

I still find it curiously funny that when I served in South Armagh no vehicles were allowed on the roads for fear of being hit by an IED. We only ever flew out of Bessbrook Barracks in Lynx or Puma's to track down the IRA. Light vehicles were then deleted for Bosnia and Kosovo IFOR / KFOR operations and here we are in a high IED threat environment facing an enemy that would rather hit and run.

It's a catch 22 situation is it not? The UK forces want mobility but at the cost of armour. To seek out the Taleban we should have mobility? I am not saying the Jackal is not the right tool for the right job what I am saying is that it does need more protection. The question is really how much mobility do we actually need at the cost of protecting our guys?

Anyway as for your Jackal I cannot fault it and you chaps have come out tops on the work. No argument or flames just a good hearty debate.

[manzilla 1]

Daniel @ Mar. 18 2009,11:31)]Has anyone tested the Jackals with ACE 1.06?

They still don't fire on me. I placed about 20 ACE Spetznaz and Russian Infantry on ACE Rahmadi. Along with 3 US Army Woodland ACE units and an empty GPMG Jackal. I can drive right up to the OPFOR group and sit there in front of them and they wont engage at all. They aim at me but will not fire.

With or without the crewvulnerable config addition.(But I was under the impression from Q that he didn't say that would fix the issue with ACE. Maybe I just read his PM wrong.)

Now I'm wondering if it's that FFN mod causing the issue. Damn I wish that thing was modular.

[MehMan 0]

I still think the Jackal is a very evolved LRDG vehicle that should operate behind enemy lines or in occupied territory, much like in the vid I posted. It's too lightly armoured for anything else. Indeed, in a highly IED dense territory the Jackal won't do good, but IEDs are placed on most likely and most traveled routes, which there aren't many in remote areas where coalition troops don't wander.

Are the challengers doing anything in afghanistan?

[miles teg 1]

With all the issues regarding the Jackal, is there a law against the MoD buying vehicles from other countries?

It would seem to me that the South African Ratel wheeled IFV would be able to offer all of the capabilities of the Jackal plus superior armor protection and fire-power (20mm or 90mm + MG mounts on the rear roof). It has long range, plenty of storage room, good anti-mine v-shaped hull, with a rugged combat proven design that saw it used very successfully in the very rugged terrain of Angola. Plus its most likely vastly cheaper. The Caspir and Buffel vehicles could likewise probably be modified for specific missions. It blows my mind when countries refuse to buy a superior military vehicle from another country due to internal poliitics and/or corruption regarding contract procurements. Even the US military finally buckled under pressure and started getting South African designed armored vehicles (in partnership with US companies) that have saved countless lives in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[Daniel 0]

Daniel @ Mar. 18 2009,11:31)]Has anyone tested the Jackals with ACE 1.06?

They still don't fire on me. I placed about 20 ACE Spetznaz and Russian Infantry on ACE Rahmadi. Along with 3 US Army Woodland ACE units and an empty GPMG Jackal. I can drive right up to the OPFOR group and sit there in front of them and they wont engage at all. They aim at me but will not fire.

With or without the crewvulnerable config addition.(But I was under the impression from Q that he didn't say that would fix the issue with ACE. Maybe I just read his PM wrong.)

Now I'm wondering if it's that FFN mod causing the issue. Damn I wish that thing was modular.

Aw crap. I somehow doubt it'll be FFN though, that's exactly the problem I had. And there wasn't any mention of the fix being implemented in ACE changelogs.

[Pathy 0]

Are the challengers doing anything in afghanistan?

No. RTR and other tank regiments were deployed with the Mastiff last I heard.

[HamishUK 0]

Daniel @ Mar. 18 2009,11:31)]Has anyone tested the Jackals with ACE 1.06?

They still don't fire on me. I placed about 20 ACE Spetznaz and Russian Infantry on ACE Rahmadi. Along with 3 US Army Woodland ACE units and an empty GPMG Jackal. I can drive right up to the OPFOR group and sit there in front of them and they wont engage at all. They aim at me but will not fire.

With or without the crewvulnerable config addition.(But I was under the impression from Q that he didn't say that would fix the issue with ACE. Maybe I just read his PM wrong.)

Now I'm wondering if it's that FFN mod causing the issue. Damn I wish that thing was modular.

Fingers crossed there is a solution as I have a wonderful coop mission for my lads with the Jackal and ACE planned.

[Daniel 0]

Yep, you can do shed loads with them if they work.

It's like being given a free Ferrari and finding someone's snapped the key.

[da12thMonkey 1943]

Daniel @ Mar. 18 2009,11:31)]Has anyone tested the Jackals with ACE 1.06?

They still don't fire on me. I placed about 20 ACE Spetznaz and Russian Infantry on ACE Rahmadi. Along with 3 US Army Woodland ACE units and an empty GPMG Jackal. I can drive right up to the OPFOR group and sit there in front of them and they wont engage at all. They aim at me but will not fire.

With or without the crewvulnerable config addition.(But I was under the impression from Q that he didn't say that would fix the issue with ACE. Maybe I just read his PM wrong.)

Now I'm wondering if it's that FFN mod causing the issue. Damn I wish that thing was modular.

Honestly, it works in ACE 1.06 for me mate. Against ACE Spetznaz, Insurgents, VDV: the lot of them fire MGs and assault rifles at Jackal now.

I've even had then shooting at me from out beyond 400 meters when I alert them to my presence by means of a quick burst of the Jackal's .50-cal.

Our scripter said he'd discussed the problem with Aushilfe from ACE, and that they'd found the crewvulnerable had accidentally been switched to false in a class that Jackal inherits from. He's advised us to include the entry ourselves as well, as a precaution.

I've never used FFN, so I'm unlikely to test how that affects things. Could you try ACE without FFN yourself?

I'd be interested to hear if anybody else has tested them with ACE 1.06, though.

[MonsterXXX 0]

I was tried jackal with Operation HERRICK mission in ACE 1.06 then taliban's light arms and DSHKM shooting me so bad like hell!!  

[Daniel 0]

Brilliant! Will try to convince the lads to upgrade and report back.

[SD_BOB 10]

I can confirm that the Jackals do indeed take fire. Been doing some "provocation" missiona on Razani. Well we sturred something up...... They hit us bloody hard.

[manzilla 1]

I wonder what AddOn/Mod it could be that's causing me to not be able to take fire.

[RM Snipe 0]

I wonder what AddOn/Mod it could be that's causing me to not be able to take fire.

In the same boat here too..

[Daniel 0]

Works fine for me now.

Using ACE 1.06 and a bunch of other addons.

[manzilla 1]

Alright I'm a jackass. It works fine with ACE v1.06. I was testing it with a quick test mission I made before ACE v1.05/v1.06 was released and the Jackals still were not taking fire. Then I re-saved the mission, loaded it back up and bam! I got a serious ass whoopin' when I mounted the vehicle.

My apologies.

[AKM 0]

Sorry guys, I know I said I'd have a demo mission complete soon. It's a conversion of a mission on Nick Bell's excellent Schmalfelden. Unfortunately, the briefing has this nasty habit of grabbing me by the face and punching me in the neck a couple times; I can't figure out what I'm doing wrong with the briefing. I've tried three different formats and it doesn't want to display correctly. I'm going to try a fourth.

[manzilla 1]

Are you using the ArmA Edit tool? It has a briefing wizard. It makes it easy enough that even I can make one!

[AKM 0]

Yeah, I should probably get off my high HTML horse and try an editor, as unnecessary as they are.

[RM Snipe 0]

Interesting detail shown to the speedo once again..  

[Messiah 2]

a random collection of numbers and letters as I face rolled the keyboard

[Pathy 0]

Sure hope nobody decides to Stab us on the Terraces over that speedo dial.

[MonsterXXX 0]

Will this badass baay change to ARMA2? Really love this badass "Jackal"!!

[da12thMonkey 1943]

Probably

Messiah has it working in ArmA 2 already, but I think he wants to put some work in on the new shaders etc.

We also need BIS to release the new modding tools before this happens, since it's not currently possible to binarize models that use the updated .rvmat format.

[MonsterXXX 0]

Probably

Messiah has it working in ArmA 2 already, but I think he wants to put some work in on the new shaders etc.

We also need BIS to release the new modding tools before this happens, since it's not currently possible to binarize models that use the updated .rvmat format.

That's a good news. Carry on!!:)