The British Army is looking for an ‘Alternative Individual Weapon’ for the Army Special Operations Brigade.

According to the British Army website, the Army Special Operations Brigade’s role is to operate in complex, high threat environments below the threshold of war alongside specialised Partner Forces to deliver operational insights and effects. The Army Special Operations Brigade can be authorised to operate at higher risk beyond the remit of conventional forces.

The British Army’s new Ranger Regiment – What will they be used for?

Four Ranger Battalions and the Joint Counter Terrorist Training and Advisory Team will provide the foundation for the Army Special Operations Brigade.

Bidders have now been asked to “tender for the Procurement and Support of an Armalite Rifle (AR) platform Alternative Individual Weapon (AIW) System for the Army Special Operations Brigade”.

According to the recently published contract tender notice, they’re looking for a “Rifle System comprising of a Rifle and a detachable Signature Reduction System and An Optic
System that complements the Rifle and is ballistically matched to the stated ammunition nature and supplied barrel length.”

More specifically a “5.56mm Armalite Rifle (AR Platform) optimised for use with L15A2, a 62gr 5.56×45 NATO ball round, equivalent to SS109”.

Including:

  • A Safe Blank Firing System (SBFS) for use with
    the platform delivered at SOR Item 7
  • An Optic System that complements the Rifle and
    is ballistically matched to the stated ammunition
    nature and supplied barrel length.
  • An Close Quarter Battle (CQB) Optic System that
    complements the Rifle and is ballistically matched
    to the stated ammunition nature and supplied
    barrel length.

The firms invited to tender for this are:

  • Beechwood Equipment
  • Caracal International LLC
  • Colt Canada Corporation
  • FNH UK
  • GMK Limited
  • Hammer Pair Performance Limited
  • Ian Edgar (Liverpool) Ltd
  • Law Enforcement International Ltd
  • Level Peaks Associates Ltd
  • NDH Defence Industries
  • NSAF Ltd
  • Precision technic Defence Ltd
  • Raytheon ELCAN
  • Riflecraft Limited
  • Steyr Arms GmbH
  • Viking Arms Ltd

The new rifle will be issued to the new four battalion-strong Special Operations Brigade.

The anticipated date for the contract award decision is March 2022 with the delivery of the trial systems by the end of August 2022.

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

174 COMMENTS

      • But why? the AR10 and AR15 are two entirely different firearm types. So the MARS-L would have practically zero parts compatibility to the Sharpshooters. Where as by going with the C8 the new rifles could utilize the already extensive stores and spares of the L119 which is the AR15 variant used by practically every other British unit that utilizes an AR15 platform.

        • The UK companies the ones with Ltd in their titles are all Section 5 Weapon dealers. Law Enforcement International Ltd was the official importers of L129A1 from LMT

        • Law Enforcement International Ltd listed above is LMT’s UK distributor. LEI submitted LMT’s 308MWS for the L129A1 sharpshooter rifle contract.

          The likes of Heckler Koch and SIG Sauer aren’t listed either, but there are UK/International sales offices for those companies in the list.

          • I’m glad I read this before posting, I was ignorantly about to note my surprise that HK (416) wasn’t being considered! Not saying we should go for it, but we would be remiss not to look at it.

  2. Hate to toot my American horn….but this is very easy, give the guys at USSOCOM a call and get the latest and greatest from them.

      • Thing is, at least they have the enablers we lack which would make the S Ops Bde more than just a fig leaf, which it currently is.

        But hey! The “brigade” keeps 4 battalions in existence along with its sister, 11 SFAB. 8 in rotal.

        Have one brigade maybe, but not both.

        A new rifle? Lovely.

        But still window dressing.

        • You certainly aren’t wrong. Especially with the removal of the c130. However, the mod do have a few things that aren’t on the books.

          • That could apply to various SF kit, known of but not avowed. But yes, true, there is the Bushmaster.

            I was thinking of juicer stuff like aircraft, ships, and helis. Hips, for example, is one tumour.

          • Well I have certainly heard of hips being used, but the SF, and coalition forces in general, make large use of contracted aircraft. So theres always a white hip or black unmarked gulfstream available when needed.

        • It’s early days. Unlikely I admit, but it’s possible that as the new units form, the enablers will be acquired.

          What are your thoughts on what is missing?

          • It depends on whether S Ops Bde actually enters combat as FCF could do, or is just a fancy modern day BATT designed to save cap badges, with no intent to actually fight but to train.

            Looking at FCF 3 Cdo Bde as an example, it has a useful formation in 30 Cdo, which has the Bde Life Support, AD, SIGINT, Comms, EW, and Bde Patrol all present.

            You’d imagine such a formation for S Ops Bde too if it is in groups in combat operations like the marines LRG’s Strike Companies.

            Logistics – FCF 3 Cdo bde has the CLR.
            Nothing for S Ops Bde. Would it not need its own logistics tail like that of DSF.

            Signals – The SF community went from having a single Signals Sqn – 264RS, to an entire regiment given its commitments and ops tempo.
            S Ops Bde is indeed not SF, but the way ministers are talking they describe it as being very much at the fore in the Grey Zone and thus engaged on multiple fronts.
            A single RS squadron has been allocated as I mention elsewhere, but whether it is a dedicated formation and not just temporarily robbing Peter to pay Paul I don’t yet know.

            The HAC has, as I also mention elsewhere, been allocated the task of providing patrols to the bde.

            An Artillery Regiment with vehicle mounted lightweight missiles to engage targets at range. Where is it? The CDS/CGS keep on about lethality and engaging in deep. MLRS is no use here, we need lighter formations.

            RAMC support – No sign as yet. Again, the DSF has a little known RAMC medical group in support, so should S Ops Bde.

            Vehicles. Nothing official, but the RM have got their hands on the Polaris MRZR D4.

            Firepower – who knows? Switchblade and ?

            Airpower is of course available but so short supplied and in demand from everyone else, so not guaranteed.

            TACPs will probably rely on US airpower than ours.

            Just an thin outline of thoughts, probably Iots I have missed that are necessary.

          • My assumption is these units will be designed to fight on the light side, as they aren’t going to be big enough to fight anything of scale. As such I would guess enablers would be mainly helicopters and mortars. Key gap to me is numbers, they just won’t be big enough to do anything beyond PR work (be seen to be doing something without actually doing anyone in a conflict).

            Artillery etc would have to come from the wider army.

            I would assume they will rely heavily on helicopters, so the army wildcats need to be uparmed to ease the pressure on the Apache fleet.

            Main lack from my perspective for a ranger style force is vehicle mounted fire support, probably a mortar or (in)direct fire module for the boxer could potentially close that gap along with whatever they purchase on the lighter side, once a decision is made.

          • The enablers unfortunately will be allocated from other none attached arms, and will be blistered on for then task in hand, taking them way from other taskings. There aren’t enough CS and CSS in the Army at the moment for the BCT formations as it is, without dragging them away to suddenly operate as “Ranger enabler. The whole concept is a spin to keep the same number of Battalions in the ORBAT but have 8 with 250 PIDS. Cheers mate.

          • No, there aren’t.

            But there might be if they cut 5 or 6 of those battalions to form CS/CSS.

            But the Cap Badge Mafia would have a fit!

      • Scale of production helps keep costs down.

        The odds are that whatever they end up buying will look very similar to a Mk18. I could be wrong…just a gut feeling though.

    • USSOCOM’s AR15 isn’t really the latest and greatest, It’s an M4A1 with a heavy barrel. And with modern barrel making that’s much more of a preference than a necessity.

      • Not true, Mk18 mod2s are definitely not the same as an M4A1. 11.5in barrel, geissle rails and triggers, and yes a heavy barrel.

        So besides the entire rail set-up, barrel length, and trigger…. Yes it’s the same as an M4…

    • An elite Israeli unit, gave up their better Tavors for inferior M4s. The reason, was all the extra bits designed to be attached to the M4 .

    • Tom , our own SF guys will know what the best rifles on the market are. Still got to do the procurement competitive process though.

    • The SCAR won’t be entered into this competition. The tender is specifically for an Armalite platform, meaning we’re only looking at what are essentially custom M4s

    • The NRCH version (Mk2) would be nice, thats if theyre considering non AR platforms as seems to be suggested on a few sites with the HK433 and BREN 2, but my money is on the CC C8 as in current L119A2 set up, could be the start of phasing out the SA80 by the back door for infantry altogether

  4. I would just go and get what sas sbs use and be done with it, because if its good enough for them well what more can be said….

        • If I had to pick a 5.56 replacement round now, I would probably go for the 6.5×38.7 developed by Zastava of Serbia. This is the 6.5 Grendel modified to work reliably in big army, mass produced assault rifles & LMG.

        • I’ll take a stab:
          a) It won’t be replaced for quite some time, without the massive logistics chain of 5.56 NATO, we would be selecting an expensive round that may not be easily available in the far-flung corners of the world that the SOB will operate in, and will complicate supply.
          b) Both selection of the AR platform and round means there will likely be familiarity and commonality with the partner soldiers the SOB will work with.
          c) The AR platform is conducive to relatively cheap and easy conversion to a larger calibre (within reason), sometimes just a barrel change depending on the cartridge dimensions and stuff. You can bet that whatever cartridge NATO (the US, in other words) chooses, it will be compatible with the AR platform with minimum necessary modification. SOB are better future proofed by selecting an AR platform for moving to a different calibre.

    • That would (probably) means Colt Canada gets the nod. Which makes sense they make a fine rifle used by Canada and the SAS and SBS. Colt Canada is a division of Colt in the US and the C8s have been around long enough that they are compatible with the latest optics/lasers.

      Its interesting that the rest of the Army is still using the SA80, I know it’s much improved over the original version, but everyone is dumping their bullpups for the same reason we in the US never picked one to begin with… heavy, poor ergonomics, and not similar to anything else in the inventory.

      • C8 also in use by other specialist units in British forces as well as SAS and SBS. Has been standard in close protection roles for over 10 years. Nice light carbine with more rails than Clapham junction.

        • Agree, if I had to guess Colt Canada gets the nod. C8s are fine rifles and have been in service for a long time. Not sure it makes sense to maintain two different rifles for the same role on SOF…. Now when will you guys dump the SA80s??

  5. Why is this necessary? Why is a SOB necessary? Other than being a publicity stunt, to maybe attract and improve Army recruitment, I am completely baffled.

    We have special ops support units, with the Para’s backing up the SAS, and the Royal Marines supporting the SBS.

    British ground forces will not be used in anger again, unless the Isle of Wight is invaded.

    The Russians are going to invade the Ukraine soon. The British Government, and NATO have already told the Ukraine that NO ground forces will be sent to their aid. Probably goes for the Airforce and Navy too.

    We don’t need new guns, we already have some. All that money wasted on home defence.

    • The Rangers will allow us to deploy specialist troops in large numbers then previously, in a freshhold low than open conflict. Syria and Iraq are primarily examples of when such a force might be necessary. Also just because, we aren’t willing to deploy troops to Ukraine, a none NATO country, doesn’t mean we wont deploy them elsewhere.

      • We have well trained Infantry already. A new SOB seems rather insulting to those lads.

        Again, we will NOT be deploying Infantry in any size anywhere. We do not have the numbers any more. Special operations are small and stealthy. The whole idea of a SOB Brigade is a gimmick, nothing more.

        • Pretty much spot on! We have more than enough light Infantry Battalions (mainly because they are cheap to have) but that’s not to say they sent good at soldiering. The whole Ranger concept is flawed as it’s just a way of not reducing the number of Infantry Battalions, therefore keeping the amount but with less than 50% of the manpower. It’s all spin, smoke and mirrors and so called “specialist formations” without the real hard work and effort at being special!

          • Oh God, please forgive me, I did my best to jail every f@cking one of them including their senior God, the c#nt, but, I have to agree with a PARA!

            Please, please, forgive me!

          • It’s just another way to get rid of the para’s as they have tried to do for years, and the ranger bn’s are just a copy of the scout’s even the badge. Having served in both.

          • Totally agree with Airborne’s comment, its PR Spin to hide a defence cut. This is the only thing MoD can think up when faced with so many problems with resourcing. Yet defence contractors have dividends to report to their investors ? Thats why this government is spending on equipment and cutting people, personnel need pay, pensions and retention bonuses…..that does NOT put money into share holders pockets☹️ This government’s policy of ‘A few need to make a profit in business ‘ , instead of not investing in the future armed forces personnel experience, knowledge, technical skills and capability delivery . This people capability needs to be better than our potential enemies, some of whom have already done harm to our country in recent years☹️. To deter and to respond to future threats.

          • Spot on Airborne. Crazy that it is now ‘Special’ to have an understrength unit. I am sure there is a role for quality British infantry to assist and mentor foreign troops but is there the workload for 4 battalions, and why do they need something other than an A3 rifle?

      • Rangers is just a name change of existing units. We already have 5th airborne brigade etc . Ghurkas , paras , marines, , guards, light infantry etc . I think this is mainly a publicity exercise . The other problem with this ranger unit is it maybe a talent drain away from other units.
        Who’s to see that in few years time paras will be disbanded and called rangers ? .
        We have at least 7 battalions of highly trained volunteer looking for action troops already

    • I am a supporter of the Rangers concept, we should understand that they will not be deployed as formed units like commandos, 16X, SFSG or SF. They will be deployed as small self-supporting advisory teams. An analogy is the Jedburgh teams deployed by SOE and OSS in advance of D-Day to support the French resistance to cause chaos.

      Ukraine is a case in point – while we may not politcally be able to deploy formed units to aid them, we could certainly deploy Rangers to help mentor their combat units.

      In 1963 the US had aroud 350 advisers in South Vietnam ad they helped build the ARVN into a force of four Corps, mentoring manouvre forces of ranger battalions and armoured cavalry and airborne and marines in addition to the 8 field divisions.

      At that time – before the US Army sent ground troops – they were often able to hold their own. It was political rather than military failures that let the Viet Cong gain traction, and the deployment of US ground forces did not change that. Kennedy would have sent more advisers, but as it was Johnson was persuaded to take another course that ultimately lost the war.

      • James the concept isn’t to deploy them as self supporting advisory teams, we have the “assistance Battalions” (or whatever they are called) to do that. These Rangers are supposed to operate in actions “other than war”, with NO integrated CS and no CSS! The concept is all about not wanting to reduce the numbers of Infantry Battalions, as it would look bad and get the cap badge mafia up I’m arms, but make 8 of them with 250 pax or less and come up with a bit of spin with this “new” formation! Cheers.

        • I don’t believe that is the case. We have SFABs but they are for non-combat mentoring. Rangers are for mentoring and accompanying in high threat situations (like the Kurds, or with Somali National Army, or Ukraine). Wallace said in his recent statement in parliament that they will need to be self-supporting and there is work ongoing as to how they do that. Don’t take my word for it though, read here https://www.forces.net/news/new-army-ranger-regiment-what-we-know-so-far

          • Sorry James, while it may sound like a decent concept (it is) it will not be funded correctly, there will be no affiliated full time CS and CSS, and therefore they will not have the ability to do much more than turn up and train people (like the Assistance Battalions)! Any attached arms will be dragged away from other tasks, in order to “Rob Peter to pay Paul”. I have nil, zero, none, no faith in anything Wallace or his ilk say. Its all spin, smoke and mirrors and a cheap way of saying “we are there, at the sharp end”. Like I have moaned about many many times its an excuse to keep the Battalion numbers the same but to equip 8 with less than 250 people! We have shed loads of Light Infantry Battalions able to do this job and no half arsed, made up “selection” process will change that! Am I cynical, yes, but that’s after a lifetime in uniform listening to the same spin but in a different guise. Cheers.

          • Where’s the integrated CS? CSS? None mate! If ever utilised they will need to beg, borrow and steel these enablers from other formations. It doesn’t matter what it’s based on, it’s not, and will not be fully supported and capable of independent operations. Try to see through the spin! It’s a way of maintaining the same number of Bns in the ORBAT but with 40% of the manpower. Same as the SFAB thought process. We have enough Light role Bns, with no real role, who could do this. However we need to remove 5-6 Battalions from the ORBAT and use the PIDs, and the money for combat support! Maybe not as sexy to some but without it the teeth arms are just wafer thin and unable to operate with effectively, with any sort of punch even in asymmetric warfare.

          • Can the speak Swahili or Ukrainain – have them got engineers an signallers embedded in their platoons?

          • Can they light role Toms speak Swahili or Ukrainian – have them got engineers and signallers embedded in their platoons?

          • Can the light role Toms speak Swahili or Ukrainian – have them got engineers,logisiticans and signallers embedded in their sections, are they trained to operate independently in small teams? They are to help our partners fight better – not to go boldly alone into the wild.

          • Are you having trouble James with your PC? The Light role Bns we already have can operate “in operations other than war” and they don’t need a pretend “selection process” to do it. They will have attached RE, RLC, Sigs, RA etc as per any normal operation, threat and task dependent. But, the Rangers will have to have the same, dragged up from other “Brigades”, who will have none of the “specialised” training these so called Rangers will have, that they will need to be fully integrated on operations. I’m not sure if you fully understand the actual essential requirement of enablers and CS etc….

            Your overall military knowledge is excellent but the understanding realty and nitty gritty of warfare seems to be missing. As for languages, mmmmmm, have you any idea the length of time lads go away for to do language courses? and as we have no idea where the “Rangers” will be operating, how many blokes will be up to speed on how many languages…..not realistic to think the Bns will be chock block full of linguist.

          • Yes Wifi gone to pot… I defer to your knowledge of course! I was a matelot, but also a civvie adviser to TF Helmand and a joint MOD/FCO adviser building the Africa Standby Force and a VP of ArmorGroup, civvie adviser in Libya etc. so know a bit about COIN / CT.

          • Mate I think we will have to beg to differ on this one, but from experience, we are all aware that plans never survive contact with the bean counters, and to be effective the Ranger concept will need a full set of similar trained enablers. And the sad thing is we don’t have enough enablers for the BCTs we are planning to have. Ah ArmourGroup, not the naughty ArmourGroup we all knew about in Kabul and Irag….lol? Owned by G4? Spent many a decent contract as part of a PSD in the sand pit myself. However I should now be called chairborne as fulltime UK based now, advising a uniformed organisation on certain operational training. Cheers james.

          • Yeah that ArmorGroup – It was DSL when I joined in 1997, but I ran Central Africa and then the mine clearance side globally.. I rejoined (well FCO) in 2004, so missed AG in Iraq, although of course they were in Kabul when I was there. It was bought by G4S after my time – now G4S International I believe. Cheers too Airborne – am also mostly chairborne these days – doing tech stuff.

          • We could shoot the shit all evening I reckon James. Lets hope for the best in regard to the Ranger concept!!! Great to chat, and stay comfy in that chair…reckon we have earned it lol!!!

      • Hi James. I too would support the concept – if they enabled it properly!
        And actually use it!

        The line between S Ops Bde advising and 11 SFAB advising seems awfully thin. Have one but why both.

        I also wonder, if the teams are as small as you suggest, why are 4 battalions needed! Even at 250 men. That is a lot of teams.

        Just keep 1 600 man battalion for the role and cut the rest and use the headcount elsewhere, either keeping other battalions up to strength or better still using them to create more enablers!

    • Tom, the Isle of Wight is not going to be invaded anytime soon, we are both agreed on that. You seem to think the new Rangers are asking for a new rifle to enable them to conduct Home Defence? That is not their role, it is to work in concert with foreign friendly forces.
      Why do you say we won’t be using British ground forces in anger again? Has world peace broken out and permanently? For my 34 years in the army, there was only 1 year in which there was no operational fatalities. Things are quieter since the end of Op Herrick in 2014 but it is a brave man who states that we will never use ground forces in anger again.

      • We do NOT have the numbers, to fight in Afghanistan again, let alone Iraq or Kuwait.

        As said and acknowledged by others, the Paras support the SAS, the Royal Marines support the SBS.

        ‘Ranger’s will NOT be working in concert with foreign friendly forces in small numbers. We already have the SAS and the SBS doing that.

        ‘A new weapon for home defence’ … you said that not me!

        New weapons for an army that only has 19,400 Infantry, a lot of them not foot soldiers? Why??

        World peace???? Don’t be sarcy!

        • Hi Tom, I very much enjoy your contribution. The Governmment spin is that we really will have an army of 103,000 when you include the Reserve Army – we both know that this does not mean 103,000 bods who are deployable. We deployed up to 11,000 on Op HERRICK (Afghan) but that included RAF and some RN in singleton posts – the army or RM contribution was a Brigade group, and relatively few were TA/Reserve Army. I think it would be a stretch to repeat at that level, unless you really cut into the Reserve Army.
          You are right that the SAS (and the SBS, although that is smaller) have long had a role in training elite foreign forces – it seems that they lose that role. [Wiki:The (Ranger) regiment’s task will be as follows: “[It will be] designed to support and conduct special operations discreetly in high-risk environments”.[3] According to a reporter of Forces News, the regiment will “conduct missions traditionally carried out by United Kingdom Special Forces (Special Air Service and Special Boat Service)”.[4]

          Wiki: – The rangers will be “special forces” and will “go beyond training, advising, and assisting” to “support local operations”. 

          I misunderstood a comment of yours – I thought you were talking up Home Defence and suggesting the Rangers do that with a shiny new rifle – my mistake. Puzzling that a US Defense magazine suggets an initial order of 10,000 – when the Ranger Regiment is barely 1,000 bods.

          19,400 Infantry, a lot of them not foot soldiers – you are talking about the clerks, medics, cooks etc – well that has always been the case – a battalion of 500, 650 or 250 will always have such people – all highly necessary. Not everyone in Tesco mans a till or stacks shelves. This will be the same for the enemy, so its ‘even Stevens’.

  6. I love the comment “4 Bn strong”… where I remember the Royal Irish and KORBR were at strength in the 80s/90’s, a figure of 600+ to be precise per each of their respective Bns.

    No idea on QLR or KINGS which were amalgamated into the present day Dukes, (KORBR).

    Who writes this sophistry?

    • One would have to guess at yes. Though likely to take the form of a combined muzzle-break also. Similar in designs to the NGSW prototypes The US are looking at.

    • I think they like to use the term ‘suppressor’ these days- to try and avoid the Hollywood-fuelled notion of assault rifles making zero sound, despite firing supersonic ammunition.
      The USMC trialled a whole unit putting suppressors on everything including the SAWs and found them huge improvements in being able to fight: they were more easily able to communicate, they had better situational awareness, and it was harder for the enemy to see where they were positioned when firing- especially at night. I think the primary problem with them is that they have a lower lifespan than the gun barrel when it comes to how many rounds you can put through them. A potential problem in combat.
      Makes sense to use them when you can, although not sure if it’s a huge benefit when the local units you’re advising likely don’t have them… I’d definitely issue them to the Marine though, if they can work out a way to make them rugged enough.

    • The UK companies the ones with Ltd in their titles are all Section 5 Weapon dealers. Law Enforcement International Ltd were the official importers of L129A1 from LMT

  9. I have no knowledge like some on here so why is the SA80 not good enough for the Rangers but good enough for the regular troops, why not equip everyone with the same especially as the army is getting smaller?

    • Limited knowledge here also but having briefly used the SA80 and a few other weapon types the SA80 is not really a shooters weapon. It is meant to be mass produced, thrown around, dumped in sand, dropped in rivers etc. The build quality of the ones i’ve handled is also surprisingly dodgy.

      Compared to a high spec AR the difference is night and day. They are lighter, more ergonomic, target acquisition is quicker, optics are better, smaller profile the list goes on.

      Ultimately I would guess it comes down to cost. Most people in the army never pull the trigger so they don’t need the latest and greatest. SF are doing it frequently.

      • From 2006-2011 most people in the Army was pulling the trigger quite often, hence why SF recruitment dropped through the floor. And these “Rangers” won’t be SF, so all this requirement for a new weapon is all spin and window dressing! The SA80 in its current form is good enough for this new concept of not wanting to reduce Inf Bn numbers, and spinning the numbers! Cheers.

    • The SA80 is a excellent rifle for regular service. Its reliable, accurate at long ranges and has a long service life. However, it is also heavy, cumbersome and aren’t really adaptable.These issues aren’t really significant for regular infantry compared to SF since they tend to carry less, get transported more, tend to fight in open areas and dont need to be so flexible. Where as SF need all of the above. Indeed one of the major reasons 43 went to the C8 was not only because, it could be fired from the left shoulder but also because, it could fire with the American low velocity ammunition and use a silencer.

      • A couple of points, having handled the current A3 rebuild L85, it’s a serviceable rifle….

        It has the same issues regarding “dogs dinner ergonomics” , but that’s a matter of training and muscle memory, to overcome.

        In many ways, it’s the car that Homer Simpson designed!

        But the A3 rebuild adds a picitinny rail to a new body, a keymod forend (giving modern adaptability) and barrel and bolt group replacement, as needed.

        The only original part, refurbished and kept is the TMH.

        That said, it seems obvious to me that a slow rolling replacement programme is effectively underway and Colt Canada’s excellent L119A2 ( in its carbine and rifle version) is the current choice across the SF community and the Royal Marines.

        I would imagine the L119A2 will continue its roll out across the Rangers too.

        On the wider point of a new NATO calibre, they will probably go for another intermediate round, with better performance at range ( you only have to see 5.56mm tracer on a windy day, over 300 meters it looks like a red arrows display!

        You couldn’t hit a bloody barn door with it…

        AR platforms are the way to go, excellent ergonomics, ease of maintenance and perhaps crucially, able to be re barreled into a new calibre, when it’s been finalised. New magazine platform needed, but bolt group probably fine as is, with the exception of a new extractor profile.

        If it wasn’t for a fact it would need reproofing, the job could be done by a unit level Armourer, such is the ease of barrel removal and head spacing on an AR.

        • A couple of us were Bitc#ing about the SA80 on tour back in the day, one of the fella’s said at the time and looking back on it I agree with him now, That the SA80 was designed for the range not really for combat, Think about all the big positive movements you have to do to show clear and what not.

          • That’s the main problem, it’s ergonomics are terrible, but as said, training and muscle memory negates the issue.

            I expect all the infantry elements will have L119A2’s by 2025, with the L85A3 equipping everyone else until 2030 or so.

          • I lost count how many times my SA80 dropped to bits during my use of the damn thing, granted it was the mk1, and my CSM said they were designed because the next war would be for fighting in built up area’s as they were not as big and heavy as the SLR not sure about that concept, also I cannot speak about what these newer versions are like, as I left before those upgrades were done.
            but what it cost to put them right, I think we would have been better off with a complete replacement. but the MOD know how to waste money!!!

    • It would have been cheaper to order brand new rifles from the US rather than upgrade the rails like they did on the last SA80 upgrade. Optics cost the US government more than the base M4’s.
      The reason SA80 wasn’t ditched was to reduce the retraining requirements from a completely different manual of arms.
      The main drawback of the SA80 is not it’s reliability or accuracy, it is a lot heavier than an M4 and it sucks at CQB. It requires all kinds of strange contortions to shoot around right hand corners.

  10. “Operate in high threat environment below the threshold of war”…..with absolutely no, none, nil integrated OS, CS or CSS! The whole concept is an effort to justify NOT removing any under strength Infantry Battalions from the ORBAT, to keep the cap badge Mafia content! With the other 250 strength Battalions which are now being used as the “assistance Bns” or some other chuff, we now have nearly a third of the Infantry in under strength none peer capable groupings!

    We need to reduce the Infantry in order to back fill the Battalions which are allocated to the BCTs and use some of their PIDs to rebuild the CS and CSS which have been savaged in just about every review since 2010! If these lad want to be a bit “ally” then do the hard work and go for selection, SRR or put in a transfer to the RMs or PARA Reg, or SFSG! Sounds a bit like a “special” force the easy way!!!!!

    • This is just speculation but could the direction the Army is going be more like less peer or near peer, but instead something more akin to the stuff they were doing in the 60’s and what the French are doing and have been for decades now, so small unit actions, assisting allied nations in COIN/training and such, etc etc? At least that’s kinda what it reads like with the infantry.
      Is it me or are we copying the French a lot?

      • Hi Ryan, I like the French, decent lads up for a fight and can recognise the enemy we all have! Copying the French to me would be no issues, but no matter what chuff is said by head sheds and the MOD, we still need to be able to go toe to toe with a peer adversary and that means well equipped and capable organisations able to slug it out and take losses…..sad to say at this time we are not that organisation! Cheers mate.

        • You say “we still need to be able to go toe to toe with a peer adversary and that means well equipped and capable organisations able to slug it out and take losses” but is there genuinely any European military, at least in the West, that are capable of doing such and sustaining losses to men and equipment? And these days, who classify as peers? Most nations either are “beneath” us in terms of equipment and quality or have more stuff than we could shake multiple sticks at. Or are allies but I don’t see us going to war with France, Spain or Italy anytime soon.
          I don’t disagree that there needs to be a decent level of equipment that’s up to the job but short of the govt doing a 180 at lightspeed and massively increasing the Forces, we aren’t going to be capable of much against Russia or China. Full spectrum capability is also unlikely so isn’t moving to primarily limited war with some support capacity for allies in the case of things properly kicking off a more realistic route?
          Or I could be spouting more chuff than the head sheds and MOD put together 😂. I’m no going to pretend I’m anything more than a civilian with an interest in this stuff.

          • And keep that interest up mate as the more people observe and take note the more it becomes visible what a dire state we are in. Yes we have some great kit, superb people and excellent plans and CONOPs, but a Ranger Battalion, lets say a full one deployed (250 people) with no affiliated CS and CSS, means its set up to fail. Yes we can utilise Allies etc for enablers, but if we are gobbing off that these are “Rangers” with a form of tough selection (yaaaawn) why just add none specific trained enablers form Allies or even UK forces? The concept is flawed as it will not be funded properly, and the Army is so low on enablers that we struggle to support the new BCTs which are actually in being. You are correct that very few, if any countries can re-generate men and kit fast, but we as a military need a level of depth, from the teeth arms through to the CS/CSS to ensure we can fight for more than a few days! Cheers mate.

  12. Interesting to decide to stick with 5.56. From what I remember trials with 7.62 didn’t make as big a difference as expected. Being able to carry more rounds, interopability and so on must be a big factor. Easier to use and less wearing on the individual especially when firing large volumes ‘down range’.

    • What’s to be confused about? It’s what the entire military currently uses. It makes little sense for special operations to use something different. Logistics and supply would be a nightmare if they went “rogue”

      • Very outdated thinking John, most SF are now using larger man-stopper rounds….in fact a lot of militaries in general are moving this way.

  14. I can see that these ‘battalions’ are going to cause a lot o
    f resentment within the infantry. As has been said all our light battalions could do the job that these ‘elite’ troops are slated to do.

  15. For one I think its cheaper than the SA80 A3. The A1/A2 have been used hard with the war on terror. But the army doesn’t want the great expense of changing its manual of arms.

    As you know no new SA80’s have been built for quite some time. It’s very sad to see the demise of Enfield and domestically produced manufacturing. Accuracy International is an example of the quality we can produce though.

    The SA80 is still good enough, upgrades have addressed the reliability issues. Its quite accurate, some prefer it over an AR. It’s just very heavy still and a tad awkward. The Ranger battalions are to function like the US Green Berets. So it makes sense they use a platform that they would would be able to train/equip foreign nations on. That or whatever AR type rifle that government could afford/acquire.

    It’s interesting to watch SOCOM and what they are looking to replace 5.56 with. However they still only plan to procure around 100,000 units (6.8 for SF only). So akin to the FN SCAR tl(5.56 or 7 62) we might have to start keeping a few tools in the shed 🙂

      • Hi John, 

        Sorry, I agree interest is surely there. It’s just the scope initially is limited I believe:-

        “120,000 total rifles and machine guns, according to budget documents. That would mean 40,000 in the initial batch at an estimated cost of $36 million.”

        I think improvements to body armour and stand off range were the prime motives. Though they maintain higher muzzle velocity even in shorter barrels.  

        The US has recently standardised on a new sniper rifle which can switch calibre, but includes the lethal .338 Norma Magnum (Barrett MRAD). M110 from 7.62 to 6.5 creedmoor.

        The new Sig MG 338 fires the Norma round which has 4 times the power of 7.62 at 1,000 metres. Outdoing the .50 BMG in accuracy out to 1,900 metres. 

        I think long term we should jump on board with our friends over the pond. They got it going on 🙂

    • Some prefer SA80 over AR, interesting. Any idea why? Genuine question because for the life of me I can’t see why that would be.

      • Chatting to a bootneck armourer, some of the guys shot the SA80 A2 platform better on the range, perhaps due to the longer barrel or the majority having been their primary for so long. The A3 will improve upon the A2 with a ‘freer’ floating barrel now.
          
        I’m right eye dominant and right-handed, so never hand to contend with what left handers go through. Brits don’t tend to own personal firearms so don’t have any prior habits to contend with. But hands down the AR platform feels lighter and the ergonomics are just intuitive.

        Hands find hands, mag changes on the SA80 are just fumbly. The RM are going all in with the L119A1 now, so vast majority be happy with that. But the other stealth cuts being made by the MOD concern all of us I think.

          • Cheers Airborne. Not to labour the point, a but a line company delivering volley fire would be a terrifying prospect . If on the receiving end, I’d certainly lament having not paid more attention to leopard crawling in my infantry basic training.

            I was arguably the worst infantry man in the 1982 intake. Fortunately , I transferred to the Air Force where I belonged!.

          • Its not a prospect I would like to be fair. But marksmanship was the back bone of training. Today, while warfare always changes, the actual hitting the bad guy with your rounds, while a good result, isn’t necessarily the aim, its about putting down enough suppressive fire to give the local commander a chance to formulate a plan! Keep the bad guys head down, lock him into position and do something!

            Until we got into Afghan, most guys used to rip it out of the Yanks for the amount of rounds they would use on a target, in their various operations around the world, the yanks being the whipping boys for piss taking! But, after your first contact, you realise that’s the way to go, the spams had it dead right, get as many rounds down in order to keep them down!!!!! Cheers Klonkie.

  18. The whole Ranger concept is ridiculous. We have a 3 battalion (plus one reserve) Parachute Regiment that is more than capable of being expanded. We also have the Royal Marines.

    Establishing a new unit smacks of too many senior officers with not enough work to do.

    Why they need a special rifle that is different from the rest of the regular army is again just senior officers playing with their new toys.

    • Look up the 6.5×38.7 developed by Zastava/Prvi Partizan of Serbia. The 6.5 Grendel slightly modified to work better in big army mass produced assault rifles/LMG.

      • Seeing that 6.5 Grendel is literally 6.5 × 38.7 mm, it’s doubtful whether Serbia really modified the 6.5 Grendel, or whether they simply renamed it as 6.5 x 38.7 mm. If they did modify it, my guess is that the differences are as subtle as the difference between .223 Remington and 5.56 mm NATO or the difference between .308 Winchester and 7.62 x 51 NATO, so a gun that fires one may be able to fire the other. Having just purchased a 6.5 Grendel barrel, I hope it’s not made obsolete by Serbia having modified the chamber significantly enough to make the ammunition not interchangeable.

  22. I feel there’s a lot of anger about the ‘Ranger’ concept but I don’t feel your seeing the Army’s side. Warrior, Ajax almost all the Afghan UOR vehicles they spent billions on. Does anyone remember the 1,000 plus 60mm Mortars they had to phase out almost before they entered service because they couldn’t hit a donkeys arse with a banjo ? 70.000 plus Regs and 30.000 Res and they can’t field an actual Brigade. So they’re doing what they’re good at creating berths for themselves. Far more Colonels and Majors than Battalions and Companies to employ them ? Reduce the size of the Battalions and Companies. Hey presto problem solved. But don’t let it worry you. If it ever comes to an actual war well that’s what the RN and RAF are there for. I have nothing but respect for the soldiers and junior officers of the Army but the organisation they work for is a joke.

  23. I am surprised that the first thing the Special Ops Brigade (SOB?) needs is a new rifle. Are they OK for vehicles, comms, heavy weapons etc etc.

    • Agreed, A3 platform made by H&K is a good enough platform but is expensive compared to other manufacturers.
      I think they need new comms as the bowman system could be better

    • What vehicles, comms, heavy weapons?!

      So far one Signals Squadron has been allocated to support them, while doing its other jobs and its parent regiment supposedly supporting another part of the army – so no doubt reducing their support at the same time.

      Some patrols have been allocated to it from the HAC.

      No other enablers evident yet – dedicated helicopters, UAV, EW, and CSS units.

      I have read the Polaris MRZRD4 might end up with the brigade and I think Switchblade is a given.

      • USASOC units don’t have organic enablers either. The model for a Ranger battalion is a US Army SF battalion. They have the exact same number of PIDs. USASOC units draw enablers from the wider force, and the Rangers will be no different. A 12-man ODA is expected to be self-sufficient excluding basic life support that is largely delivered by air. This is the exact same concept. Not hard to buy scoff from locals, maintain your own equipment and keep your head down during low-vis operations. Folks have been doing it for centuries…

    • FN has just launched the Evolys ultralight machineguns in 5.56 & 7.62. the 5.56 version weighs 12 pounds, while the 7.62 weighs 13.6 pounds. By comparison the M249 Saw weighs 17 pounds.

  25. Why stick with an obsolete round? there are so many other rounds out there between 6mm and 7mm that massively out perform 5.56 and 7.62 in terms or accuracy, range, stopping power, ballistic coefficient etc. Sod it, why not go back to the .303 as it doesn’t look like we’re moving with the times here I’m afraid.

  26. Just buy something proven off the shelf. Stop this procurement nonsense, it’s a national embarrassment and allways a Quango somewhere. Taliban did well for twenty years with silver AKs and iron sights.

  27. 2 things.

    1. If they need a new rifle then they are saying that the SA80 is and has been a failure. I don’t go along with that. The A1 was apiece of manure but the A2 and then A3 much better.
    2. The US are moving to the 6.8mm cartridge as it is more deadly and yet still light. Surely any new assault rifle for the UK needs to be 6.8mm?

  28. The US 6.8mm rifle/machine gun development continues. Granted that is more long range than a CQB rifle, but the UK should not spend lots of money on 5.56mm when it may be on the way out.
    If we must buy a small number of 5.56mm AR15 clone rifles, please let them be reliable piston, rather than less reliable direct gas.

  30. The Brits have never liked the L85 series rifles mainly ‘coz the bull-pup configuration looks weird and ugly (even the name for that type of rifle design is strange). It’s also associated with crap wars in which the good guys lost, like eye-rack and that other place Kipling and many other (forgotten but with first hand experience) authors warned us about.
    The legendary SLR had the Falklands in ’82 and the first half of NI as its battlegrounds, not to mention Malaya, Borneo, South Arabia etc, from the days when we knew how to win wars…apart from the horrible Aden Protectorate, maybe.
    Lest we forget, the British Army and Royal Marines were the first users of the AR15 in the Indonesian Confrontation of 1962-66, and an RAF Regt officer sent to advise the USAF Security Police in Vietnam in 1965 recommended that the latter buy that rifle (and light armoured vehicles) in order to better defend their airbases in that theatre of operations.
    The USA, as we know, lost Vietnam to the Communists, as well as an estimated million M16 rifles and much other war materiél, but one can’t blame that defeat on the rifle used by the US and its allies, the same as equipping the British Forces with a new rifle isn’t going to turn them into super soldiers who will sweep all enemies before them. You need to select and maintain the aim, use an overwhelming mass of troops and have a will to win if you want to succeed in any war: ask the Taliban if you won’t take my word for it (or Marlborough, Wellington, Haig, Montgomery or Slim). The Afghan insurgents, armed with old Soviet weapons, beat most of the Western World’s armed forces put together: not a Picatinny Rail in sight on any of their rifles.

    • But of a disjointed post but I do agree about the SLR, however your comment about the the Brits not liking bullpups and because that are associated with list wars? Very weird comment. As for losing wars, the politicians lose the wars, tactically we beat them every time, strategically and politically we lost due to various Governments losing sight of the aim, changing goalposts and not going full throttle to win. Cheers.

      • Not sure you can really say we won Iraq/afgan, my view we lost badly. Yes policitcal will wasn’t there and ‘win’ wasn’t really defined, but the issue is the military have a bad habit of saying we can do that, without flagging issues and that results in failure as happened.

        Until the military learns to stand up for itself and openly critise the government, if they dont provide the forces / gear they need, the miltiary only has itself to blame for losses.

        The cuts after cuts after cuts have been allowed to happen because of the failure to speak openly and realistically, instead of letting the policticans hide behind capability reviews with generals singing the party line to they retire. This has meant we didn’t have the numbers to send to Iraq/afgan to actually win even if there had been a polictical will to do it.

        • Steve I didn’t say we won in either theatres, I said we beat them tactically every time, but that doesn’t mean we won the “war”! Cheers.

          • Fair point

            I don’t however agree we beat them tactically. They beat us on pretty much on every front. Yes from a pure miltiary engagement perspective, we beat them (not sure we could not have with far superior weapons and training), but it was a insurgency war where the tactics are as much about heart and minds as about shooting.

            It was unwinnable but that doesn’t mean tactical mistakes weren’t made.

      • I have always associated wars with the small arms used by the fighting men: In Britain’s case, the Martini-Henry and the 1879 Zulu War, Lee-Metford and the Boer War, Lee-Enfield rifles with WWI & II. The British Forces won all of them, after suffering some bad defeats in them all.
        A soldier is first and foremost an agent of his government’s defence and foreign policies, so the rifle and bayonet he carries are used to implement those policies, either by using them or the threat of using them against his enemies. Therefore the rifle and fitness and marksmanship training are arguably the most important considerations for any government’s military establishment.
        We had the L85A1 rifle in the 1990/91 Gulf War, and the good guys won that, mainly by not giving the enemy a fair fight, thereby meaning that rifle and LSW didn’t have to be used much at the sharp end of that operation because of the overwhelming firepower used against the Iraqi forces.
        This victory in the desert meant that the rifle design wasn’t overhauled, resulting in the L85A2, until the late 1990s, during which time user confidence in it was degraded like the rifles were through constant use. The A2 modification should have been introduced in the early 1990s, as a result of experience on Op Granby, and that would have demonstrated to the troops that the MoD actually realised the importance of having a good rifle in the hands of everyone in the UK Armed Forces. Then we wouldn’t be thinking that the AR15 design is somehow better, which we have done since that period.
        In the 1990s there was no incentive to improve the L85 rifle: we weren’t fighting a high-intensity war, Options for Change decimated the UK’s warfighting ability, and there was the usual periodic economic recession. But the real reasons lie deeper than that; after all, a rifle modification programme is cheap compared to most armament projects.
        Britain’s defence policy has always been reactive rather than proactive. The British people don’t like having to have armed forces, preferring peace at almost any price, and often getting other nations to do our fighting for us. We’ve had national military service for less than thirty years in the last three hundred of having professional armed forces, and we really don’t like getting involved militarily in mainland Europe. Really, really, don’t like getting involved unless we eventually have to. Hence we have global maritime links and a 21 mile wide anti-tank ditch to ensure our nation’s extremely high standard of living available to people of all classes.
        Also, the politicians distrust the military: “War is too important to be left to the Generals” is a saying one could only find in this country. Unfortunately, none of our politicians have a military bone in their bodies these days, unlike during most of the 20th century, when a lot of them had been in a war, and that goes for most of the public from which they come.
        Hence we end up with MoD procurement thinking that ally-looking rifles and gear can do the job for the infantry soldier: it’s the classic army sprog thinking. I thought that as a young soldier, and then spent most of my time in as an NCO telling the blokes to apply the Marksmanship Principles more if they wanted to hit the Fig 11 and 12 targets. Plus we did a lot of fitness training so we could carry all the weapons and equipment needed to do the job.

  31. This is UK MOD procurement don’t forget. Which means the wrong specification has to be issued, obviously ignoring all input from actual end users. Then, once multiple companies have wasted their own money submitting prototypes, change the specification to sort of take some user issues into account, but not all. Then wonder why only 2 or 3 companies still bother to submit a revised offer.
    Then ignore the best option and buy the cheapest one from whatever company is willing to build it in some deprived area of the UK.
    I may have worked in one or two similar projects for the MOD, hence my attitude! Hope I’m wrong this time round.

    • Mark, you are very cynical, but I can understand that. There is much to be cynical about.
      I have worked with MoD Requirements Managers (usually experienced SO2s who invariably had done the tech part of the staff course (Div 1 or Div 2) – and have never met such an officer who wrote the wrong requirement (which translates rapidly to a Specification). However the Requirements and Spec do often change during the lengthy gestation of a Project (can be 10 years). Ajax spec was redone by MoD DE&S in 2016.

      It is rare for multiple companies to design and build prototypes, particularly not for large, expensive complex equipment. With Ajax, I am fairly sure that only GDUK built prototypes (following Contract Award) and no other company.
      With CR2 LEP, then BAE and Rheinmetall after initial down-select from many companies to just those 2 companies did much practical work before they created a JV but they did not each build full prototypes.

      The winner of a competitive bid process will always be the solution that meets the Key User Requirements that is best VfM (ie cheapest whole life costs) for the taxpayer. It will not necessarily be ‘the best’, but it will be the cheapest that will do the job. Stuart Crawford often bemoans the fact that the MoD did not select Leo2 back in the day but instead selected CR2 – even though ‘the best’ was considered by many tankies to be the German machine.

  32. This seems…a complete waste of money. Forgive me if I’m wrong but I always thought the Paras and Marine fulfilled this role.

    And knowing what MOD procurement is like they will be burning suit cases of the stuff.

    • Paras and Marines are early-intervention forces, usually to ‘kick the door in’ as a vanguard force. Warlike operations have usually already been initiated by the opposition.

      Army Special Operations Brigade will operate in complex, high threat environments below the threshold of war alongside specialised Partner Forces (host nation army). Key component is the Ranger regiment which: deploys to deter adversaries and contribute to collective deterrence by training, advising and if necessary accompanying partners in support of national interests.

  33. Great to hear this news. Special tool for a special job. But disappointed the field has not been opened to different calibres, why is it limited to 5.56 nato? Also, the word armalite is included in the statement , seems like a very narrow constrained set of requirements has already bern set in stone. There are many rifle options that are already in production around the world we should test and consider first? What are the facts on the best rifle? We need to do comparison analysis of all the options first not just chose a few “favourites ” , what is the best rifle for OUR soldiers?

  35. Weren’t FCF getting a new weapon at some point? Or did that fall by the way side when they realised that forming new capabilities goes beyond ‘speshul’ aesthetics?

  36. Why not create a bullpup Besal with a Hill automatic horizontal mag Pistol with a 90 degree revolving loading system, similar to the FN P90.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here