The Commando Force is set to receive a significant upgrade to their weaponry by acquiring the Knight’s Stoner 1 (KS-1) rifle, also known as the L403A1.

This new firearm is part of an extensive equipment enhancement for the UK’s elite ‘lead strike teams’, which are charged with undertaking raiding and amphibious operations globally.

“The Knight’s Stoner 1 (KS-1) rifle (designated L403A1) headlines a host of new kit additions for the UK Commando Forces in ‘lead strike teams’ – those responsible for raiding and amphibious operations worldwide,” a press release stated.

Over a thousand of these rifles, produced by the US-based Knight’s Armament Company, have been procured. These come equipped with cutting-edge optical and thermal sights and are fitted with suppressor (silencer) systems. This enhancement aims to make the Commandos both harder to detect and even more effective in battle.

The release went on to highlight the diverse operational roles of the Commando Force:

“The Commando Force regularly deploys around the globe in all extremes of environment – arctic, desert and jungle – reacting to crises and conducting a range of complex operations, including counter piracy and terrorism, drugs busts and humanitarian aid and disaster relief.”

Acknowledging the challenging nature of these missions, the importance of equipping the Commandos with top-tier equipment was emphasised, noting the “need to put top-end kit in the hands of these specialist warriors to give them the upper hand on the battlefield.”

Alongside the KS-1 rifles, other forthcoming additions include night vision goggles, advanced communication systems, battlefield vehicles, and other ‘survivability systems’. These encompass new helmets and suppressors to further reduce the detectability of the force.

The Royal Navy has kickstarted this new phase of equipment investment for its elite forces, with an extended procurement programme scheduled to commence from 2024.

You can read more by clicking here.

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

130 COMMENTS

  1. I find this a strange decision given the US have just gone for Sig 6.8mm NGSW.

    If we are purchasing new weapons surely they should be in the 6.5-8 calibre which seems to be the new std.

    For me its the True velocity polymer bullets that are the real game changer in the whole NGSW piece alongside the optics.

    HK and Sig are the 2 leading global manufacturers and HK fixed our current weapon (albeit at massive cost)

    perhaps this is another Army decision that is ill informed given changes that are occurring across the pond

    • I don’t think NATO has endorsed a new Standard for SAA. Even if they had, it would be a specific calibre not ‘something in the 6.5-8mm range’.

      Why is this an Army decision? The RM are part of the Naval Service.

      Why should changes in the USA dictate what we do?

      • There’s was talk about introducing something intermediate between 556 and 762 over a decade ago, but I don’t think it ever progressed.

      • Morning Graham, why do the US dictate what we do?

        Well, European NATO members bring the jumpers for goal posts, but the US brings the ball…

        Without the ball, there is no game and as long as we are happy to pay sod all for defence, we will always be reliant on Uncle Sam to save the day.

        The downside is, with the vast US $$$ umbrella to shelter under, it gives them (quite rightly) the main say and casting vote.

        If Uncle Sam insists on a shift to 6.8x51mm, then switch we all will.

        The difference between this an the previous contest, where the Belgian 109 ??, 5.56mm variant won the day in 1977, is that the US intend to run both calibers alongside one another.

        The M4 will remain on issue for decades to come with the rear echelon, while the ‘teeth’ elements convert to the M7, or is it ‘8’ now, and the new LMG, both in 6.8x51mm.

        • I understand that the US is ‘King of the Castle’ but I don’t see that they dictate what small arms other NATO members buy. Sure they will get NATO to endorse 6.8x51mm as one of the NATO standard SAA calibres, but what is stopping other nations staying with 5.56mm if they want to? That surely stays as a NATO approved calibre?

          • Absolutely Graham, it’s not really an issue, as the US is retaining 5.56mm as a secondary issue calibre.

            They will likely start to withdraw 7.62mm as 6.8mm slowly gains traction, as the calibers have significant overlap.

            The UK will retain 5.56mm and 7.62mm for at least the next 10 years. We aren’t in any hurry and it’s certainly not a priority.

            The advantage to waiting from a UK perspective is obviously allowing 6.8x51mm to establish itself and allow the manufacturing community development new Firearms around the new calibre.

            Perhaps we will induce the caliber for first and second tier Spec ops first, if it’s deemed necessary.

          • Thanks John. What this issue has highlighted is the decline of our industry that manufactures military small arms and SAA.

          • Evening Graham, unfortunately that horse long since bolted mate…

            It went with the closure of ROF Nottingham in the mid 90’s, as the second batch of L85/86 A1’s was completed.

            The reality of this sad situation is that the death knell of our small arms industry was actually sounded many years earlier at a very early stage of the SA80 programme.

            The earlier trials firearm chambered in 4.85mm (experimental) was fielded for NATO trials in 1977.

            This rifle had some merit, even if the Belgian designed 109 variant of the 5.56mm cartridge actually won the competition.

            Then (in a truly uniquely British way) we set about designing by committee and truly fu**ed it right up …. The rest is a well trodden path…

            My point being, from the moment actual Firearms designers and engineers left in circa 1978-80 and ‘outside engineering’ and price cutting accounting teams took over, our service small arms capability took decidedly to its death bed….

            It just took 20 years for the patient to die!

            Before the usual L85 fan club kick in, I’ve had the opportunity to look in depth at the A3 rebuild and today it’s a capable rifle.

            Still a dog’s dinner of poorly positioned controls with a long pull mushy trigger, but it’s reliable and it certainly does the job.

            The new HK bodies, plus replacement barrels and bolt groups as needed, keep it going and relevant, it’s only the decidedly creaking old TMH’s that remain from the Enfield/ Nottingham production today.

            I dare say batches of new TMH’s could be produced if needed.

          • I agree – incredible for a country such as ours with such a large defence industry to now be incapable of producing small arms in quantity, as well as to have lost its large tank factories, etc. The British Army’s trucks are mostly made by Rheinmetall M.A.N. Military Vehicles, rather than by a true British company. Alvis CVR(T)s being replaced by modified Spanish vehicles from a US-offshoot. We can’t upgrade CR2 (the CR3 project) without German help. It remains to be seen if the tank after CR3 is built in Britain by a British company. The last British-designed, wholly British-built fast jet was the Harrier fielded from 1969. Tiny Sweden still makes excellent fast jets.
            Elsewhere – the last cruise ship we built was the QE2, launched in 1967! Volume car manufacturing in the UK is all done by foreign owned companies. The only British company making televisions is tiny and no-one has ever heard of it (Cello in Bishop Auckland).

            L85A1 – I converted from SLR in 1991 and immediately hated the SA80’s very poor ergonomics. In BFG and away from sand it did not jam readily but of course it had its other faults. A2 was a big improvement and A3 even better – one of the world’s best assault rifles.

      • I agree, and would certainly go with the true velocity polymer ammo personally.

        but what it does do is shortcut a whole load of spending that the US have put into this (probably more than we are willing to spend on buying the end product)

        the US market generally is the largest and therefore economies of scale.

        in all cases this seems a pretty obscure choice for an AR type rifle given the other candidates out there – even at 5.56mm?

    • Honestly, I don’t think we’re there yet, and I’ll tell you why: There’s still a lot of debate in the US about whether they’ve made the right choice.
      They wanted something with the range of 7.62 mm (or better) because they were getting outranged in Afghanistan in particular, with the easier lighter handling of 5.56 both in terms of ammunition and rifle), and commonality between squad support weapon, standard rifle, and possibly DMR.
      That’s obviously very hard to achieve, and they’ve not managed. A lot of that could (arguably) be because they’ve chosen to go with the least adventurous ammunition option, which still has metallic cases and is as long as 7.62 NATO- so it’s heavy and limits ability to carry a lot of it. there’s also the question of whether the best lesson to take out of Afghanistan is that everyone in the squad needs to reach out and touch the enemy at 300+ m. The rifle is also pretty large and heavy- it’s as heavy as an L85A2 with a sight, and 20 cm longer.
      To me, that says that this isn’t the final iteration that the US will rest on, so we’d be unwise to go for it now. Maybe they’ll go for a polymer case to cut weight and length of the ammunition, if they can get confident in its reliability.

  2. Can we now equip the Commandos with the expensive stuff please, the enablers from the RN, Army and FAA so they can actually deploy effectively.

    New Ships, new boats and landing craft, more helicopters, UAV, some precision fires complimenting 29 RA’s LGs, and all the other stuff 3 Cdo is deficient in so the LRG concept can have a bit of teeth behind it.

    • I would just weigh in and say Knights Armament make what is without doubt, the finest direct gas impingement AR platform.

      It’s a very high quality firearm and it would be my choice too.

      I don’t think we are ready to switch to 6.8×51 yet, enough L85A3 rebuilds for the Army to be going on with.

      I would expect a switch to a new calibre about 10 years from now.

    • Hi Daniele, couldn’t agree more!
      I’m sure the new kit these guys are receiving will be well received and put into use, but in the grand scheme of things it’s a relatively inexpensive but flashy buy to make it look like our elite forces are getting investment. Government now need to back it up by making sure that the raiders and others have the things they need to get within range of their shiny new rifles and NVGs.

      • Exactly. The publicity that the Marines new uniform and IW has received as part of the “FCF” while the enablers crumble or are absent I’d noted long ago.

        These things are welcome, but,

        SPIN… HMG.

        • Frankly the Marines are having an identity crisis and need to get their act together and decide what they are. At present they’re trying to be ASOB and 16AA at the same time and not being either while undermining both.

          • Morning Dern.

            I personally preferred them to be at full deployable Bde set up for NATO arctic northern flank or elsewhere as needed.

            If the Grey Zone is of such importance I can understand why the RM would want to be involved, as the army has set up ASOB for the purpose to assist SFSG, SF as needed.

            And I don’t like to see any “turf wars” developing.

            But as you’ve said, it leaves both areas deficient in both number and enablers.

          • The problem is they can’t be both. They can either be a fully formed Brigade ready to deploy over the beach into Norway or Estonia or wherever, or operate in a British Army division (aka Iraq/Afghan) OR they can be a small SOF unit.

            The two things are very different methods of operation that require very different inputs, and what do we end up with? A Brigade that has 2 Battalions taking up vital CS and CSS that could be used to field a full 4-5 battalion brigade (with integral mobility), while at the same time a SOF force that spends a lot of it’s time not training as SOF.

            Plus there’s the whole funding thing.

          • Indeed but this time we’re coming at it from a SOF angle.
            Eg, why did George get a press release from the MoD that only mentions the RM, and not ASOB?

          • Alternative theory, Rangers didn’t want to publish the aqusition of the L403 at all and the RM ignored them and tried to grab the publicity, forcing their hand.

          • Unsure if I’m honest . Army tech.com article from March and other articles clearly state Hunter is primarily a British Army program for SOB and also mentions the RM, so don’t know why they would not announce a winner?

            Just read of a project Grayburn beyond this, as I’m sure you know.

            From memory, regards UKDJ, most articles are RM centric, only a few regards Rangers.

          • I’d believe it because generally Rangers are very media averse (especially compared to the RM who really lean into it).
            Just to illustrate: The Army.mod.uk article on project hunter has this little tidbit:
            “Made up of four battalions, the Rangers deployed to over 60 countries in their first 12 months of operation…”
            How many of those did you hear about?
            So I can see them quietly accepting a rifle into service with absolutely no social media updates.

          • You know, I’d already read that and I too noted the 60 countries quote. So yes, you may well be right.
            It is out now!

          • Indeed James, though I think you might want to check the date that that happened and then compare it to the date that the announcement about the KS-1 was made. (Little details like that are important you know).

          • With respect Dern, I think you may have missed my point and dates that announcments were made have nothing to do with that point.

            You stated that the Rangers were “media averse” and that you can “see them quietly accepting a rifle into service” whilst at the same time pointing a finger at Commando Forces for leaning too much into media exposure.

            I simply linked you a video of a Ranger on social media quite literally showing off the rifle whilst chatting openly to the media.

            This is literally the opposite of what you had stated and clearly demonstated that it’s not only Royal showing off new kit and capabilities.

          • Seriously:
            Royal Marines announce the acquisition of the KS-1 despite the Rangers not wanting to do it on September 7th.
            Rangers then follow suit and rush out an announcement.
            Then a video shows up half a month later with a Staff Sergeant attached to a Ranger Battalion interviewed at DSEI.

            A quiet interview on the side about a weapons system that was already out of the bag is not the same as the RM basing a lot of their recruiting material around it, and making major announcements. Sorry you can’t tell the difference.

            Meanwhile the Royals, and it wasn’t a critique it was a statement of something they do well, their media arm is their best arm IMO, will jump on any opportunity to publicise any op or exercise they go on.

            (Another way of doing this: How many more Ranger videos can you find vs how many Royal videos, browse away and let me know).

          • “How many more Ranger videos can you find vs how many Royal videos, browse away and let me know”

            The Rangers were formed in 2021 Dern, Royal Marines in 1664.

            RM and Commando Forces clearly have a longer history which will be reflected in the amount of [social] media coverage.

            Additionally, RM Commandos (much like US Tier 2 Seal Teams) recruit direct from civillian, preffering to filter out unsuitable candidates during the (currently) 36 weeks Commando Training rather than via selecting out trained ranks during a cadre at a later date.

            Conversely, Ranger Regiment recruits from within the Army preffering to filter at the cadre level negating the need for as big of a social media presence with recruiting advertised internally via MODnet.

            My point is both units are “Special Operations Capable” and can be authorised to operate within the grey space, neither is Tier 1 SF or dedicated SOF (it literally states on the ranger website “can be authorised to operate” as SOF) …because of this, your implied point about Ranger regiment being this discrete, secretive entity make little sense, especially when you have a Ranger on Forces TV, face uncovered talking about new kit and equipment.

          • “The Rangers were formed in 2021 Dern, Royal Marines in 1664.”

            Cool I litterally don’t need to bother reading beyond this because now you’ve made it clear your not arguing in good faith.

          • Nah I spoke to George about it when he first published the article. He was going off the release that got sent, not reposting the RN website.
            Basially from what he was saying whoever was in charge of the MoD press briefer that got sent out must’ve been Navy/RM.

          • Yeah, I linked him the army website when he first uploaded it, and he said he’d update the article but I guess he’s just been too busy. :/

          • “Frankly the Marines are having an identity crisis and need to get their act together and decide what they are”

            Respectfully disagree.

            UK Commando Forces (UKCF) are doing EXACTLY what the UK Secretary of State for Defence laid out in the paper “Defence for a competitive age” published 2021.

            “The Royal Navy will transform the Royal Marines into the Future Commando Force (FCF), marking an evolution from amphibious infantry held at readiness in the UK to a versatile Special Operations capable Commando force persistently forward deployed.

            Receiving over £200m of direct investment across the next decade, the FCF will be optimised to conduct roles traditionally carried out by Special Forces to deliver specialist capacity building and maritime security operations, pre-empt and deter sub-threshold activity, and counter state threats”

            Source.

            https://www.gov.uk/government/news/armed-forces-to-be-more-active-around-the-world-to-combat-threats-of-the-future

            “At present they’re trying to be ASOB and 16AA at the same time and not being either while undermining both”

            Respectfully disagree.

            UKCF are laser focussed on Littoral Strike, small team raiding and generalist amphibious operations as well as Cold weather / Mountain Warfare (40 / 45 Cdo) in addition to specialist Counter Narcotics / Maritime Interdiction Operations (MIOPS), this is not new for the service and marks a return to their roots as a small team tactics / raiding (Commando) organistaion something that had became diluted and less focussed during the early 2000’s.

            It’s a completely different role from that of the Rangers / ASOB who are primarily a partnering and mentoring force / STTT with limited to no strike capability.

            With reagrds 16 Air Assault, well they operate from the AIR and come under the command of Army LAND whereas UKCF operate from the SEA and are under the command of the ROYAL NAVY.

          • Jesus I really wound up a random commando weenie.

            “The UKCF are laser focused on four different things.” (one of which includes Partenering and Menotring and the fact you don’t think the Rangers have any strike capablity shows you are out of your depth here).

            Your really stupid and inane 16AA comment misses the point I was making entirely. It’s simply this: Rangers are a SOF capablitiy that aims to operate in SOF teams or at Platoon strength at the most, copying the Green Berets. 16AA is a rapid response conventional force that operates at Battalion, Battle Group, or even Brigade Strength.
            The Royals are trying to do both ends of that spectrum (your comment about with the all caps AIR LAND SEA ROYAL NAVY just kind of goes to show that you’ve got a bit of a chip on your shoulder and didn’t actually understand what Daniele and I were talking about).

          • Dern, with respect. Let’s not resort to name calling, I’m sure you’re above that and I know that I certainly am.

            The point I am trying to make (and as you have noted, it’s a common theme throughout my replies to your posts) …is that you have passed comment and made assumptions regarding the new AIW and it’s availability within UKCF, that I feel is coming from a position that is at best poorly informed and at worst clearly biassed against RM and UKCF Forces.

            I simply felt it right to point out to you inaccuracies with what you had stated and provide information that I know to be accurate for the benefit of correctly informing yourself and other forum users who may have read your post(s).

            You were incorrect regarding numbers of the new rifle that has been procured within UKCF, you were also incorrect regarding the widespread issue of Crye uniform and you were incorrect when you questioned funding within the service whilst ignoring the additional 200 million UKCF was allocated IoT transition back to it’s roots a a Special Operations Capable unit back in 2021.

            I provided a link to the .gov webpage showing you and anyone else that takes the time to click the link that the points you made regarding UKCF’s changing role and increase in budget, kit and equipment were laid out in a Defence paper published in 2021.

            You chosen to ignore the Navy press release linked by the author of the article that literally states Commando Forces have purchased 1,400+ of the new rifles (in additon to new Ops Core Helmets / Comms and Optics) preffering to instead undermine this fact whilst claiming that only “Search and Rescue Squadron” (an outfit that does not exist) and a few other users will recieve the new weapon with the Rangers getting the remainder, this is simply not true and as I pointed out the reason the numbers were announced seperately and as two seperate press releases is due to this being two seperate projects that happened to come to the same conclusion whilst undergoing trails with the final sign off and safety case being rolled into one to save the public some money whilst the final ticks in boxes were received.

          • Dude you litterally created an account to jump into a middle of a conversation and spamm me with your uninformed clap trap. Sorry, but name calling is called for. And no respect intended.

          • “you litterally created an account to jump into a middle of a conversation and spamm me with your uninformed clap trap”

            Dern, please.

            This is not a private conversation, this is a comments section on a public forum.

            Additionally with regards to my “uninformed clap trap” as you so elequently put it, I am able to validate everything that I’ve stated either by way of public record in the case of government web pages, press releases pushed out by the RN or UKCF and via my own knowledge and experience.

            I’d be happy to chat with you offline as well in a private forum if you’d like me to validate my position.

            My point is, there are very clear gaps in your knowledge regarding UKCF (as there are certainly gaps in my own knowledge regarding the Rangers, who judging by your comments history you seem to be associated or at least have some kind of affiliation with).

            Lets drop the name calling and have a constructive discussion.

          • Hi James.

            Just to chip in, when I was discussing the force earlier with Dern, he mentioned “trying to do both” which you’ve now discussed with him. I took that to be that he means that taking on the SOF/LRG role leaves the arctic/NATO flank Norway role pretty bare, when ideally it should be at Brigade strength, thus his ref to 16AA.

            I myself have mentioned my own preference for this before ( as things were, 3 Cdo operating as a deployable Bde ) so where does the UKCF set up now leave the attached Army units, the likes of 24RE, CLR, 29RA that when combined with the 3 Commando’s, Forty, Four Two, Four Five, did give a brigade set up for the arctic role? ( weak in some areas admittedly )

            It does seem to me to be falling between two stools?
            On this subject, a few times over the years I have suggested to Dern, and others, maybe the army take on the role if the RM are now going down the raiding, returning to their roots role so both sides can be covered properly?

          • Hi Daniele,

            My thoughts on the RM / UKCF’s ability to sustain both roles going forward? …Now that’s a tricky question(!!) and one that unfortunately I’m going to have to refrain from passing opinion on at this time.

            Now, obviously, I do have my own personal thoughts and feelings on the direction the RN is taking UKCF and how that may shape or impact future taskings, however I’m absolutely not going to air them in this forum.

            Passing judgment on RN policy is absolutely not my place, additionally I don’t think it would be wise of me to pass comment on whether or not the Army could (or should) be allowed to take on the role of protecting NATO’s northern flank, it’s a specialised task that requires a high level of expertise and RM Mountain Leaders are amongst the best and most experienced in the world.

            Having said this, I honestly believe that on an individual level ALL of the United Kingdom’s armed forces are amongst the best in the world so I don’t doubt for one second that latent capability could be harnessed to assist or augment UKCF should the need arise.

            With regards other elements of Commando trained ranks and their future role(s) within UKCF, again (and I appreciate this may appear as a bit of a cop out) … It’s not really my place to pass comment.

            What I will say is that at the end of the day, the men and women that wear the Commando Green Beret are part of a larger family within Defence that have proven themselves to be extremely high calibre individuals with many transferrable skills and I highly doubt that Defence would allow that capability to not be utilised within the Commando Force.

          • Understood. I’m a civvy, so I comment freely on most things apart from what I’ve learned through my research that is clearly not public knowledge.

            One to watch then how the Corps develops clearly one of HM forces elite formations, one which it would be folly for HMG to dilute.
            Agree with your other thoughts re the wider forces too, we just lack numbers. Though capability, training and logistics count for more than many realise.

            Regards and welcome to the forum. 👍

          • Its not “from out government” though. Project Hunter was a Ranger project that has delivered pretty much what it set out to do. It’s the Marines and the Navy that are struggling to work out what they want yo do an half arsing it.

          • I take your point, on what the project set out to do- that shouldn’t be criticised.
            I was more commenting on a common trait of all government/MOD that they choose what to trumpet to hide a lack elsewhere. It is unfortunately very common.

    • It’s worth noting that at present only very few units of the RM are getting the new Rifle, most of them are going to Rangers.

      Similar with the new uniforms, FCF only really issue them for photo ops, because they don’t have enough.

        • Yeah, makes sense. Project Hunter was really a Ranger Program, that the RM’s kind of bolted themselves onto. Credit to their publicity department making it sound like something they’ve managed and brought into service, and look like every Marine will have one in the future.

          • “Project Hunter was really a Ranger Program, that the RM’s kind of bolted themselves onto”

            Respectfully disagree.

            As I alluded to in response to one of your earlier comments, Due to very different end user requirments The L400 / L403 series has been brought into service under two different procurement programs, Project hunter (Army) and Project Comacchio (UKCF) with the testing / safety case being rolled into one in the final stages of testing for efficiency.

            The 1,400 rifles the Navy has purchased for UKCF is seperate from the number published by the army, in addition, as I understand it there is a minor difference to the sighting system used on the two versions of the rifle.

      • For what I’ve found out it looks like 1600 rifles to be purchased out of 10,000. £90m seems to be the purchase price for all with £15m for the initial batch.
        A gun and uniform is really minimum kit required for a military.🤦🏼‍♂️
        Some people have mentioned a rather slow build/procurement rate for the rifle system.

        • Basically the 1600 are mostly going to the Rangers, it’s really their project (IIRC the initial tender mentioned ASOB but not FCF). That’ll probably equip all 4 battalions. Meanwhile the RM will get some of them to equip one of the Vanguard/Strike companies and the Search and Rescue Squadron, say about 2-300 rifles.

          The 10,000 is basically the Royal Marines going “Hey if we like it and find some cash after equipping those to companies we might look into buying enough KS-1s to equip most of 3 Cmdo X” (Personally I don’t think this will happen, the KS-1 is an expensive high end rifle, I think the RM will sit back and wait for the SA80 replacement.)

          The I mean the Marines have a Rifle and a Uniform, it’s PCS and the L85. The problem is they tried to introduce a uniform made by crye precision (which in turn the Rangers have grabbed as well) which is incredibly expensive. When I say incredibly expensive, you an easily pay £400 for a set of trousers at retail. So 2x trousers, 2x shirts etc etc the cost adds up stupidly rapidly, and I really doubt the Royals can afford to spend that kind of money on the entire brigade. So they stage manage it for recruitment purposes.

          I don’t think the rifle has a slow procurement rate. Tender for the L403A1 went out in 2021, so 2-3 years. That’s rapid, compare that with the SA80 that, from trials to introduction into service, took 11 years. Where I think the “slow procurement rate” comes from is the fact that the RM are talking about finishing procuring their extra 10,000 rifles by 2030 (if they go for them), which I think has way more to do with limited RM budgets than anything else.

          • I haven’t seen the procurement speed personally just others said it was slow.
            That uniform is super expensive. What on earth makes is cost so much?

          • No worries, personally I think if the RM intend to have 10,000 in service by 2030 that is slow, which is part of the reason I think they’re going to wait until the SA80 gets a replacement.
            *edit* reading this back I realise I sound contradictory: so ket md elaborate. I think the initial procurement is rapid. But I also think that the project will end with the initial run. If it goes on and the RM buy another 10,000 over 7 years then that will be abysmally slow.
            Hope that clarifies.

            Crye uniforms are expensive because of a few factors. One they are genuinely well made uniforms from much harder wearing material than PCS. Also lots of comfort features like waists with a bit of extra padding to prevent webbing rub, in build knee pads, etc. Ultimately though they can charge that much because soldiers (and airsofters) will pay that much for them, even with CSMs trying to crack down on it.

          • “Basically the 1600 are mostly going to the Rangers, it’s really their project (IIRC the initial tender mentioned ASOB but not FCF)”

            Respecfully, this is not correct.

            As I mentioned before in an earlier comment, the rifles have been purchased under two seperate Projects and the numbers claimed by the RN (1,000+) and Army (1,000+) in their respect press releases are both correct.

            The requirements of the end user are very different in respect of UKCF (who primarily operate from the sea and focus on amphib raids / littoral strike) and the Army (who are land based) – the final stages of testing (essentially proving the safety case before the final sign off) were rolled into one for cost & time efficiency.

            “I mean the Marines have a Rifle and a Uniform, it’s PCS and the L85”

            UKCF (aside from reserve elements) have exclsuively worn Crye Precision uniforms since 2001.

            With respect to weapon systems, recent operational deployments have seen UKCF deploy with Diemaco C8, 42 Commando always uses C8’s and the KS-1 / L400 has just entered service.

            UKCF budgets were increased when the role of UKCF changed from an Elite (amphibious) light Infantry to a forward deployed Special Operations Capable force who would remain forward deployed for Operational flexibility and conduct tasks which were historically conducted by UKSF.

            This change was laid out in the Defence white paper “Defence in a Cometitive Age” in 2021 with information published to this .gov webpage linked below

            https://www.gov.uk/government/news/armed-forces-to-be-more-active-around-the-world-to-combat-threats-of-the-future

          • James thanks for spamming me with essentially the same comment like 7 times, I note these comments are literally your only contribution to this site and it pretty much ammounts to spam.

            The reality is the Marines are getting a couple hundred of this initial batch, enough for three companies worth. The Rangers are buying enough for all four of their battalions, representing the bulk of the first 1600. You can disagree all you like, but I’m sorry, you are wrong.

          • “James thanks for spamming me with essentially the same comment like 7 times”

            Dern, with respect, each of my replies has quoted, and responded to a different comment that you have posted.

            If my replies appear similar or as spam, it is because multiple posts you made have disparaged and attempted to undermine The Royal Marines and UKCF in the same or similar ways.

            I would challenge anyone to read through your posts on this board and not come to the conclusion that what you have written undermines and / downplays UKCF’s role within defence.

            Within this comments section you have quoted inaccurate numbers of the KS-1 rifle purchased by the RN and supplied to the force, questioned the funding of UKCF (whilst ignoring the 200 million of direct investment provided by the Government) claimed UKCF are undermining ASOB (despite UKCF acting on direction provided by the MOD) as well as claiming that UKCF are also somehow undermining 16AA, an organisation that operates in a completely different Battlespace with completely different formations, tactics, assets and role specific training.

            You also claimed that Commando Forces do not wear a uniform they have been issued since 2021, quite simply I am calling you out because of the comments you have made and the bias contained within them.

            This bias can even be observed in the comment I am replying to here, where once again you have stated

            “The reality is the Marines are getting a couple hundred of this initial batch, enough for three companies worth”

            and again, based on this comment I feel it only right to point out once again to you and for the benefit of anyone reading this thread that you are wrong.

      • Thats not true- the announcement I’d seen on HMG own website was for 1600 rifles for the RM and the option for another 10,000 units for the rangers and elite army units- so possibly rangers, 5th airborne and gurkhas.

        • Mr Bell, I’m really sorry but you are wrong on this). I’m assuming you’re getting confused by the Navy failing to report the fact the army is getting the same rifle (and the majority of them).

      • “It’s worth noting that at present only very few units of the RM are getting the new Rifle, most of them are going to Rangers”

        With respect Dern, this is not correct.

        You are confusing two seperate projects (Project(s) Hunter and Comacchio) which were initially conducted seperately but rolled into a single project towards the later stages of procurement for efficiency of testing and proving of the safety case.

        UKCF have taken delivery of over 1,000 of the new KS-1 rifles (as per the RN press release) these rifles will be allocated to both 45 Cdo and 40 Commando (Commando Strike Teams) as well as SRS, Commandos are already deployed with this weapon system.

        As I understand it, 42 Cdo will continue using the Diemaco C8 for the near future with testing continuing on bringing a specialist (short barrelled) Maritime specific weapon into service within the next 12 months specifically tailored for clearance confined spaces of ships and dhows.

        “Similar with the new uniforms, FCF only really issue them for photo ops, because they don’t have enough”

        With respect Dern, this is also not correct.

        Aside from reserve units, The RM Crye uniform has been in service with all full time RM ranks since 2021, it is the default uniform and has been for some time.

        At this time, unless deploying with a full time Commando unit Reserve forces still wear PCS.

    • Nothing wrong with the old 7.62mm SLR very thought through personal weapon for all climate possibilities even an artic trigger guard not like its usurper the SA80 mk1 Andrew

  4. This can’t be right, it appears they are buying an off the shelf solution from a British company.

    Surely the MOD can’t do this, where is the over priced US defence contractor to “oversee” the project, I don’t think this even has a cool four letter acronym. How can we possibly buy a weapon without the proper four letter acronym.

    All the Classic’s the “top” brass were educated at in their over priced boarding schools will be wasted.

    Oops just noticed this is the RM not the Army which probably explains why 😀

    • Jim, The Rifle is an American Rifle, imported through a British Firearms dealer, Edgar Brothers. All UK military & Police Firearms are brought from the importer not the direct company, Edgar Brothers import KAC & SIG, Viking Arms Glock, LEI LMT & FN.
      The importer is responsible for all the importation documents
      , producing the technical publications (AESP’s) and for all American imports proofing of the weapons as American firearms are not proofed marked.

    • This rifle is definitely American. Knights are an American company, this rifle is modifications of an American gun and so on.
      I think it is a good gun but not looked into it much. A change from the bull pup design that has been used for ages. Not sure if the numbers bought actually add up to enough as stated by others. So looks like some will have this while others have the SA80, C7/8.
      Hopefully it’s gives them what they need.

      • The lions share of the initial purchase will go to the Rangers, with probably enough for Vanguard coy going to the Commandos (which is why there is an option for a 10,000 rifle buy, it’s if the RM’s find enough change down the back of the sofa to actually equip their blokes with the L403 in scale).

  5. I still think the 6.5×43 Lightweight Intermediate Caliber Cartridge (LICC) developed from the .264 USA, by the Irregular Warfare Technology Support Directorate, is the best bet to replace 5.56mm. The rifle was developed by FN, & as FN has bought Manroy, you could have these made in the UK if the will was there.

    • The British did great cartridge work after WW2 to find the ideal cartridge. The results still stand up today and the cartridges could be made even better with modern materials etc.
      It will come down to same as before, whatever the USA picks nato will have to follow even if it’s not the best. Like 7.62mm all over again.

        • Aside from the kinetic energy as you say, isn’t the 5.56 less stable so likely to do more damage than 7.62 that goes straight through people or walls?
          This the battlefield effect of 5.56 is more than kinetic energy. Wounded people being a bad influence on combat effectiveness…

          • Thanks for that info Ian , We got told when switching Arms and Calibre, that the premise was as you’ve put about if hit with a 5.56mm in theory would wound and take at least 2 or more Others too evacuate but judging how Russian troops don’t seem too bother helping their own Lord knows what the Chinese would do ,

        • 1 Para is not part of 16AA, they’re permanently attached to DSF, and require a separate selection course to be part of. Anyway they’ll have the L119A2.
          16AA (2, 3, 4 Para, 1 R. Irish, and 1 RGR) do not count as SF or SOF, it’s just light infantry continuing with L85 until the replacement arrives, probably around 2030.

          • I’ll throw one outfit in there that Tom could have more accurately suggested regards 16AA and new rifles.
            Pathfinder Platoon.
            As they’re the paras equivalent of S&RS ( which I keep wanting to call Bde Patrol Troop, their old name) assume they already use the SF type IW or will get another in due course?

          • Hi Tom

            In what way do you mean?

            The Army Special Operations Brigade, which comprises 4 Battalions of the Ranger Regiment, are getting this weapon, via Project Hunter.

            Most of these weapons will be allocated to them, and at the moment, fewer to the RM Commandos, only specialist smaller units of which will be so equipped.

            That may change with any additional orders.

          • “Most of these weapons will be allocated to them [Rangers], and at the moment, fewer to the RM Commandos, only specialist smaller units of which will be so equipped”

            Good afternoon Daniele,

            This is not correct, as per the RN press release currently around 1,400 of the weapons have been purchased for use by UK Commando Forces (UKCF) with a longer term procurement programme set to commence going in to 2024.

            This number is separate to the number quoted in the Army press release.

            The KS-1 rifles purchased by the RN will be used by RM Strike Company’s at both 45 and 40 Commando (approximately 3 Company’s worth of men within each unit) as well as Surveillance and Reconnaissance Squadron (SRS)

            I believe that 42 Commando (Maritime Interdiction Ops) as well as 43 Commando (Protection of UK Nuclear assets) will continue to use the Diemaco C8 with plans to bring an alternative short barrell weapon into service (specifically for those two units) in 2024 to replace the C8.

            The KS-1 is not suitable for these units due to the longer barrell which is not well suited for close range compartment clearance / climbing boarding ladders etc.

            If I were a betting man, I’d say a suppressed short barrell SIG MCX would be a solid candidate for this role.

          • Morning James…yawn.. I’m easy shift.

            Thank you. Reading your detail, those are the “specialist smaller units” that I was referencing. S&R Sqn of 30 Cdo and the V Coys.

            With regards to the confusion around “Vanguard Companies” I was in the same ball park as Dern? We know each Cdo has more than one Company, but I thought that only the “Vanguard” that is, the LRG Forward deployed Company of each Cdo, was termed as a “Strike” Company, and they would be the ones equipped with the new rifles, and the others not.

            So you’re saying that both Cdos will in effect be so equipped? Disregarding the Vanguard term?

            As an aside, 3 Companies each Cdo? When did that change? I understood there were 2 Close Combat and 2 Stand Off Companies, plus the Command and Logistics Companies in Fourty and Four Five Cdos?

            Regards.

          • Good Morning Daniele,

            I hope you are well, thanks for the civil response.

            I don’t want to get too far into the weeds (reeds?) with this one without checking where we are at the moment and exactly how much information is public knowledge, however what I will say is that although you clearly have a good grasp of how Commando units were previously structured under the older “Commando 21” orbat (the fact that you say four-five Commando rather forty five tells me you at least some knowledge of the subject) the make up of Commando units has now changed with formations and numbers being more unconventional with an emphasis on teams working autonomously and disaggregated at reach from HQ with support provided organically from within those teams. These changes happened relatively recently.

            As noted, each Cdo is made up of three Strike Company’s (companies?) plus Command, as I noted the term “Vanguard” isn’t really used within the unit(s) and is best used to describe the “lead” coy within each unit which is usually the company on the shortest notice to move.

            The L400 / KS-1 will initially be prioritised for the three Strike Coys of each unit (the weapon is already being used but there is a training burden on the new platform which will likely not see widespread adoption of the weapon prior to Jan 2024 due to ongoing commitments throughout the end of the year and compressed training timelines).

            Additionally, I believe all [deployable] Commando trained ranks within units including those outside of Strike Company’s are expected to be using the new weapon by CoP 2024.

            AFAIK 42/43 Cdo will continue to use the C8 until it is replaced with a new weapon specifically chosen for MIOPS & confined space clearing etc, this is not an area I am particulary well read in to, I do know however that trials work on this is wrapping up and it won’t be too long before this more specialist weapon enters service with the respective units.

            Under the changes accepted under FCF programme (now simply called UKCF), both 45 Cdo and 40 Cdo may be forward deployed at the same time, so rotating of kit and equipment is not something that would work.

            When the RN stated in it’s press release that the new rifle, kit and equipment would feature in “lead strike teams”, they were referring to ranks deployed with fighting units in any capacity (ie not ranks at CTCRM or ranks assigned to outside drafts 42/ 43 Cdo etc) They did not mean that simply 200-300 rifles would be rotated around as has been suggested on this comments board, (I am not sure where this even came from, from what I can see it appears to be pure speculation introduced to appease someones personal insecurities and not based around facts, as well as being completely at odds with the press release pushed out by the RN?)

            Regardless, I am confident in my information as I have seen the numbers and have been following updates to the project internally for the past couple of years.

            Hope this helps clarify a few things.

          • It certainly does, James, thank you.

            Indeed, I have all the Cdo’s bar Four Two with the that ORBAT, I was unaware that had changed. As I like to keep abreast of such things this will vex me until I’m up to speed on the exact makeup of each.

            A reduction in headcount per Cdo it seems if Coys have reduced to 3.

          • “A reduction in headcount per Cdo it seems if Coys have reduced to 3”

            This change occured some time ago and was not part of FCF restructuring, nor was the change about cutting costs.

            The change was driven by manning levels at the time (something that has being felt accross the UK Armed Forces, with Commando units being particulary hard hit due to the higher than normal barrier to entry and an unwillingness to compromise on standards, the result was less in, less out so to speak).

            If I recall corrrectly, one coy from each unit was “paused” with the option to unpause at a later date should manpower permit, the logic being it was prefferable to field 3x fully manned Strike companies as opposed to 4x not at full strength.

            I cannot speak on whether that reduction has now been permanently incorporated into the new operating model but three Strike companies per unit plus supporting elements is where things currently stand.

          • Hi Daniele,

            Apologies for my belated response to your question, cross referencing that the information I’m discussing with you is not only accurate, but also readily available within the public domain via official channels takes a little time.

            With regards your question, the Strike Company’s of each Cdo unit are able to operate both with their own organic Command element(s) as well as part of a larger formation with a central unit level HQ.

            As per the Wikipage, logistical support is provided centrally via Commando Logistics Regiment (CLR), the Wiki page (which is surprisingly accurate, likely due to much of the information being provided by way of a Defence commitee report) had this to say

            “Future Commando Force is reshaping each Commando into 4 STRIKE Companies, each of which, completed with supports from across 3rd Commando Brigade, makes up a Littoral Strike Unit (LSU), operating dispersed and embarked indicatively on a single ship. Multiple LSUs are meant to form a LRG. A minimum of 2 ships per group is needed; an Albion Class plus a Bay Class is a reasonable composition and each Commando (45 Cdo for the North, 40 Cdo for the South) will be able to rotate the 2 forward-deployed companies to sustain the enduring commitment”

          • Ok, so no logistics Coy per Cdo any more.

            Yes, I’d read that an LPD and a Bay would form LRG (N) and they could form a LSG if needed, when LRG(S ) and LRG(N) combine, with a carrier too if needed. Still quite a capability.
            Need to get that 3rd Bay off MCMV duties in the gulf.

          • James is like “No, not only specialist smaller units will be equipped with them, THESE specialist smaller units will be equipped with them” (Those of us actually famliar with orbats of course know that 3 companies worth is no 1,400 rifles)

          • “Those of us actually famliar with orbats of course know that 3 companies worth is no 1,400 rifles”

            …And those of us than can read will know that I stated 3 Companys within each unit in addition to Surveillance and Reconnaissance Squadron (SRS).

          • “Each Commando has 1 strike company. Not 3”

            With respect Dern, you’re incorrect on this point as well.

            I think you may be getting confused by the term “Vanguard” strike company (which has been banded around in the media), in reality, each Commando has 3 strike company’s with the lead strike company being what has been termed the “Vanguard”.

            In reality Vanguard is not a term that’s widely used around units, with the lead strike company simply meaning whoever is on the shortest notice to move.

            Generally each Strike company will rotate in and out of the role of lead throughout the year, depending on what’s going on and the operational tempo at the time.

          • Yes, my belief was in effect only 3 units would be getting this rifle? The 2 Vanguard Coys of 40,45 and S&RS of 30 Cdo.

            Maybe that was wrong.

          • Hi Daniele,

            Final one from me,

            Just to expand on a point I’d made in one of my earlier replies to your post after clarifying with collegues.

            As mentioned earlier, the term “Vanguard Strike Company” is not used anymore and was initially used to describe elements of 40 Cdo that were involved in the initial FCF equipment / ORBAT / Tactics trials used to determine how UKCF would look and operate.

            This is consistent with a press release published by the RN at the time.

            https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/news/2020/july/20/200720-vanguard-strike-company

            Shaped by these trials the ORBAT of each of Cdo unit has evolved and been finalised into the multiple Strike Coys we see today, Strike company’s are in turn made up of multiple Strike Teams.

            At any given time there will always be at least one lead Strike Coy within a Cdo unit and within that Strike Coy lead Strike teams.

            Initially all strike teams within 40 & 45 Cdo’s will receive the L400 / L403 (Dec ’23 – Jan ’24) with the remaining [deployable] ranks of each unit brought online throughout 2024.

            Units outside of 40 & 45 Cdo and SRS including out drafts / exchanges and any other non operational roles within the service will continue to use L85 until such a time as they are assigned back to a Cdo unit.

            42 & 43 Cdo will continue to use Diemaco C8’s for the immediate future.

            Hope this is of interest to you!

  9. i thought just a few years ago 6.8mm was to become the new standard rifle caliber. What happened to that? Just for marksmen?

    • The Gov press release hints at the selection of similar weapons by our European allies as the reason why?
      “”The L403A1 is a high performing modern development of the ArmaLite Rifle (AR), which pushes the boundaries of modern performance. As an AR system, it shares much in common with the rifle systems used by many of the UK’s allies. Given their specialist role, and the critical task of working with and alongside many of the UK’s allies, the platform will enable ASOB to share skills and drills in an efficient manner.””

      The move to 6.8mm is the logical step and I suppose Project Grayburn (The replacement for the SA80) will be looking at that. However that will require a huge retooling of the BAE ammunition plants , yes we did it when we migrated from 7.62mm to 5.56mm, but only time will tell. More on the new weapon here

      • While the interoperability with allies is good and it simplified training, it’ll just point out that no ranger is deploying without familiarity with ARs anyway.

  10. In the US, Native American trackers (Navaho, I think) have been hired to teach US Army soldiers how to evade the enemy, and how to be more effective at hunting the enemy. And, as I understand it, to good effect.

    Some indigenous people, from all over the World, who live in nature, have high levels of sensitivity to the energetic landscapes of their environment. And can move within and around their environments and go unnoticed. For example, in some Amazonian tribes, the persons who are most sensitive to energy are often chosen to be lead hunters, as these persons can pursue an animal even without being able to see or hear it – I know this because I have been to the Ecuador and witnessed this happen, I was there in 1997 and spent a considerable amount of time with a community of farmer/hunter/gatherers in the cloud forest on the western side of the Andes close to the Columbian border.

    Some hunting animals are also very good at this – wolves, ravens etc

    I wonder if the British Army have ever considered exploring this aspect of soldier training? If they have, then it has most likely been put to use within Tier 1 teams.

    Worth considering IMO.

    Anyone have any further information or thoughts on this subject?

    Thanks,

    James Riley

  11. There is a photo of a surefire SOCOM suppressor fitted to a SA 80 A2 on the net. So they could have modified the standard weapon and upgraded the sights. Just goes to show what a load of emperors new clothes was said about SA 80 . 6,2 mm would be a better caliber with its extra range with small weight increase !

  13. Can anyone tell give me a sensible answer, as to why we are buying overpriced American crap yet again? Some of the best guns on the planet are built in the UK. I’m pretty certain we could produce a fantastic product for our Marines. We’ve wasted absolutely billions on the worst so called fighter aircraft, that the Americans won’t allow anyone who has had their pants pulled down take part in any mission anywhere without them knowing our every move. We can’t even deploy it without their permission. Can you believe we’ve paid all that money for this over hyped money pit & we have to get permission to use it for christ sakes. When will our very naive MOD realise Americans are only interested in themselves & their profits. Which is fine by me as long as we have the same atitude.
    We need to be producing as much of our own military hardware that is humanly possible. I still can’t get over the engines for our new aircraft carriers we paud America staggering amounts for. When will we ever learn?

    • You do understand we have a 15% build input to F35.
      So for the 3000 odd that are forecast to be made and delivered worldwide over the project UK PLC will get back 15% of that cost.
      Do the math.
      20000 Jobs involved so 20000 tax payers from the project at least.

      The total cost back from the UK 155 share 15% is around 30 Bil USD if you take a ballpark 80mil per aircraft. It may be more than that with Block 4, it may be less as things progress…

      UK wants max 148 which comes in at 12 Bil.

      So UK PLC is actually up on the deal by 18 Bil USD and thats before you take into account the tax take and through life support.

      Engines on the aircraft carriers are RR MT30. Its based on a Trent engine. They are made in Derby and Filton and are a massive RR export success for warships. Even the USN use them along with Japan, Korea, Aus, Canada and the UK. They will power the T26.

    • You really don’t want me to answer this one….

      Suffice it to say, look at the roller coaster history of the L85 and you will see why we no longer have a military small arms design and manufacturing capability.

      The KA AR’s are very far from American crap, they are absolutely superb rifles in fact

      As a well made reliable and accurate service firearm chambered in 5.56mm, I can think of non better I would like our armed forces equipped with today.

    • William, what are these ‘best guns’ meaning Small Arms (SA) that we make?
      Accuracy International of Portsmouth made small numbers of the L96 sniper rifle several years ago.
      RO plc (BAE-owned from 1987) made their last SA80 in 1994 (not that everyone loved the L85A1!) and the company name was lost from 2005 in favour of BAE – the weapon had to be improved by Heckler und Koch.
      BMARC Grantham made cannon (not SA) but was taken over by BAE in 1992, who immediately closed the factory.

    • William, why did we pay the Americans for the carrier’s engines? The Gas Turbines are made by Rolls Royce and the two 12-cylinder and two 16-cylinder Wärtsilä 38 diesel engines come from Finland. 

      How much did we pay?

    • The colt M4 has similar accuracy and is about $1099, the American Govt paid about half for their bulk order . Thought armed forces budget under pressure ?

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here