The Ministry of Defence has provided an update on Project GRAYBURN, the initiative to replace the standard-issue L85A3 rifle used by British Armed Forces, in response to a recent parliamentary question.
Rebecca Paul, Conservative MP for Reigate, asked the Defence Secretary for an update on plans for a successor to the L85A3 rifle. Maria Eagle, Minister of State for Defence, responded: “The L85 rifle (‘SA80’) will be replaced over the coming decade through Project GRAYBURN.”
Eagle confirmed that the project is in the concept phase, during which the Ministry of Defence is working to identify and define the capability requirements for the new service rifle.
This phase involves detailed analysis to ensure the replacement rifle meets the evolving operational needs of the British Armed Forces.
While Project GRAYBURN has been in development for some time, this written question underscores growing interest in the timeline and specifics of the initiative as the L85A3 continues to age.
The L85A3, the latest upgrade of the SA80 series, has served as the British military’s standard-issue rifle for over three decades. Introduced in the 1980s, the rifle has undergone several modifications to address initial reliability and performance issues, with the A3 version featuring significant improvements in weight, durability, and compatibility with modern optics.
Despite these upgrades, the need for a modern replacement capable of meeting the demands of 21st-century combat has become increasingly apparent.
Project GRAYBURN aims to deliver a rifle suited to the ‘changing dynamics of modern warfare’. Although specific details about the successor rifle remain unclear, modularity, adaptability to advanced optics and accessories, and enhanced reliability are likely to be key factors.
The timeline for the project remains uncertain, but with the concept phase underway, further updates are anticipated as the MOD refines its requirements and begins exploring design and procurement options.
No doubt we will end up buying American.
So long as it lands in a better state than the SA80 who cares?
Because not all of us want to use American stuff.
Even if it is better? How very intelligent…
The gains by switching from l85 to anything American that will be affordable and squaddieproof are minimal.
Even if it is better?
The only other options are Sig, FN or H&K
Honestly there’s unlikely to be a marked improvement over the l85. Since the A2 in the late 90s the issues have been solved, and really a 5.56 rifle, at the common squad level, is s 5.56 rifle.
Personally I think a rifle change will be to a new calibre; 6.8mm such as the US is starting to do.
Perhaps, but while the US does to a certain degree dictate caliber, it usually takes decades for everyone to follow them. It’s entirely likely that the MoD will get another 30 years of 5.56 life with a new round, waiting to see if the US really like 6.8 before changing.
Agree waste of time…they should spend time and money on CS, CCS and a cannon for the armoured infantry.
See my reply below. At some pont it’ll have to happen, but the reasons and pressures to do so will be different to what a lot of people think.
Joe, Why so negative? I think most serving soldiers like the L85A3, whilst recognising it is not perfect. Still, it is time to move on from a weapon, the original of which was fielded 40 years ago.
The origins of SA80 are actually far earlier
no british to buy since we butchered the firearm and defence industry
Brig, not a foregone conclusion. Plenty of SA manufacturers in Europe. We have bought or made under licence Belgian designs before.
Kudos for giving it its correct name. Most folk call it the SA80 regardless of the varient. The SA80 is the family of weapons which includes the L85 individual weapon.
Correct, SA80 was a suite of weapons, which consisted of the following;
L85A1
L86A1 LSW
L96A1
L94A1 Chain Gun
L10A1 51mm Mortar
Never heard of the L94, L96, or L10 being paer of the SA80 project.
AFAIK SA80 consists of
L85A1, A2, A3
L86A1, A2
L98A1, A2
L22A2
And
L402
If common sense can prevail with the MOD the three services procurement departments, then I feel the Standard-Issue Individual Weapon Requirement could be standardised to the Already In-Service Knights Armaments KS-1 Assault Rifle family of Weapons. If it is capable enough for Special Operations Forces Troops then it should be suitable for the rest of our Armed Forces Branches, in whatever variant configuration is selected.
too expensive for the whole military
Problem is, the KS1 is a 5.56mm rifle, and I think that because the US is going towards a 6.8mm rifle with the XM7, that’s the way NATO will likely end up going as well.
Nope. The KS-1 is not suitable for the army at large. Too expensive, not squaddie proof enough.
It’s a good rifle for a SOF operator who has several years military experience before even seeing it, and has plenty of range time, focus and coaching on their individual marksmanship.
For an 18 year old private fresh out of, or into, depot, it would be a terrible choice.
Lofty, there are no single-service procurement departments in DE&S. Only one team in MoD procure SA.
SF have very unique requirements and their equipment can be niche and very expensive. What they need is not what the rest of the forces needs.
In fairness Graham, SOF falls under CFA and has to procure through a different funding stream from SF. But the broader point is right.
It will have to meet the Pink and Fluffy asperiations of the modern World and those dear Liberials who dont wish to have anyone harmed. Not forgetting we only need a couple dozen anyway. Thank goodness the Royal Marines went and got some real working kit so they at least can do their job.
I’m assuming that the main reason this is needed is because the US is adopting the XM7 – a 6.8mm rifle.
This would mean that all of NATO has to eventually change to 6.8mm weapons, of which at the moment there is only the XM7 (I might be wrong). So it’s either the XM7 or a rifle that doesn’t exist yet.
I’m not saying that as a point in favour of the XM7. Personally I think we should go in with the likes of Germany, Poland et al and develop a new European rifle. Would spread the cost and would remove any reliance on the US.
Steve, The main reason we need to consider L85A3 replacement is because the underlying design (L85A1) is over 40 years old. Nothing at all to do with the Americans. We don’t slavishly copy US procurement decisions – we replace kit according to our own factors.
All of NATO does not have to change to 6.8mm. That is not even an officially endorsed NATO calibre yet, as I understand.
We have a history of buying British/European SA, rather than US SA with few exceptions. I agree that we need to collaborate as we no longer produce SA in volume.
Well the XM7 is arguably European, in that while it is made in the USA by Sig Sauer Inc, it’s in the sister company of the Swiss Sig Sauer AG (both owned by Lüke & Ortmeier Holding Gruppe).
That said, a European production line would be preferable.
I suspect we’ll probably end up with the HK416 or a variant there of, since a number of NATO countries are adopting it as a standard service rifle. Not a bad choice, but there are others out there. An AR platform rifle most likely, doubt it will end up with mass KS1 adoption due to the cost.
Problem is the HK416 fires the 5.56x45mm round which is increasingly ineffective against body armour. That’s why the Americans are going for the 6.8×51mm fired by the XM7 to replace the M4.
How about it’s bigger brother, the HK417?
That fires 7.62x51mm; far more wallop!
Why procure that when we already have a 7.62 rifle at section level?
I honestly think they may be best to leave this alone for now..there are so many things the army needs to fix…fiddling around with a new 5.56 rifle that adds at best very very marginal benefits is the last thing they need to do. Also there is a lot of work around new 6.8×51mm Rounds so it may be best to let others splash the cash and see which way NATO as a whole rolls.
The only issue I would say, separate from the whole “we need a better rifle” is that the L85s are physically getting old, and that while a lot of the rifles are a bit “ship of theseus” we will eventually either need new build L85s or a replacement rifle, and when that time comes getting a replacement will probably be cheaper than creating a bespoke L85 production line again.
My requirements as a former infantry guy with 3 combat tours:
1. Does it go bang every time I pull the trigger?
2. Is it accurate out beyond 350m?
3. Is it short enough to be good in and out of vehicles and in congested built up environment?
4. Can I fire it easily from either shoulder?
5. Can I mount optics and LLMs without any add ons?
6. Does it have a bayonet option?
After that I want to know how much it weighs, how easy it is to clean, and how fast I can operate it in basic drills. One of the biggest issues with the L85 was you had to move the Rifle and you hand had to move a lot for mag changes, stoppage drills etc compared to other weapons I used. If you ever watch new guys on the ranges you’d see how slow it is to do basic drills.
We all got very good and very quick at drills, but if you had a more ergonomic layout it would be better.
Tis is really the sort of kit we should be manufacturing here, even if, as with SLR, it is under licence. There is no pressing need to order anything yet. The original SA 80 was in production for 10 years,@350,000 units, and this will be quite a long contract. That should give plenty of time for UK industry to prepare.