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.
Isn’t this story slightly dated? I’m sure I read something similar a week or two ago. Or perhaps has it been updated?
Yes, we have chewed over the S Ops Bde / Rangers already in earlier articles.
This is an update regards the rifle.
Morning all, from the traitor working for Moscow. 👺
“deliver operational insights and effects”
I assume that means engage and kill/supress the enemy with kinetic effect??
“The Army Special Operations Brigade can be authorised to operate at higher risk beyond the remit of conventional forces.”
What does that even mean?? Can’t any Infantry battalion with 600 men and some firepower behind it?
How will the Ranger Regiment not suddenly be “conventional forces” ?
An enhanced entrance regime won’t justify that.
Shouldn’t it be the case that “operating at higher risk beyond the remit of conventional forces ” should entail some proper enabling assets assigned to it beyond robbing Peter to pay Paul, to enable the S Ops Bde to do that?
Aviation – Helicopters, UAV. Stand off precision missiles, Logistics. EW, jamming, and so on?
As it is, the concept allows 4 250 strong battalions to survive the cap badge mafia, alongside the 11 SFAB also with the same set up minus a fancy new rifle.
The army has had BATT’s for decades, SFAB is not new, only the name and the spin.
So that is 8 battalions of 31 “got rid of”, convenient, as what the army actually lacks is all arms brigades with enablers to make full use of the infantry battalions we have.
And – another point I noted from a commentator elsewhere, if the environment rises to above the “threshold of war” then what use are these 8 battalions??
If the army cannot fight effectively – “at its most feral” was the recent spin from the CGS, then how are these 8 battalions helping in that.
After all that rant, I STILL agree with the concept of such a formation taking on Russia, China, whoever in the Grey Zone, but it must be enabled properly with the means to do it more than a new rifle. And certainly not at the expense of what little conventional forces remain.
It was a late night, but I first read it as some of the Rangers were looking for rifles that had been mislaid…..
😃 Yes, get the RMP out to help look!
I’ve left!
LOL.
May the good Lord preserve us, if the politicians get us involved in a shooting war with either the Chinese or the Russians or both. The Army is now so insignificantly small that we should best train it to just prevent an invasion of the homeland. 125 Challenger III tanks should just about be abe to do that.
Or how to march properly in step through city centres. Or delivering vaccines and organising the logistics around hospital PPE.
Enough is enough. The Army is smaller now than it has been for 200 years. In a dangerous world, something needs to be done about the MoD pouring billions of taxpayers money down a bottomless pit rectifying cock-ups like the T45 disaster, Ajax, Watchkeeper, etc etc. Happy new year.
I significantly small, with lots of medals and many marches thro’ town centres to collect them. Sad.
So in your wisdom, what would you do about it? And how would you pay for it?
You won’t like my reply
I think the MoD should be disbanded and our military should ONLY source off-the-shelf kit from the open market. And where a case can be made and we absolutely have to develop capability ourselves, at all costs senior military officers nearing retirement should be kept off the committees. And gravy-train ex-officers working in the military-industrial complex.
I think you will find that the tens of £billions saved would pay for another 25,000 infantry, two more Astute, another carrier and 150 Tranche 4 F35B’s etc etc. And an interim AShM for our frigates and destroyers and maybe the RFA too
I agree with quite a bit of that. But it will never happen. The MIC Military Industrial Complex would be hit, they are the gravy train, jobs for the boys and all that. But they are also at the heart of Britain’s defence industry, and that means jobs and profits and politics and lobbying by MPs to keep “their” defence jobs.
I disagree with disbanding the MoD. It has many vast roles way beyond procurement that underpin our entire defence capability. I many areas.
So the military remains too small, as having the capabilities we have costs. And it is capability that is key above all. And sovereign capability is important. Swings and roundabouts. I see benefits for both.
And how do we recruit all this extra manning?. That is the toughest task of all. And if the MOD isn’t running the Armed Force’s, who is? Buying off the shelf has it’s advantages. The Apache purchase is a good example. But do we want to keep a British sovereign industrial capability and retain thousands of skilled workers? and continue to be able to build nuclear submarines and Typhoons for example. I think we do. And while delays and overspends are frustrating, blaming civil servants who work just as hard to support our Force’s isn’t the answer. In all liklihood, future conflicts won’t be decided by tank regiments and anti ship missiles. It will be with massive cyber attacks. Who can knock out communications, satellites, disrupted food supply’s, stop everyones mobile phones from working, a country could be on it’s knees in days without firing a single shot. Look at what happened in 2020 when we ran low on loo roll. And a big chunk of our investment is being spent in this area to protect us. It’s not as sexy as aircraft carriers and fighter jets, but critical for our future.
I wouldn’t disagree with any of that. Its not the industrial firms or the folk that work for the MoD that are at fault. Its the way the Authority manages projects – and itself. They have a decades long history of poor cost control with cost overuns accepted as the norm. Their project management problem has seen billions spent on projects that have been cancelled, or are years late. There are successes like the carriers to balance this but inevitably when the beancounters add it all up cuts in capability are made to pay for it.
Many projects naturaly take years from concept to delivery. There is no continuity in either MoD civil servants or the military people involved. So nobody is accountable and there are no consequences for being responsible for a cock-up.
The IDF has some of the best kit available, and they can make their own tanks. The Israeli taxpayer gets value for money for the $21billion a year they spend. They have more warplanes, more tanks, a comparable sized army and more offensive missiles than us. We spend about £45billion a year on defence
Can’t argue against accountability. But i do think think we are turning a corner. The business model used for T31 being a good example. It’s just 20 years late in getting to that way of thinking. I don’t think it’s a good comparison between us and the IDF. They need national service to hit manning requirements, and they are a largey static force with very different requirements, they also lack capabilites that we possess, and our global footprint and taskings. It’s always an assumption that everyone one else does it better than us. But most nations are as bad and worse when it comes to defence procurement. Even the US has made some shockers over years and continues to do so. Getting the USN new Frigates for example.
Imo cost overruns are crippling and if we want to invest in in-house military we need our own version of DARPA.
If we are going to put our soldiers in high risk kinetic operations they should have whatever arms and kit that they themselves want most.
With regard to the size of the army, I think it’s pitiful, if not negligent especially as foreign unfriendlies are ramping up military investment year on year.
God forbid we get in a shooting war because as things stand I think we will struggle mightily just to hold our ground. Scarily, this means the use of tactical nukes will be more, not less likely.
Overall, the big picture is worrying as things stand imo
The IDF are also ruthlessly pragmatic with supporting functions, some of their trucks were ancient, logistics handled by 19 year old female conscripts paid 700 shekel a month (that’s 200 quid folks).
They’ve been pretty ingenious at recycling old kit as well – old centurion hills turned into APCs etc
Whilst I agree with a lot of your thinking, any money saved would be pumped into other public services and not the military.
May I ask, in what scenario, would the UK be faced with an invasion?
Celts. From the north
Lol that’s easy. Build a wall
The Wall. Excellent idea. Using Pink Floyd to fight the Celts
During March 2020 during the chaos of the first wave of the virus, the Russian Navy sent a full-blown amphibious group through the Channel from the N Sea. This consisted of several frigates, two amphibious ships, an oiler and the obligatory tug. The MoD huffed and puffed and eventually sent a Type 23 out to “keep an eye on them”. claiming the Russians were on a routine training mission, having been detached from the Northern Fleet due to ice.
Apparently all quite unremarkable, were it not for the fact that 15 years ago, due manning problems and ships needing re-fit/maintenance nearly all our assets were tied up alongside in Portsmouth and Devenport. A similar Russian amphibious fleet appeared in the Channel, hove to off The Sound and began an amphibious assault excercise. Numbers of landing craft were seen launching while helicopters circled above. The MoD, flabergasted at the audacity, was forced to send out an offshore patrol ship, all that was available. On that occasion it was an exercise and after three days the Russian fleet moved on. Next time…..Lossiemouth?
‘How will the Rangers suddenly not be conventional forces?’
Good question. If you are an African government at risk from Islamic extremist forces might they be considered as the UK’s professional, legitimate and scalable alternative to Russia’s Wagner ‘offering’?
I know what you’re saying. But If the British Army has such a reputation for the quality of its soldiering, professionalism, and training, which I believe it does indeed have, you’d think any African government would be happy with an infantry company from any line infantry battalion.
They are still conventional forces regardless of individual weapon.
So what makes them able to “operate at higher risk beyond the remit of conventional forces” ?
More enablers? Nope. They don’t exist, at least in any dedicated capacity.
And what does that statement say for our regular infantry? Are they suddenly unable? Of course not.
What is making these soldiers different? A rifle? A role?
I get that DSF needed back up, they got that with SFSG.
Are DSF not in the Grey Zone too?
It’s all spin for me as it stands.
I think the only way to make sense of these changes is to view them in political context. What you call ‘spin’ a salesman would call ‘branding’. I think that what is going on is a marketing exercise; the army is having to sell itself not only to its existing soldiers and to new recruits; it also has to sell its ‘services’ to foreign countries in competition with domestic interests, Chinese troops, Russian mercenaries…..While we might look at a Ranger deployment as protecting UK interests, if you are president say of Kenya, Ghana or Nigeria (where we have colonial baggage) why wouldn’t you buy training, constabulary or SF skills at the cheapest price? The Ranger branding is all about demand creation. The sales pitch goes like this…‘ I appreciate Mr President that you have a unique problem here and that traditional / conventional troops are not what you need. The ideal solution would look like this with these capabilities….and by strange co-incidence we have our new customizable Rangers product which does everything you need’…..
That is a way of looking at it I suppose! They’ll have branding themselves next….Rangers, sponsored by…
… Queens Park surely.
Yes, good one!
😂 Right! New selection process, new cap badge, new rifle, new lightweight all terrain vehicle.….this is about creating something new and desirable. Recruits will want to be one, African soldiers will want to be able to say I was trained by ..and I served with ….the Rangers.
The Ranger concept is a good one (except the silly 250 man battalion idea)…
It’s going to take a while to stand it up properly, as unsuitable personnel will be swapped out with replacements and they get into the swing of things. I would expect a few folks from the SF and Intelligence community will be on secondment to get the training underway.
Moving forward, new recruits with the right Ranger stuff (language and people skills and the ability to operate in small teams) will be channeled into the units. I would say by 2025 they should be fully up and running.
They will likely be a good pool of potential SF applicants too in time.
It’s eight battalions now? This deal keeps getting worse all the time!
Seriously, it looks like the leadership don’t have a clue what the army is meant to be for or do. On one hand we have the aspirations of a “heavy warfighting division” (quotation marks inserted for obvious reasons) along with the deep reconnaissance strike battle brigade combat team force and the other has us going on a limited war/COIN/training and assisting allied nations tilt.
We either bulk up for an all out smashy fight or we accept a limited war stance and angle towards coalition or Falklands round 2 boogaloo level if alone. Seems daft trying to pull two opposite ways at once.
We don’t have enough armour for a “Warfighting Division”
Hi Ryan. To clarify. 4 battalions in the S Ops Bde ( Rangers ) and 4 battalions in 11 SFAB.
So 8 undersized cap badges saved. One of the brigades is a BATT type. The other is also a BATT type but apparently can fight in more hostile environments, will have the rifle, is “Special” and will be better soldiers – as they say “can fight in hostile environments below the threshold!”
That is my issue. I though all our infantry were well trained for that role.
As Airborne says on here, they will end up doing exactly the same thing, and he would know, I wouldn’t. So I defer to him in that regard.
But they do not even go through any rigorous selection procedure….they are not even commando trained ffs they are just made up of “hat” regiments in the main .
Yep. So far. I’m sceptical, as I outlined.
Indeed. There is a lack of infantrymen in the British regular army. The Army Reserve a farce regarding infantry numbers. The regimental system in the infantry destroyed by Blair and the then CGS.
And yet again mate we think alike but you put it so much better! Cheers.
This was posted last week and they still haven’t found it yet keep looking
Look to the future the M41A Pulse Rifle is a must 😉
Only if it’s manufacturer, Weyland-Yutani, can be persuaded to open a factory here 😏
Heard they were recruiting a load of apprentice’s this week to start manufacturing them..
BAE was in the news in our area Southern looking for over 1000 Apprentice’s too take up positions in 2022 Sean
Get Ripley, she’ll test it on Bishop
Aye the phased plasma rifle in the 40 watt range is still just out o reach ……..maybe one day
🏴🇬🇧
Neatly sums up the entire Army procurement ‘rationale’.
But how much did they squander on that armoured vehicle that caused injury to soldiers for 4 or more years and still the army top brass spewed money at it. Costing hundreds of millions. Yet none held to account. A soldier loses a little bit of kit or army clothing they are charged and usually fined double what the item cost. That same principle should be applied to army brass who squander money like that.
I would have thought another batch of Colt C8’s would be the obvious choice, those that use them, seem to have a very high regard for them.
Well yes, the C8 is the obvious choice, in Carbine and rifle form.
It’s an excellent rifle and already in service with SF’s as their default ‘go to’ AR and re-equipping the Royal Marines as their standard rifle too.
How about giving each of the ranger units one of the NGSW rifle and scope set ups and let them test it, better yet if the US know which has won the competition and we get these units to introduce them into the army.
generally this seems to be a waste of money, swapping one 5.56 for another when money is tight, but for we can get some longer term value out of it that would at least provide some value to the wider military.
I never understood why the Army moved to a peashooter 5.56 round anyway. We won two world wars with the 175 grain .303. The Gloucesters in Korea used the Lee Enfield .303 and the Bren
We still have thousands of Bren’s (last used in anger in the Falkands) at Donnington and millions of .303 rounds. Which career MoD civil serpent is pushing this?
Rimmed case not ideal for automatic/semi auto guns .308/7.62mm is better and similar ballistics to .303 probably a tad more powerful?I wouldn’t quite call the 5.56/.223 a pea shooter pretty potent for it’s size.I always remember years ago firing a .357 magnum revolver at some steel plate and it just dented it but a .222 rifle, from which the .223 was developed,went straight through.
7.62mm down too 5.56mm that what we thought one suggestion was you could carry more ammunition As the SA80 could fire in an auto mode, But the one we believed with a pinch of salt was 7.62 if you got hit by that Torso hit game over 5.56 if you got hit by that your mire likely too survive and it would supposedly take 2 people too evacuate you so that would take 3 people out of contact good luck with that theory Can’t see the Chinese or Russians stopping too pick up their wounded David
Spot on Tommo. Add recent improvements and availability of ballistic protection and body armour…and a double tap from a 5.56 simply isn’t going to cut down a fanatical terrorist with a suicide vest. Put that same nut job in a car/van/truck who’s ramming into pedestrians and you’ve no chance. The logic with 5.56 was reasonably sound at the time as anyone who’s had to tab with a few hundred rounds of 7.62 will testify…however most of the adversaries that are likely to be encountered (certainly by s/f or Ranger battalions) in the future arent going to be the kind of chaps that gracefully retreat under medevac with 2 of their squad in tow. An increase in calibre has been muted for a long time but it’s now becoming a reality that a larger compromise round is needed. BIG mistake in my humble opinion if they stick with 5.56 in this procurement. In the early SA80 days dont think theres anyone who would have argued against a replacement 5.56 rifle, but with the latest offerings a new rifle swap for the same calibre seems totally pointless in the scheme of things. Go bigger (6.8) and few in the know would argue.
Thanks AV did trials in 88 with what was supposed too be the most fantastic infantry weapon that the Britsh forces had ever had ,oh Fxxking really mags from the states kept falling out no artic trigger guard only good thing was a bayonet +scabard wire cutter God knows how many were purchased and issued before the MOD listened too the complaints from the boys about how Sxxt they were such a waste A traffic wardern has more stopping power than the SA80mk1
Yes, expensive procurement of what turned out to be a decent bayonet & frog at least.
Yeah ,neat bit of reverse engineering from the Bog standard won’t let you down in any climate beit Artic, tropical ,Desert, jJunglr GAK47 o and the first batches of the sa80 mk1 were for right ha ders only where as the L1A1 SLR could e operated by Left ha ded or right handed you didn’t get a spent cartridge burning your cheek unluckily Leftie
AK 47 not GAK47 bloody predictive TXT AV
The Americans are doing some interesting experimentation with their new 6.8mm rounds. More punch than the 5.56, but 30% less weight and recoil than the 7.62 and better flight characteristics out to 800 meters than both. Whether the competition will go anywhere or peter out in favour of a slightly updated AR remains to be seen.
There is little question that the US Army will select a new assault rifle and new SAW in FY 2022 and will commit to the new weapons and the 6.8 mm rounds it uses with production to start in 2022. The US Army has already started construction at its Lake City, Missouri ammunition plant to produce the new 6.8mm rounds.
Yes spot on. An AR in 6.8mm is the way to go, best of both worlds. A proper man-stopper round yet light enough for large carries, both essential for a Ranger or SF unit.
UKSF already have a larger caliber rifle to choose from over the C8, L143A1/2 low signature assault weapon, Sig MCX in various barrel lengths in either 7.62 x 39 or 7.62 x 35.
Yes aware, but too big a round. Are you suggesting moving back to 7.62?..
No just saying, they do have the option of a lightweight man stopper if required, currently US SF are using 7.62 x 35 or in US terminology .300″ Blackout. I cannot see the UK going to another caliber for many years, even the US going to it,s 6.8mm is only for a limited purchase of about 100,000 or so,so the majority of the US forces will still be using 5.56mm for the foreseeable future.
With the projected OSD of the L85 now at 2030, it was 2024, we will have to see what NATO decides the way forward for s standard caliber, although I can still see 5.56mm in service for many many years.
Yes understand, cheers
I just can’t see the next US/Nato round being 5.56.
Totally agree it’s going to take a while and dont think any nation is in any hurry on this.
In regards to the original article I cant see the point in procuring another 5.56 rifle in these numbers, theres no major benefit.
If and when NATO decides on a new caliber the next question for the MOD is do we equip the teeth arms only or the whole force, as you will agree a large proportion of the military are not going to fire their weapons in anger.looking at the various manufacturers websites selling 6.5 / 6.8 rifles they are about 3 or 4 times the cost of an M4 not including optics.
What are your views?
I’m not the biggest fan of mixing calibres with service rifles due to complications with logistics etc during extended combat etc. My view is simply that with 5.56 unsuitable in my book for the Rangers brief and with a likely calibre increase across the Nato standard coming at some point it would make sense to combine the two issues and call a decision. At the end of the day the Rangers numbers aren’t going to be significant so even if they ended up with a slightly non standard round in 15 years time with the AR spec chosen a re-barrel etc wouldn’t be unrealistic to align to the then standard.
Plus would give valuable field data now on a larger calibre that can be filtered back to assist in Nato/MOD decision making or indeed the likely replacement service rifle in general.
L4 Brens all long gone David along with anything .303 related.
The only examples you will find today are within official collections.
Generally yes, but I think you’ll find theres way more .303 hidden away than youd think 😉
“We still have thousands of Bren’s at Donnington”
Really? Any SLR’s knocking about too? I wasn’t aware Donnington stores ammunition or weaponry.
Donnington stores all the mod weapons not issued to units.
Cheers. Thought the DFC and the other buildings was like Bicester. Soft stores, kit, supplies, and so on, wasn’t aware of the weaponry.
SLR’s and Brens all long gone Daniele…..
Yes, I assumed so. What do I know?! Maybe there really is a “Strategic Reserve” in store. ( But not necessarily of Steam Engines ! )
As it happens semi deactivated SLR,s are issued during SF selection for the hills week as a dead weight to lug around.
Yes, I’d noted that actually. Welcome to the forum Bell.
Donnington has hundreds of thousands of brand new, unused Lee Enfield 303’s still wrapped in greaseproof paper in WD -> boxes of 5. These were made at ROF Fazakerley, Liverpool late 40’s early 50’s after the war. They have millions of .303 ammo in mags of 30 for Brens and in waxed boxes for the rifle in the bunkers. Some of this ammo was made in India, which was still using both the Bren and making the Lee Enfield under licence in 2005.
During the Russian invasion of Afghanistan we provided 100,000 brand new, greasproof paper wrapped Fazakerley built Lee Enfields to the mujahedin. Along with millions of rounds of .303. The ungrateful so-and-so’s turned them on us at Camp Bastion during our 4th expeditionary adventure to avenge their grandfathers from the 1920’s Great Game, when we bombed them using biplanes.
Nope, all long gone, I’m not going into what is or isn’t stored, but suffice it to say, Enfield’s long gone..
Re the No4’s in Afghanistan..
With the exception of a small number, the vast majority of No4’s encountered in Afghanistan were Long Branch manufacturerd, there’s a good for that.
Canadian war reserve, purchased by a proxy company and turned up in the hands of grateful Afghan Enfield collectors in the 1980’s…
All the No4s and the .303 ammunition are long gone. Most of the L1A1s are also long gone.
David the 303 was withdrawn from front line service in 1959. I may well have been amongst the last to fire a 303 Bren in the mid 90’s as a cadet instructor. By then all the 303 rounds were Indian made. Loved the Bren, such a solid firing platform and so reliable – heavy SOB though if you are carrying it and the number 2 with the barrels and a metal box of magazines needed a medal…
My father used the Bren in Burma, like everyone who used it he loved it. The Bren was extremely accurate when used with the bipod and fired in short bursts of 5-7 rounds.
I had a 7.62 barreled BREN in 1975 in N Ireland. What a weapon, like a 30 round mag full auto in a 4 inch spread.
Yes the L4. Great LMG as long as someone else was carrying all the magazines!
Surprising considering the reasons have been in the public sphere for decades. Firstly the .303 round is over powered for the needs of infantry, we don’t need a rifle round capable of travelling 2500yrds/2300mtrs. Up to 300yrds/300meters 5.56 is perfectly lethal only now starting to struggle now peer and near peer rivals are starting to field decent ballistic plate. If we want to reach out further then a DMR in 7.62×51 is the order of the day.
The other reason is quite simply weight! Try lugging around 100rds of .303 then switch to 100rds of 5.56 and you will see what I mean. Considering how much weight the average infantry soldier has to carry in equipment and body armour the last think we want is to burden them with heavier ammunition.
Actually weight would have been a major driver for switching to the AR15 platform for the new Ranger Battalions, even with the weight reduction seen in the L85A3 over the A2 it is still a hefty rifle in comparison to the L119A2 (Colt Canada C8 CQB) already operated by the Royal Marines and UKSF. As we ask troops to carry more and also Woman entering the infantry switching to a lower weight rifle is a no brainer.
That being said the L85A3 will be with us for a long time to come and whilst the US appears to have settled on a 6.8mm solution we have had many false dawns over the decades (project SPIW comes to mind as just one) I would be weary about jumping onto the US 6.8 bandwagon until we are absolutely certain that they are definitely adopting it. Also NATO as a whole and many allied nations won’t be shifting away from 5.56 any time soon, considering that it is worth showing some patience and adopting an AR15 platform over time for units that need to move away from the L85A3 for operational reasons relegating the L85 to second line roles over time. It is a low impact way of going about things especially as it uses the same ammunition and magazines. If 6.8mm is the future in the next couple of decades then we can look to go for a big bang replacement and adopt a unified rifle in that cartridge for all branches of the military but until then this is the right path to take.
The Bren guns were destroyed at Arborfield in the late 1990s by plasma cutter, I was a witness to it (same as L96’s). The .303 ammunition was sold off to a large dealer in the USA at the same time. The ammunition was offered to the NRA but the deal was they bought all or none at all. The NRA could not afford to purchase the ammunition. Same happened in 2002 when the NRA was offered all the stored N04 rifles. Buy all or none. Again NRA could not afford to purchase the qty and many were in dubious condition.
The new calibre will be driven by the US. It has to be a man stopper beyond 300mtrs. At present 6.85 is a US choice. There is also a 6.5 Creedmore calibre. The round must be hard hitting, like the old 7.62.
As a 30 year vet in Inf and 22SAS, I am dismayed at the army’s ‘thing’ about ‘Special forces. I started in the 2nd Green Jackets ( The Kings Royal Rifle Corps ) the original ‘Special Force. You know camo, rifles skirmishing etc. And continued into the Royal Green Jackets. After 15 years I passed selection and joined 22 SAS.
KNEW RIFLE ? What for ?
The answer is two part John…
The L85A2 is well worn now, the A3 rebuild is is a relatively slow affair and they clearly don’t intend to rebuild the whole inventory.
The C8 is already ‘effectively’ a supplementary service rifle, with thousands in the inventory.
I dare say it will progressively re-equip the Army, infantry first, then everyone else eventually.
Hope not.
Any particular reason why not AV?
Evening John, negative purely based on calibre.
5.56 not likely to cut it going forward.(if indeed now, see my above posts). Rifle wise can’t argue, as good as it gets…but wrong calibre.
Anything north of 6mm, 6.5 to 6.8 is I believe the sweet spot.
Understood, the good thing about the C8 (and most AR’s to be fair), is that it could be converted to a new intermediate caliber if needed.
The receiver, bolt group and TMH can all be reused, new barrel and magazine platform and away you go…
Yes agree C7 and C8 likewise.
If the MOD have their heads screwed on and are viewing this as an intermediary replacement (with possible later calibre change) until the new NATO standard is established this would make total sense.
For me moving to C8 at 5.56 is more reliability based.
If however they’re discounting a calibre increase can you imagine the uproar when the new British army service rifle needs new barrels and mags etc..
Hi AV, you would hope they have taken that into account mate …. That said, it is the MOD we are taking about, they will probably just ‘gift them’ and start from scratch!!
If it wasn’t for the fact they need a reproof ( by UK law) a caliber swap (new barrel, mag platform and possibly extractor) could be done by a base workshop well inside an hour, AR’s are so simple to set up and head space.
An AR spanner, set of punches, head space guages, a gun vise and a workbench…..
Yes agree, maybe they’ve hopefully taken all the above into account and with a NATO calibre swap unlikely soon this is the common sense option…heres hoping 👍
Plus the very reason they’re going down the AR route.?..(Future and calibre swap proofing)
With all nations defense budgets extremely stretched / tight, I suspect any NATO agreement on another round is going to take years.
I’m in total agreement Steve, just hoping that’s the logic behind both the calibre and rifle procurement choices.
The Rangers need to do the job of Lawrence of Arabia not Bruce Lee. Less throwing stars and more local nouse and ability to operate below the threshold of all out war in highly hostile environments in which the deployment of conventional light infantry battalions would be politically difficult (e.g. Ukraine) and also very difficult to sustain for long enough to support local forces effectively – and they need to do this unsupported in small advisory teams like Wagner or US Green Berets. They also need to provide a lot more than light infantry skills – they need the full spectrum of skill sets to support whole force structures. So everything from logistics and signals to engineers, ISTAR and artillery.
I don’t really get this decision, the SA80 in its current form is meant to be a very decent rifle. You would think the money would be better spent on some force multipliers, to make the relatively small numbers count.
👍
I would have thought that there is already enough tools in the toolbox without wasting what little money is left in the pot on a new weapon system with all that entails in extra training individual testing ect.
This army rangers business sounds like branding…I do wonder whether they will an effective fighting force or more like our police service…One does wonder whether the armed forces will be called the Armed Service at some point….
A spud gun, or a Nerf gun … oh hold on a minute … a cap gun.
Maybe they should think back to where they were when they last had it.
I thought the Yanks we’re thinking about changing over to a 6.8 mm ammo. Would it not be best to hold fire on this purchase and see where that goes.
Because if the Yanks go and adopt 6.8mm wouldn’t it follow that Nato would likely follow them ?????
Odd that H&K isn’t on the list. France has just replaced the FMAS with the H&K HK416F, which is a highly regarded weapon. The German replacement for the Heckler & Koch G36 was won by Caracal (on cost) but they allegedly infringed on patents owned by H&K, so H&K might eventually win out.
Seems like Colt Canada stands a good chance (isn’t that what the Royal Marines opted for?). I’d go for the H&K HK416F. The H&K HK416F can fire safely after being fully submerged in water. A direct gas blowback weapon like some of the other M16 types is likely to explode. UK military deserves the best, but my guess is that cost will play a critical part in the final decision. Also, shouldn’t all the UK military have the same system? Seems crazy not to, in my opinion.
H&K are not on the list becuase they specify an Armalite AR derivative.H&K don’t make those. I suspect they want commonality with US Special Ops teams – likely they will go for Colt as RM and SFSG/SF all use it.
It sounds like they want the Colt M4 then. And a Canadian rifle will be a lot more politically acceptable than a German one! The H & K HK416 is an AR16, but with the improved reliability of the gas operating system taken from the AR18. The US Marines are ditching their M4s for the HK416.
If we must buy a 5.56 AR type rifle, then I agree it should be reliable gas piston rather direct gas which fouls all too soon.
The Marines are already eyeing the Army’s new 6.8mm rifle and publicly talking of ditching the HK416 for whatever rifle the Army selects. My bet is that Congress forces them to adopt the new Army rifle and new cartridge.
They are on the list of tenders, NSAF is HK UK, 416A5, which is an AR lower receiver, but uses a gas piston as opposed to the C8 direct impingement.
Thank you. Missed that.
Question. What are the biggest problems facing the Army today. Obsolete MBT’s. Obsolete IFV’s. Obsolete Recon. Obsolete Artillery. What are the Army focused on. Cutting and rebranding some Inf battalions and replacing the perfectly good SA80 with a new shiny toy.
Says it all really….
Sounds like something we might be interested in?
The Army’s SAW and M4 replacement is headed to troops by 2022
“Ultimately, the weapon will be fielded to all close combat forces, including special operations forces, infantry, combat engineers and scouts.
The fire control is expected to field six months ahead of the weapon, Potts said. That will allow the NGSW producer to better integrate the optic with the weapon.”
https://www.defensenews.com/news/your-army/2020/10/14/the-armys-saw-and-m4-replacement-is-headed-to-troops-by-2022/
I’m wonder why we stuck 5.56mm when next generation war would use bullet likely to be 6.5/6.8mm which combined of hit power and long range yet not much recoil as learn lesson as Afghan war. Ak47 often advantage superior range over 5.56mm. Bullpup barrel often better range compared to conventional rifle, yet not good enough. Which we should look at this.
Or we bring back .280?
When a update immediately round replacement 5.56mm as I am aware US special force and us military push to start look at this, therefore 6.5/6.8mm for assault rifle and .338 for machine gun and dmr, sniper rifle
they did start this process will be waste of the money once news standard round for nato just down the corner. If we buy this gun useless there plan switch fire pin and barrel, chamber, magazine?
Sorry if it is sound silly.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/royal-marines-given-jihadi-stopper-7542147 Obviously written by a bus driver! Made me laugh anyway!
“from the 43 Commando battalion”
They could have gone all out clueless and called it the 43rd for even better effect.
4-3 you muppets.
Actually, watched a programme on the Falklands and a Royal Rupert spoke of Forty XX not 4-2… Not sure they know themselves.
That is correct as I understood it. 40 Differs. “Forty Commando for 40. 42 and 45 are Four two 4-2 and Four Five.
43, I assumed was 4-3 like the 42 and 45. Any RM here?
As for that link, I have never heard of them as battalions.
I note with much disappointment that my idea of reintroducing the1871 Matrini Henri has fallen on barren soil. Happy new year all!
I’d second that 👍
Mores the pity Klonkie, one of the great simple pleasures of life is sending 577-455 down range … A proper calibre…
Too true John!
At least with the MH no chance that the mag would fall out it didn’t have one AOne Shot One Kill , weapon Brilliant weapon if you’ve got Michael Caine on your side Belated Happy New year Klonkie
Happy new year Tommo!. Good old Rorke’s drift – the zulu hordes coming over the hill. Didn’t quite pan out well at Isandwana a few hour earler though. No bad reflection on the rifle , it seems the firing lines were to few and badly over extended.
And too you another year flown by Klonkie, I was just thinking thank the Lord Michael Caine wasn’t using 5.56mm munitions at the Drift hee hee
Happy New Year Klonkie!
And a Happy New Year to you too Daniele!
Hope 2022 turns out well for you.
‘British Army Rangers looking for a new rifle.’
Why? What is wrong with the SA80 L85A3? And if something is wrong with that then they should be replacing it for the the entire army and not just the Rangers. Sounds to me like a bit of ’empire building’ to me.
And (yes another sentence beginning with and) then we should be looking at a 6.80 calibre to be inline with what the US are moving to & not an Armalite 5.56.
As mentioned Rob, the A3 is more of a life extension exercise, HK are producing new ‘A3’ bodies for all the A2 parts to go into…
There seems little thought for producing new bodies in large numbers and as I understand it, they are procuring them a few thousand at a time.
The L85 is running out of life basically and Colt Canada ( if I was a betting man) will probably provide the replacement in an AR platform with a new calibre eventually.
👍
Seconded.👍
When we were first issued with the SA80 the mags were curtesy of the M16 bloody kept falling out at the slightest knock Rob
Yeep, for me the SA80 was well caused me all forms of problems. It was for me bad enough with the SMG. First I’m left handed, loved my SLR, double flip sight and scope, and some bolt action stuff. Then came the SA80 could not use it, mag in my thinking did not fit or feed correctly, could not use instinct to fire the damed thing. As for taking a right handed shot around a building you needed to stand out to far. Oh how I wanted my SLR back. in fact as a left handed person the SLR was better, safety was a flick of my left thumb, support arm was always in place. Same with my bolt action rifle, right arm was always in place, twist my arm into the sling and locked, where my left would use the bolt overarm much more smooth. So no I did not love the SA80 for those and more reasons. The other reason for me was simple, stopping power, yes I know hit someone says you have two or three people looking after him/her due to wounding. Thats all well and good in theory, a squaddie want to put the enemy down and not get up again, not these strategic ideas dreamed up by people who have never been in the firing line.
I started hunting animals when I was about four years old with my dad, one of the first things I learnt was never shoot until its a clean shot. With the SA80 I was not comfortable of a clean shot. With the SLR I would put 10 rounds into a 20mm grouping at 100 meters anywhere the range master asked me to. You have three types of people that are in the army, those that you can teach to shoot, those that will never hit a barn door and thooe that are natural. The SA80 is not for the born shooter.
Thanks Ron for your post Yes the SA80 great idea bullpup same length barrel for an AR but the mk1 .Model makers Airfix make stronger plastic shame the designers didn’t think about testing them out in all climates and terrain prior tòo issue we might be slightly clumsy but doesn’t mean that the equipment shouldn’t have been Clumsily made
SLR have reworked the rifle and updated it.
The British army loved that weapon.
For some reason I like the FN-SCAR for this task, able to be in 5.56 x 45mm or 7.62 x 39mm versions, there is also a solution for the 6.8 x 43mm round. The 6.8mm version is also capable of chambering the Kalashnikov 7.63mm round, useful on the battlefield if you pick up enemy ammo. With short, medium and long barrels, an underslung granade launcher, or any mount that is MIL-STD-1913 compliant, a top rail for optics, a suppressor and adjustable stock this seems like a good all round weapon. It seems from my understanding that 90% of the parts are interchangeable. This weapon is used by the USSOCOM and other NATO nations so if is an of the shelf solution, well regarded weapon that should come at a reasonable price.
‘Regular’ infantry battalions are already very well trained and capable of doing most tasks of this new ranger concept, issue them with a better rifle instead of the rubbish SA80 we’ve had to put up with for the past 30 years.
This is just the headsheds puffing their chests out because the army’s numbers have been seriously depleted by savage defence cuts.
Here we go again, bloody Ranger chuff! Most of you know my view on this. Concept, good, execution, shit show! The whole thing is a rushed flawed idea to enable no Battalions to be lost, yet still keep 8 Battalions at around 250 men (4 being SFAB).
The Rangers will do exactly the same job as the SFAB, as without a full set of CS and CSS, who are formally linked, and aware and trained in the Ranger concept, and who are robbed for short term deployments from parent unit, the Rangers can do pretty much nothing either just below the threshold of war and certainly not over it! Then you have the selection? Who’s doing it? How long? In house or Brecon or elsewhere? It’s an easy option to say we’re “special” without the hard graft and prep of being special! If lads want to be special then go for SF selection, SRR, or transfer to PARA/RM and go SFSG or even the 473 Bty lads etc. It’s all spin and chuff.
Anyway to reiterate:
1. Unable to operate either below threshold of war or over it as no full time affiliated and CONOPS aware/trained CS/CSS enablers.
2. End up doing the same job, but maybe with an angrier look, as the SFAB.
3. Unable to deploy independently for any length of time, I refer you to number 1.
4. Will require reinforcing by a “normal” Bn/BCT if things go real kinetic (not Toyota pick up truck kinetic)
Bloody hell I could go on it you get my thought process! But to be fair, the concept is good, IF they would become a Ranger BCT with all the affiliates and embedded CS/CSS. But as ever it’s a cheap bluff, surrounded by spin, to make out we are on the top of our game and warfare has suddenly changed and we have kept on top of those changes! Oh, and they are a damn site cheaper to have than an Armoured Inf Bn!
Hi Airborne, hope you had a good New Year. Anyhows I agree in many ways, we had when I was in the Army the LI a good all round infantry unit that could be used in the light advanced skirmishing role, small unit recon etc. Now I no longer understand the diffrence in Light Infantry, Heavy Infantry, Mech Infantry or Armoured Infantry. I don’t even know if there is a diffrence. The way I see the Rangers is a unit with the combined skills of Gurkhas and Commandos possibly with some Para chucked in. Able to operate in the jungle, desert, European climates behind enemy lines and to destroy targets and get out. Oh we had that it was called the LRDG. So again I agree, without the right supporting arms its just a name, not only that but the main question is where will they operate, mainland Europe, the Polish German battlefield is wide open space. Arabia, well you have sand, red sand, yellow sand, brown sand, sand that gets into places that you don’t want, but no where to hide. Norway well we have the Royal Marines for that. The Jungle again we have the Gurkhas for that one. The only role that I could see is either operating ahead of a main unit as a scouting force or working behind the enemy line as a destruption force. Oh we had that, they were called the green jackets.
Do I think the Army needs restructuring, yes, I think we need three armoured battlegroups designed to operate with the Royal Navy to land anywhere in the world. One battlegroup on board ship, one undergoing training and one in stand down. We need one armoured division and two armoured infantry divisions to be the main punch. Good old 1 Br Corp. The armoured division would have two brigades of 100 MBTs each and one brigade of armoured infantry, the armoured infantry divisions would be one brigade of 100 MBTs and two brigades of armoured infantry. An airborne/air cav division (mixed, para doing bird shit stuff (sorry but para and birds do come to mind) and light infantry/light artillery using air transport eg helicopter etc, SAS, Long Range Commando Group and Rangers) as rapid response. Finaly three mechanized Infantry (Boxer) divisions for mobile warfare. That gives 7 combat divisions, each of 15,000 and 1 Sea Assault Brigade of 3,000 men or 1,000men and 36 MBTs plus supporting Artillery/IFVs per battlegroup per LHD. A total of 108,000 troops as a front line combat strength. This does not include the folks doing computer/spooky stuff at home so say a total Army strength of 120,000. This does not include Royal Marines or the RAF Regt who would have there own transport/ equipment or tasks to carry out but can support the needs of the Army. So where would I locate these troops, my new 1 Br Corp in Poland with Brigades forward deployed to the Baltic States. The Mech Inf UK ready for world wide deployment to reinforce 1 Br Corp or a Sea Assault Battlegroup, as for the battle group that could be anywhere on the seven seas. As for the air assault division I’m not sure where they could be best based, possibly Cyprus with two brigades and one in the UK for the support of Norway. Or the other way around.
To achive this we need first to increase numbers again, we also need to increase our MBTs to about 500, double the strength of the RA. The RN would need three LHDs such as the HMAS Canberra and the RAF would need some extra whirlybirds. Then again I think all transport helicopters should be given to the AAC. However I think if the UK had a 15,000 man rapid response division with a sea assault brigade at full combat readyness many nations would stop and think.
So main equipment cost would be about to achive this level would be about £10 billion without the cost of manpower and small arms. Can we get the manpower, I think so, by having Commonwealth Brigades, Celtic Brigades and an overseas Brigade ( foriegn legion concept) we should be able to achieve numbers and loyalty.
Could this be done, yes over a five to ten year period, is the cost possible, again yes, we waste more than that on political paperwork. Not only that but think how many people would be employed, payed tax, save on benifits, company tax returns etc. Almost 50-70% would come back to the government either in direct tax or VAT returns. Yes we could buld a new MBT here in the UK, even if the design was German, American, Japanese or S.Korean. When you want to build 350-500 new MBTs the company will want to build where the national government asks. However we in the UK know how to build a good tank so a real Chally 3 is not out of the question.
Yet this is my personnal thinking on what I would do if I could and I know many will not agree or say dreaming. Yet I served when we had four Divisions in Germany and when it went to three there was a stink. We even had a Regt of Signals that was not in the British Army but under NATO command I know I was one good old 28 Sigs NORTHAG 2ATAF. Yes It was a full Regt of 600 technicians and operators.
Happy new year Airborne!
30 & 40 Cdo
2-9, 4-2, 4-3, 4-5 & 4-7 Cdo
HK416 is very accurate but has a slightly more violent recoil impulse due to the piston.
I think BPT & Pathfinder originally used the C7, with better iron sights and a cold forged barrel compared to the M16A2. UKSF had gone to Colt originally but MOD won’t do business with any company that has been in bankruptcy.
Diemaco (Now owned by Colt Canada) were more R&D focused, so produced the perfect rifle. They extended the length; chrome plated & cold hammer forged the barrel for accuracy out to 600 metres and for sustained fire (C8).
Calibre aside, I think the most revolutionary developments are regarding the new Vortex optics twined to the SOCOM program.
I understand L119A1/A2 is cheaper than the SA80 A3 upgrade, so it makes sense to replace a worn out SA80 to those units who might benefit. I think everyone is interested if the Ranger concept has legs or not, but in theory they will be mentoring foreign nations on a similar type platform. I can imagine the Paras being p**ed if they miss out mind 🙂
Whilst I think the benefits over L85A3 will be marginal at best, if the MOD thinks there’s an operational reason to procure a couple of thousand AR-based rifles, then so be it.
Ultimately, there is an equivalent unit operating already (Future Commando Force) with a similar remit to push the boundaries of doctrine and equipment, and there can be no doubt that their in-field use and endorsement of the AR-platform will have played a big part in this decision.
Whilst two wrongs don’t make a right, it’s also a drop in the ocean compared to the money wasted elsewhere by the MOD, and even if NATO/US does move to 6.8 in the near future, it may well be on an AR-based ‘chassis’ anyway and we may well have had our money’s worth out of them by that point in time.
As for the Rangers themselves, I do think the Army needs more specialised personnel to develop our future methods of warfighting. We’re no longer in the numbers game and we need to think long and hard about how we make our opponents’ eyes water.
I’d much rather have a small Army armed to the teeth with forward-looking capabilities than a big one that we can’t afford to equip properly, especially given that big, low mobility forces are increasingly vulnerable.