British soldiers are set to benefit from cutting-edge TALON Fused Weapon Sights, enhancing their ability to operate in low-light conditions and improving rifle accuracy at night, according to a press release from the Ministry of Defence.

Under a £120 million contract awarded to Qioptiq, based in St Asaph, Denbighshire, up to 10,000 advanced rifle sights will be supplied to the British Army. The deal will sustain 650 skilled jobs in North Wales.

The TALON Fused Weapon Sight combines optical and thermal imaging technology to help soldiers detect and identify enemy targets from up to 1 kilometre away, even in complete darkness. The sights will be fitted to the Army’s SA80 A3 and HUNTER rifles and are expected to roll out widely across the Army in 2025.

Minister for the Armed Forces, Luke Pollard, emphasised the dual benefits of the deal:

“Rolling out this high-tech rifle sight shows how we’re investing in new tech for our soldiers to take the fight to our adversaries. The rifle night sights are tried and tested, proving highly effective to keep British soldiers protected in difficult environments. The deal is also a great jobs boost for Wales, with £120 million invested and 650 jobs sustained in the local area.”

The Enhanced Light Force Battalion, 2 Royal YORKS, based in Chester, has been trialling the sights since 2021, offering valuable feedback on their effectiveness in the field.

Brigadier Nick Serle, Head Military Capability Delivery at British Army Headquarters, noted the collaborative effort behind the project:

“This contract results from true collaboration between the user community, our trials and development teams, Dstl, DE&S and Qioptiq. We expect the sight to continue to develop and remain truly world-leading. It is testament to the power of collaboration.”

Peter White, Managing Director of Excelitas, Qioptiq’s parent company, expressed pride in the contract and its implications for British soldiers:

“We’re delighted that the British Army and DE&S continue to recognise the enhanced fighting capabilities of our TALON fused weapon sight. We look forward to delivering this world-leading system for the end users for many years to come, supported by our 650 skilled employees at our facility in North Wales.”


At the UK Defence Journal, we aim to deliver accurate and timely news on defence matters. We rely on the support of readers like you to maintain our independence and high-quality journalism. Please consider making a one-off donation to help us continue our work. Click here to donate. Thank you for your support!

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

12 COMMENTS

    • Hope not. IMO with a sight like this you need more reach than a 5.56 can achieve. I admit to never getting on with this calibre or the SA80, much prefer 7.62 for knock down and “legs”. Still, some people argue the opposite but the US Army is upping its calibre and where they go? Others have no choice but to follow.

      • I think 7.62 have too much recoil for a typical soldier and needs a too heavy gun. If you need to hit there is need of something practical. easy to sight and fire.

        7.62 should go to experts.

        • Eugene Stoner designed the original AR15 in 7.62. Generations of troops all over the world used 7.62 and “managed” to carry “heavy” pieces for generations. Why did the British Army reintroduce it at platoon level? Because 5.56 lacks legs and hitting power. 5.56 is a wounding round, its adoption was partly because of that, it ties up troops helping the wounded, 7.62 will kill far more efficiently. Then some of us were trained to shoot, not “spray and pray”.

          • Wounding round. Not so much, I understand where you are coming from the 7.62 is more likely to kill quicker through immediately catastrophic injury, but a centre mass 5.56 shot is still going to kill you through catastrophic injury, your not walking it off or recovering without pretty much immediate level one trauma care and a trauma pathway that includes a visit to an OR, ITU as well as a fair degree of luck….but if the rounds transient cavitation space or permanent cavity intersects with and destroys a major vessel ( of which there are a shit load in the centre mass) , your bleeding out and dead whatever round hit you and whatever care you get. It’s why I’ve seen people dead from .22 rounds and knife trauma…even a four inch blade with muscle power is catastrophic if it destroys a major vessel, organ or causes massive neurological disruption.

            Interestingly tumble and break up are also key to lethally as there is a new line of though that major vessels and organs are a bit more resilient to destruction from cavitation space disruption than we always thought and you actually want to maximise the permanent cavity from the passage of the round..this is best achieved by a bullet that does not go in straight line and instead tumbles and potentially breaks up…in this case sometimes less is more…and all bullet designs essentially as much as possible try and get around the conventions on not using flattening rounds..the modern 5.56 round is a nasty beast designed to maximise the permanent cavity size..it’s steel penetrator with copper slug all jacketed in copper means the bullet always fragments..with the penetrator making one permanent cavity, the copper slug another and the the copper jacket fragments even more…really very nasty and creates more permanent cavity damage than a 7.62.

            The real issue the 5.52 is now having is not killing an unarmored person (it can do that very well..with newer rounds focused on lethality) …it’s the advances and Massive uptake in effective body armour and the fact realistic engagement range of the 5.56 is around 300meters and in Afghanistan most firefights were beyond 300meters….this is what pushed the US to 6.8mm rounds.

  1. I remember working on the first generation of handheld thermal imagers in the Army. They were two handed, used a compressed pure air bottle for cooling and this in turn was recharged by trailer mounted compressor charging equipment!! Can’t for the life of me remeber what the thing was called though.

    • I remember so well. Now for hunting I use a handheld that will define a human at 500 yards easily, it cost me £300 a few years ago and runs for about ten hours, times have changed bud.

    • Hints at what they think the army’s likely size will be in future…..
      But in all seriousness, how many SA80A3s did we get in the end?
      There were about 350,000 A1s and LSWs; around 200,000 upgraded to A2 standard; and less than 50,000 to be upgraded to A3 standard.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here