The Ministry of Defence has confirmed that Project GRAYBURN, the British Army’s future small arms programme, will encompass the full dismounted close combat weapons portfolio, ranging from pistols through to machine guns.
In a series of written parliamentary answers, Defence Minister Luke Pollard said the scope of the programme extends beyond rifles alone, reflecting a broader effort to reshape infantry weapons under a single long-term framework.
He confirmed that Project GRAYBURN remains in its concept phase, with decisions on weapon types, variants and manufacturing arrangements yet to be finalised. However, Pollard said it is “desirable for the project to create skilled employment in the UK”, in line with the Defence Industrial Strategy. According to the minister, following direction from the Joint Requirements Oversight Committee, GRAYBURN will focus on UK manufacture, establishing a strategic supply relationship, the delivery of multiple variants, improved reliability and sustained engagement with industry.
While the MOD has not committed to what proportion of the weapon systems will ultimately be manufactured domestically, Pollard reiterated that sovereign supply and industrial resilience remain central considerations as the programme develops. The answers build on industry notices issued earlier this month, which expanded public detail around GRAYBURN and confirmed that the project is intended to replace the SA80 family ahead of its projected out-of-service date around 2030.
Those notices indicated that concept work is examining multiple variants built around a common architecture, likely including a standard dismounted close combat rifle, a shorter variant, a personal defence weapon to replace the L22 carbine, a generalist rifle and a cadet weapon to replace the L98. The MOD has now confirmed that decisions on barrel length and variant distinctions will also be taken during the concept phase. Pollard said those determinations will be based on factors including user role, likely engagement ranges, expected targets and human factors, with different requirements anticipated for light infantry, armoured units and cavalry formations.
He added that the criteria used to distinguish between dismounted close combat and generalist variants will similarly be shaped by operational role rather than a single technical threshold.
Although the Joint Requirements Oversight Committee does not provide direct instruction to Defence Equipment and Support, Pollard said it plays a mandated role in the commercial process by providing strategic direction, cohering activity across Defence and monitoring delivery against wider capability priorities. Earlier MOD documentation indicated that GRAYBURN is being shaped by lessons from recent conflicts, with an emphasis on defeating modern body armour, improving reliability across environments and supporting integration of day optics and in-line night-vision systems as standard.
The programme is also examining signature reduction technologies on selected variants and the potential for long-term spiral development, supported by a strategic supplier relationship rather than a one-off procurement.
Project GRAYBURN remains in its concept phase,oh nothing new there after what 2 years,
Ahhhh, this where more starts to gets added to the programme and before we know it things get bogged down in a decade long fiasco that ends up back where it started…
Instead we could ask experienced soldiers with hands on experience what kit they’ve handled that works best. Too easy though and not enough money pumped into committees and focus groups. It’s not like there’s a world shortage of proven small arms.
To be fair I’m going to assume during the testing phase they will give them to troops to evaluate it’s definitely a big thing to cover all the various units with a new rifle 13 year old army cadets and a infantryman in a recon platoon will definitely have different needs obviously it’s going to be a AR platform my guess beretta or SAKO (basically same company) just because there offering is saying it will build in the uk, the problem with letting the troops choose is they will choose the very best KS1 for example and its a 10k rifle and obviously the MOD isn’t going to give a 13 year old army cadets a 10k ultra rifle , the MG is easy I’m going to assume the new belt fed from FN the pistol the flock we have is fine would be nice if it could be fitted with a red dot , I wouldn’t be surprised if this goes on and on for years
The Army was not happy with the SA80, they still got lumped with it.
Aye
Yup, aye, absolutely.
Sig mcx.
Pistol is a tiny requirement and should be considered moot
Trying emphasize your post but my replies keep being placed elsewhere in this thread.
Yes. That’s right. It’s entirely not complicated. Ar pattern long guns are already in use within UK armed services.
Id question why the UK gvmt allowed the army and police to purchase different base platforms when the ctsfo one is superior.
Why are they putting the pistol requirement in this the GLOCK 17 is a brilliant sidearm, lovely to shoot, great trigger, easy to maintain and the army only got it just over 10 years ago. It had the browning high power for 40 years before changing and that has some ( minor) issues for the shooter.
Depends how much you shoot it. Some polymer frame pistols are coming apart while injuring the shooter. This is in the US where some shoot crazy high amounts of +P ammo. Some American manufacturers are offering aluminium frames for those scared of polymer.
Sadly because of the uk gun laws I have to go on holiday to Poland to get some proper pistol shooting.. so I’ve not had long term ownership.. my own gun at present is a UK modified (long barrel and hanger) Walther PPQ .22 rimfire…UK gun laws are a pain in the arse if you shoot pistols.
Totally so.
Pistols are rarely used by UK armed services. It’s likely already more than good enough…
The pistol requirement is very tiny compared to the need for the Sig mcx ar pattern long gun.
I have long wanted the UK to copy India’s gun laws & allow pistols in .22 rimfire + semi autos in .32acp & revolvers in .32 S&W long. These are weak rounds & no one is going to think they are Rambo.
For me I would like to see club shooting considered differently.. I’m quite happy for the general public not to have personal ( home) access to pistols as there is no use for a pistol outside of sport or killing. But I think someone who wants to sport shoot the full range of guns should be allowed to have that recreational activity without having to arrange holidays to Poland. specific more relaxed rules around club shooting would allow that. No one needs a 9mm semi automatic pistol in a gun cabinet at home, but I would like to own one and shoot it at one of my local ranges and I would have no issue with it having to be stored at the range.
Poland is interesting. They call themselves the Texas of Europe. You can own a wide variety of guns (banned in Britain) , but only after you have passed a psychological test, as well as the usual trained member of a gun club criteria. Having been occupied by the Nazis, then Stalin, you can see why they take a more robust view of homeland defence.
This is a purely political (and entirely expected) move, basically allowing Grayburn to get bogged down in a whole raft of trials. It will get booted into the next parliament..
With 10,000 KS1’s on order and L85A3’s in the inventory and additional rebuilds if needed, they don’t see the crashing hurry.
The KS-1 order is under 2,000. The 10,000 was an option that was never taken up AFAIK.
2000 does not seem a lot for both rangers and marines ?
The Marines only have a few hundred KS-1’s, I think distributed between the SRS and two Vanguard Strike Companies. The rest are on Sig MCX, or C8.
I wondered that at the time surely there are 4000 marines and 2000 rangers? Are they expected to share?
Yes. Rangers got the bulk of the KS-1 order but have been quiet about it (Rangers generally are pretty quiet, after their time under Brigadier Gus they very much had low media presence philosophy inserted into their DNA), while the Royal Marines only got a couple hundred for their highest readyness units, but emphasise it a lot in order to help recruitment.
Sure it’s great gun but plenty of great AR platforms out there a lot cheaper.
My opinion is they shouldn’t have bothered and should have pushed forward Grayburn.
Small Factory in the UK, churn out 3 sizes, and then accessories with moderators and different sights. Could churn out 10000 a year for 20 years then hey presto it’s rolling replacement with our own in UK factory.
Could even do straight pull or .22 version and sell to public or shooting ranges
I mean agreed there are a lot of cheaper AR platforms out there. But waiting for Grayburn would a) have been a decade of waiting B) would probably not have met the Rangers requirements. Also I believe the KS-1’s came out of the specific Ranger Budget, not the general Army Budget, so they weighed up the pro’s and cons of spending so much on their rifle and decided that it was worth the squeeze compared to what else it could’ve been spent on.
I would like to see NATO have a trial of 6mm Arc, 6.5 Grendel & 6.5 FN LICC. I would be happy if they picked anyone of those. 5.56 is too weak, while 6.8×51 Sig is too high pressure.
I like 6.5 Grendel not a huge round but still capable out to ranges our enemy would need DMRs to reach us also does a job on armour.
5.56 isn’t too weak. The issue is that barrel lengths have reduced, meaning the muzzle velocity is lower. 5.56 used to have AP rounds Which penetrate modern armour if they are fired from a full length barrel like an M16A4 or cough L85 cough.
For me, the fact that the USMC are staying with 5.56 tells a massive story. Plus France, Germany, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Finland… all recently bringing in new 5.56 weapon systems into core.
Yeah, USMC claim to have commited to h and k 5.56 variant long guns in: rifleman, sharpshooter and machine gunner roles.:-
USMC claims 600metre accuracy for the sharpshooter variant rifle.
I don’t believe that the machine gunner variant will work out at platoon or section level (UK tried it with an SA80 gunner variant)…..I don’t think USMC believes it will work either……recent news articles suggest they have retained many thousands of the 5.56 belt fed machine gun ready to deploy.
I don’t think usa army blanket adoption of 6.8 fury is a good idea. It’s simply too heavy as a system and severely limits the rounds available for inaccurate suppressive fire.
6.8fury as a replacement for 7nato in sharpshooter and machine guns is ballistically and weight wise worthwile…..
…..but very expensive to implement unless it happens as part of an overall regunnification such as project greyburn…..
Either way it’s still Sig and their mcx platform that have it so why waste millions on committees and arguments and corruption
They can alway waste millions on committees because it means you don’t spend 10 millions on buying the actual rifles.. in year savings, treasury logic.
And round weight and size is going to add up for the 6.8.. 5 grams more per round over a 5.56 round, if a soldier is carrying 360 rounds that’s an extra 1.8kgs.. let’s assume that they are at their carry limit to squeeze in those 360 rounds for the patrol they are having to drop of 100 rounds to get back to the same weight as carrying 5.56 rounds.. or carry an extra 2kgs.
The original sin with 5.56 was for the Americans to adopt the 5.56×45 with a 55 grn bullet, rather than the 5.56×47 (222 Rem Mag) with a 70 grn bullet.
From what I can see 6mm Arc seems to have a lot going for it, certainly in terms of weight/performance.
I am not anti 5.56 but we nee to be clear on what the characteristics of the new system will be and go with it (5.56 now – ability to move to 6mm with component changes)
USMC paid under £1.5k for their HK rifles which seems very good value and gives us some sort of benchmark to go against (especially if we commit to a large long term order/run rate)
It will be interesting to see if Knights Armament would set up a facility in UK as I think they do have potential to sell more than they manufacture in the US – so we could potentially provide additional manufacturing capacity for them. Berretta already have a plan to manufacture in UK.
by all accounts the KS1 is a fantastic system and given how long these will be in use its important we get this right. A high quality product will pay back over its lifetime.
I do believe our aim should be to build c.500k units over 25 yrs to build up a strategic reserve of weapons and ensure we have a sustainable industrial model. with a bare minimum of 250k over this timeframe.
I do think this is a good decision, but it will need a budget allocation of c. £250m per annum to cover all of this plus optics, ammunition etc. Can we spare this money – I think we have to.
with c.20k infantry the high level requirement is fairly small – so we should invest in it imo. most of the budget will be on standard set ups (whatever they become) and ammo
20k @ £10k per system (KS1 level) =£200m
100k @ £5k per system = £500m
300k @ £2.5k per system = £750m
spread over 25 years this becomes a manageable £60m pa for the rifle component of the budget – with all the benefits of having a sovereign capability in terms of tax and knock on industrial effect. We could recover a fair amount of this investments (say 20%) in taxes etc.
From this base we can expand into other items as and when necessary.
I don’t see that the mod has any authority to claim projects confirmed when it’s recent history with any long run project is undermined and according to news sources underfunded by 28billion.
It’s a bit weird that these assurances keep leaking out when the actual investment/spending plan is allegedly being rewritten because it found a £28billion shortfall in funding.
Other contributors here say it much better than i and have well explained the issues of short term governance (short term careers ergo goal setting) and the shift of officers/planners to the private sector plus likely profiteering and possible existent corruption of the UK defence sectors buying power as a whole…..plus the indecision and fear of probity that this generates for those decision makers who might not yet be corrupted.
It’s totally obvious to most of the readers here that:-
1/ sig mcx is the ar pattern platform that best meets both historic and future criteria. Revolutionary fully folding buttstock….proven reliability in all calibers that might be considered
2/ nurol makina nms 4×4 (yoruk or nomad) in extended wheel base version plus nms-l (lurcher) are the protected vehicle platform most likely to deliver what the mod says it wants from light protected vehicles ( albeit APX 10000kgs gvw and 2.5m wide [nominal width because all inc ocelot and jackal require protuding wing mirrors]
3/ patria 6×6 or (if the greater than 2.5m width is a problem) continued reengineering of current mastiff plus the others into xc configuration.
I don’t see why mod bought more jackal instead of beginning nms 4×4 purchase…..I don’t think there is a justified or reasonable explanation other than corruption.
2/
This sounds like a typical MOD GMFU in its embryo to foetus development. This has been going in for years. I think we should go back to 7.62 but others will disagree. I think we need a simple, reliable and easy to clean/ service rifle but others will disagree. Ultimately, you need to get the regiments top five shots together on a range and “do some shooting” then from the top four or five test it with squaddies for “squaddy-proofing”.
No need for pistols as we just got rid of the excellent Browning 9mm for the Glock 15 (I would have gone for the Sig but hey ho) and Cadets should quite happily stick with the old Cadet GP – a great (and hardy) bit of kit plus quite good fun. Absolutely ludicrous to give cadets and OTCs new rifles.
Anyway, look forward to a chat about it (C7, the new Beretta X2000, the Czech sten, UK International or those new ones which the Naval Soldiery employ).
Some interpretations of history say that the UK never wanted to move away from battle rifle calibers and only went to 5.56 because of NATO (USA) pressure to comply.
I think it’s been said on here that the SA80 was derived from a battle rifle designed for ?308?.
Bit of a kick in the nuts that USA historically forced 5.56 on NATO nations yet now might make 6.8 fury battle rifles compulsory.
There are a few ar style rifles that have designed away the protruding buffer tube allowing for a simple folding buttstock . Sig mcx/mcx spear kind of stands out because its available in most calibers and is designed (warranteed) for use with a suppressor.
Sig mcx and now mcx spear platforms are all a bit heavier but truly not so different in weight to their buffer tubed competitors and the extra weight is applied to advantages such as the folding button stock and long barrel surround.
Price wise though the Sig in any caliber is (nominally) perhaps 33% more expensive than HK 416 which has traditional buffer tube and 25% less expensive than the Beretta narp (folding stock similar to mcx)