The Ministry of Defence has issued an industry notice expanding concept work on Project GRAYBURN, the long-running effort to replace the SA80, with an emphasis on UK manufacture, multiple variants and defeating modern body armour.
The Ministry of Defence has released a procurement pipeline notice providing further insight into Project GRAYBURN, the British Army’s future small arms programme, which remains firmly in its concept phase.
The notice builds on work first acknowledged publicly in 2025, when ministers confirmed that Project GRAYBURN had been established to examine options for replacing the SA80A3 service rifle ahead of its projected out-of-service date around 2030. At that stage, the MOD stressed that activity was focused on defining capability requirements and engaging with industry, rather than committing to a specific design or supplier.
The newly published notice, issued by Defence Equipment and Support, reinforces that position, stating explicitly that no investment decisions have yet been taken. Instead, it outlines the high-level characteristics the programme is now being directed to consider following guidance from the Joint Requirements Oversight Committee.
Five planned variants, likely based on a common lower receiver:
- Standard dismounted close combat rifle (SA80A3 replacement)
- Short dismounted close combat variant
- Personal Defence Weapon (L22 Carbine replacement)
- Generalist rifle (SA80A2 replacement)
- Cadet rifle (L98 replacement)
Central to that work is an ambition for UK manufacture. The MOD states that it intends for Project GRAYBURN systems to be produced domestically in order to strengthen sovereign supply chains, generate skilled employment and provide an exportable platform aligned with the Land Industrial Strategy. Officials are also examining the potential for a long-term strategic supplier relationship, covering delivery, support and spiral development of the GRAYBURN system and, potentially, wider elements of the dismounted close combat weapons portfolio.
The future weapon is expected to be capable of defeating current and emerging adversary body armour, reflecting lessons drawn from recent conflicts and evolving infantry protection standards. The programme is also examining surveillance and target acquisition requirements, with GRAYBURN weapons expected to integrate day optics as standard and rapidly accept in-line night-vision systems.
Additional areas under consideration include signature reduction technologies on selected variants and a strong emphasis on reliability across all climatic and environmental conditions. While the pipeline notice includes indicative contract dates running from 2028 to 2045, these are described as notional and should not be interpreted as a commitment to enter production at that point. The MOD states that industry engagement will follow in due course, with a further information notice planned once the concept phase has progressed.
The publication aligns with earlier ministerial statements that further detail on Project GRAYBURN would be set out through the Defence Investment Plan, which is expected at some point this year, probably, and should provide a clearer picture of long-term capability priorities.
There are a number of excellent rifles that already exist. For the love of god dont do an ajax on it.
Agreed.
The bit that looks dangerous is the commonality to the variants.
It sounds too much like the F35 fallacy. Commonality reducing costs whereas trying to use the same parts over has actually increased costs.
Probably not as concerning as it would be with other military items- especially if we’re going with an AR-platform.
Sig’s MCX, for example, already has all the variants described above- including options for drop-in calibre changes to something more hard-hitting for that adversary body armour.
Now think about your statement? To adopt an existing weapon would mean in very short order they would be in the position of actually having to order and spend money on said weapon! This way they can spin it out costing a couple £M on tests and assessments etc.
Money to the MIC! 😆
May the best weapon win foreign or not, manufactured in the UK. Just get it into service ASAP not held up by too many committees arguing over its viability and not listening to the user at an early stage. I will hold my breath for now if I can hold it for long enough.
This “should” be fairly simple given how mature AR‑pattern rifle design is — so it’s actually a good time to be replacing the SA80. The top three contenders are BDT UK (offering the Sako M23 and Beretta NARP rifle families), Heckler & Koch (HK416/HK433), and SIG Sauer (MCX family). I suppose it’s now largely about cost, UK assembly, and industrial footprint.
I’m told that Beretta’s NARP is an all custom rifle with AR-ergonomics, which means that changes to it have to use original parts. Probably not something we want to lock ourselves into.
It’s probably the only one in your list that I’d have greatest reservations about. But I still want to see the CZ Bren 3 on that list!
It needs to be a modern modular variant that allows calibre changes by replacement of a few core components (eg barrel). While Grayburn is examining the future calibre to use to defeat the latest body armour, there’s no guarantee they’ll get it right… Being able to change the rifle’s calibre could save a fortune a couple of years down the line.
Interesting, from the notice: “Variants – Pj GRAYBURN will deliver 5 distinct variants, most likely based upon a common lower receiver.”
That terminology sounds very much like they’re looking for an AR-15 derived system- where the operating gubbins are all in the lower receiver. Maybe it’s become a more widespread approach, but it certainly flags AR-15 in my mind.
It is fairly standard these days to do that. I think it’s largely driven by the American consumer’s desire to have a single NFA registered lower receiver that they can then easily put onto a variety of uppers set up for different optics, calibers, barrel lengths etc.
I’m guessing this all sounds great to the bean counters as well but I doubt it’s really that useful in a military context.
Fair enough, I’d really only heard the term used in relation to ARs.
I think the only real benefit would be if you had a bunch of uppers with different barrel lengths for the different types (PDW, standard rifle), or if you wanted a different calibre (like I commented to you below with 6.5). But that’s a lot of surplus uppers you need to have stuck in storage to swap out, and I’m not sure the MOD would be willing to do that.
Besides, with the training rifle (I assume the key point is that it’s semi-auto only), that is in the fire control group in the lower anyway- so that’d still need to be a different set. Even if most of the parts were common.
What country, that claims to be a tier 1 military power, willingly allows its capacity to design and build basic firearms to equip its armed forces to disappear?. Thatcher sold off Royal Ordnance to BAE who quite understandably acted in their commercial interests and closed everything down after orders dried up.,
Britain has relied on foreign designs for many of its firearms but retained the sovereign capability to build them, even if under licence.
If the BDT offer gives us that same sovereign capability, it looks to be a good option.
Concerned about the armour piercing requirement.
Hopefully they don’t fall in the same trap as the Americans and get a ridiculously overpowered cartridge like in the M7.
I’m fairly sure that the Sig MCX series can drop a 6.5 mm upper onto a standard AR-5 pattern lower. It’d give a bit more punch without the ridiculousness of the M7.
I agree though, it’s a bit of a red herring in my opinion. I don’t know which adversaries they think have body armour- the Russians certainly don’t seem to have a lot of it, it’s mostly airsoft gear apparently. The Chinese?
How long has this no order done nothing Project been running? meeting after meeting like most things delay, no real answers may this year or next or sometime in the future, like every thing else words, words and no new kit.