The House of Lords has held a debate regarding the replenishment of the ammunition and missile stocks that the UK government had previously sent to support Ukraine.
“My Lords, I can confirm that a number of substantial contracts have been placed to directly replace munitions granted in kind to Ukraine,” stated Baroness Goldie, Minister of State, Ministry of Defence, listing the array of orders secured.
Lord West of Spithead, who initiated the debate, voiced his concerns over the slow pace of the ordering process. “The Ukrainian war started 17 months ago…for too long we have run a just-enough and just-in-time philosophy for war stocks and replacing ammunition and missiles,” Lord West articulated. He further proposed a cross-party initiative to create a defence-industrial strategy to ensure the UK’s defence industries were adequately funded and ready to supply weapons in times of crisis and war.
In response, Baroness Goldie acknowledged the past and present challenges. “There has been an overall challenge with the industry, experienced by other NATO members, because some of them were not production ready; we know that.” However, she reassured that “The industry is now in a much healthier state… along with our NATO partners, industry is now geared up to supply what is needed.”
“My Lords, I can confirm that a number of substantial contracts have been placed to directly replace munitions granted in kind to Ukraine. The contracts secured so far include orders for next generation light anti-tank weapons, Starstreak high-velocity missiles, lightweight multirole missiles, Javelin missiles, Brimstone missiles, 155-millimetre artillery rounds and 5.56-millimetre rifle rounds.”
In response to a question from Lord Craig of Radley regarding the origins of the ordered armaments, Baroness Goldie confirmed that the contracts were largely domestic. “The recent munitions contract for the 155-millimetre artillery shells is with BAE Systems… We have also placed orders with Thales.”
Lord Robathan emphasized the importance of maintaining a steady supply base for military aid, stating, “We have stopped asking for certain bits of ammunition and supply chains have dropped. I am afraid that defence is expensive and, as we now know, it is very expensive if you happen to be sitting in Ukraine.”
Baroness Goldie agreed with the sentiment, stating “Yes, and precisely that challenge has been acknowledged both by the Government and particularly by the MoD.” She further reassured that the UK government is committed to sustained aid, having “granted £2.3 billion-worth of military aid in 2022-23 and we are committed to repeating that for 2023-24.”
Uncertain from the text of this and similar articles, whether the intent of HMG/MoD is to simply replenish the donated portion of existing munition stockpiles, or the intent is to ultimately increase the size of war reserve stocks? Opinions, informed or otherwise?
I think it’s to replace stocks, and to ramp up the UK’s ability to increase stocks rapidly. Somebody better informed might be able to give you a more accurate answer.
Replace stocks only. Why enlarge the stockpile? What is the next threat? Why build up a potential stockpile of obsolescence? These are the questions the MOD will be asking.
No mortar, 105mm light gun or 155mm round will ever be obsolete. If it fires off and goes bang let’s have it in stock ready. Our storage capacity and quality of storage should ensure a long shelf life. 20-30 years as a minimum.
👍👍😊
Nitrate-based explosives suffer from decomposition mechanisms that we have done a lot to try and characterise and yet still don’t fully understand. Even with the best storage and monitoring practices the ‘safe’ shelf-life is therefore limited, because you can’t completely predict the behaviour of a system you don’t completely understand.
It’s really basic, you need ammunition to shoot with and plenty of it!! Evil doesn”t listen to nice words!
The next threat which could be easily envisioned could be a reconstituted and resurgent Russia, operating under new, more effective and malevolent management, or an adventuresome and aggressive ChiCom regime, or even an emboldened Iran. Really, no shortage of potential villains in the script of history.
I would suggest that- given the lack of industrial capability in Russia to replace legacy platforms (e.g. their navy was buying its engines from Ukraine, their latest tanks rely on Western chipsets), if they carry on as they are they’ll eventually have nothing left to fight with. Of course the Chinese could bail them out, but that just illustrates that the latter are the real long-term threat.
Because they have just proven that the stoockpile was too small.
What divots.
This looks like classic slopey shouldered weasel words from the Minister. Good job they are on the way out.
I’m not sure that the stockpile was too small. I agree with Ian in regards to Timex/lifex ammunition. We have over the years disposed of so much ammunition because it had ‘expired’. I used to witness this regularly in Afghan. Weekly controlled explosions of tons and tons of ammunition that the ATO guys would tell us were perfectly usable, but rules are rules. To give you an example, Hellfire could only be flown for 40 hours on an AH (can’t remember if that was for K1A or N, or both). Now I accept that certain types are much more volatile and do degrade over time, but not all.
Add to that the fact that we don’t really have enough storage infrastructure anymore to hold vast quantities. I would say the answer is to have an industrial structure that can surge production when needed.
Another answer is to use ammunition for training near the point at which it will become lifex/timex rather than just destroy it. It is then money well spent rather than just being flushed down the sh*tter. No reason why this cannot be programmed/scheduled. We don’t do this very well at the moment. There are thousands of of our servicemen and women who have barely had the opportunity to fire/operate live, the weapon systems which they are specifically trained for. I’m talking along the lines of anti-tanks, air defence, AH crews, fast air pilots etc.
You never know for sure where the next thereat will come from and when. That is why you aim off. Munitions are fired off on training before they reach their shelf life.
Replacement of stocks. Which were, unlikely many other EU nations adequate for a high intensity war. The fact the UK was able to supply over 25,000 precision and guided munitions from NLAW, Javelin, Star streak, Brimstone, MLRS etc etc shows UK stocks must have been substantial and adequate.
Our donation of artillery and mortar rounds is more concerning as these items are going to take a very long time to replace. UK armaments industry needsenduring continuous orders to justify expansion of production facilities. Which frankly with what is going on in the world and the threat from the Sino-Ruskfascist axis should be justified. MOD should commit to 35-50,000 155mm rounds and 20-30K 105mm light gun and 81mm mortar rounds per year as a minimum for the next 5 years. Let’s get the stocks above pre Ukraine war level.
I believe stock levels of ammo and spare part were something that was prioritised during Gavin Williamson time at the MOD.
Hope there’s absolutely plenty of 20mm ammo for all the CIWS’ in the RN fleet!
BAE Washington could produce 500,000 shells per year if they ran 24-7 on the current equipment….
Hopefully they increase the number of Archers to fire those rounds as well.
A big problem is the small quantities that the MOD typically orders – saving money in the short term but adding to costs hugely in the long term. E.g. StarStreak production by Thales Air Defence in North Ireland has ended several times. The last MOD order was for just 200 missiles(!!!) in 2013, all delivered by 2014. I think the only hot production line is now in India – as part of a joint venture that Thales has with a local company. If the production line in Northern Ireland is now to be be reopened as widely reported, it’s going to take a lot of time and money to get it back up and running, and will need a substantial order (1000s not 100s of missiles) to be worthwhile.
Shocking Sell off of stuff to semi foreign companies who then outsource to India and guess what we are disarming ourselves. Madness. The MOD should insist this situation is reversed and stuff is made in N. Ireland again.
TADL is still a British company albeit a subsidiary.
There’s no issue building Starstreak in India (if that’s what’s happening), Raytheon still builds bombs in the UK, Thales builds Hellfire under licence, and NLAW is built by them as well in the UK. The only meteor production line is in Bolton despite it being a multinational project and Boxer is being built here under licence with 2 production lines and an engine factory.
That’s just how things go and building under licence is a great way to get other countries to buy your equipment.
Very informative points being made here on ukdf. Sharing development and build with other countries is the way to go. Maybe UK and Ukraine project in post invasion future.
If there are no MOD orders to fulfil – as hasn’t been the case for a decade for StarStreak – I’m not sure that insisting that equipment is manufactured in the UK (e.g. for export orders) is a realistic approach. Also the Thales AD plant is now very busy churning out 500+ NLAWS a year under a £229M contract awarded last year for “several thousand” missiles. The factory is clearly going to have to be expanded and recruit several hundred extra staff for a re-established StarStreak production line. Politician’s and the Treasury quickly forget that the munitions production isn’t a switch that you can just turn on and off as convenient – which is why the UK so often ends up pleading for supplies from USA stocks when a conflict starts.
We’ve perpetuated the “peace dividend” delusion way past its sell by date, with Russia invading UKR, again, PRC imperialism on the rise, Islamic terrorism rampant across Africa & the USA in danger of a civil war.
So we need to restock to better levels, increase force numbers & close capability gaps ASAP. That & stop appeasing dangerous dictators we should confront & stop.
Does anyone know how many NLAWs they have ordered?
At least something is happening , however as avid readers of this organ will know it is not only a problem of production of in use munitions but also the development and upgrades which is not help back by dithering in the MOD but shotages of those skilled to build them and I expect other issues. The idea of a miltary industrial statagy is a very good won as it will have many spin offs in the wider comercial sector
Bingo. Hit the nail on the head. Just as the national shipbuilding startegy was supposed to provide long term certainty of construction to enable shipyard investment so too do we need a wider military industrial plan. Reliance on outside help from other allied countries might not be certain in the future. We need integral UK capacity to use weapons of UK design and manufacture and to be able to replace munitions used.
MoD has a Land (Equipment) Industrial Strategy. Published on 18 May 22:
https://www.army.mod.uk/media/17297/land_industrial_strategy.pdf
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/land-industrial-strategy
https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/land-industrial-strategy-what-and-how-not-whom
The question is who is paying for this. Is it out of the MOD core budget or is it coming from the treasury. I assume the MOD and that will have negative consequences on future equipment numbers.
The MOD’s latest budget increase, which failed to address rampant inflation, instead gave a two year hypothecated pot. The largest amounts were allocated to AUKUS and stock replenishment. Everything else was cut in real terms. So it effectively comes out of the MOD budget.
Don’t cost of wars normally come directly from the treasury emergency budget and not the core mod one. We are effectively at war with Russia.
Might just be a stock picture, but I wasn’t aware we were donating BrimStone2, thought it was the older “re-fitted” Mk1s in storage?
I think there also needs to be consideration of how much more Ukraine will need, I don’t see anyone talking about turning the supply taps off to Ukraine…that means we are at some point going to burn through and replace our entire stock and may just start burning through the replacement stocks. That needs so serous thought….in reality this war is probably going to go on for years HMG needs to consider how it’s going to keep up a sustained level of support, not just this year But for the foreseeable.
The ability to turn the taps on and off for consumable munitions need us to fund industry to maintain capacity even when we aren’t buying anything. That would mean in theory, in situations like now, industry could ramp up quickly to a much higher production rate. That’s better than just a stockpile as we’ve seen how ephemeral those stockpiles are.
However, if we gave money to ensure that, I wouldn’t trust industry to put the relevant procedures in place, to maintain training and equipment, or to hold open capacity. Even with the best will in the world, unused capacity degrades. We would need to test industry’s readiness on a regular basis. Perhaps purchase stock over a two week burst annually to see if large quantities can be produced. Could you stop that being gamed through stock manipulation? I don’t know. Just trust? Date stamp? Pay for annual upgrades for the sake of it?
We’d still need to hold stockpiles large enough to cover industry’s ramp up time, but at least when we ran out, we could hope for a continuous source.
For some items a live production line makes a lot of sense. For ammunition it makes a lot of sense to have a live line and either a back up line sitting idol when not needed or the ability to surge the open line a lot. With 2 lines the staff from one line can spilt to run the 2nd line using new staff in appropriate roles.
It also improves the chances of exports if there are production lines running.
Really it needs to be looked at on a case by case basis.
The dept of business could help subsidise a loss making line if it’s an essential item. When they are not required they can be used as training etc.
Needs some joined up thinking. It’s not just a private companies job to keep a loss making business open just in case.
Case by case, yes. Joined up thinking, yes. However I don’t think BEIS would touch subsidies with a three metre bargepole. It’d have to come through MOD.
Thank goodness someone said it. Ukraine using 20,000 155mm a week needs a million shells a year. Where is this?
The EU has agreed to collectively produce and donate a million shells, so I guess that’s another year sorted. Plus the US is still giving huge numbers.
Rumours say South Korea is providing a lot of 155mm ammo.
I heard South Korea won’t provide to Ukraine but will loan shells to the USA who can then supply what they have in stock already.
Also a Korean paper said a leaked CIA eavesdropping on a Korean nations security office heard them discussing giving Poland 333,000 155mm for Ukraine.
https://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_national/1093506.html
Rudeboy said further up the thread that “BAE Washington could produce 500,000 shells per year if they ran 24-7 on the current equipment
Let’s hope they are running 247
Whilst it is rather expensive to built and continue to store complex weapons, for me the issue is around”dumb” munitions. We could have started making 120 and 155 shell cases once the war in Ukraine started. Whilst ever they remain just as empty cases, they are easy and safe to store in a controlled environment at a relatively low cost. No special precautions needed. If and when needed, they can then be simply filled and have fuses fitted. I am sure that the production of the casing from the steel billets is the “blocker” in the supply chain.
Hi Mark. Outstanding comment, unfortunately one cannot expect the MoD to organise anything so sensible. However, BAE’s Washington plant, which makes shells, has put on extra shifts and is now working 24/7. They make 155mm and 105mm calibre artillery shells, and the 81mm mortar bomb
Wouldn’t they over time rust, making storing them for any length of time very expensive to either prevent or replace as it happens.
Shell cases are easy, they are brass with already formed charge bags placed in and a stopper on the end. The storage of the empty cases would be easy, but would require double the storage area as the charge bags will need to be stored as per safety regulations therefore just as easy to store the two already filled. The shells would be slightly different as the filling of the shells would require time and planning, with RDX TNT, and then stored as per required. The fuses are easy to fit, but while it may seem a good idea, not sure if it would benefit the MOD storing the various ammunition parts separate as a standard procedure.. Cheers.
Ammo costing uses through life support.
Starting a project to buy a piece of ammo must include the disposal cost and the out of service date.
The OOS date can move left or right but to achieve a right movement you need to spend money and time to extend ammo service life and undertake the work in a licenced Ammo Depot. For complex weapons that’s fixing component obsolescence issues with modern parts, software updates, better warheads, improved motors, smaller lighter components to reduce weight and increase range, IM compliant explosives.
Currently the UK has offloaded a metric S**t tonne of bang to Ukr that it would have soon needed to either spend money upgrading or take out of service, dispose of, and replace anyway.
It’s probably cheaper to build from new than upgrade and the disposal costs are now mostly off the books. The days of blowing stuff up in a field to get rid of it or burning SA Ammo in a shonky incinerator are long gone. Environmentally friendly destruction of ammo to keep the tree huggers happy is now all the rage.
Ukraine has done a favour taking a load of stuff.
What I don’t see in the article is where are the new items for Ukraine? If the U.K. is serious about supporting Ukraine there needs to be large orders placed for them. Moving the Russians out of Ukraine is going to take a massive effort in training troops, equipment and ammo. Even then it’s a massive task to force 1 million Russians out of Ukraine.
I’ve been of the opinion for some time now that the vast majority of the foreign aid budget should be entirely focused on Ukraine. Whilst the fighting is ongoing around £8bn could be used to build or expand war factories with motivated Ukrainian refugees being offered jobs. It would expand our military aid several times over with no new money being needed.
How about we trade Ukraine grains etc for uk weapons, the grain could travel by rail to Polish ports then on to uk for processing . This could then be donated to world food programme as part of Uk foreign aid , everyone a winner as far as I can see