The UK Government has pledged ‘hundreds of thousands more’ artillery shells in the coming year.
This assurance is part of the UK’s broader engagement in international efforts to bolster Ukraine’s defences against Russian aggression.
The question was raised on 12th April 2024 by Alex Sobel, Labour (Co-op) MP for Leeds North West, who inquired whether the UK government intended to contribute financially to a Czech Republic scheme designed for the purchasing of artillery shells for Ukraine. The response was provided by Leo Docherty, Minister of State at the Ministry of Defence and Minister for the Armed Forces, on 22nd April 2024.
The answer came to light via the following response to a Parliamentary Written Question.
Alex Sobel MP (Labour (Co-op) – Leeds North West) asked:
“To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, whether the Government plans to make a financial contribution to the Czech Republic scheme for the purchasing of artillery shells for Ukraine.”
Leo Docherty (Minister of State (Ministry of Defence) (Minister for the Armed Forces)) responded:
“The UK remains fully engaged with the international capability coalitions and numerous other partners to understand where further opportunities may exist to increase our support to Ukraine. To date the UK has provided over 300,000 artillery shells to Ukraine, and has committed to delivering 100s of thousands more this financial year, and a further investment of £245 million on artillery ammunition in 2024-25.”
Good news but when is the Sunak government going to promise the British Army ‘hundreds of thousands more’ artillery shells – for war stock?
Surely you are joking? A proper stockpile for the UK military? And Sunak in the same sentence?
This salami slicer approach to providing Ukraine with what it needs is wearing very thin.
I still cannot understand why the BAE Washington plant wasn’t churning out shells as fast as it could go from the off on this. It has taken two years for that plant to be working flat out and to be upgraded for more capacity.
That said the Ukrainians don’t need parity in numbers of shells as the NATO systems supplied are infinitely more accurate. What they do need are a lot of cheapo shots that can be used to crater the ground to annoy the Russian forces and keep them awake at night.
That is very true, in modern warfare, especially for the west ( who need to show they are actually trying to reduce civilian casualties and not just flatten a country to get to the enemy) you need a level of accuracy….or if you are trying to take a county with some value intact ( I honestly think to an extent the destruction russia has caused would be worse if it was not for the fact they want to take hold and exploit Ukraine….I suspect the closer russia looks like it comes to losing the more destruction you will see thrown at cities outside of the front lines).
But on the front lines in an existential struggle…there is good evidence that more bangs are most definitely more when it comes to reducing the enemies will to fight…you may not kill the soldiers on the ground with lots of inaccurate bangs but you will reduce their moral and combat effectiveness.
I really worry that the government is using our war stocks to supply Ukraine and not actually replacing or increasing our own…. The 3 billion promise is coming from giving UKriane UK kit mainly…but is that kit being replaced and the MOD actually giving the cash…I suspect not..infact I suspect they are creating a massive budget hole in the war stocks ( for what they were worth) that the next government will have to fill as they know they will not be in power and it’s not their problem..
it was a similar thing with pandemic PPE stocks…the last Labour government purchased warehouses full of the stuff they had a plan to fight the next major pandemic after swine flu gave them a kick…the administrations from 2010 never bothered purchasing any at all and did not even bother paying to rotate what was in the ware houses it into the NHS for it to be used before it expired, as that would have created holes in the warehouse that would have needed them to fill at some point…
We are lead by short term think, navel gazing arses who only think about their own parties present administration and their own rout to power….if it means leaving a huge hole in the Uks war stocks and they can say they are giving 3 billion in aid without paying any money they will do it…after all world war 3 will be someone else’s problem.
The Government of the day’s only influence, most of the time, is the money going into the pot. The NHS at the end of the day is run by clinicians and civil servants who do not always manage their responsibilites in the best way. To be fair to all politicians (can’t believe i’m say this) have budgets of tens if not hundreds of billions to oversee but not run.
Ben Wallace was quite clear that the current procurement rules made it time consuming to order stuff for the UK yet they could order stuff for Ukraine in a flash. These rules are now changing across Government which is one of the plus points about being out of the EU.
Hi mark…re the PPE pandemic stock PPE had nothing to do with the NHS..it was directly run and managed by the cabinet office ( disaster response is part of the cabinet office’s portfolio not the NHS)…what they could have done is transferred that PPE to the NHS so the NHS could have used it before it went out of date…they did not they just kept 10s millions of pounds of PPE on the shelves rotting..so they did not have to fund a rotation, dispersal and restock.
I assure you that the Clinicians and managers have far less control of the NHS than you think…direction comes directly from the department of health ( via NHSE )and over the last decade it’s got worse and worse around rigid control…it does this by setting guidelines that have to be followed, setting pots of money that are trickling into the NHS with very specific requirements that are time limited…all the new money the government always touts on about..will have a specific timeframe..( you get notice a month or two before the funds become Available and you are told specifically what it can be spent on…the money is then only available for a specific timeframe say 6 months)…I know this because I got the joy of running some of this extra money..4 million pounds..none recurring, with 1 months notice to set up the services..that had to be related to freeing up beds…I was reporting every 2 weeks to NHSE who then reported to a policy advisor in Whitehall who would then get back to me on what I was doing with and ensuring it was within explicit DOH guidelines….as a senior leader I send most of my time doing what the department of health wants done and ensuring the reporting to them is ok ( as they will withhold or not give funding )..not what I know needs to be done…..it’s very difficult to do anything in the NHS because the DOH has a plan and via NHSE control what happens significantly..there are 7000 people in the Department of health and all they do is micromanage the NHS.
Lots of stuff has been over the years centralised to the Cabinet Office. Clearly the PPE issue was a blunder because the UK was unable to manufacture it here. However if you seriously think that there was a cabinet minister checking stocks of PPE and planning their efficient use bearing in mind their use by dates then you have missed the point of ministers. Civil Servants run the country. This requires them to flag up issues to ministers and ask for resouces or funding to resolve issues. Where do you think the failure lies. I know (I’ve been there as well) that a lack of budget etc. can make the lives of say an NHS Trust impossible but that is how the whole thing works. Cost justifications, reports, analysis etc.
Mark I said the cabinet office…it’s all very well to blame civil servants but their boses are ministers and there are a lot of ministers 95 + 45 parliamentary private Secretary’s ( MPs who work in the departments)..ministers make the big calls and rotating and agreeing a budget to rotate the PPE stock would have been a very large budget line within the cabinet office and that would have been signed of and agreed..so yes the buck stops with the minister…it’s not the NHS that decides health policy it’s the ministers of health…my organisation did not go through a multitude of changes that essentially crippled it because the NHS decided it was ministers…the Health visiting services were not stripped from the nhs and given to local authorities who had no idea how to run them because ministers decided….
Simply put politicians decide…civil servants implement and the NHS does…if that’s a bad policy or a good one…the NHS is bound by and does what ministers decide…nothing more nothing less.
Oh and WW3 will be everyone’s problem so I doubt anyone is trying to mess that up deliberately.
What they are doing Mark is ignoring the evidence and level of risk..because that would mean very significantly increasing defence spending..which they ( as in the entire western world) does not want to do…our potential enemies are hugely upping their defence expenditure to an unsustainable way..which in itself is a big red flag…an unsustainable increase in defence spending can only go one of two ways..( war or collapse).
Using your own logic Jonathan, is a massive increase in funding for the armed forces not unsustainable for the UK? Which budget can be cut? Perhaps 30 billion removed from the NHS or Schools. Because we are part of NATO we only need to provide a fraction of what is needed to defeat Russia and/or China.
There are some flaws in your thinking
1) we don’t need to go to an unsustainable level of spending…but we need to increase..to something like 3%..all estimates are saying that china is now very close to matching the US defence spend ( north of 700billion per year) but because of spending parity each dollar china spends is buys far far more ( a Chinese solider or Sailor is paid around a sixteenth of a U.S. services personal, china can build ships and munitions faster and cheaper that the US..with ships it’s got 260 times the shipbuilding capacity of the US)…Russia is now spending north of 6% of its GDP..that’s north of 100billion dollars..and again they have far better spending parity than the west…( they are producing 90 new MBTs per month).
2) NATO will not be fighting Russia or china or Iran or North Korea..in a world war the worst case for NATO and the west is that at the same time it’s fighting Russia and its allies in the CSTO, China in the pacific, North Korea in the Korean Peninsula…supported by Chinese ground forces, Iran and its proxies in the Middle East…That mean’s essentially the west would be at war with a contiguous Asian alliance….NATO does not overwhelm in that’s sort of conflict it grinds into a blood stalemate until one side either suffers complete strategic exhaustion or the political will of one side to fight is shattered…The west needs to pay more attention it could loss the next war and if it has to fight it even if it wins it will be be shattered.
3) NATO is not the all in-compassing one goes to war we all go to war alliance that many think…it has a few major weaknesses that can be exploited.
A) it does not cover and consider the western flank..basically it ends at the North American continent and does not encompass the pacific…if China attacked Guam and pearl harbour article five would not be triggered..it would only trigger if and when china decided to undertake some form of attack on the 49 states that make of the USA on the continental land mass..re NATO the U.S. is on its own if Hawaii or Guam is hit and it goes to war over Taiwan ( same with the UK and it’s overseas territories and France and it’s, Turkey and it’s southern issues Spain and it’s territory in Africa….all excluded by the very specific geographical boundaries set in NATO article 6.
B) if you actually read the articles even when article five is enacted..the requirement is for each nation to go away and decide what it is going to do….noting more northing less…no immediate actions no declarations of war..just go away and decide what that nations response will be…and that response could be anything it so chose from a strongly worded note to nuclear weapons…but it’s each nations choice…so say Russia decided it was going to attack and destroy the UKs North Sea oil infrastructure…and article five was duality triggered…a U.S. president could decide the action was to expel 10 diplomats….NATO is not the ultimate protection many believe…as a member of NATO you must still be able to fully defend your own interests..
C) NATO has provided a false level of comfort that has lead to nations spending less than they should on defence…even the U.S. has become complacent and slipped below 3% GDP allowed a lot of its strategically important defence industries falter ( ship building is the big one)…the only NATO nation I can see that has really come out of this complacent “the end of history” mentality is Poland..as it moves to a 4% GDP spend.
If I was china..and I wanted to beat the US..I would ensure Europe is entangled and fully engaged looking at Russia, Iran was holding the gulf at risk to hit supples of energy and tie up the European navies, get Iran to use all its proxies to hold the red sea and eastern med at risk ( sucking in a good chunk of RN and La Royale and locking down a U.S. carrier battle group or two) then I would strike Taiwan and dare the USN to come and get it back…while using all my and Russians influence in Africa to stir trouble and deny resources from there..at the same time throwing a ton of support into North Korea and getting them to invade South Korean…essentially NATO is attacked via a global fork manoeuvre….
Its not there yet, but NATO is now almost at the point of facing an anti western alliance that has far more global reach and power than the USSR could ever dream.
Which budget can be cut? HS2. Right off the bat the £66bn London to Birmingham section can go the way of the other routes. I’m sure that would save £30bn.
How about getting private enterprise to build some Vertiports. Within 10 years, 5 if there’s significant investment, we could have coaches in the sky travelling at >180 mph. The vertiports themselves would cost maybe £1bn each in Central London. Less in Birmingham. More if they also took hybrid airships, but nothing approaching the cost of HS2. Instead we spend our billions pacifying every nimby on the route.
Right now it’s like our Victorian forbears investing in ever wider canals.
Hi SB,
Agree with everything you say, mate.
One little point I would make is that the cheapo rounds are likely be be pretty damn accurate in the context of a slow moving trench warfare scenario. During the latter stages of the Battle of the Somme the British developed the creeping barrage technique. British infantry had to advance very and I mean very close to the back edge of the barrage so the guns had to reliably plonk their shells within a few yards of their aim point or you risked taking out a platoon of your own troops.
So I would suggest that a few 100 thousand round of cheapo 155mm delivered using modern recce data and today’s 55 to 62cal weapons would be able to take out Russian trench and strong points very easily indeed and probably with a just one or two shots. Timed right and Russian offensive action could be very effectively blunted. Just saying that precision doesn’t always mean guided weapons.
Which makes your point about failing to up production at Washington (Tyne & Wear, England, for our international readers) all the more telling. Ukrainian’s have paid a high price for Western reticence. Although given Russia’s nuclear arsenal there was always the risk that any sudden increase in military aid might have triggered a serious escalation from Russia – Putin’s regime is not exactly a stable or predictable bunch to be fair.
Cheers CR
I would say supporters of Ukraine are already balls deep in the nuclear threat. I can’t see anything changing on that front. If Russia decides to unleash the nukes it won’t be because the U.K. supplied an extra 100,000 shells. It will be because they have chosen to.
Ukraine has shown it’s not going to take the invasion and just give in. It gives an idea of how much they fear being under Russia control that they would fight so hard. The Ukrainians and anyone else who lived in the Soviet Union must have terrible fear of being put back in that kind of situation.
If the the U.K. gets nuked for doing the right thing, helping a country that wants to decide its own destiny and I die then that’s what’s going to happen. If it wasn’t over Ukraine it would be over something else.
At least some nukes would be flying back towards Russia as it ends.
Hi SM,
I should have made it clearer that I was thinking about what Russia might do to Ukraine. I was also thinking about sudden changes in the type of support.
Gradually changing circumstances allows people to get used to the new situation – the boiled frog model. On the other hand sudden changes can cause shock and engender an angry reaction quick fire response.
I was really trying to highlight the tightrope being walked by Western governments. I do think that they could have responded more robustly, but I also understand their “abundance of caution”, to coin a popular phrase. I suspect if I was making the same decisions and able to see the intelligence they have visibility, I might well act with an “abundance of caution” as well.
To pick up on your point about Russia going nuclear against the a NATO country. I would agree that while it is always a possibility it is also unlikely as Putin is trying to expand his empire, not get it nuked, partially or otherwise. So I agree it would be very unlikely that he would open up with a nuclear exchange – makes no sense – but not everything makes sense as far as Putin’s regime is concerned. I think it is more likely that he might try grabbing one of the Baltic States if the West fails to support Ukraine. So Sunak’s announcements today and, way more importantly, the votes in Washington DC are hugely important.
Cheers CR
Good points from you, CR and MS. But whilst I’m with you on Putin not lobbing ‘nukes at a NATO country for fear of retaliation, what if he lobbed (low yield) battlefield nukes at Ukraine. What would you (and others on this blog) think the likely response to this would be, from NATO countries (esp Poland)?
Discuss…
That should be a clear red line. We should make it clear if any nukes were used by Russia in UKR that at the very least would result in NATO forces directly intervening(air support etc). Otherwise we’re allowing the tacticle use of nukes & the delusion that it could be OK for any tyrant to use them when things aren’t going their way.
Years of prevaricating over support for UKR in the face of invasion, rather than facing Putin down has alowed so much unnecessary death & destruction.
NATO Would do nothing. To put NATO into the Ukrainian war would be a great invitation to Putin to throw everything in one last grasp at victory of the war. The West MUST not be involved in military intervention in the war.
Sorry all,but my keyboard caps lock is F****d again.
I respectfully disagree Andy. I think if Putin thought NATO, or willing UKR allies acting independantly, were willing to engage Russian forces within UKR, he’d think more than twice about continuing his ciminal invasion.
Nothing because to do so would significantly up th ante in the wider deployment of NATO nukes for the same task the use of such weaponry on a regular basis would be a short step from unleashing the big stuff.
Indeed so. Deterents don’t work if you just cower & appease enemies threatening you & invading your friends & allies.
If Russia wins in UKR/ China takes Tawian/ N Korea took the south etc, imagine the genocidal pay back for their populations having dared to resist & speak out against there invaders & oppresors.
These scenarios if they were to happen, would bring the rapture upon us don’t forget the issue with israel.if the world is at war then, the likes of Iran and Syria, Egypt and Jordan WOULD GO FOR THE ISRAELIS who would definitely respo with their nuclear weapons.
You are completely wrong. Egypt and Jordan wouldn’t “go for” Israel. Israel has had peace with Egypt for 45 years, and Jordan has had good relations with Israel for over 50, nearly as long as Israel has had nukes. I doubt Assad would attack Israel either; he has enough of his own problems.
These countries have no cause to attack Israel and certainly not the Palestinian cause. Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon have all been on the sharp end of significant Palestinian attacks: in Jordan and Lebanon the Palestinian instigation of Civil Wars in their countries. Hamas in Gaza has trained Muslim Brotherhood fighters which it infiltrated into Egypt. The Brotherhood has declared the al-Sissi regime murderous, criminal and anti-Islamic. Al-Sissi declared the Brotherhood terrorists. While Palestinians in general were divided on the Syrian Civil War, Hamas came out strongly against Assad. So he won’t be leaping to their side any more than Al-Sissi will.
Russian ability to produce it’s own stockpiles must be pretty worn by now
Sunak today has said that we are on a war footing – perhaps he means just that one shell factory.
and to think in 2002, BAE were looking to close the UK shell case factory ( predecessor to the current Washington factory)
That’s what happens when you sell munition factories to private companies and don’t order enough stuff for it to make business sense.
It’s either got to be a nationalise business that’s there order or no orders ready to go or a private business with a long term contract that allows a profit to be made.
Indeed, luckily in 2008 the MOD placed a £2 billion 15 year contract with BAE, who decided the old shell factory needed to be replaced and built the current plant with new updated machinery.
The appetite of supplies for Ukraine must be in the wan millions and millions of pounds have been given to the Ukrainians yet progress seems to be losing momentum and a stalemate situation appears to have been established.theUK, FOR ALL it’s good intentions cannot sustain the numbers of equipment being given to the Ukraine. Our own national defense, must be the principle subject but, there are no votes in the support of Ukraine
We said we would fully support Ukraine at the start. The U.K. and others looks like they thought a few NLAWs would frighten off Russia. When that became apparent that wasn’t working the U.K. should have went full war production. Defence spending up to 3% and 3% on Ukraine stuff.
This is Russia ffs. Not some little rag tag mob.
If the U.K. wasn’t going to support properly it shouldn’t have said it would.
If China invaded Taiwan I’d expect a strong statement but not the U.K. gives its full support to Taiwan and will do so as long as it takes.
Yes but give them to Ukr first then back fill the Army war stock.
After backfill, we then need to increase the war stocks as by all accounts we have only enough ammo for a week or two of intensive fighting.
I know. Sunak presenting himself as a responsable rearmamentist when the record shows otherwise. All smoke, mirrors & lies. We know how our forces are at such a low nadir & an extra 0.5% long after Tory HMG are history, while in the right direction at last, will only slightly improve forces back towards sensible peacetime levels.
There is more chance of me doing such a powerful fart it blows the moon off it’s orbit sending it crashing into the sun than Sunak being anywhere near PM office or the MOD when the defence budget reaches 2.5%.
The chancellor is probably combing the books just now looking to see what he could reassign to the defence budget to make it appear bigger than it is.
The govt told BAE to increase shell production eight-fold a year or so ago. This boost is likely as a result of that increase in production.
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/britain-increases-artillery-shell-production-eight-fold/
Ukraine aid announcement today 400 vehicles and lots of missiles.
According to sky News this morning UK government to give 3 Billion worth of Aid to Ukraine . Artillery rounds Missiles etc , and 400 Trucks ? Not sure we had any trucks left in storage or have we took some off our guy’s 🤔 .Either way our cupboards most be getting empty by now it’s time Sunak starts restocking our stock ,Vehicle’s Ammunition etc . Really PM helping Ukraine all well and good ,but it’s time to listen to what our Top Brass are telling you 🙏 🇬🇧
Like he will do that..the hole in the cupboard will be someone else’s problem…infact it will be labours…I’m surprised they have not given more…the bigger the hole the better for the Conservative Party…
In reducing the reg Army from 82,000 to 73,000, then a number of trucks will become available.
That’s a bloody big lot of military aid! You’d hope the replenishing and updating of UK stocks is already underway!
Let’s hope so 👍
Is that £245m investment into production facilities in the UK or simply buying ammunition o the international arms market. If it is the former then that is by far the best solution both for the UK and Ukraine. 100’s of thousands of rounds of UK manufactured ammunition would be a definitely be a big improvement in our nations defence establishment.
As an aside I was reading around some stuff online the other day and found a report on the UK parliament website about how much support the UK had provided to the Ukraine. Although, no numbers were given (probably a good thing) it did state that aid to Ukraine was pay for by the national contingency fund not the defence budget. However, I I suspect that HMT will find away to claw it back from defence, which might explain the failure to up lift the defence budget this year…
Cheers CR
I was thinking the same thing about the £245M- that would be very good news if so, and would make sense in the context of long-term support etc.
I think they are counting the military aid twice now by putting it with the defence budget when it comes from elsewhere just to make it look like the defence budget is bigger.
Hmm, I wondered about that as well, there was something about the phrasing in recent announcements, or may be I’m just seeing things..!
In any event I wouldn’t put it past them.
In one respect you could justify the statements in the sense that the money going to Ukraine does in fact benefit the collective defence of Europe
On the other hand whilst our defence interests overlap with Ukraine there are significant differences, not least because we are an island nation!
The thing is statements about increase defence spending that I have seen don’t make it clear whether some of the extra money is in fact money going to the Ukrainians. Like you I rather think that it does which means our forces are likely still under the Treasury’s knife.
Cheers CR
It’s not just wording like “Ukraine’s defence is UK’s defence” (although that’s a bit of a giveaway).
In a recent Defence Select Committee conversation there was a discussion on how several items will be added during the year to provide a total, and I’m pretty sure that included Ukraine. The Select Committee were trying to get a comparison between the base numbers year on year, but Shapps and Williams were saying the “right” comparison was with the added items as they had already been added into last years numbers and therefore need to be added to this years to get a like for like comparison.
Hi Jon,
Hmm, smoke and mirrors, and our politicians wonder why they are held in such low esteem?
One day a politician will give a straight answer – right about when hell freezes over…
Cheers CR
Fine, as long as those stocks are replaced …..but that is probably wishful thinking.
Absolutely 😞
The UK should never have closed down so much of its R&D and manufacturing capacity.
Just bring back Royal Ordnance at Nottingham ?
We do not need them, its fine just give them away with out replacing them,
£245 million would only pay for c60,000 155mm shells.
Probably get a lot more Pakistani 122mm though.
Where are they coming from ?
Mind you, we have no tanks or artillery to use our stock in…
More propaganda from the lie machine.
The sheer nerve of Sunak as I sit here(c3pm 23-4-24: goodness knows when it will be approved & posted) listening to his defence speech. Smoke & mirrors talking up raising GDP UK defence sending from 2% that has delivered record LOWS of forces manning & capabilities to just 2.5% by the end of the decade. This nadir has actually empowered our enemies globally, marginalising UK power & a mere 2.5% increase eventually merely returns our weak marginal forces to c2010 levels which were inadequate for peacetime back then. Deluding the public that it will move us to a “war footing”.
“Thanks to our management of the economy” he says, but all that supposed “investment” he whitewashes with has resulted in every area of public services & defence we’ve seen shrinking to dangerous levels & Tory rule has damaged the UK painfully for the many, benefiting only the richest .Emergency services, NHS, education, council services, utilities all run into the ground, plus the disastrous obscenity of the brief Truss regime costing the country dearly while she whines about being badly treated & the Tories have maxed out our national debt despite savage barbaric cuts. Demonising the most vulnerable-the sick & refugees.
He has no shame nor scruples. He speaks as though everything is rosy in UK defence.
If/ when labour get in we will hold them to account too. Sadly I see little evidence of wisdom or capability to rule effectively.
Good that we’re supporting UKR. Pity we didn’t supply UKR with what they needed, when they needed it, but mostly a while after the need arose. I only hope its not too little, too late, especially after the disgraceful hold up of U.S. aid.
Appeasement from fears of escalation only prolongs the war & risks far greater consequences, rather than drawing a firm line in the sand & facing Putin down.
Any left for us?