The government’s new Energetics Information Notice sets out the first concrete steps toward establishing at least six UK munitions and energetics factories, but the fine print signals that long term viability will depend far more on foreign customers than on routine Ministry of Defence demand.
The notice presents the programme as part of the Strategic Defence Review’s shift toward sustained warfighting readiness. It states that the UK is “acting on the Strategic Defence Review’s recommendations by investing in an ‘always on’ pipeline for munitions including building at least six new energetics and munitions factories in the UK”.
It outlines multi year investment plans, funded feasibility work, engineering design studies and support for site identification.
The document also instructs bidders to model a future in which British demand cannot be relied on between crisis surges. Industry is told that “proposals should assume a range of scenarios such as surge demand and reduced or minimal UK MoD demand”. It goes on to say that “other offtakes, such as exports and civilian markets, should be considered and are expected to form the majority of the demand signal”.
The government adds that “UK government, via the MoD’s Defence Exports team, will actively support export campaigns”.
The financial structure reflects this outward focus. Firms are advised that “proposals should be economically viable as further support funding for facilities is not envisioned”. The notice then states that “it is expected that MoD funding will not form the majority of funding for proposals”. Companies will have to rely on their own capital, investors and international orders if they want to build these plants.
The list of required energetics is extensive and includes RDX, HMX, TNT, nitrocellulose, ammonium perchlorate and other materials central to modern munitions. Suitable bidders will be invited to feasibility studies and then full engineering design work, with construction expected to begin in 2026 depending on commercial terms.
The approach aims to rebuild sovereign capacity for critical materials while shifting day to day viability to exports and civilian markets. This allows the UK to retain industrial depth without carrying the full financial burden on the defence budget.
As we reported yesterday, the Ministry of Defence has since identified thirteen potential locations across the UK for these facilities. In a speech in Westminster, the Defence Secretary confirmed that the MoD has commissioned design work for the first plant and funded feasibility studies across the wider programme. He stated that the government is committed to “building the factories of the future in Britain” and that construction on the first site is expected to begin “in the next year”.
The department reiterated that the new factories will restore high volume production for the first time in nearly two decades, covering key components such as propellants, explosives and pyrotechnics, with potential sites identified from Monmouthshire to Cumbria and Teesside to Pembrokeshire.
I was not aware there was a substantial civilian market for 155mm shells 😀
In a few years time we’re are going to end up with massive stock piles of artillery shells and we will have to spend a fortune getting rid of them.
No British army could or ever would use more than a few tens of thousands, all combined collision forces in the 1991 gulf war used less than 60,000.
Once the war in Ukraine is finished exports will disappear as everyone has built up the manufacturing base and will want to dump supply.
Should the UK be placed on a war footing? The somewhat sluggish ‘No Man’s Land’ period since the publication of the Defence Review has caused some consternation as Russia steps up its fringe incursions across NATO borders. And now we have witnessed direct aggression in Ploland and against UK patrol aircraft. Should the Government release the brakes on expenditure and begin an active procurement beyond what is already signed off? LMP programme is an example that should be sped up rather than waiting until October 2026 to approve procurement, which would bring forward initial deliveries by one year.
The comment above should have highlighted the vasilation in government decision-making, including this very issue. Stating that ‘Export’ will be key, demonstrates the half-hearted attitude in building up the UK’s military preparedness.
If there is no interest from private business, will the government set up these factories as state assets? Looking at the breadth and depth of military manufacturing by largely state owned industries in France and Italy, for example, these might be the best solution.
Recreating RO?
The problem with this sort of thing is that in war you need unbelievable volumes and in peace time next to nothing.
Then you have to maintain operational capacity.
Which is why many governments around the world own munition production plants (sometimes run by industry but the factory is government owned). Others go the subsidy route. Governments don’t have to make a profit. Industry don’t care so long as someone pays the bill. Governments that think otherwise are delusional & will find that the ‘cheaper’ cost saving option today will see them paying though the nose at a later date for a capability they once owned outright.
So how much extra tax you willing to pay for assets that get used once every 30 years?
In the end it’s the government that needs to ensure it has the military industrial capacity.. the problem it’s and many face in the west is 3 fold..
1) modern military manufacturing is not easily created from civilian manufacturing.. in the interwar period the US famously decided it was not going to put any effort at all into building tanks or creating a tank manufacturing industry.. because it had a massive civilian automotive industry that it could switch over to military capability.. this is harder in the modern world.. But what is very telling around this is that china as the largest manufacture of warships in the world does not have any singular “naval” ship builders.. all of chinas naval ship building is buried in its civilian yards and all yards are duel use.. even its SSNs are build in a a dockyard that also produces merchant ships.. the profits all go into expanding the yard which expands the military industrial capability..
2) The UK and most of the west has sod all heavy manufacturing industries left as the neoliberal model was to move manufacturing to the cheapest country and that was china ( mainly because the CCP gave out loans to build the manufacturing capacity).. so the neoliberal model cannot support development of civilian manufacturing that can then be moved to military manufacturing..only the mercantile economy can do that, as the mercantile economy naturally protects its own manufacturing base ( every pre ww2 economy was mercantile in nature)
3)the west has profoundly small military budgets that seem to focus as much on projects and ideas than it does ordering heavy manufactured military equipment and you need to massively invest in your military hardware to kick start or keep the industry running.. the US has 3000 Abrams and 3000 Bradley’s sitting around doing nothing more for the fact it keeps up orders than needing a strategic reserve of that size.. Italy consistently orders new escorts.. and flogs them latter.