The Ministry of Defence has issued an updated early engagement notice outlining plans to support the construction of new UK energetics and munitions manufacturing facilities.

The notice, published on 2 April 2026, replaces an earlier version issued the same day and sets out how industry can access government funding for new production capacity. It forms part of a wider effort to establish what the MOD describes as an “always on” pipeline for munitions, including plans for up to six new facilities across the UK.

Under the proposal, the MOD intends to open a series of “investment windows” during which companies can bid for capital grants to support construction of energetic materials manufacturing plants. The first window is expected in the third quarter of 2026, followed by further rounds in the second and fourth quarters of 2027.

Each funding window is expected to remain open for around three months. Companies will be able to apply regardless of prior engagement with the MOD, including those not selected for earlier feasibility studies announced in November 2025.

Funding is expected to be capped at GBP 45 million per proposal, or 50 per cent of total project costs, whichever is lower. Final allocations will depend on value for money and affordability assessments, subject to approval through the Full Business Case process.

The programme is being managed by Defence Equipment and Support and is open to small and medium-sized enterprises. The MOD says the investment will sit alongside wider government support mechanisms aimed at strengthening domestic industrial capacity.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

80 COMMENTS

  1. ‘The notice, published on 2 April 2026, replaces an earlier version issued the same day and sets out how industry can access government funding for new production capacity.’

    Here’s a quick and free way of encouraging the private sector: deregulate, slash taxes on business…

      • You’ve never heard of the Laffer curve, have you?

        You don’t understand the importance of Defence exports foreign currency earnings to Britain’s balance of payments or the tax revenue that they generate (Laffer curve refers)

        In 2025, the UK secured over £20 billion in defence exports, marking the highest value since records began over 40 years ago. These deals are expected to directly support more than 25,000 British jobs.

        The defence industry is a significant contributor to UK GDP and economic activity, with the sector supporting over 272,000 jobs in total.’

        You have no idea how much more successful a low regulation low tax economy could be, do you?

        ‘The administration of President Javier Milei has implemented drastic public spending cuts, which contributed to a trade surplus and GDP growth of 5.7%… Milei administration in Argentina is implementing significant business tax reforms aimed at reducing the state’s footprint and fostering economic growth, effective largely in 2025–2026. Key measures include reducing export duties on agriculture, eliminating import withholdings, setting a 25% fixed income tax for large investments (RIGI), and offering tax incentives for SMEs…’

        Basic stuff.

        • The Laffer Curve 🤦‍♂️

          You will be banging on about supply side economics next, didn’t work in the 80’s won’t work today.

          As for Argentina, they had little choice but to go with extreme austerity much the same as we were forced to do in the 70’s and 80’s

          They have child poverty rates of 67%, perhaps your ok living in a country with such extreme poverty among children but I am not and if the cost of that is a few more quid in tax then I’m happy to pay.

          • It’s happening in front of your eyes but you refuse to see it…pure bigotry…

            ‘The Milei administration in Argentina is implementing significant business tax reforms aimed at reducing the state’s footprint and fostering economic growth, effective largely in 2025–2026. Key measures include reducing export duties on agriculture, eliminating import withholdings, setting a 25% fixed income tax for large investments (RIGI), and offering tax incentives for SMEs…’

            ‘The administration of President Javier Milei has implemented drastic public spending cuts, which contributed to a trade surplus and GDP growth of 5.7%…’

            • ‘Argentina and the evidence of a paradigm shift are reflected in recent tax revenue data. In the third month of the year, the government reduced or eliminated taxes such as the PAIS Tax and certain export duties. Against all forecasts based on traditional fiscal models, revenue increased by 7% in real year-on-year terms…’

              • Not sure how your reading skills are as I suspect you come from a low HDi country,

                But my point was on child poverty.

                I can put that in all caps if you like CHILD POVERTY!!!

                But you don’t seem to have mentioned it in your reply you just seem to have called me a bigot

                • Your point: ‘The Laffer Curve 🤦‍♂️’

                  My answer: ‘Argentina and the evidence of a paradigm shift are reflected in recent tax revenue data. In the third month of the year, the government reduced or eliminated taxes such as the PAIS Tax and certain export duties. Against all forecasts based on traditional fiscal models, revenue increased by 7% in real year-on-year terms…’

                  Your point: ‘You will be banging on about supply side economics next, didn’t work in the 80’s won’t work today.’

                  My answer: ‘It’s happening in front of your eyes but you refuse to see it…pure bigotry…The Milei administration in Argentina is implementing significant business tax reforms aimed at reducing the state’s footprint and fostering economic growth, effective largely in 2025–2026. Key measures include reducing export duties on agriculture, eliminating import withholdings, setting a 25% fixed income tax for large investments (RIGI), and offering tax incentives for SMEs…‘The administration of President Javier Milei has implemented drastic public spending cuts, which contributed to a trade surplus and GDP growth of 5.7%…’

                  I didn’t answer the rest of your point because it was complete nonsense.

                  Milei can only address Argentina’s problems once he obtains the necessary tax revenue from economic reform, growth.

                  Sounds familiar?

                  • But, but, but …. it’s for the children! Isn’t that the mantra when you have nothing else to say?

                    What’s more to “quote history” in the UK we had tax cuts, supply side economics and contrary to the previous OP, it did work. The problem was when subsequent Govts used that newly acquired affluence to buy votes with Social programs and Engineering. Instead of saying my work is done and not fiddle, they fiddled. And, as anyone with an ounce of common sense knows, once you create a benefit, it’s nigh on impossible to get rid of it. When this slowly undid the gains of the 80’s they had to raise taxes to pay for the largesse they created, which in turn undid more of the 80’s gains which then necessitate more tax increases which …. well, you get my point!

              • Life expectancy in Argentina is 77 in the UK it’s 82.5 we can slash our tax bill but the majority of the burden relates to increased life expectancy…

                • The point is to increase government revenue and decrease government size, expense, so allowing more available revenue to be spent on, in particular, defence.

                  Systemic reform is required of the public sector, particularly Whitehall (550,000 doing the jobs of 380,000 in 2019) and the NHS (continental systems outperform the NHS on most metrics at less cost to the public purse).

                  Britain’s tax code is over complex and all agree that it requires radical reform.

                  Argentine is used not as an example of a well performing state but as an example of a poorly performing state where cuts to regulation and taxes are improving economic performance, growth and, hence, the tax take required to fund necessary reforms…

                  • Sorry the continental healthcare systems are hugely more costly than the NHS… the french and German systems are 30-40% more expensive.. many of the other systems that are cheaper don’t provide the universal care that the NHS does.. as an example in Spain a relative or friend is required to stay with the patient when in hospital to provide care..

                    Germany has spent literally trillions more on its healthcare system than we have.

              • How does increasing tax revenue by reducing tax rates raise ‘child poverty’? Ridiculous nonsense.

                On the other hand, we know, beyond any doubt, that socialism, particularly totalitarian socialism, occasioning, as it invariably does, economic weakness, endangers ‘world peace’.

        • Slashing taxes in the U.K. has zero impact upon the success of defence exports.
          At best you’re delusional, at worst disingenuous and dishonest.

          If you want Argentine levels of medical care, education and benefits (eg pensions) I suggest you try living there. But nobody else in the UK will find them acceptable.

          • What nonsense is this? Reducing taxes on defence SMEs allows them to be more competitive in the export market, increasing sales, exports and revenue for the treasury…

            ‘Argentina and the evidence of a paradigm shift are reflected in recent tax revenue data. In the third month of the year, the government reduced or eliminated taxes such as the PAIS Tax and certain export duties. Against all forecasts based on traditional fiscal models, revenue increased by 7% in real year-on-year terms…’

            • You’re clearly ignorant of the actual facts of life in Argentina, how bad life is there. Yet you want to reduce the standard of living in the UK to the same poverty stricken levels. You really hate the UK that much?

        • The Laffer curve is very real and obviously so. Theres clearly a tipping point at which increased taxes decreases revenue and nobody serious denies thats the case. Thats what laffer is. As an obvious example increased personal tax rates decreases the incentive to work extra hours, so then workers do exactly that.
          Cameron and Osborne drastically lowered corporation tax and the tax take went up after a number of years because of increased economic activity. Its basic stuff.
          Unfortunately simpletons think increasing rates increases total tax take, it never does. British GDP growth is essentially static because those clowns have taxed the economy to a standstill.

            • Intemperate comments invariably indicate the wrong end of the argument.

              Far better to leave them out and make some kind of contribution, even if it is only to shout ‘Happy Easter!’

            • Peak pseudo-intellectual nonsense. It’s called the laffer curve, nobody pretended it was linear.

              You are possibly the best example of the Dunning Kruger effect that I have ever come across.

          • Happy Easter everyone.
            Jesus has conquered the grave. Hope that was lost, now stands renewed.

            Have a great weekend and a pleasant rest these few days.

          • Yes it’s a curve which also has a too low figure.. and it differs per society as well.. we live in an old society heading to a retired population of 23% and a life expectancy of 82… that’s the vast lump of government spending.. pensions, wider benefits, social care and NHS spending on the pension age population is about 270-280 billion pounds a year.

            Our tax burden has gone up and we get less from it because more and more of us are retired and we live longer and longer via more and more expensive healthcare and social care interventions.. in 1980 we died on average at 72…

            Unless we are all wiling to take a pill at 72 government health and social care and pension costs will go up and up…( and no we did not pay for our state pension, it’s a benefit).

            • The tax burden goes up without growth. That is the problem, not increased life expectancy. Individuals work to a greater age now, still paying income tax etc.

              Argentina is a failing state that has finally accepted systemic reform, lower taxes, less regulation. The point is that the resultant improved economic growth, increased tax revenues, can now fund improved life chances for its citizens.

              Britain following the same path will have the same result, more growth more tax revenue, better services for the population not least of which is defence, supposedly the first duty of government.

              • It’s all life expectancy, your not understanding why because you don’t understand health.. we are not working longer compared to our massive increase in life expectancy.. because we have not increased healthy life years in any real way, just life expectancy we essentially live a decade longer in ill health supported to stay alive by healthcare interventions.. the cost of healthcare in the Uk for a person under 60 is less than 2000 pounds per year.. when you hit your ill health in your mid to late 70s it goes up to £10,000 per year.. that’s why 22% of the population are now approaching 50% of the budget for healthcare.

            • The ‘benefit’ paid as a state pension was stated to be a payment from the National Insurance Fund and was intended to be understood as a ‘benefit’ only in that context.

              ‘The general provisions of Part I. may be stated thus : — A direct tax is laid upon all employers of men and women..The fund so collected constitutes the National Insurance Fund, out of which benefits are payable to the insured persons’ (National Insurance Act 1911)

              It is imprudent and irresponsible (at best) politicians, public servants, that have severed the link, without having put that policy alteration into any manifesto.

              • Yes but it’s bollox because there was no fund, there never was. It’s a tax on the present workforce that pays for the pensions of the retired population.. as that population goes up so the burden increases..the greatest generation did not pay into a fund they paid for their parents pensions and so it went on.. it was fine up until the baby boomers got old because they did not replace themselves and are the longest lived generation ever.. while also being very unhealthy.

      • At least twelve years too late…

        The writing was plainly on the wall when Russia invaded Ukraine for the first time in 2014.

        • That was the time of no return.. the red flags were in place around both Russia and China at around 2009… that’s why Cameron was so foolish.

    • Agreed. No doubt we are on the negative side of the curve. The left should be explaining how they will be funding tax rises as no doubt in the medium to long run they will be reducing government revenues. We already see it in practice, ever increasing taxes and ever lower services.

  2. It’s an odd business. Ability to manufacture and store munitions that may or may not get used. Ability to manufacture munitions suddenly after a long dwell time at pace in times of need.

  3. I had a chat with an ex-MoD employee who worked on munitions and specifically propellants. He described how the Blair Government let all that accrued expertise in propellants disappear. Now they’ve got to resurrect that knowledge and I suspect some long-retired civil servants will be offered some ‘consultancy’ work!

    • Sounds familiar…..

      The big problem is that any kind of chemicals manufacturing suffers from three things;
      – lack of expertise in HSE explosive which leads to enormously controlling; and
      – ludicrous energy costs; and
      – lack of feedstock as our chemicals industry is decimated in the quest for net zero.

      • Well we could abandon net zero and let humanity risk extinction 🤷🏻‍♂️

        It’s perfectly possible for the chemical industry to transition and not be ‘decimated’
        royalsociety.org/news/2024/05/chemical-industry-must-defossilise-to-reduce-carbon-emissions/

        • Which might work *if* carbon taxation on imports levelled the playing field.

          All that is happening now is that the messy bit is exported to low environmental regulation countries.

          • I agree that we need to look at carbon pricing to take into account imports, both manufacture ring and transportation. It would also see the added benefit of onshoring more manufacturing back to the UK.
            Unfortunately things like this require international cooperation, something which humanity isn’t very good at at the moment.

        • By just pushing back our net zero target by a decade or so, we could avoid the absolute worst of the economic effects. The net zero nazis are forcing us to pay the costs of development of the technologies, whilst other countries just wait it out until the technology matures and becomes economical.

          And you’ll end up with a population more supportive of the whole thing, which will be better for the environment in the long run.

          • (a) The majority of the population already supports the push to bet zero as currently planned, in fact a majority of the British public don’t think it’s fast enough.
            (b) We may not have a decade, there’s already evidence that AMOC is slowing, which would have catastrophic effects for the U.K. alone.
            (c) The technology for renewable energy generation is already there, which is why China is the largest installer of wind and solar power generation. Carbon capture isn’t a mature technology yet, but it certainly seems good enough.

            • Better hurry up. Support is sinking like a stone…and no wonder…

              ‘Professor Bobby Duffy, Director of the Policy Institute at King’s College London, said: “This research reveals a striking decline in the public’s sense of urgency around climate action.”

              “The proportion who think we need to reach net zero sooner than 2050 has nearly halved since 2021, and support has fallen for every climate policy we’ve tracked over this period.’

              March 2026

              • And yet again you’re being dishonest by selective quoting him Professor Bobby Duffy. You omitted:
                “This doesn’t represent a wholesale rejection of climate action. Nearly two-thirds of the public still support reaching net zero by 2050 or earlier”

                • “The proportion who think we need to reach net zero sooner than 2050 has nearly halved since 2021, and support has fallen for every climate policy we’ve tracked over this period.’

                  Dropping like a stone…

                  Where is your evidence for any risk of extinction…?

                  Crickets…

                  • How about that new lefty-militant organisation, the Royal Geographical Society?
                    rgs.org/media/ejbmyqdd/cyrus-chang.pdf

                    • Priceless excerpt from the (lightweight) references: ‘What do we learn from the weather?

                      As the man says: Climate policy needs nuance not panic…
                      and: Natural climate solutions.’

                      ‘The climate system cannot be fully understood through a single explanatory lens. The prevailing attribution framework is the one currently advocated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It assigns nearly all post‑1850 warming to anthropogenic forcings. However, this assessment rests on computer global climate models (GCMs) that, while sophisticated, still struggle with fundamental aspects of natural variability…
                      If models cannot capture the natural background variability of the climate system, then attribution regarding the global warming from 1850–1900 to the present becomes inherently uncertain, because any unmodeled natural contribution to the warming (for example due to solar activity increase during the same period) necessarily reduces the fraction of warming that can be confidently assigned to anthropogenic forcings. And if the anthropogenic contribution to past warming is smaller than assumed, then its contribution to future warming — and therefore the associated climate risk — must also be proportionally reduced.’

            • (a) I find that very hard to believe. Regardless, a technical majority is very different in politics to a near-consensus. Energy costs decimating family finances and industry is only becoming apparent in very recent years, so I suspect your polls may be out of date. I think people are ‘generally’ supportive contingent on it not breaking their own or the country’s finances.

              (b) I find such predictions highly spurious and politically motivated rather than based in any scientific fact. I studied physics at a red brick university around 15 years ago and (surprisingly) there were multiple professors who didn’t tow the line on man-made climate change (or at least primarily man-made). Every single change in the climate is being linked to humans, whereas in reality much of it is likely to be coincidental. Claiming definitive knowledge on the subject is a massive red flag. We have created a system where we have incentivised the climate hyperbole, especially in the academic sphere. So much like the military industrial complex, we should be very wary of this.

              (c) Some technology is there and some isn’t. Solar is more mature than wind, and thus more efficient. Unfortunately our climate is more able to benefit from wind than solar. Also, the relative economics is different for different countries. China can manufacture all its renewable needs domestically, using cheap labour, including extracting the raw materials needed, has vastly greater solar potential than the UK, and does not have bureaucratic environmental impact assessments to do as part of planning processes. Its energy (transmission) infrastructure is also much newer than the UK’s and was built and designed with renewables in mind. To claim that others are doing it so we should too is a very simplistic way of looking at it.

              In general I am supportive of renewables as I don’t want our economy to be leaking/donating vast amounts of money each year to hostile regimes who control the world’s oil resources. But it must be done in a pragmatic and sustainable way that doesn’t kill the country in the process.

              • (a) What you claim to find hard to believe is irrelevant when discussing facts. If you want to ignore facts, that’s your choice. But it’s not very scientific of you.
                (b) It’s hilarious you warn about the military industrial complex, yet ignore the fossil fuel industry which is financing climate-change denial. Even assuming you’re telling the truth, why would you ask a physicist about the climate? That’s like asking a medical doctor to plan a space mission or a geologist about the pain in your back. Assuming you went to university the most basic thing you would have learned is to consult those who are specialists in the relevant discipline.
                (c) As for you claims about technology maturity, I’ll debunk them for you. Wind-turbines, for which the UK has a huge advantage due to the North Sea, convert up to 50% of wind energy to electricity, with a theoretical maximum (Betz limit) of 59%. By comparison solar converts 15-23% of sunlight into electricity. Gas fired power-stations average 40% efficiency in generating electricity.
                The UK could slash energy costs tomorrow if it decoupled the contractual cost of generating electricity from natural gas generation. Medium term scrapping NIMBY planning objections would see faster expansion of the grid along with resolution of the housing crisis (and HS2 fully-built for half its current cut-down route).

        • Why don’t you off yourself to save the tiny amount of emissions you are responsible for?

          China has emitted more CO2 over the last 6 years, than the UK has since the start of the Industrial Revolution. Committing national suicide won’t save the planet, it will just make everyone in the UK poorer, and continue the destruction of this country.

          Genuinely mind boggling how much people like you dislike your own country.

    • Another thing the Blair government did wrong 🤦‍♂️

      Not to worry, BAE restated explosive production last year already using completely different technologies from anything in the Blair years, no old civil servants required.

      • Yes, they are using dynamic synthesis.

        This does obviate the need for huge amounts of pre manufactured fill.

        But does mean that the plant and monitoring aren’t simply batch scalable.

        • even with upgrades it was suggested in an article in the Guardian ( of all places ) we could only make 80000 155mm shells per year. No idea if that is correct

    • I would have thought the issue with would be BAE ( or the MOD not placing an order with BAE). There was talk by the MOD of placing orders for shells abroad and that would have meant BAE would have closed the plant in Gateshead and that would have been it. lucky the MOD had a change of plan and placed the order and then BAE found out there was asbestos there and built the new plant is Washington.

  4. Is there such an instrument as ‘The Emergency War Act’ that permits the immediate funding of war preparations? If there is, it should be implemented NOW! This coming week may change all our lives for the worse and begin a domino effect across the world due to Trump’s threats to obliterate Iran. Even if he ‘u-turns’ yet again, the current situation is having dire consequences, and yet our government makes all the right noises regarding defence; it does nothing. Whether we like it or not, the UK is effectively at war on two fronts in terms of force commitments to allies in the Middle East and Ukraine, and they are witnessing immediate results; however, regarding our homeland, just words.

    • And how do we finance this? More borrowing?
      We still pay higher interest rates on government debts due to the ‘moron premium’ arising from Truss’ disastrous unfunded financial plans.
      If we borrow more, we may well see even higher rates charged.

      • Simple. Get rid of the unevidenced and absurd net zero targets

        ‘In the period 2002 to the present, the total cost to the electricity consumer of those renewable electricity subsidy schemes that we can quantify has amounted to approximately £220 billion (in 2024 prices), equivalent to nearly £8,000 per household.

        The annual subsidy cost is currently £25.8 billion a year, a sum equivalent to nearly fifty per cent of UK annual spending on defence.
        Subsidy to renewable electricity generators now comprises about 40% of the total cost of electricity supply in the United Kingdom

        The total subsidy cost per unit of renewable electricity generated has risen by nearly 50% in real terms since 2005 and now stands at approximately £200/MWh. This contradicts government and industry claims that renewables are becoming cheaper but is consistent with expectations from the physics of energy flows, the empirical study of the capital and operating costs of both wind and solar, and the grid expansion and reinforcement and system management costs known to be imposed by renewables.

        It should be borne in mind that about one third of this total cost, £77 billion (2024 prices) has hit households through their electricity bills, with the remaining £153 billion being first paid by industrial, commercial and public sector consumers and then passed through to households in the form of increased prices for goods and services, in taxes, and in reduced wages and rates of employment.

        There can be little doubt that renewable electricity subsidies are a significant factor in the much-discussed cost of living crisis and are very likely to be an important element underlying the weak growth in productivity in the UK economy since the financial crisis of 2008.

        Renewable electricity generators have now enjoyed generous financial support for over twenty years without showing any significant progress towards independent economic viability. On the contrary, the requirement for such support seems to be rising. The public is surely entitled to ask when government will bring this extraordinary and insupportable level of subsidy to an end.’

          • Numbers never lie…

            Yet another entirely evidence free and atmospheric response. Surely you and those like you believe that there is too much hot air already…but you create more and more of it seemingly without end; ridiculous nonsense…

      • Spock/Jim, by some means, the UK must attain a higher level of defence spending in a manner similar to the preconditions pertaining to the periods before both World Wars. How we achieve this outcome is complicated, yet if we avoid urgent spending, we could expose the British people to witnessing a similar fate to our Gulf friends. Missile and drone attacks on principal towns and cities would create an immediate drawdown of our way of life, which for many would be difficult to assimilate. The answer is blunt: something we enjoy in peacetime may need to stop. Sadly, the choice is chilling; it’s either welfare or food queues and A&E waiting rooms due to explosive injuries. Imagine that only a few months ago, the people of Dubai received warnings about missiles and explosive drones raining down on their magnificence; they would have most likely laughed at such a prospect.

    • There is no such act in the UK.

      The Treasury does operate a contingency and can spend pretty much what it likes with cabinet approval or limited parliamentary emergency acts.

      The issue is the bond markets won’t absorb any more UK borrowing unless the Bank of England halts unwinding QE and there is little way to make them do that without causing major economic ramifications and a run in the pound.

      In my mind war bonds and getting foreign allied countries sovereign wealth funds to buy them is probably our best bet.

      We can make minimum investments in UK bonds a requirement on ISA’s and SIPP’s as well.

      The UK has a high savings rate at the moment and very low net debt, problem is so much of that cash is flowing into the USA.

      • Yes the U.K. owns more US government debt than even China. At $900billion only Japan is owed for than the U.K.

  5. Better late than never. 4 years since full scale warfare returned to the continent and 12 years since Russia’s first attack. And only now setting out the finance for a few factories. If the Tories or Labour had a brain cell between them we should be in the middle of full scale rearmament by now.

  6. To be honest, I thought the Laffer curve was something I’d heard about, whilst watching the Curling… during the recent Winter Olympics.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here