The UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) is actively reviewing munitions stockpile levels and industrial capacity in response to evolving threats, according to recent written responses in the House of Commons.
James Cartlidge, Conservative MP for South Suffolk, raised several questions regarding the adequacy and funding of munitions stockpiles, to which Defence Minister Maria Eagle provided detailed answers on 7th August 2024.
Maria Eagle stated that the MoD keeps munitions stockpile levels under constant review, balancing these against current threats, industrial capacity, and evolving technology. She also said that the government is commitment to a long-term partnership with the UK defence industry, noting that a new Defence Industrial Strategy is in development to ensure the UK’s industrial base can meet both domestic and allied needs.
“Munitions stockpile levels and requirements are kept under constant review, balancing current holdings against threats, availability, industrial capacity, and evolving technology,” Eagle explained.
When asked specifically about the potential provision of an additional £10 billion for munitions replenishment over the next decade, Eagle did not confirm the figure but reiterated the ongoing review process and the government’s commitment to spend 2.5% of GDP on defence “as soon as possible.”
The Strategic Defence Review, set to determine the future capabilities and reforms required by UK defence, will play a key role in shaping these decisions. The MoD is also in discussions with UK armaments manufacturers to assess and address the adequacy of the munitions stockpile.
“The Government is committed to a long-term partnership with our domestic defence industry to support innovation and resilience,” Eagle noted
Recently, Leo Docherty MP, Minister of State for the Armed Forces, spoke of the measures being taken to ensure the armed forces remain fully prepared to protect and defend the nation.
“Our Armed Forces are always ready to protect and defend the UK and we continue to meet all operational commitments, including participating in every single NATO mission,” Docherty stated.
“The Defence Command Paper 23 sets out our plan to deliver a credible warfighting force, generated and employed to protect the nation and help it prosper now and in the years to come. This plan will deliver the biggest transformation and strengthening of our national defence since the Cold War,” he added.
To support this plan, the Ministry of Defence has committed to increasing defence spending to £87 billion per year by the end of the decade. A significant portion of this budget, £10 billion, will be allocated to munitions production.
“To support this, defence spending will increase to £87 billion a year by the end of the decade. As part of this, we’re investing £10 billion in munitions production to ensure we have rapid production capacity and stockpiles of next-generation munitions,” Docherty added.
““Our Armed Forces are always ready to protect and defend the UK”
I’d say with confidence he is clueless as to what the assets even are to carry out that task and how they have shrunk the last 30 years.
“and we continue to meet all operational commitments, including participating in every single NATO mission,” Docherty stated.”
Despite ending several of them, from APT(S) to APT(N) to no Armilla Patrol.
These catch all statements are so irritating, every NATO mission might only involve one asset.
You’re fooling nobody but yourself and the mass of the public who care not anyway.
Indeed. This shameless whitewashing of UK forces & defence capabilities needs to stop & an honest conversation with the public is needed. The UK doesn’t need a Tory-lite HMG.
You have no idea, we only had enough munitions in the 80s and 90s for 24 hours continous combat, the Gulf war showed that and the fact we couldn’t get munitions from our NATO partners was shocking.
I was with a combat supplies troop in the uk, and later moved to a supplies company in Germany. The defence cutbacks since the 70s when a lot of senior NCOs left hurt back then. We are losing more guys leaving than we have enlisting.
Both the Gulf Wars lasted more than 24 hrs – and yet we did not run out of ammo.
Gulf war was a war of choice, so we could commit as much or as little ammo as we liked to it, so hard to draw any conclusion from that.
It was also the end of the cluster bomb era, which would have mainly dated back from the cold war, which is the same Russia and Ukraine is finding themselves, once cold war stocks started to run dry they didnt really have much new stuff.
We committed as much ammo to the two Gulf wars as was necessary to do the job – it mattered not a jot that they were wars of choice.
The point is we did not run out of ammo within 24hrs. Why do you think that was the situation in the 80s and 90s? The BAS/RARS study showed we were short (but not at 24hrs levels) and uplifted stocks.
Not much point at having a pop at a former junior minister and the former MP for Aldershot. What he knew or didn’t is no longer relevant, and frankly he never rose to a point where he seemed all that relevant even when he was in office. By the time he became Minister of State it was really all over and even Shapps had no influence.
I believe that APT(N) is still extant in the form of the Caribbean OPV, currently Trent.
Oh, ok. Thought APT(N) and WIGS were a separate thing.
It’s nothing personal to whoever the person was. I’ve heard so many standard MoD “we spend bla bla 2% meet all out commitments” statements over the years, from faceless MoD spokesmen,women, to ministers, that they blur my brain!
It’s the problem with the MOD they are the policitcal arm of the armed forces. If they told the truth I suspect we wouldn’t have got into this mess but never do.
Blah , blah , blah . Now stop the talk and get more money into defence before its too late . The more ships , planes and men we lose the harder it will be , and the costlier it will be to build them back up
🖕
What we need is the national audit office to do a review of the current stocks and release a transparent assessment of them. It will never happen as I suspect the key factor not mentioned in how they assess stock levels is cost, and the money isn’t there to rebuild stocks.
There was a readiness for war study done very recently.
The Government has no intention of spending more on Defence, no matter what happens they will either hope that the USA will step up to the mark or resort to appeasement
You can’t make such a categoric statement. Labour have committed to getting to 2.5%.
“as soon as possible” which can be anything from tomorrow to never. Anyone not think this will be closer to the never than to the tomorrow?
Labour committed to a health care cap and that went out of the window, once again Defence will be just a piggy bank to rob when things go wrong
Labour didn’t commit to that, it wasnt in their manifesto. They said they wanted to raise it but only once money was there, because the media wouldn’t let them borrow to invest like they let the Conservatives borrow to …um..whatever they did.
As normal the pro Conservative media twisted things to try and score political points.
Saying that I don’t think the 2.5% is happening anytime soon either, the economy is in an absolute mess. There are schools and hospitals literally falling down and they need fixing first let’s be realistic.
Anything out of an MP’s or Snr military balloonhead’s mouth is a lie.
We should have been mass producing storm shadow the moment we saw how successful it was in Ukraine. Oh and we should be producing it without US components so that we can actually export it without restrictions. And then remember that lesson for any future weapons we produce.
Question for the tank folk: I’ve read that BAE developed and tested an insensitive propellant for the challenger gun in 2018/19 and then got the contract to replace the aging challenger ammunition in 2020.
Does anyone know if the new ammunition is insensitive? A JSP from 2015 recommends all newly procured munitions be insensitive so it seems highly likely.
Simple golden rule of War It’s not who wins the most battles Tis he who wins the Last battle that Wins the War And how is that achieved No matter what nor how long it takes The one who is the most successful and eventually wins Is the combatent who not only replenish but actually increase those losses in personnel, equipment and ammunition The West who whole heartily adopted Thatcher / Reagan economics which As policy was controlled by the Dictum The Market decides All This has evolved into Neo Liberal Capitalism Which has resulted in De Industrialization and the… Read more »
Maria Eagle stated that the MoD keeps munitions stockpile levels under constant review, so why don’t they know whether there is a shortfall by now, but instead find they have to do more reviews?
Good question.
I am being generous here but maybe the review looks at what realistic threats there are and how much ammo is needed to counter it and as the threat environment is constantly changing then it needs constantly rereviewing.
Saying that has the threat environment changed much since Russia invaded Ukraine, if anything it’s reduced as russia is now not a realstic ground war threat to nato. So if they knew they were fine then, then the levels should still be fine or vica versa.