BAE Systems is set to open a new artillery production facility in Sheffield, backed by a substantial £25 million investment.
The development, spanning 94,000 sq ft, will bring 50 high-skilled jobs to the area, strengthening the UK’s homegrown artillery capabilities.
The Sheffield site will specialise in the production of the M777 lightweight towed howitzer. This move aligns with the UK government’s ambition to boost and maintain essential defence capabilities within the country.
John Borton, Managing Director of BAE Systems’ Weapons Systems UK division, emphasised the significance of the investment: “Our aim is to deliver long-term artillery capabilities for the UK, which will safeguard, sustain, and grow a critical, specialised British industrial capability as well as provide important opportunities for exports.”
Borton added that the investment would help build a highly-skilled and flexible workforce, supporting the UK’s defence infrastructure. Preparations for the site are underway, with plans to be fully operational by 2025.
Local MP Clive Betts welcomed the project, highlighting Sheffield’s engineering heritage: “Sheffield is well known for its strong history of world-class engineering and advanced manufacturing, and BAE Systems’ investment in a new artillery facility and highly skilled jobs will ensure the city continues to play a key role in delivering both economic prosperity and national security.”
The Sheffield site marks BAE Systems’ latest commitment to expanding its UK operations, say the company. This comes alongside a £300 million investment in shipbuilding facilities in Glasgow, over £200 million to upgrade the UK munitions business, and a £220 million project for a new factory in Rochester, Kent.
At the UK Defence Journal, we aim to deliver accurate and timely news on defence matters. We rely on the support of readers like you to maintain our independence and high-quality journalism. Please consider making a one-off donation to help us continue our work. Click here to donate. Thank you for your support!
On the face of it, another important and incremental step in the right direction: to onshore our defence infrastructure and industry. Hopefully much more to come.
Interesting. Are we about to get the M777 towed howitzer as a replacement for the 105mm light guns?
I don’t think it means that necessarily – there has been no announcement to that effect.
There are many export customers for the gun.
The M777 project started in 1987 as the UFH and the gun was first fielded in 2005. MoD is very slow to say that the RA should have this excellent British gun.
It’s coming home.
Good to the see M777 being built in the UK again, although I’m sure if we did actually build any production variants?
Cheers CR
The US has signalled they would like a production restart.
Even for the US made guns a significant chunk was made in Barrow (the really complex Titanium bits).
Shame
M777 is 155mm, not 105mm, so unlikely.
Surprising that it is M777 since it do not have a good reputation being considered fragile. Maybe an improved version.
This is great news but raises a few questions, this seems to suggest by the wording that the UK will finally be an operator of the M777, any other indicators of this that I have missed? Either way how much of it is to be produced from UK sourced parts I wonder, only 30% presently it seems and what limitations if any, will there be on potential exports from this facility.
I think highly unlikely. Ukraine war has demonstrated that towed artillery is not a good idea (takes too long to setup fire and move again openning up to counter battery fire and drones), hence why the US is looking to phase out the m777
Caesar and Archer are a good way forward. It may be interesting to mount the 777´s gun on a truck chassis likewise. The critical component is the manufacturing of the canon itself. If this factory is able to produce the gun, it is fine, they will be put to good use. 155 is a good standart. Below, the 120mm mortar is better, more mobile, less noisy… No real sweet spot for the 105mm. The 777 as still some advantage over the Caesar: it is very simple to learn, cheap, chopper transportable, great in mountainous terrain. I guess their is a market for it.
The decision appears to have already been made to go down the boxer route. If these guns can be used with the boxer option then yeah could help.
“Ukraine war has demonstrated that towed artillery is not a good idea (takes too long to setup fire and move again openning up to counter battery fire and drones), hence why the US is looking to phase out the m777″
This literally the exact opposite of what the Ukrainians have said!!
What on earth have you been reading??
Towed artillery is more survivable as its easier to dig in, less vulnerable than an SPG (smaller footprint, no stored ammo or fuel onboard).
SPG’s now no longer move in Ukraine….they bury them in deep covers and drive them out to fire and then immediately return to the shelter.
To move is to be detected and die.
The only exceptions to this have been the artillery with extreme ranges, 52 cal barrels and extended range shells like Pzh2000, Archer and Caesar….and the Ukrainian’s rate Pzh2000 and Archer well ahead of Caesar as when the inevitable counter battery fire or Lancet comes in they have a chance of survival…but as time has progressed those systems are also becoming vulnerable…FPV are getting longer and longer ranged…
Look at the loss rates…..M777 has been in combat longer, fired more rounds than all the other 155 combined and is still in the fight…with the proposed 52 or 58 cal barrel it would be even more survivable.
And if you want to see the most survivable Ukrainian artillery piece….its the good old Light Gun in its shorter ranged L119/M119 variant….like M777 it has fired huge quantities of ammo, been located at the hottest parts of the front (Bakhmut and Avdiivka) and hardly any have been destroyed…
We are clearly reading different things as what I read is they are having massive losses with their towed artillery, they prefer it because they have more of it not because it’s better.
Guess we will have to wait to the end of the war when there is a proper assessment of what went well and bad and what lessons can be learnt.
Or you could publish your sources.
I don’t have one there are many, including comments by Ukraine Generals. Trump seems to have a plan to end the war in January (I assume by telling Russia if they don’t agree the US will flood Ukraine with US weapons and telling Ukraine if they don’t then the US would pull all support) so we will find out shortly….maybe
Or just look at the open source data on artillery losses.
I recently watched talk by the U.S. general researching future artillery systems and in short he said towed systems are the past.
Have to say that there was a story not so long ago n several US defence publications ref towed light guns. A senior staff General quoted that either all.their towed guns or their M119s were no longer a practical option on the battlefield, as they took too.long to fire, mount up and move and were thus too vulnerable to counter-battery fire.
IIRC, his conclusion sounded like they intended to withdraw and replace their towed guns, or maybe just the L119s. I’ll have another hunt for the article.
Yes. There have been many stories over the years…
Only for the first time in decades we have actual proof of artillery operating in a Peer to Peer war, with vast quantities of ammunition being fired over sustained periods with the most extensive counter battery fight ever…
And towed guns are doing incredibly well…including L119
A lot of pre-war conceptions around artillery use are going to have to be re-written…
The design and IP is wholly owned by BAE UK. Production was increasingly transferred to the US which is by far the biggest customer. BAE has licensed production for India at Lucknow. There should be nothing preventing exports in future.
The really complex bits of M777 (all of the Titanium work) were always done in Barrow, even for the US. The US has also signalled they want a production restart.
Thx to you both, I remember debate on here some time back about the IP but don’t remember a conclusion. Makes sense however that Bae wouldn’t give away the right to building, selling and exporting from here especially as it was at a time when such sales would have had very decent prospects no doubt.
How are the two statements aligned specialising in m777 and uk ambitions to boost security. The UK doesn’t use the m777 and the US is looking to phase them out so I doubt the UK is going to do the reverse and invest in them.
“Looking to phase them out”
Says who?
The US DoD in various Congress meetings. They said they would not be suitable for a war with China.
Many systems are no good for a war with China, but that’s not the only potential war. A war with China would be effectively entirely sea and air based, the army would be largely irrelevant.
You have answered the £64 question – they are getting rid of their army.
India was acquiring them precisely because of a potential war with China as their light weight made them more suitable for the mountainous regions they would be fighting in and SPGs probably very vulnerable. However there was debate I seem to remember there about such beliefs so perhaps the jury is still out I don’t know. Unlikely the US would be fighting China in that particular environment mind but the perhaps the marines? Horses for courses I guess.
30 years ago BAE Systems closed an artillery factory in Nottingham. I’m glad it’s come full circle.
Being greedy, could we please have a small arms factory in Sheffield?
Given that it seems odd that a new factory would be built to produce a weapon type whose usefulness is on the wane.
The the big question that springs to mind is will the barrels be produced in the UK? Am I right in thinking that Sheffield Forgemasters are set to produce some of the more specialist components for this new factory? I seem to remember reading something along those lines recently… If this mean barrel production in the UK, even on a small scale, then bring it on.
So perhaps this is low risk strategy into reestablishing artillery production in the UK with a view to evolve and develop the capability into other systems, e.g. Self Propelled Artillery? We are after all getting back into the armoured vehicle production game.
The pieces are beginning to fall into place.
Hopefully CR
Forgemasters are producing the forgings. This factory will be close by and will literally ‘turn’ those forgings into barrels.
Forgemasters are investing in a vertical lathe. Surely that’s for turning the barrels.
Barrels are made by autfratage one steel tube inside another then a rifling pressed on the inside tube a bit more than a lathe turn
There was an article recently that forgemasters are going to smart making forgings, but that seemed to be linked to a factory rheinmetall are opening for gun barrel production, not to this (Separate?) BAE factory
They’re only going to get the forgings from one place. There are other forging outfits in Sheffield (next door is another large one). ButForgemasters will have the experience. It might be that its RBSL that takes the interest in the barrel factory…both BAE and Rheinmetall have interests in that. KNDS make the AGM for RCH155 with KNDS and Rheinmetall being the major stakeholders in Boxer.
I welcome the return of domestic production and forming a skilled hub of expertise in the Sheffield area. It should draw in a self sustaining cluster of job options for engineers and fabricators that won’t have to worry about upending family life if one firm goes under. I also propose that the city is first to be protected by GBAD since Finningly is no more.
There are more important targets than Sheffield. Yes it’s now getting a high concentration of specialised industry, but heavy plant has always proved to be pretty resistant to HE.
There are other targets that really need GBAD as the consequences are either Strategically devastating (1 & 2) or socio-economic game changers (3 & 4).
The tragedy is we have zero to protect anything.
Curious decision unless there is a plan for the UK to replace L118 with M777. The portee version, using a Supacat vehicle was tested by the army some years ago but not ordered. It was pretty quick at shoot and scoot.
Presumably, this means the Barrow facility will close?
Barrow closed in 2018 due to no demand from US and UK….workforce all transferred to subs…
Thanks. I wasn’t aware the old Vickers facility had closed already.
Hmmm well Sheffield may we be the right place however I am not convinced we should be adopting Russian warfighting techniques especially as currently it is not helping the Russians much. We need to be able to build modern weapons to keep the Russians at arms length.
Nevertheless a big gun represents a (relatively speaking) cheap stick to bonk Ivan over the head if needs be with rather the relying solely on the snazziest kit we can get our hands on
I’ve read the M777 has a much greater logistical footprint than Light Gun, more personnel needed to operate too, which the army is not blessed with.
I’d be very surprised if they buy M777.
LG is fine for the UKCF and 16AA and it can be underslung.
What’s needed, in my view, is a wheeled SP for 7 Bde and, in an ideal world, a wheeled MLRS type for 1 Divs Bdes.
I’d hope they put Archer in 7 Bde and buy a few more.
The largest user by far is the US, nearly a thousand used by the US Army and Marines. Everyone else are also rans. If the US were seriously thinking of getting rid of them I doubt BAE would be forking out 20m on a new factory.
The RA should get some to stop them twiddling their thumbs until Boxer 155.
Towed by a supercat to fire Bonus rounds at an enemy armoured column and then scoot.
People say they are too vulnerable, but many towed guns are still used in Ukr, and that forested environment isn’t too different to the Baltic forests or the northern flank.
I thought the US army were considering replacing the Tripple 7 …
With recommendations for a truck-mounted howitzer?
But this new production, Im guessing is to replace those sent to Ukraine
We didn’t have any to send but maybe Ukraine is relevant here in the bigger picture. Isn’t most Russian artillery towed and isn’t artillery their main strategic asset?
Any chance of mounting these in some form on say a Supercat platform?
So Barrow needed a larger submarine footprint loses M777 gun production and jobs but Sheffield gains?
As to comments on loss of Ukrainian artillery, I understood part of the problem was that they just did not have enough ammunition to counter battery the Russians and if they had of done, terminal outcomes on the Ukrainian side would be a good deal less.
Would have been better to have spent the money on more Challenger IIIs. 148 not nearly enough in a ground war.
Don’t think we’ve got enough of anything mate
I would be surprise has others on ukdj if we end with M777 .IT’s a good Artillery platform I suppose Tow Artillery has it’s limits on the Battlefield, but depends on what Enemy you fine yourself up against do they have the ability to hit you has quick ? before you move . Track and wheeled Artillery platforms or well and good for battlefield but up the mounted areas hills etc .🤔