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.
Sorry Jon, but –
“… 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. …”
Chinas naval ship building being buried in civilian yards is fallacy, any reverent naval ship building yard is owned by the China State Shipbuilding Corporation (CSSC).
As a state-owned enterprise, its operations and development are directly overseen by the Chinese government and it is considered a core component of China’s industrial strategy.
The China State Shipbuilding Corporation (CSSC) is a massive, state-owned Chinese company and the world’s largest shipbuilding group, formed in 2019 by the merger of China’s two largest shipbuilders. It is a state-authorized investment institution directly managed by the central government and administers over 100 subsidiaries, including shipyards, design institutes, and equipment manufacturers.
CSSC builds a wide range of vessels, including commercial ships like oil tankers and bulk carriers, as well as marine equipment.
CSSC is the largest shipbuilding group in the world by a considerable margin, in terms of both assets and revenue.
———–
“… the west has profoundly small military budgets…”
Profoundly, as in Extremely small – Do they? Are they? While they set a low GDP % they have very high GDP’s. I accept GDP is not the best metric, as it ignores total spending (purchasing power) however it allows a comparison between countries of different economic sizes and the burden military spending places on a nation’s resources.
Military budgets (MB) In US $.
China’s official military budget $233 billion USD, 1.25% of its $19.4 trillion GDP. (Very small %)
Independent estimates, place the actual total expenditure higher, at an estimated $314 billion, 1.7% of its GDP.
Russia spends 7.1% of its GDP of $2.54 trillion – MB $149 billion
North Korea, spends 25/30% of its GDP on its military budget, but has a rock botton GDP of around $23 billion as of 2024, it’s military budget is only around $6 billion.
US – 3.4% of its $30.6 trillion GDP – MB $997 billion.
UK – 2.3% of its GDP $3.96 trillion – MB $81.8 billion.
France – 2.1% of its GDP $3.16 trillion – MB $64.7 billion.
South Korea – 2.6% of its GDP $1.87 trillion – MB US$47.6 billion.
NATO minus the US – average of 2.0% of their combined GDP $26 trillion – MB $454 billion.
Japan – $55.3 billion.
Could go on … 🤷🏻♂️
Yes I know they are state owned but they are still due naval and civilian yards.. ownership is irrelevant
Chinas millitary spending when parity is included is well beyond 300 with most estimates between 450-550 billion dollars when parity of spend is included with some more over the top estimates at 700 billion+
I was not counting the US in the small budget obviously.. but Western Europe defence budgets are very Small.
So the tax payer will be paying to keep them open when demand drops. I have no issue with this.
Nutty.
Government export regulations, agency law, make it extremely difficult for British Companies to compete with other nationalities less encumbered by such mindnumbingly stupid impediments.
The MoD defence export teams are well.known for offering everything short of real help, flying business class while the exporting company staff sit in the back of the ‘plane!
So, yet again, the long suffering British taxpayer will have to foot the bill for the purblind Government stupidity of the last thirty five years…..
from what I have seen it usually the other way round, with company staff in business class/first class.
‘The UK government’s investment arm for international development spent more than £7m on business-class flights in the past two years, according to newly disclosed data.
British International Investment (BII), which receives taxpayer funding and is owned by the Foreign Office, spent £3.5mn on business class flights for staff in 2024 and £3.7mn in the previous year, government responses to freedom of information requests by the Financial Times show.
This included more than 1,100 business class flights during 2024, including more than 65 return flights that cost more than £6,000 a ticket.’
FT Feb 2025
Maybe , but that doesn’t mean that the general case. I have been on a couple of government trade missions and no one was in business class, including one example were it would have been cheaper to fly on day eayler and stay an extra night, but instead we took a (more expensive) flight a day later, because it might looked like we were on a jolly at the tax payers expensive, by staying an extra night.
I don’t really understand the point of these exchanges. I have quoted the FT this year. Here’s another newspaper, Aptil 2025, about a different department:
‘Civil servants tasked with protecting the environment spent more than £700,000 of taxpayers’ cash on luxury air travel last year…..The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) claims its ‘purpose’ is to ‘make our air purer’ – yet its staff flew in business class and premium economy class 237 times in just 12 months.’
There is no shortage of examples.
The rules state that the flight has to be over ten hours to permit business class travel but that is from take off to landing and can include stop over times. Big para statal companies do the same…but it is all paid for by the taxpayer. Meanwhile, small companies are regulated and taxed to destruction and certainly cannot afford to pay for business class tickets.
If the public sector was better value for money, no-one would mind…but it is not……
‘….the civil service’s lowest point, reached in 2016 (around 384,000)…..The number of civil servants has since grown significantly, reaching over 500,000 (FTE) in early 2024, and exceeding 550,000 in headcount terms by mid-2025.’
Government figures
Why would you build a factory with no market?
I don’t see how the government expects to build industrial capacity without funding at least a bare minimum of production to keep the lines ticking over. The Army now lacks pretty much any guns to use up 155mm rounds so…
The number one question is what is the UK getting for the amount of money they spend on defence… It really doesn’t seem to be much.
Even if Trumps surrender plan is accepted by Ukraine it will only be a pause before Vlad the mad lashes out again so we should continue to prepare/deter an attack into Europe proper. Now the the USA has shown its true colours, and it was fairly obvious all along I doubt they will ever go back to even being thought of as faux allies so it is time to move forward and stop all the lies about being a great military power and make an effort to become one.