The UK’s Defence Equipment and Support (DE&S) has secured a £300 million artillery contract as part of a major milestone in the International Fund for Ukraine (IFU), which has now surpassed £1 billion in contributions from eight countries.
This marks the largest support package announced to date, according to a press release.
The contract aims to supply 152mm artillery shells compatible with Ukraine’s Soviet-era weaponry, with thousands of shells expected to be delivered before the end of the year.
The UK’s Defence Secretary, John Healey, confirmed that the contract had been signed during talks with Ukraine’s Defence Minister, Rustem Umerov, in London this week. Healey noted the significance of continued support to Ukraine, particularly given the ongoing defensive operations in Kursk. “UK military equipment continues to prove invaluable for Ukraine’s war effort,” he said in the release.
“Our government is stepping up Britain’s support for Ukraine to fight Putin’s illegal invasion.”
The artillery contract is expected to produce 120,000 newly-manufactured shells over the next 18 months, helping to bolster Ukraine’s ammunition supplies while stimulating European industrial capacity and securing supply chains for future deliveries.
The IFU, which was originally launched by the UK and Denmark in 2022, has played a central role in enabling countries to pool resources for Ukraine’s most urgent military needs.
In addition to the UK’s contribution, nations such as Denmark, Norway, Lithuania, and the Netherlands have committed further funds to the IFU this summer, with investments in drones and air defence capabilities that are crucial for Ukraine’s defence against Russian airstrikes. The IFU has already provided key support, including drones, mine-clearing technology, and air defence systems, which have proven vital in countering Russian forces.
Healey highlighted the importance of collaborative international efforts to support Ukraine in its war against Russia, stating that this joint fund represents “the value of working with our Allies to deliver that support.” The artillery investment is part of the wider strategy to degrade Russia’s military capability, preventing significant advancements by their forces on the battlefield.
Other countries contributing to the IFU include Australia, Iceland, New Zealand, and Sweden. With this latest contract, the UK and its allies are continuing to support Ukraine’s military operations while safeguarding essential supply chains. Further deliveries from the IFU’s ongoing contracts are expected in the coming months.
I know very little about how artillery rounds are manufactured I’m going to assume it’s not the most difficult of munitions so I don’t quite understand why some businessman hasn’t set up a plant in the uk wouldnt it be a licence to print money I know I’m probably oversimplifying things but I would think the juice is worth the squeeze as this war seems to have no sight of ending
Long term contracts is what the manufacturers want.
This is an Elmer if it is defence, involves explosives and is very difficult to license.
That said, I’m pretty sure that a more lithe company could give BAe a fund for their money as a single source supplier.
The joker is, as most things safety, the HSE who ensure plenty of time and effort is wasted without achieving discernible improvements in safety.
Should have said ‘nightmare’ no idea how Elmer came into this.
Nightmare on Elmer street?
😁
😆
A patchwork elephant slasher movie cross-over…I’d watch that!
the .money constantly given to BAE for this and for that nhas always made me wonder about the size of the budget for the forces I’ve oft thought that ships, aircraft have been scrapped on the grounds of money while the money to maintain a lot of the KIT WAS there but deliberately not used leading to the Draconian slashing of the branches of the UK armed forces.
Not sure BAES are producing any 152mm rounds.
Erm…HSE? Health, Safety and ? Environment(al)? Engineering? Presume it to be a HMG bureaucracy? Probable that Uncle Sugar has an analogue organization w/ a different moniker. Lord save us from the bureaucrats! 🤔😳🙏🙄
Health and Safety Executive
Thanks, couldn’t decode that acronym. 👍😊
There is a youtube vid somwhere of BAE’s welsh plant, The manufacturers won’t built more production lines without serious long-term commitment, and its not something a new player can just set up really, lots of red tape and regulation. Modern day shells have to be made to quite tight standards.
The best you can do short term is run the current production lines 24/7 with three 8 hour shifts a day, but the personnel don’t exist to meet this demand, and again, BAE won’t hire and train 100’s of workers without a long term commitment.
The BAE shells are then sent to another facility to be filled with explosives, which are imported from some EU country.
The UK Govt told BAE to increase production by 8x, but its unclear if this included the other ammo they produce. This process is exected to take a few years to reach fruition. You can’t just put down the factory overnight and train the people.
The UK in particular does not like giving numbers on production rates (probably because they’re bad/low).
The tight standards are the big thing. The Army will want a shell with very predictable performance, which means not only very tight tolerances in terms of manufacturing it physically, but also the explosives being of the correct composition and quantity to ensure nearly identical propulsion.
It’s not easy for a start up company to replicate that.
Topic not in my wheelhouse, however compelled to inquire whether this will require a substantial additional capital investment to create a production line for 152mm shells, as opposed to NATO standard 155mm? Would it be less expensive in the long run to simply donate (additional?)155mm artillery to the Ukrainians? Dunno…🤔
The article does not say who will manufacture the 152mm shells or where. Just that UK plc is paying for them and supplying them.
Yeah we’ll just but 152mm from producers and ship it. No way we’re setting up a 152 line in the UK.
They don’t have to. It could be done in two phases similar to how BAe currently do. Where the shell is manufactured in one place and then filled in another. Similarly, it would be fairly simple to set up a new manufacturing facility. Where the shells were on a production CAM line. Then sent off perhaps to BAe to fill them.
The biggest issue for a new manufacturer is the explosives and getting licenses to hold, handle and store them.
maybe BAE aren’t getting the priorities in the right order or they have not been told them.
yes you’re right id go along with you in that
BAE has an artillery round manufacturing plant in the UK. How many more do we need?
I’m not sure if that’s a serious question or not but incase u haven’t noticed Ukraine is screaming out for artillery rounds so clearly they need more and if we can sell them why wouldn’t we make more or don’t u like U.K. employment and money ? Or should we just buy from other countries and then sell them to Ukraine
a billion? if we’ve got a billion lying around and we can afford to give it away we should use that money for our own national defence i am in awe of the brave Ukrainians. byt I think iis time to draw down our material support as our own is dwindling.
Please read the article properly!
please keep your sarcasm for someone else
Not sarcasm you plainly did not read the article properly It’s not ‘our’ £b!
Its an international fund 8 other countries have contributed into. Made quite clear in the article
Not the same Tim.
I think 120,000 rounds over 18 months is about 20% of what Ukraine needs but it’s a good step in the right direction. Washington, Tyne and Wear have about 300 staff, Glascoed another 500, so this is good news, but BAE won’t invest in more lines without a cash injection so the best they’ll do is use contract staff and overtime. It’s not just them either as the suppliers of the explosive and filler materials will all need to step up too.
We also suspect that once Ukraine have managed to kick Russia out then the defence industry will dip down again so investment has a risk to it. Hopefully the country’s finances will at least be sufficient by then to maintain a higher level for a bit longer so we can rebuild stocks of everything.
I think I read somewhere that the new lines that have been brought in are flexible. Simplistically you tell the computers what you want and it turns the shells down to the size you need.
It can be re-tasked to do different shell sizes and shapes far more easily than before.
Yes, manufacturing industry best practice (mech eng) is the Flexible Manufacturing Cell where computer numerical control (CNC) enables a computer aided design (CAD) to be produced at scale, often untouched by human hands i.e. by robots. These cells typically produce parts to a few micron accuracy as required for anything going into a breach and up a barrel.
Clearly adding explosive is a separate step so it’s not possible to get the final product in the mech eng domain.
The legacy toolmaker approach is to build a production line with a fixed purpose but obviously there has to be huge volume to justify such single function investment. Like a 10 year contract..
I know the Ukrainian boys & girls need this. However, in an ideal world, it would be good if we could get them on to pure 155mm standard – not the Soviet 152mmm. I just worry that if UKR positions and depots are over-run the Rooskies have access to western-supplied 152mm rounds that they can use, rather than the 155mm stuff.