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.

Avatar photo
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

32 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Tim
Tim (@guest_853454)
2 days ago

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

JohnB
JohnB (@guest_853479)
2 days ago
Reply to  Tim

Long term contracts is what the manufacturers want.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke (@guest_853480)
2 days ago
Reply to  Tim

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.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke (@guest_853501)
2 days ago

Should have said ‘nightmare’ no idea how Elmer came into this.

Dern
Dern (@guest_853535)
2 days ago

Nightmare on Elmer street?

FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF (@guest_853549)
2 days ago
Reply to  Dern

😁

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_853610)
2 days ago
Reply to  Dern

😆

Gunbuster
Gunbuster (@guest_853653)
2 days ago
Reply to  Dern

A patchwork elephant slasher movie cross-over…I’d watch that!

Andy reeves
Andy reeves (@guest_853571)
2 days ago

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.

FieldLander
FieldLander (@guest_853590)
2 days ago
Reply to  Andy reeves

Not sure BAES are producing any 152mm rounds.

FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF (@guest_853640)
2 days ago

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! 🤔😳🙏🙄

Lonpfrb
Lonpfrb (@guest_854004)
19 hours ago
Reply to  FormerUSAF

Health and Safety Executive

FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF (@guest_854103)
8 hours ago
Reply to  Lonpfrb

Thanks, couldn’t decode that acronym. 👍😊

BeaconLights
BeaconLights (@guest_853503)
2 days ago
Reply to  Tim

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… Read more »

Dern
Dern (@guest_853537)
2 days ago
Reply to  BeaconLights

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.

FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF (@guest_853641)
2 days ago
Reply to  Dern

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…🤔

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_853685)
1 day ago
Reply to  FormerUSAF

The article does not say who will manufacture the 152mm shells or where. Just that UK plc is paying for them and supplying them.

Dern
Dern (@guest_853754)
1 day ago
Reply to  FormerUSAF

Yeah we’ll just but 152mm from producers and ship it. No way we’re setting up a 152 line in the UK.

DaveyB
DaveyB (@guest_854031)
17 hours ago
Reply to  Dern

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.

Andy reeves
Andy reeves (@guest_853572)
2 days ago
Reply to  BeaconLights

maybe BAE aren’t getting the priorities in the right order or they have not been told them.

Last edited 2 days ago by Andy reeves
Andy reeves
Andy reeves (@guest_853569)
2 days ago
Reply to  Tim

yes you’re right id go along with you in that

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_853684)
1 day ago
Reply to  Tim

BAE has an artillery round manufacturing plant in the UK. How many more do we need?

Tim
Tim (@guest_854157)
21 minutes ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

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

Andy reeves
Andy reeves (@guest_853518)
2 days ago

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.

Jacko
Jacko (@guest_853545)
2 days ago
Reply to  Andy reeves

Please read the article properly!

Andy reeves
Andy reeves (@guest_853604)
2 days ago
Reply to  Jacko

please keep your sarcasm for someone else

Jacko
Jacko (@guest_853606)
2 days ago
Reply to  Andy reeves

Not sarcasm you plainly did not read the article properly It’s not ‘our’ £b!

BeaconLights
BeaconLights (@guest_853634)
2 days ago
Reply to  Andy reeves

Its an international fund 8 other countries have contributed into. Made quite clear in the article

Tim
Tim (@guest_853568)
2 days ago

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… Read more »

Gunbuster
Gunbuster (@guest_853654)
2 days ago

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.

Lonpfrb
Lonpfrb (@guest_854008)
19 hours ago
Reply to  Gunbuster

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… Read more »

AlbertStarburst
AlbertStarburst (@guest_853674)
2 days ago

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.