Expected to cover both energetics and munition body production, the commitment was made during the 2025 Strategic Defence Review. \u201cEach of the companies selected by the MOD will receive funding of up to \u00a3300,000 each to develop detailed proposals to manufacture energetics materials and the appropriate sites which they should be based at,\u201d the July 29 press release<\/a> from DE&S states.<\/p>\n Results are expected by the end of September 2026 with construction expected to start by the end of the year \u2013 an ambitious timeline. Lithuania\u2019s 155 mm plant is already behind as a result of a harsh winter, and it seems that the Latvia factory is also delayed, with a site selected but no groundbreaking ceremony despite a stated ambition of construction in Spring 2026.<\/p>\n The most successful designs will be offered Front End Engineering Design contracts valued at up to \u00a35 million, the press release adds. Thos contracts will cover the engineering design of \u201cat least six new munitions and energetics factories,\u201d it states.<\/p>\n Without stating the companies involved, Commodore Caroline Dix MBE, Deputy Director Lethality and Protect in the National Armaments Director Group\u00a0said the contracts had gone \u201cto a diverse cohort of companies, from innovative SMEs to major defence primes and major chemical industry partners.\u201d<\/p>\n The challenge of producing explosives in the UK<\/p>\n Manufacturing things like artillery shell bodies is relatively straight forward compared to energetics. All that is required is the machinery, power and the space for a forging facility as well as a load and assembly space, which generally needs to be quite large to minimise damage in the event of an unexpected detonation. It is of course complex, and can go wrong, as the US Army has found, but it is somewhat manageable compared to the risks and concerns involved in energetics production.<\/p>\n Explosives are a different challenge altogether, which is why the UK does not produce any. It is almost completely reliant upon imports for its energetics and propellant; BAE has signed a large contract with Hanwha for the latter, for instance. When it comes to overall production, BAE is already on contract to expand the UK\u2019s output of 155 mm shells by a factor of 16. It has also developed new continuous flow methodologies<\/a> to produce high explosives and propellants in the UK. This would allow small batches to be constantly produced, rather than the large batches typical of the munitions industry.<\/p>\n However, the NAD announcement suggests that conventional production sites are being sought. This means that the successful sites \u2013 for energetics at least \u2013 will have to be a at a safe distance from any nearby towns but with good infrastructure links including power and transit. It is also worth noting that the expansion of the BAE Glascoed site, which will load and fill projectiles, is also behind schedule, it was due to open in Summer 2025, but the opening date is now unclear. BAE attributes this to a decision to double the production capacity, but it remains an example of how easily timelines can go awry in large projects.<\/p>\n Calibre comment: Who will pay for the UK\u2019s new munitions factories? A 105 mm shell body on the production line at the BAE site in Washington, UK. Credit: BAE Systems<\/p>\n The UK\u2019s Strategic Defence Review committed \u00a31.5bn to an \u201calways on\u201d munitions pipeline and six new factories, but it remains unclear how much of that will go toward actual construction. Some industry contacts have suggested that companies may fund the construction of the factories themselves. Other bidders are requesting MoD funding, but the UK\u2019s spending power is somewhat constrained.<\/p>\n This is not unusual, and there are many instances of factories being established and funded using internal funding throughout Europe. However, companies often expect either a guaranteed pipeline of government orders or joint government investment in return for their efforts. The Rheinmetall factory in Lithuania, for example, comes at a cost of around \u20ac300 million, with some sources reporting<\/a> that \u20ac133 million of that will be provided by Rheinmetall.<\/p>\n
\n![\"a](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/defence\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/Image-ArtilleryAmmunition105mm16x9-800x450.webp\")