UK to build weapons factories and buy thousands of missiles in £1.5bn push to rearm
The UK will buy up to 7,000 long-range missiles, rockets and drones and build at least six weapons factories in a £1.5bn push to rearm at a time of growing threats.
The plan, announced by the government over the weekend, will form part of Sir Keir Starmer's long-awaited Strategic Defence Review, which will be published on Monday.
However, it lacks key details, including when the first arms plant will be built, when the first missile will be made, or even what kind of missiles, drones and rockets will be purchased.
The government is yet to appoint a new senior leader to take on the job of "national armaments director", who will oversee the whole effort.
Andy Start, the incumbent head of Defence Equipment and Support - the branch of defence charged with buying kit - is still doing the beefed-up role of national armaments director as a sluggish process to recruit someone externally rumbles on.
Revealing some of its content ahead of time, the Ministry of Defence said the defence review will recommend an "always on" production capacity for munitions, drawing on lessons learned from Ukraine, which has demonstrated the vital importance of large production lines.
It will also call for an increase in stockpiles of munitions - something that is vitally needed for the army, Royal Navy and Royal Air Force to be able to keep fighting beyond a few days.
Sky News will launch a new podcast series on 10 June based around a wargame that simulates an attack by Russia against the UK to test Britain's defences
"The hard-fought lessons from [Vladimir] Putin's illegal invasion of Ukraine show a military is only as strong as the industry that stands behind them," John Healey, the defence secretary, said in a statement released on Saturday night.
"We are strengthening the UK's industrial base to better deter our adversaries and make the UK secure at home and strong abroad."
The UK used to have a far more resilient defence industry during the Cold War, with the capacity to manufacture missiles and other weapons and ammunition at speed and at scale.
However, much of that depth, which costs money to sustain, was lost following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, when successive governments switched funding priorities away from defence and into areas such as health, welfare and economic growth.
Even after Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 and a huge increase in demand from Kyiv for munitions from its allies, production lines at UK factories were slow to expand.
Sky News visited a plant run by the defence company Thales in Belfast last year that makes N-LAW anti-tank missiles used in Ukraine. Its staff at the time only worked weekday shifts between 7am and 4pm.
Under this new initiative, the government said the UK will build at least six new "munitions and energetics" factories.
Energetic materials include explosives, propellants and pyrotechnics, which are required in the manufacturing of weapons.
There were no details, however, on whether these will be national factories or built in partnership with defence companies, or a timeline for this to happen.
There was also no information on where they would be located or what kind of weapons they would make.
In addition, it was announced that the UK will buy "up to 7,000 UK-built long-range weapons for the UK Armed Forces", though again without specifying what.
It is understood these weapons will include a mix of missiles, rockets and drones.
Sources within the defence industry criticised the lack of detail, which is so often the case with announcements by the Ministry of Defence.
The sources said small and medium-sized companies in particular are struggling to survive as they await clarity from the Ministry of Defence over a range of different contracts.
One source described a sense of "paralysis".
The prime minister launched the defence review last July, almost a year ago. But there had been a sense of drift within the Ministry of Defence beforehand, in the run-up to last year's general election.
The source said: "While the government's intentions are laudable, the lack of detail in this announcement is indicative of how we treat defence in this country.
"Headline figures, unmatched by clear intent and delivery timelines which ultimately leave industry no closer to knowing what, or when, the MOD want their bombs and bullets.
"After nearly 18 months of decision and spending paralysis, what we need now is a clear demand signal from the Ministry of Defence that allows industry to start scaling production, not grand gestures with nothing to back it up."
As well as rearming the nation, the government said the £1.5bn investment in new factories and weapons would create around 1,800 jobs across the UK.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
23 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
Not a shot that's been fired across SNP's bows, it's a cruise missile
It's a totemic place for the SNP. In 1967, Winnie Ewing's by-election success in Hamilton shifted the SNP from the periphery of politics. Today, however, the town is less hallowed ground for Scottish nationalists and more field of woe. The story which should be taken from the Hamilton result isn't of Labour's win, but of SNP defeat. A shot hasn't just been fired across the SNP's bows, it's a cruise missile. This was the SNP's battle to lose and lose they did. John Swinney talked up a two-horse race between his party and Reform, dismissing the notion of a Labour win. He looks pretty foolish today. That the SNP could go down so badly to a Labour Party which has riled and alienated voters since Keir Starmer took office is remarkable. Labour won the general election with 34%. Today, that's down across Britain to about 23%. In Hamilton, however, Labour secured almost 32% – barely a change since Starmer took power. The SNP fell nearly 17%, losing a seat previously held on a majority of 4582. These are catastrophic figures for the SNP. Even Reform's rise – it came third on 26% – isn't as significant. Reform's vote in Hamilton broadly replicates its UK-wide support. So what's happened to the SNP? Well, first of all the nationalists are nowhere near as smart as they think they are. For a long time, luck was on their side. Tony Blair's administration was tarnished with war, Gordon Brown was done in by the financial crash, and years of Tory misrule played into nationalist hands. Read more: The SNP could pose as the sane opposition to London. You don't need world-class strategy and policy if your opponents are doing all the hard work for you. Claims that the SNP ran the greatest electoral machine or had the cleverest advisors were guff. However, when you've been in power nearly 20 years you can no longer pretend to be the opposition. That outsider status is working well for Reform, but the SNP are now more status quo than either Labour or Conservatives. They're an enduring symbol now of all the mistakes that the political world has wrought on citizens in recent years. The SNP has never recovered from alienating many of its progressive supporters in the wake of Nicola Sturgeon's resignation. The ensuing leadership contest revealed a level of social conservatism which shocked leftwing voters who had once backed Labour but shifted to the SNP. That – and the poison of multiple scandals – is why the SNP got hammered at the general election. Those voters haven't returned. And nor will they, for what does the SNP offer? There's been failure after failure. The word 'independence' was barely uttered during the recent campaign. If the SNP is scared to speak about independence, what's its purpose? Independence has decoupled from the SNP. The party can no longer rely on Yes voters backing nationalists. Voters long ago saw behind the Wizard of Oz curtain. The SNP managed for years to talk the talk when it came to government – with great rhetoric on climate change, child poverty, education, health and policing – but it never walked the walk. There's only so long voters will tolerate being made to feel gullible. The SNP suffers from 'the boy who cried wolf' syndrome. No matter what it says now, it's just hot air as far as many voters are concerned. The leadership took the people for granted. Evidently, the SNP has tried over the years to mitigate the worst of Westminster's excesses with policies like the Scottish Child Payment, but you can't dine out on that forever. It's like a forgotten film star showing you cuttings of their glory days. What could be more sad? Then there's the boredom factor: the SNP has been in power so long that many fancy a change, just to move the furniture around. The party ran a campaign that focused on its opponents, not on what it could offer the people. Labour ran a highly-local campaign fixed on local concerns. The SNP hierarchy is also increasingly irritating. Angus Robertson's attitude on the BBC's live coverage of the by-election was a masterclass in patrician sneering. The party comes across as entitled and full of its own self-importance. Privilege is not a good look for politicians these days. A few more humble types in prominent positions might serve nationalists better. It's also become such a bloodless party. This isn't to suggest that the SNP embrace outright populism, but if Starmer's managerialism is off-putting, Swinney is close to funereal at times. If the SNP thinks it can hold on to Holyrood at next year's Scottish election by simply giving us more of the same, then Hamilton should be taken as necessary corrective medicine. Quite simply, the people want politicians to make their lives better and the SNP are not doing that. Indeed, the people seem to be saying that even the clunking, u-turning, impossible to like policies of Starmer are more in accord with them than the SNP. That is bad.
Reuters
37 minutes ago
- Reuters
Shaken by crises, Switzerland fetters UBS's global dream
BERN, June 6 (Reuters) - Switzerland announced reforms on Friday to make its biggest bank UBS (UBSG.S), opens new tab safer and avoid another crisis, hampering the global ambitions of a lender whose financial weight eclipses the country's economy. UBS emerged as Switzerland's sole global bank more than two years ago after the government hastily arranged its rescue of scandal-hit Credit Suisse to prevent a disorderly collapse. The demise of Credit Suisse, one of the world's biggest banks, rattled global markets and blindsided officials and regulators, whose struggle to steer the lender as it lurched from one scandal to the next underscored their weakness. On Friday, speaking from the same podium where she had announced the Credit Suisse rescue in 2023 as finance minister, Switzerland's president Karin Keller-Sutter delivered a firm message. The country would not be wrongfooted again. "I don't believe that the competitiveness will be impaired, but it is true that growth abroad will become more expensive," Keller-Sutter said of UBS. "We've had two crises. 2008 and 2023," she said. "If you see something that is broken, you have to fix it." During the global financial crisis of 2008, UBS was hit by a losses in subprime debt, as a disastrous expansion into riskier investment banking forced it to write down tens of billions of dollars and ultimately turn to the state for help. Memories of that crisis also linger, reinforcing the government's resolve after the collapse of Credit Suisse. For UBS, which has a financial balance sheet of around $1.7 trillion, far bigger than the Swiss economy, the implications of the reforms proposed on Friday are clear. Switzerland no longer wants to back its international growth. "Bottom line: who is carrying the risk for growth abroad?" said Keller-Sutter. "The bank, its owners or the state?" The rules the government proposed demand that UBS in Switzerland holds more capital to cover risks in its foreign operations. That move, one of the most important steps taken by the Swiss in a series of otherwise piecemeal measures, will make UBS's businesses abroad more expensive to run for one of the globe's largest banks for millionaires and billionaires. Following publication of the reform plans, UBS Chairman Colm Kelleher and CEO Sergio Ermotti said in an internal memo that if fully implemented, they would undermine the bank's "global competitive footprint" and hurt the Swiss economy. The reform would require UBS to hold as much as $26 billion in extra capital. Some believe the demands may alter the bank's course. "It could be that UBS has to change its strategy of growth in the United States and Asia," said Andreas Venditti, an analyst at Vontobel. "It's not just growing. It makes the existing business more expensive. It is an incentive to get smaller and this will most likely happen." Credit Suisse's demise exploded the myth of invincibility of one of the wealthiest countries in the world, home to a global reserve currency, and proved as unworkable a central reform of the financial crisis to prevent state bailouts. For many in Switzerland, the government's reforms are long overdue. "The bank is bigger than the entire Swiss economy. It makes sense that it should not grow even bigger," said Andreas Missbach of Alliance Sud, a group that campaigns for transparency. "It is good that the government did not give in to lobbying by UBS. The question is whether it is enough. We have a banking crisis roughly every 12 years. So I'm not really put at ease." UBS CEO Ermotti had lobbied against the reforms, arguing that a heavy capital burden would put the bank on the back foot with rivals. The world's second-largest wealth manager after Morgan Stanley is dwarfed by its U.S. peer. Morgan Stanley shares value the firm at twice its book value, compared with UBS's 20% premium to book. On Friday, the bank reiterated this message, saying that it strongly disagreed with the "extreme" increase in capital. But others are sceptical that the government has done enough. Hans Gersbach, a professor at ETH Zurich, said there was still no proper plan to cope should UBS run into trouble. "The credibility of the too big to fail regime remains in question."
The Independent
38 minutes ago
- The Independent
Reform UK councils in ‘shambles' as newly elected councillors fail to show up
Reform UK gained control of nine councils and minority control in three more in May's local elections, but opposition councillors claim the party's organisation and productivity have been a "shambles" since. Across the 12 Reform -controlled councils, 33 meetings have been cancelled or postponed in the first nine weeks since the election, and at least 21 Reform councillors have missed their first meetings. In Kent, nine out of 22 scheduled meetings have been cancelled since the election, including legally required meetings like the governance and audit committee. An opposition councillor in Kent, Rich Lehmann, said the cancellations were "shocking" and questioned Reform 's ability to lead the council, while Sam Smith, leader of the Conservatives in Nottinghamshire, called the start "shambolic." Reform UK councillors have reportedly cancelled meetings to reschedule them when more prepared, while Nottinghamshire Council's new Reform leader Mick Barton dismissed the criticisms as "political rhetoric from the opposition."
