BAE Systems has been awarded a $17.9mn contract from the United States Navy to provide logistics engineering and integration support of the U.S. Ohio class and British Vanguard class Strategic Weapon System platforms, including support of future concepts.
The contract notice is as follows:
“BAE Systems Technology Solutions & Services, Inc., Rockville, Maryland, is awarded a $74,639,419 cost-plus-fixed-fee contract modification (P00012) to a previously awarded and announced contract (N00030-22-C-6001) to exercise fiscal 2023 options to provide support services for the United States Trident II D5 Strategic Weapon Systems program, Attack Weapon System program, and the Nuclear Weapon Security program.
Work will be performed in Rockville, Maryland (59.9%); Washington, District of Columbia (23.8%); Saint Marys, Georgia (3.3%); Cape Canaveral, Florida (2.3%); Bremerton, Washington (1.3%); Portsmouth, Virginia (1.0%); and various other locations (less than 1% each, 8.4% total). Work is expected to be completed September 30, 2023.
Subject to the availability of funding, fiscal 2023, operations and maintenance (Navy) contract funds in the amount of $74,639,419 will be obligated. Funds will expire at the end of fiscal 2023. This contract was awarded as a sole source acquisition pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 2304(c)(1). Strategic Systems Programs, Washington, District of Columbia, is the contracting activity.”
Work is expected to be completed September 30, 2023.
14 Ohios, 4 Vanguards. 22% of the ballistic missile subs, less than 1% of the work done in the UK (if any). Vanguard… remind me which country runs those subs.
Jon, the contract is for BAE systems (USA) and not BAE (UK). Although not sure what our share of said contract payments are? As the contract is all for the TIID5 system, which belongs to the US anyway, it’s probably only natural that they get the work.
In my mind this followed on from a recent contract for the common module for Columbia/Dreadnought which again was massively skewed towards work done in the US. There’s a pattern. If they are putting in 80% of the the dosh and getting 100% of the contracts, someone in this country needs to be fired.
And I know just the VLS to fire them from.
You are probably correct mate, never let it be said that Uncle Sam doesn’t look after his own….
Does it make a difference? BAE is a British company.
BAE Inc is a subsidy of BAE PLC, I think.
It makes a difference to the people employed to work on the systems, the UK skills base, the money leaving the country and the taxes returned to the UK Treasury.
We do.
We arm them. ( Via the SWF at Coulport )
We produce the MIRV for them. ( yes with US input and liaison, at AWE Aldermaston )
We put the bomb on those MIRV ( at AWE Burghfield, once under the “Gravel Gerties” but now in a new facility)
We transport the warheads ( Via the “Green” convoys guarded by the MoD police SEG and the RM.
We move the strategic nuclear materials around the country that enable those boats and the SSNs. ( Via the “Blue Convoys” )
We crew them.
We pay for them.
We plan where they sail. ( I guess with US liaison for deconfliction, with our COS Ops RA Submarines at Northwood overseeing )
We target the warheads ( with US liaison as part of their SIOP, a UK team is embedded with US Strat Com for that purpose )
We conduct software work regards targeting ( “Data processing” as the RN and RAF used to call it ) at a place called the CCC.
We operate the firing chain. ( Via the NO&TC and CTF 345 on to Skelton, Anthorn or possibly Inskip. All UK installations with British personnel, no American involvement.
We produce the boats and the nuclear reactor tech ( Barrow, Rainsway, Vulcan )
All overseen by the SWE Strategic Weapons Systems Executive at Abbey Wood and NARO.
Does Britain operate it’s own deterrent? Yes.
Is it totally independent as critics shout? No, there is US liaison and support in many areas.
Just the same as most areas of the military and intelligence community.
Can it be used independently if we wish? Yes.
Do we own the missiles? No, but who cares as long as they fire if we need them to.
Do we need US support for the SSBN command systems and the D5 navigation ? Yes. It’s a US system.
So do we run these boats? I’d say yes.
Which is not the same thing as saying that the Americans could not prevent us from responding to a “tactical” nucear strike on UK military facilities – should they decide that it would be “escalatory”
You are stretching it saying that the CASD is independent. The Americans would have to approve it
I believe the ability to fire it is independent. The reality is we consult with allies, especially in a NATO scenario when those weapons would have the possibility of being used.
Jon’s comment read to me, perhaps wrongly, that it was just a step away from all the usual snipes that our nuclear deterrent is not independent.
Like how often do we hear moans that our Chinooks, F35, C17, Poseidon, Intel, and a hundred other capabilities are also not independent as they have US content? We don’t. They’re all fine for some reason and it is the nukes that get the gripes, for the usual political put down purposes.
Now if he is saying the boat has a lot of US content, not “running these boats” then I’d agree, but considering it is a US missile, in a US Common Missile Compartment, with other US content like JCXD shoreside and other stuff to enable it to be targeted and launched, what do we expect.
The CASD sails with pre-targeted D5’s with the targets approved by the Americans. The issue of whether we could ever take matters into our own hands, target them elsewhere whilst at sea – and then expect the Americans not to disable the missiles in flight – is moot.
Disable in flight? Tell me more.!
How do you know these things? How targetting is done is highly classified. How would the Americans disable our missiles in flight?
DM,
Wonder whether anyone finds it interesting that Pres. Biden has already compared current situation to the Cuban Missile Crisis…even though it is not even a sporting proposition, at least publicly, yet…š¤
The Cuban Missile Crisis is not remotely comparable. Then Cuba, a communist country and Soviet accolyte, colluded with the Soviet Union to install nuclear missiles that could hit the USA. Those missiles had no other purpose.
The CASD has always been called our independent nuclear deterrent. What would the Americans have to approve? Our launching a live missile targetted on the enemy? We would clearly discuss such action at the highest level first ie it would be well coordinated with whatever the Americans were doing themselves.
We would clearly both be facing the same foe who had launched an existential war against ‘the West’ and/or had already launched strategic nuclear weapons against us.
They are UK boats and we run them; the reminder thing was supposed to be rhetorical. My point was as they are a UK capability and we pay for them, UK companies should get a reasonable share of the build money, without common systems work always going to the US.
Hi Jon. Yes, I get that now. I agree. Depends what systems as I guess a lot is very specialised GD stuff?
Even better why can’t the UK have an independent system if the French can do it ? Often the case is we are ok with American stuff and them having a lion share,but Americans are not ok with the UK on sensitive matters . I can say the same with politics too which is why in most of the world the UK has developed an image of being subservient to the US specially after Cameron admitted we are the junior partner in this š¤ Where is Britannia dignity this days?
The sail has a really shocked face. Or has a Lord Buckethead thing going on?
George,
Presume you intended to write $74.6M rather than $17.9M?
Good Evening, I am living in Australia. I am also a British Citizen. I have just watched a news item on our 7.00pm ABC news with reference to Australias’ possible submarine gap between the phase out of our Collins Class Submarines and the introduction of nuclear powered submarines from either the UK or the USA. I was under the impression that Australia was in line to possibly have the Astute class type built here in South Australia. I gained the impression from the news report tonight, that the US and Japan were signaling that Australia would not suffer a deficiency gap because of USA and/or Japanese support. What has happened to the UK in this arrangement? What has happened to Global UK and AUKUS? Have we withdrawn Astute submarines or equivalent to the Americans? I ask of interest as a keen observer of the UK and Australian armed forces.