Electric Boat Corp., based in Groton, Connecticut, has secured a $45,803,073 cost-plus-fixed-fee contract to provide engineering and technical support services for weapon systems and subsystems for both ballistic missile submarines and guided missile submarines.
This contract, identified as N00030-24-C-6028, includes significant benefits for the United Kingdom through a foreign military sale, according to a notice from the U.S. Department of Defense.
The work will ensure the operational readiness and technical support of the UK’s submarine fleet.
The notice from the U.S. Department of Defense states: “This contract award also benefits a foreign military sale to the United Kingdom.”
Here it is in full.
“Electric Boat Corp., Groton, Connecticut, is awarded a cost-plus-fixed-fee $45,803,073 contract (N00030-24-C-6028) for engineering and technical support services for weapon systems and subsystems for the ballistic missile submarine and guided missile submarine for the U.S. and the United Kingdom. This contract award also benefits a foreign military sale to the United Kingdom. Work will be performed in Groton, Connecticut (60%); Kings Bay, Georgia (15%); Bremerton, Washington (15%); Quonset Point, Rhode Island (5%); and Cape Canaveral, Florida (5%).
Work is expected to be completed on April 30, 2029. Fiscal 2024 operation and maintenance (Navy) funds in the amount of $4,469,277; fiscal 2024 other procurement (Navy) funds in the amount of $390,984; and United Kingdom funding in the amount of $2,113,844, will be obligated on this award. Funds in the amount of $4,469,277 will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was a sole source acquisition in accordance with 10 U.S. Code 3204(a)(1). Strategic Systems Programs, Washington, D.C., is the contracting activity.”
The scope of the contract includes significant work to be performed in various locations, with Groton, Connecticut, taking the largest share (60%). Other locations include Kings Bay, Georgia (15%); Bremerton, Washington (15%); Quonset Point, Rhode Island (5%); and Cape Canaveral, Florida (5%). The project is expected to be completed by April 30, 2029.
Funding for the contract involves multiple sources, including fiscal 2024 operation and maintenance (Navy) funds amounting to $4,469,277; fiscal 2024 other procurement (Navy) funds of $390,984; and United Kingdom funding of $2,113,844. The operation and maintenance funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year.
After JD Vance comments about the UK I think it’s high time the UK starts to look to divest from using the American Trident system. A UK manufactured missile based on M51 would seem to be the way to go.
I can image after the procurement cluster fuck that has been the Sentinel ICBM that any eventual US replacement for Trident D5 will be so eye wateringly expensive we won’t want to buy it.
Better to get prepared now.
Sacre bleu, surely you are not suggesting working with the French on Nuclear weapons and if so, have you forgotten the AUKUS Submarine thing ? 😂
I’m suggesting we cooperate with France on our SLBM’s in a similar way to what we currently do on all our other missiles. The weapons can be built and maintained by MBDA in the UK.
AUKUS does not have to be related to Trident II and we can continue to be close Allie’s of the USA without out sourcing the maintenance of our only nuclear weapon system to an increasingly erratic political system.
I like co-operation with France but to make this sort of monumental decision with all it’s inherent consequences just because the VP wrongly stated that the UK was an Islamic Country, would be rather short sited.
AUKUS already pissed the French off and if we actually did what you suggest, it would piss the US off too, the fear is that we might possibly even end up on our own.
To make this decision based on the misguided beliefs of a person who may or may not become the future VP of America seems to be a little bit premature and given that Trump already had one term without any thought of this parting of the ways, makes it even less logical’
Although I do like the Idea of the UK building it’s own Missiles especially given the recent failures. 🚀
Trump literally tried to order all US troops out of Europe on his last few days in office and he stated that he will leave NATO. His VP is now stating that the UK is an Islamic country.
But you’re not concerned?
I don’t see why the US would be that bothered if we started developing our own SLBM anyway, why would you think that would matter to them?
But he failed to follow through with either threat in his tenure.
His potential VP has very specific and un supported opinions/ambitions.
I’m about as concerned as I am about Aliens invading.
I explained my concerns about AUKUS, I’m sorry you haven’t understood.
I’m not wanting to get into an argument.
We don’t buy the D5s, we lease them for an amount of money negotiated with the US. Our contribution to the D5’s development cost was rather modest and I don’t see that being any different for a successor system. Designing a new missile separately would however be horrendously expensive, and the resultant delivery system would be inferior, just as the M51 is inferior to the D5.
M51 is virtually new and D5 is 40 years old, M51 is not inferior to D5.
I don’t know which is superior but the Trident appears to have significantly more range and throw weight.
Both missiles are similar sized carrying a similar number of warheads over a similar range. The exact parameters of either missile are highly classified.
Trident D5 was well ahead of its time in the 80’s however I have little doubt other powers have caught up.
Not necessarily, The trident has gone through several rounds of upgrades with the latest happening after the M51 came into service. The 5DLE upgrades happened about 10 years ago with another planned upgrade currently undergoing development. In addition to the actual missile, you might also want to look into the reentry vehicle’s “super-fuze” which cause controversy some years ago. I’m not going to paste a link to the article since my comment won’t get approve for months but read the excerpt below from the Bulletin Of Atomic Scientist to get an idea to just how capable these things are.
“The US nuclear forces modernization program has been portrayed to the public as an effort to ensure the reliability and safety of warheads in the US nuclear arsenal, rather than to enhance their military capabilities. In reality, however, that program has implemented revolutionary new technologies that will vastly increase the targeting capability of the US ballistic missile arsenal. This increase in capability is astonishing—boosting the overall killing power of existing US ballistic missile forces by a factor of roughly three—and it creates exactly what one would expect to see, if a nuclear-armed state were planning to have the capacity to fight and win a nuclear war by disarming enemies with a surprise first strike.
Because of improvements in the killing power of US submarine-launched ballistic missiles, those submarines now patrol with more than three times the number of warheads needed to destroy the entire fleet of Russian land-based missiles in their silos. US submarine-based missiles can carry multiple warheads, so hundreds of others, now in storage, could be added to the submarine-based missile force, making it all the more lethal.
The revolutionary increase in the lethality of submarine-borne US nuclear forces comes from a “super-fuze” device that since 2009 has been incorporated into the Navy’s W76-1/Mk4A warhead as part of a decade-long life-extension program. We estimate that all warheads deployed on US ballistic missile submarines now have this fuzing capability. Because the innovations in the super-fuze appear, to the non-technical eye, to be minor, policymakers outside of the US government (and probably inside the government as well) have completely missed its revolutionary impact on military capabilities and its important implications for global security.”
yeah, america’s nukes and delivery systems (and other non-nuke systems for that matter) are constantly updated. as long as they keep mostly the same external look they keep the same name!the D-5 now is not the D-5 from even 20 years ago.
Another weapon system under periodic revision/upgrade: the B-52. The BUFF of the 2030’s will be markedly different from the configuration today. Of course, entirely reasonable for a platform projected to reach the century mark.
It’s incredible when you look at the history of Flight and realise just how big a % of it has seen the B52 doing it’s thing. Do you guys still fly our Canberra ? can’t remember what it was called in the US, think it was your B57 and I think you use it for meteorological work, both from the same era, both such great aircraft designs.
Huh…had no previous idea re this capability enhancement. Totally believed the safety and reliability argument. Thanks, learn something new on this site virtually every day. 😊 Has this “super fuze” capability migrated to Minuteman III and/or Sentinel? 🤔 Wouldn’t do at all for USAF alumni to suffer from USN missile envy! 🤣😂😁😉
Several additional questions/points: 1.) Presume this capability been offered to the RN for its current warhead upgrade program? and 2.) Wonder re implications for extension/renegotiation of New START treaty (presuming the parties even make the attempt)? Incidentally, the ChiComs are predicted to triple their own warhead count by 2035. 🤔
Of course we can only speculate since that info will be highly classified but to answer one of your question, there is this paragraph in the article..
“We estimate that the super-fuze capability is now operational on all nuclear warheads deployed on the Navy’s Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines. The new fuze has also been installed on warheads on British SSBN.” 😉
When we really think about it, an adversary’s nuclear strike capability represents an existential threat to the US and it really shouldn’t come as a surprise that they would spend an almost unimaginable amount of money to secretly come up with ways to target and destroy these systems.
👍👍
Very interesting information on the super fuse, from what I read this means that if a warhead is targeted at a hardened target like a silo and the weapon is likely to overshoot then the fuse will set off the warhead before it leaves the probable kill area for the hardened target.
From what we know of the US UK counter force strike plans in a nuclear war each Russian land based silo will get two trident warheads assigned to it.
This innovation likely means it will only get one assigned.
Worth pointing out though that the UK builds and designs its own warheads with design being done in collaboration with the US. No reason that this cooperation can’t continue with the UK having its own sovereign SLBM capability.
I honestly don’t think this will be our choice. I can very much imagine in the next Congress or two the US Congress/ executive branches moving to cut UK access to trident II missile or require some form of “price” to be paid by the UK to maintain access.
A new missile will take time even with an existing French design. Better we start now than have to go through a crash program. This would remove the UK single biggest threat to its security.
D5 has been updated half a dozen times.
Good for D5 😀
If you read the premise of my point it’s that the future US vice president JD Vance is questioning if Britain should be allowed to be a nuclear power. He says under labour Britain will be the first Islamic country with nuclear weapons.
Why would anyone want to spend £100 billion on their principal military capability when the system may be taken away from the UK by MAGA.
I’m advocating a uk built and maintained missile based on French technology from M51 in similar way that we built storm shadow based on older French missile.
He’s obviously not aware of Pakistan, and Iran’s efforts.
He literally mentioned Pakistan in the same paragraph but said they don’t count.
There is every chance this guy will be president in four years. Time for change on our end is all I am saying. We can’t tie ourselves to clowns on such an important aspect of our security.
It’s pretty clear now MAGA is not going away even after Trump and things will get worse on the US political scene.
A lot in the UK seem to think when they talk about Europe they are not talking about the UK but it’s pretty clear they are.
This is what Vance said
first “truly Islamist country that will get a nuclear weapon.” He said, “Maybe it’s Iran, maybe Pakistan kind of counts, and then we sort of decided maybe it’s actually the UK since Labour just took over,” during the conference last week.
I guess on the premise, we should maybe start to build our own F35B and prepare to be dumped off the AUKUS programme and become AUK’s. 🤔
I don’t think either is required yet, if the US wanted to remove the UK from F35B the presumably it’s removing everyone else which would effectively shut down the F35 program including for the US military. Also we own and service our own F35 and the F35 can be maintained without Lockheed as the Israelis do it.
AUKUS is likely to be ended by a MAGA presidency anyway. They support neither Ukraine or Taiwan. AUKUS is already stumbling on ITAR exemption even with the Whitehouse pushing for it and no way a MAGA presidency is selling three precious SSN’s to Australia. SSN A can continue even without US involvement as I bilge they have already authorised Australia to receive reactor technology.
The difference in terms of trident is that the UK effectively leases the missiles and has zero domestic support infrastructure.
All that is required is for the Whitehouse to order a cessation of UK submarines to take up weapons and that’s it game over.
That’s very different to F35.
Removing even Turkey from F35 was painful.
That being said the UK and Japan have already made moves to ensure zero US content in GCAP. Given ITAR that seems like a sensible move for all UK produced weapons moving forward.
Well, time will tell I guess.
And what is the future of/for Tempest/GCAP now?