The U.S. State Department has approved a $368.53 million deal with Britain to provide Tomahawk cruise missile support and equipment.

The U.S. Defense Security Cooperation Agency delivered the required certification notifying Congress of this possible sale:

“The Government of the United Kingdom (UK) has requested to buy follow-on support for all three segments of the United Kingdom’s Tomahawk Weapon System (TWS). This includes the All Up Round (AUR), Tactical Tomahawk Weapon Control System (TTWCS) and Theater Mission Planning Center (TMPC). The support includes recertification of the UK’s missiles; unscheduled missile maintenance; spares; procurement; training; in-service support; software; hardware; communication equipment; operational flight test; engineering and technical expertise to maintain the TWS capability; and other related elements of logistical and program support. The total estimated program cost is $368.53 million.

The proposed sale will sustain the operating capability of the United Kingdom, ensuring maritime forces’ interoperability with United States and other allied forces as well as their ability to contribute to missions of mutual interest by delivering follow-on support and sustainment. By deploying the Tomahawk Weapon system, the United Kingdom contributes to global readiness and enhances the capability for the U.S. forces operating globally alongside them. The United Kingdom already operates this capability, and will have no difficulty absorbing this equipment into its armed forces.

The prime contractor will be Raytheon Missiles and Defense, Tucson, AZ. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.”

The Tomahawk missile, also known as TLAM, allows Royal Navy submarines of the Astute and Trafalgar class to strike at targets on land accurately at a range of around 1,000 miles.

The missile is a highly accurate, GPS-enabled weapon that the US and allied militaries have used more than 2,000 times in combat, and flight-tested 500 times say the manufacturer.

In April 2017, US Navy destroyers launched 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles at targets on a Syrian air base. In 2014, a US Navy destroyer and a guided missile cruiser launched 47 Tomahawk missiles in a strike on the Islamic State terrorist group in Syria.

HMS Astute fires a Tomahawk missile.

It’s important to remember that Tomahawk is a cruise missile, so rather than taking on a ballistic trajectory, it stays close to the ground, steering around terrain features, using a jet engine instead of a rocket engine to fly. It is hoped that by the missile keeping low—because of its small radar signature—the Tomahawk avoids radar-guided defences that can threaten manned aircraft.

The missile has been in use with the Royal Navy since the late 1990s and has been used in the Kosovo conflict and in the campaigns against the Taliban, Saddam Hussein and Gaddafi.

The missile is fired from a boat’s torpedo tubes. Once it reaches the surface, a booster rocket ignites to propel the missile skywards. Tomahawk then heads for its target at 550 mph, delivering a 1,000 lb explosive warhead.

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. He also works for the NHS. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
127 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
JamesD
JamesD
1 month ago

Maybe buy some more!

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
1 month ago
Reply to  JamesD

Exactly! There’s no actual mention buying any new stock. From what I’ve read before they’re pretty good value, less than USD 2million each I think… cheap as chips!

Sean
Sean
1 month ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

Guess you didn’t spot the use of “procurement” then…

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
1 month ago
Reply to  Sean

Yes I did actually…lol! Upon my second and slower read “procurement” here could mean anything but actual new additional missile stock. I hope I’m wrong. Anyway, maintenance, upgrades, newer ancillary equipment, training, it’s all good.

Steve
Steve
1 month ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

In the previous purchase after libya, the purchase number was confirmed. I think this is just a rather expensive maintaince and parts contract.

It’s odd how the US is way more transparent with its miltiary purchases.

Darren hall
Darren hall
1 month ago
Reply to  Steve

Never heard the US referred to as transparent with their defence spending before…

Just what is their ”Black” budget spent on…?
As to UK procurement… The Guardian always seem to know what we are spending our money on…

Steve
Steve
1 month ago
Reply to  Darren hall

Fair point on the black budget, but at least the main stuff is known and voted on by Congress. Not that it would change anything if the government did vote /debate on every SDSR, but at least it would allow the media to get involved and pressure put on when stupid cuts happen. Which is what happens in the US, admittedly it’s not a massively better approach but a little. I am getting more and more nervous about the whole cyber warfare becoming a major part of the defense budget. Vague statements of spending on cyber is prone for abuse.… Read more »

Last edited 1 month ago by Steve
Darren hall
Darren hall
1 month ago
Reply to  Steve

When the MR-4 was scrapped the media were kicking up a stink, but nothing changed…
On Ajax, the main stream media are very quiet…
Some mainstream media were pushing for the Leopard over the Chally 3…

And lets not mention the left facing media and their anti-trident links…

So, imho, do we really need the media in the UK involved with military procurement?

Steve
Steve
1 month ago
Reply to  Darren hall

Mr-4 news came out after the decision was made. Another example would be the albion class, I’m pretty sure the endless negative news stories saved them, for better or worse considering no doubt something else got cut to keep them.

Jon
Jon
1 month ago
Reply to  Steve

Well it’s better than disassembling Trident warheads only to decide a few years later to reassemble them (maybe), not to mention “improve” them (certainly). Many billions spent and absolutely no effect on anyone outside of AWE. Fifteen or twenty years from now, they’ll all be replaced anyway. Then there’s the billions about to be spent making the continuous deterrent at sea “more available”. Yes, more available than continuously available. And those subs are due to be replaced next decade too. Secret stuff is a massive money pit with zero transparency. Warhead totals didn’t used to be this secret. And over… Read more »

USL
USL
1 month ago
Reply to  Darren hall

Attached FY2022 USN budget doc (slide 65), clearly shows that USN has purchased 8,629 total over the life of this program, with funding for 90/122/60 over the last 3 FY’s.
https://www.secnav.navy.mil/fmc/fmb/Documents/22pres/WPN_Book.pdf
Subsequent slides go into detail on various mods and upgrades, it’s all pretty transparent.

Deep32
Deep32
1 month ago
Reply to  Steve

Our TLAMs have reached their inspection date, they and all the associated kit requires recertification, added to the fact some parts require upgrading.
The US has just recently finished it’s recertification process for all it’s Tomahawks.

Martin
Martin
1 month ago
Reply to  Sean

Block V maybe, then we can have ASM capability on T26.

expat
expat
1 month ago
Reply to  Martin

Gets my thumbs up. It may not be able to hit high end targets but as we’ve seen in Ukraine targeting supply lines are key to reducing an enemies effectiveness.

Damo
Damo
1 month ago

Jeez the support costs on high tech equipment are enormous. I guess if you don’t spend it it becomes obsolete or breaks when you need it.

JohninMK
JohninMK
1 month ago
Reply to  Damo

For a manufacturer recertification is a brilliant system, regular work and good profits throughout the life of the product.

Bear in mind that the price from Raytheon is not the total cost.

Which leads to a question, can a job like this done semi in-situ? On board an Astute for example. Or do the missiles have to be brought onshore from their nooks and crannies, maybe delivered to a processing site, inspected and then returned to their operational location? A lot of UK work doing that.

dave12
dave12
1 month ago
Reply to  JohninMK

Hi Johnski you Russian peasant!! so Russian troops are pedo’s and rapist’s it seems ,so I suppose that’s what you get for having a peasant army sort of arch’s back to ineffective badly equipped Russian armies of past but then again has it ever really been effective? maybe only the propaganda , I enjoy watching footage of Rus paper tiger army getting whipped every day😄, do you?

Airborne
Airborne
1 month ago
Reply to  dave12

Agreed, absolutely peasants and a disgrace to soldiering.

Mr Bell
Mr Bell
1 month ago
Reply to  dave12

i’d go further than calling the Russian army peasants. I’d say rapists, war criminals and butchers of civillian non combatants. There is zero justification or excuse for such war crimes. I hope the Ukranian military kick the lot of them out of Ukraine and kill every damn Russian sent there. To do that they need weapons. The UK should give them what they need. We are not using half our stuff. Its all about to get cut or scrapped. So Hawk T1, give them to Ukraine, AS90- give them to Ukraine 90-100 Chally 2s. give them to Ukraine. Warrior, give… Read more »

Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker
1 month ago
Reply to  dave12

Geez he was talking about tomahawk😂😂😂😂

dave12
dave12
1 month ago
Reply to  Monkey spanker

Its what he has said in the past and his well known Putin bot views on here I just like to give him a reality check that he deserves.

Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker
1 month ago
Reply to  dave12

Ok, hopefully from seeing how horrible the war is his views may change a little. People tend to admire tyrants from a far but put them in the situation feeling the wrath of that tyrant and they would soon change.

Posse Comitatus
Posse Comitatus
1 month ago
Reply to  JohninMK

What on earth would you know about it ? Did you see the work that your beloved Russian military did ‘ in situ’ at Bucha ? Must make you so proud to be a craven apologist for them.

David Steeper
1 month ago
Reply to  Damo

For a prime example see the Russian kit in Ukraine. That’s more to do with the fact that the money to maintain there kit has been trousered though !

Last edited 1 month ago by David Steeper
Marked
Marked
1 month ago

I hope in the Astute successor the equivalent missile of the day can be fired from dedicated launch tubes. I can’t see the sense in losing torpedo space to carry these weapons. With so few subs it makes sense to avoid having to rearm anymore than the absolute minimum. Keep the subs at sea where they can do their job.

Mr Bell
Mr Bell
1 month ago
Reply to  Marked

Marked. The Astute design is very efficient. It carries 38 heavyweight torpedoes which is quite a powerful payload. Some of those will be tomahawk. The UK does need to order more. A Virginia class attack submarine which is much larger, more expensive and has a much larger crew and operating costs have block V payload enhancements basically more VLS missile cells. So swings and roundabouts. If we had the money Id say design an enlarged astute to carry tons of cruuse or hypervelocity missiles. Defence budget wont do that so Astute sticks with what its designed for hunting and killing… Read more »

Marked
Marked
1 month ago
Reply to  Mr Bell

Yeah, over history a core task of any navy has always been to sink enemy ships in order to control the seas. History doesn’t seem to back up the argument for underarming our ships…

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
1 month ago
Reply to  Marked

Don’t get it the Astutes will have their time fully consumed with hunting enemy subs of which more have entered the Atlantic of late by all accounts. Now as unlikely as it may be if an enemy ‘fleet’ enters our sphere of influence from the Artic Sea around Norway we will have no ships that could realistically confront them, indeed even in the more likely scenario of Russian individual or small groups in the North Sea we would be hard pressed to be anything but sitting ducks. We would surely need to exercise AirPower and even they don’t really have… Read more »

Sean
Sean
1 month ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

You’re forgetting the T23 towed-array sub-hunters and their replacements the T26 frigates are primarily tasked with hunting and killing subs too.

Last edited 1 month ago by Sean
Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker
1 month ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

I don’t think it’s that bad. When was the last time a large naval vessel went against each other.
For search and attack there are the type 23, the astute, the P-8 and the merlins. All capable of attacking surface ships and subs. Ideally it could be better but it’s a lot better than most forces out in the world.
Anyone know how many torpedoes the Virginia class carry? I know they have 4 tubes.

David
David
1 month ago
Reply to  Mr Bell

A Paveway lobbed from an F35B would kill a warship.
Potentially a salvo of Brimstone would do some considerable damage . Not ideal but the money will go on FCASW so it’s a gap that isn’t going to he resolved IMO , even if budgets get raised.
In a crisis F35B would probably borrow some USMC toys until FCASW comes online.

Andy P
Andy P
1 month ago

Good, we really do need to get these on skimmers though.

KM
KM
1 month ago

Could this help support fitting TLAM to the T26s?

Paul B
Paul B
1 month ago

Now waiting for the headline “Britain looking to save $368.53m in support costs by launching everything at Russian forces in Ukraine”

Rfn_Weston
Rfn_Weston
1 month ago
Reply to  Paul B

I’d be up for that.

david
david
1 month ago

Disclaimer! I was not reading the Daily Mirror but clicked a link to a post which stated the British Javelin anti aircraft missile is praised by Ukrainian troops. Our media reporters seems to be getting worse!

Sleepy
Sleepy
1 month ago
Reply to  david

The Javelin was an improved Blowpipe missile we might be giving Ukraine surplus old missiles from reserve stock?

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
1 month ago
Reply to  Sleepy

There is not much in common between Javlin and Blowpipe. Blowpipe was absolutely useless unless you were shooting down WWII vintage planes flying low. It was an object lesson in how not to design a UI. The electronics were pretty awful and it wasn’t that fast. Having fired quite a few I can say the performance of the missile was also quite uneven. The Laser guidance **style** system was added by Northrop to Blowpipe and this formed the **model** for the development of Javelin: nothing more than a model. As far as I know Javelin is a totally new build… Read more »

Klonkie
Klonkie
1 month ago

Morning SB. Thanks for the insight. I recall reading somewhere that a blowpipe scored a Pucara kill in the Falklands during the Goose Green battle? Along with another Pucara kill by a SAS stinger team?

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
1 month ago
Reply to  Klonkie

Yes. Blowpipe did hit the odd thing by accident or design!

However, they were all slow moving and low flying.

Stinger was at a different level.

Blowpipe was a 1st gen MANPAD and was a great idea but suffered for the tech of the timer and just wasn’t fast enough.

David Steeper
1 month ago
Reply to  david

If a 40 year old system that’s been out of service for 20 years is effective against Russian aircraft that would say a lot about Russian aircraft. Or the Mirror knows sweet F.A. ? 🤔

Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker
1 month ago
Reply to  David Steeper

I would say it’s the mirror bad reporting. Clueless. Just like the P-8 reported doing a supersonic boom on takeoff!

David Steeper
1 month ago
Reply to  Monkey spanker

Probably but if we’re really providing Sea Skua. I know another big if.

Last edited 1 month ago by David Steeper
Pete
Pete
1 month ago
Quentin D63
Quentin D63
1 month ago
Reply to  Pete

Yes Defence Minister Dutton is getting on with it. Note, NSM for Hobart/Anzac surface vessels and maybe the same type fit as the Canadian T26s.

farouk
farouk
1 month ago

And now for something completly different

Take note of how the operator doesnt laze the target until the very last

Last edited 1 month ago by farouk
Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
1 month ago
Reply to  farouk

Interesting, some comments say so as not to trigger warnings or defensive measures others so that the missile doesn’t block the laser. I assume good practice either way.

Sean
Sean
1 month ago
Reply to  farouk

wow! 👍🏻

Airborne
Airborne
1 month ago
Reply to  farouk

Watched it on YouTube mate, good drills and the remote station does seem to be a good idea! Also watched footage (not same guy I think) taking out a Russkie wagon, missed with the first missile (wind effect) quick reload in about 6 seconds and then boom, second missile away, Russkies are toast. Got to say the Ukrainian lads have certainly got their ambush drills on the ball.

John
John
1 month ago

Now I do wonder about this. It sounds like it is just support items, but assuming at a very rough estimate, that we have around 150 missiles, this works out at around $2million per missile. For that amount you could simply buy another 150 missiles. Also, I’d be very surprised if the initial purchase cost didn’t include maintenance and other support items.
So all that said, I wonder if this actually is all just cover for increased tomahawk missile purchases and as part of that package there are maintenance items included fir our current stocks and systems.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
1 month ago
Reply to  John

I think you missed the word

procurement;”

that is tucked in there.

You might be right about the existing number of TLAM.

I think this is to increase inventory, upgrade existing missiles and to upgrade fire control cabinets and software. All a guess, mind.

And yes, this is **probably** connected to having a missile for T26 VLS as soon as it comes online rather than wait for the Anglo-French workshare arguments missile. And more in hope, than anything else, to do with T31 VLS?

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
1 month ago

I confess, I did too. Sean picked me up on it. Love all the gentle banter. 🇦🇺 🇬🇧

Deep32
Deep32
1 month ago

It’s missile recertification and system wide upgrades, haven’t seen anything about ‘new purchases’ anywhere. The US completed theirs a while back.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
1 month ago
Reply to  Deep32

The word ‘procurement’ is there in the article!!

Deep32
Deep32
1 month ago

Yes sorry wasn’t clear, haven’t seen any other articles anywhere mentioning buying new TLAM stocks.
Appreciate what the article says, you may well be correct, but RN has been v open about buying TLAM, this statement is a tad vague imo.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
1 month ago
Reply to  Deep32

Given the general situation I’d expect and hope anything about weapons stockpiles to be pretty vague.

Deep32
Deep32
1 month ago

The last time the MOD purchased TLAMs, was 2014ish, but didn’t actually specify how many were included in the deal. When the MOD bought the US missiles for Apache, it never specified numbers, just that we were buying them. My point being ,(badly made I know) the MOD has stated we are purchasing missiles, just not how many, which is fair enough. That’s not how this article comes across to me. Happy to be corrected, the more the better imo, but again ,if they are Blk V, they don’t come with a TTL (torpedo tube launch) version which we would… Read more »

Deep32
Deep32
1 month ago

Something else that we might need to consider, given that by my rough estimate, we have somewhere between 100-150 missiles left, out of approximately 210 purchased.
Yes it’s a bit of guess work and poetic license, but, if this contract does not include buying any new missiles, then perhaps all this cost also includes upgrading our stocks to Blk V standard. That would, at a stroke, give the RN a subsonic long range ASM until at least 2037. Plenty of time to get FC/ASM up and running!

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
1 month ago
Reply to  Deep32

I’m surprised we have that many TBH.

With Storm Shadow that is quite an arsenal of quality weapons.

Deep32
Deep32
1 month ago

It’s a bit of guess work TBH. Up until 2005 we purchased 143 missiles (open source). We then purchased a batch of Blk 4 missiles in 2014ish, numbers unknown, but rumoured to be 65!!. Obviously don’t know how many we have actually fired, again guessing anywhere between 60-110 perhaps.
Could all be pie in the sky too I know, but not an unreasonable estimation i believe.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
1 month ago
Reply to  Deep32

I don’t think we have fired that many TBH.

Paul42
Paul42
1 month ago

The UK only operates the sub-launched version (in very small numbers) nice though it would be to have ship-launched missiles, in which case we would need to procure Block V for our Mk41 VLS.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
1 month ago
Reply to  Paul42

I agree.

But the notice doesn’t differentiate types?

It is one of the vaguest that I have seen?

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
1 month ago
Reply to  Paul42

Can TLAMs be deck cannister launched from vessels without MK41 silos?

Paul42
Paul42
1 month ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

The US had armoured box launchers on the Iowa’s and selected cruisers at one point a longtime ago, other than that no.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
1 month ago
Reply to  John

Was thinking the same thing some of the language does seem to hint at that without specifying it. Probably in the present atmosphere not a good idea to publicise purchase of long range strike missiles which the Russian press would mark up as a threat to them.

Mr Bell
Mr Bell
1 month ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

Why do we even care what Russia thinks anymore? That’s like saying better not order Lancaster bombers because it might upset Hitler. I think we should be honest, we need to buy hundreds of advanced precision guided long range weapons precisely because of Putin’s Russia (and of course China)

JamesD
JamesD
1 month ago
Reply to  John

I think a rough estimate would be less than 100 more than 50 based on previous procurement and use

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
1 month ago
Reply to  John

Don’t want to sound controversial but can the TLAM be deck canister launched? Or, is it just sub and mk41 vls?

Deep32
Deep32
1 month ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

TLAM is UK specific, designed to be launched from RN SSNs, we paid for the conversion.

Esteban
Esteban
1 month ago
Reply to  Deep32

No it is not. The US had it on subs since the 80’s.

Deep32
Deep32
1 month ago
Reply to  Esteban

Afraid it is correct mate, yes you have had them on subs and still do, but they are not launched from torpedo tubes on US SMs
t he US stopped that several decades ago.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
1 month ago
Reply to  Deep32

Because they went for vertical launch?

Deep32
Deep32
1 month ago

Yes since TLAM Bk 4, Mk41 for ships and VLS for their SMs.

Deep32
Deep32
1 month ago
Reply to  Esteban

That should be TTL TLAM, ie Torpedo Tube Launched TLAM.

Esteban
Esteban
1 month ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

The USN Had canister launched versions since the 80’s. There is a ground launcd version as well.

Martin
Martin
1 month ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

It use to be when fitted to Iowas but now is Mk41 or sub only.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armored_Box_Launcher

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
1 month ago
Reply to  Martin

Can’t resist… Picturing these on the T45s already. Might be a squeeze on the T23s.. .. Lol 😁

David
David
1 month ago

As good as the Astute is and if what you read in the media is correct, then one of our Astute boats was tangling with two very quite diesel electric Russian boats off Syria in 2017 when the Assad regime used chemical weapons, such that she couldn’t get positioned to fire her Tomahawks. We had to rely on StormShadow fired from RAF Tornadoes and we only fired 8 – and an American P8 to help with the Russian boats. If we had the ability to fire TLAMs from our surface escorts like the US, we would have so many more… Read more »

RobW
RobW
1 month ago
Reply to  David

That is the stated intention for T26 and possibly T31, with mk41 vls. Doubt they will get cruise missiles until around 2028 though when MBDA are due to field the future cruise missile. T45 could potentially get them too but I think that rathe depends on cost and their OSD.

Mr Bell
Mr Bell
1 month ago
Reply to  David

Yes but in a war situation the Astute would have just sunk both the Russian subs from 20 miles away then proceeded to launch depth and launch positioning and just got on with the job. The Syrian situation is a poor example because the Russians were deliberately trying to hinder the Astute class, which they may or may not have succeeded at doing. Who knows as there is never any comments on the actions of nuclear submarines, which of course is entirely correct.

DanielMorgan
DanielMorgan
1 month ago

The US Navy has an ongoing program to convert its existing Tomahawk Block IV to Block V missiles. The UK has previously procured Block IV Tomahawks. Could this award be part of that program? $368 million in Tomahawk support sounds awfully expensive.

Martin
Martin
1 month ago
Reply to  DanielMorgan

I think it’s likely $368 million is a lot for sustainment for a missile that only cost about $1 million a piece and we only have like 50 in our inventory. We did the block IV upgrade as soon as the US did so I am guessing this is for block V.

Deep32
Deep32
1 month ago
Reply to  DanielMorgan

That thought had also crossed my mind. It would give the RN a ASM capability until we get FC/ASM into service.

Paul T
Paul T
1 month ago
Reply to  DanielMorgan

Agree – seems a significant amount of money for an ( alledged ) small inventory.

David Barry
David Barry
1 month ago

Do we ever ask for off-set agreements with procurement from the US?

DanielMorgan
DanielMorgan
1 month ago
Reply to  David Barry

The US does not get involved in offset agreements. Private contractors involved in foreign military sales can do so but the US Government will do nothing to monitor or enforce any agreement.

David Barry
David Barry
1 month ago
Reply to  DanielMorgan

Er, I thought the FMS from the US to Poland included some 100% off set deals?

Really happy to be corrected.

DanielMorgan
DanielMorgan
1 month ago
Reply to  David Barry

Poland does have an offset agreement for the Patriots it is purchasing, but it is with the contractors LM and Raytheon. The US Government has no hand in it and is strictly between LM, Raytheon and the Poles.

expat
expat
1 month ago
Reply to  DanielMorgan

Saudi also has offset with LM for Anti Air missiles

AlexS
AlexS
1 month ago
Reply to  David Barry

You can do FMS with US

expat
expat
1 month ago
Reply to  David Barry

Not enough, But I think Wedgetails were offset agreements and obviously the F35 but even the F35 we had to demand UK weapons were included in the next block. Brimestone was another example of the US shunning a UK missile.

FOSTERSMAN
FOSTERSMAN
1 month ago

Can’t we use these as our anti ship missile?

Martin
Martin
1 month ago
Reply to  FOSTERSMAN

Yes if it’s block V we can use then on the T26 and T31 as an interim capability.

Paul T
Paul T
1 month ago
Reply to  Martin

Type 26 yes,Type 31 no.

Martin
Martin
1 month ago
Reply to  Paul T

T31 will have space for Mk41 and by all accounts sounds like the government will be furnishing T31 with Mk41. Space for 8 cells in the aft super structure.

Jon
Jon
1 month ago
Reply to  Martin

Last I heard the MoD said the RN was “exploring opportunities” about fitting the Mk41 to other ships. Admittedly that’s positive, but let’s not get it out of proportion. Given that the Iver Huitfeldt has 32 Mk41 cells, I’d be disappointed if there was only space for 8 on the Type 31.

Paul T
Paul T
1 month ago
Reply to  Martin

They certainly have the space for MK41,but unless the Treasury coughs up more money for them it will remain a FFBNW Capability.

FOSTERSMAN
FOSTERSMAN
1 month ago
Reply to  Martin

Excellent, exactly what I was thinking the route the navy should use in the interim.
Granted expensive per unit, but savings to be had surely over another missile system

expat
expat
1 month ago
Reply to  Martin

I would say its a slightly different capability as it stands out from other ASM with a 1000 mile range.

Martin
Martin
1 month ago
Reply to  expat

Good thing is unlike most ASM it’s dual purpose as a long range land attack weapon and we tend to lob a few dozen of those of each decade at some random dictator so good chance we will still be able to use them for something useful even after hypersonic ASM come in to the fleet.

Martin
Martin
1 month ago

Does anyone know what this land based anti ship missile that the US does not have but apparently we do is. We are suppose to be transferring these to the Ukraine but I have no idea what the weapon is baring in mind we don’t even have ASM on our ships much less land based.

https://youtu.be/_9HAflr6vCc

Martin
Martin
1 month ago
Reply to  Martin

I did a bit of digging and assuming Bojo did not just get drunk and make it up I am guessing it must be sea skua. Kuwait operates a land based battery and we must have hundreds in stock. Assuming we are some how going to hodge and duct tape these on to a land based platform and get them to Ukraine soon this will be a pretty impressive feet for the MOD and MBDA worthy of anything did in 1982. Well done to all if it is.

Martin
Martin
1 month ago
Reply to  Martin

It could also be a land based version of maritime Brimstone. The Whitehouse was very specific, it is not a capability they were able to provide to Ukraine but the UK could. We were previously working with Ukraine on a maritime defence package so perhaps this was already in development. Can’t wait to see the videos.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
1 month ago
Reply to  Martin

It might be but Martlet isn’t long range and is a very current system.

So UK would be sensitive about tech falling into the wrong hands.

This could possibly be based on the system demonstrated on the T23 a while back?

Time will tell!!

I’m sure the Ukrainians will make a nice video for us all to look at to thank QEII for the generosity in her name……

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
1 month ago
Reply to  Martin

This is a distinct possibility.

We probably do have the old stock and it isn’t the latest iteration of tech so relatively relaxed about it falling into Russian hands.

The software exists to land base it as evidenced by the Kuwaitis.

I’m guessing that it can be fired from the controller cabinet/box, that could well be the same as the air borne version, and that this is being……at this point I will self censor!!

Martin
Martin
1 month ago

Given one Kuwaiti shore based battery and two in offshore patrol craft I doubt there is any different version just the helicopter launched munition firing off a land based Launcher.

Mr Bell
Mr Bell
1 month ago
Reply to  Martin

Could be the old Sea Eagle or some old exocets? Exocet can be taken from a ship, fitted into a cannister and launched from onshore as we know from the attack against HMS Glamorgan. We had both in relatively large numbers, exocet and Sea Eagle- so take your pick.
Sounds like we are raiding our old reserve war stocks to give to Ukraine, which personally as long as they are making Putin have a hard time I am happy about.

Martin
Martin
1 month ago
Reply to  Mr Bell

I’m just glad and slightly amazed we have anything in our stock piles. I thought the MOD has gotten rid of almost everything.

Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker
1 month ago
Reply to  Martin

The U.K. has a £10+ billion war stock. What’s in it is anyone’s guess. I think that figure is everything not just weapons

Martin
Martin
1 month ago
Reply to  Mr Bell

I suppose the HMS glamorgan incident shows any ASM can be fired from the back of a truck if your desperate enough.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
1 month ago
Reply to  Mr Bell

I’m not sure how you would support Sea Eagle these days.

Exocet was common so there would be enough bits around to improvise but it would still be very hard as the ex RN ones were hardly the latest versions and would have been bespoked to work on the UK platforms.

Either way lots of discreet components that are NLA so a lot of EBay work to keep/get them working

Watcherzero
Watcherzero
1 month ago

Just been announced in the US, AUKUS Pact is being expanded to include hypersonic missiles. US/Australia already has a hypersonic missile program but UK’s interest will be mainly in developing defences rather than in fielding a new weapon.

US, UK, Australia team up on hypersonic weapons with eye on Russia and China – POLITICO

Watcherzero
Watcherzero
1 month ago
Reply to  Watcherzero

Also maybe related, NATO has announced a new business accelerator called Defence Innovation Accelerator for the North Atlantic (DIANA) will be based in the UK with a satellite facility in Estonia. It will be tasked with supporting business startups in the key NATO technology areas of Artificial intelligence, big-data processing, quantum-enabled technologies, autonomy, biotechnology, hypersonics and space.

UK to host world-leading Nato Defence Innovation Headquarters – GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

Mr Bell
Mr Bell
1 month ago
Reply to  Watcherzero

That’s a bit of a result for Brexit Briton. The EU countries will be peeved. I think the EU is waking up to the fact that without the USA, UK and Canada their mutual defence is looking a bit ropey at the moment.

Martin
Martin
1 month ago
Reply to  Mr Bell

Yes as the EU was totally preventing us cooperating with America and Australia on weapons development like the F35 or paveway IV or trident 2 all blocked by the French. One more victory for the brexiteers. They can put that one up with the free trade deal America gave us last year and we can pay for it with that £350 million that was on the Borris bus.

Simon
Simon
1 month ago
Reply to  Mr Bell

Really, Canada ? And last time I looked Estonia was in the EU,

Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker
1 month ago
Reply to  Simon

Haha, got to give the brexit bunch something to feel happy about. Im on the fence before someone says I’m pro or against

DanielMorgan
DanielMorgan
1 month ago
Reply to  Mr Bell

Canada? Have you checked on Canada lately? It couldn’t take on the National Hockey League.

Phil Chadwick
Phil Chadwick
1 month ago

Submarine launched Hypersonic missiles would be a very nice addition. I think I’m a number of years too early however 😝😝😝

expat
expat
1 month ago
Reply to  Phil Chadwick

Problem is we would need to either order a version of the Dreadnoughts to launch hypersonic weapons or wait until the Astutes successor as torpedo tube launched hypersonic missiles won’t be practical.

Peter Crisp
Peter Crisp
1 month ago

This may seem an odd question but why do they bother having Royal Navy on them?
If you’re close enough to one of these when in flight to read it then you have more pressing matters and I’m pretty sure they aren’t going to be stolen as who’s going to buy it?

It just seems a bit pointless.

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
1 month ago

The UK, US and Australia have stepped up their defence partnership by agreeing to work together on hypersonic and anti-hypersonic weaponry  https://news.sky.com/story/uk-australia-and-us-agree-to-accelerate-development-on-hypersonic-missile-technology-12582994 “Hypersonic missiles are changing the way nations plan for their strategic defence for two reasons. Firstly, they are so fast there would be very little time – just minutes – between a launch being detected and a country’s leader having to decide whether to retaliate.” There is almost no way of knowing whether that missile is nuclear-tipped or not. Secondly, their flight path, especially that of a hypersonic glide vehicle (HGV), is so hard to predict it… Read more »

Last edited 1 month ago by Nigel Collins
GaryE
GaryE
1 month ago

Can anyone answer this question please?
Does the US have any control over weather we can fire our cruise missiles or not?
If they do, we need to purchase something we can use on whoever we like.

Paul T
Paul T
1 month ago
Reply to  GaryE

Id say none at all.

Tommo
Tommo
1 month ago

I take it that with soft ware updates being made available,that the as we put it Shelve life is extended or does the 1000lb warhead also need to be continually checked or changed ,as its not often that the Navy has used in anger 2001 Stan 2003 Iraq and 2011 Libya when are the Trafalgar class coming too the end of their commissions ?

bill masen
bill masen
1 month ago

Wow, how much out of date am I?? I honestly thought we had stopped using GLCMs and SLCMs??