The UK is spending £265 million to upgrade its submarine-launched Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles to Block V standard, meaning the upgraded missiles “will be able to travel further and be less vulnerable”.
According to a news release, the upgraded missile will be able to travel further than the previous Block IV iteration, “maintaining a precision-strike capability that is unmatched in range and accuracy. The upgrade will also make the weapon less vulnerable to external threats, with modernised in-flight communication and target selection”.
“In a £265 million contract with the US Government, with maintenance and technical support at the UK sites of BAE Systems, Babcock International and Lockheed Martin, the Royal Navy’s Astute-Class submarines will be armed with an enhanced Block V standard missile, capable of striking severe threats at a range of up to 1,000 miles.”
Minister for Defence Procurement, Jeremy Quin, was quoted as saying:
“This upgrade will equip our Astute-Class attack submarines with the one of the most lethal and precise long-range strike weapons. Enhancing this cutting-edge missile system will ensure the UK can strike severe threats up to 1,000 miles away.”
The Ministry of Defence say that the missiles will be upgraded as part of a Foreign Military Sale with the US Government, which was negotiated by the MoD’s procurement arm, Defence Equipment and Support and will be active from July.
According to the aforementioned news release, the Foreign Military Sale also includes missile maintenance, recertification of existing missiles, spares, operational flight testing, software, hardware and training provisions. Due to be operational in the mid-2020s, the upgraded Tomahawk will align with the delivery of the latest Astute submarines.
You can read more about the news here.
What is Tomahawk?
The American-built 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.
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.
Let’s hope that the deal may include the ability to attack ships too. It’s going to be a bit of a wait until we get a newer Anti-Surface capability. This could go some way to bridging the impending gap…?
devils in the details
Beginning in 2020, the U.S. Navy will recertify and modernize the missile, extending its service life by 15 years, and resulting in the new Tomahawk Block V series:
Thanks expat👍 Indeed it is, let’s hope the detail is well understood and suitably applied🤞
Hope Block five’s GPS comes with a Door knocker for Vlads Dacha in the country
Hi expat, thanks for providing the breakdown. Upgrading to Block V standard is good news, it’s in-keeping with Tony Radakin’s talk of improving the Navy’s lethality but do you happen to know which of the variants you list our Navy will take up? I take it, whether it is Va or Vb it will come with the modernised TACTOM, navigation and communication as standard but will we get the version that strikes moving targets at sea or will it enable us to hit more diverse land targets etc …. or both?
This is somewhat clearer. From what’s announced about old block IV, it’s the V we’ll get. Thstvssid, I’m still not sure ftom the article if the ‘Block V fork into Va or Vb’ is applicable to IV upgrades or new purchases. Either way, Tomahawk makes a logical interim for RN at the very least.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a34979788/new-block-v-tomahawk-cruise-missile/
‘That said’ Haven’t even opened a beer yet!
Thanks mate👍
Course Russia’s just successfully tested the Zircon hypersonic on a ship target out 600 mls (1000 kms). The missile took just 6-7 minutes to reach it.
Don’t know how favourably or otherwise the test was set up, but expect very favourable. Zircon not stealthy, of course, but manouverable and little reaction time.
Still, Tomahawk can outrange it without being seen ’til late, and article indicates it’s possibly cleverer.
Rgs
Indeed! I think we have to err on the side of caution with these test results, but I’m sure with enough effort(add investment & inclination) we will be able to come up with something to counter the new missile offerings from Russia🤞
US thought to be significantly further along hypersonic development curve than generally acknowledged.
👍
Yes they are they have been studying this area for some 30 years but S with so much else the ‘peace dividend’ slowed up the work over the last decade or more but all the knowledge and capability is already there and much of what they are involved in is a generation ahead of the opposition and now that it’s being rapidly fast tracked within 5 years they will be well ahead of Russia though China should never be underestimated especially with their ability to steal others efforts.
First US hypersonics should be in initial service next year though there may of course be delays but will be markedly cleverer higher spec than what Russia possesses once they are in operational. The capacity to produce and field them will no doubt soon outpace Russia too thereafter so the capability gap is unlikely to last long. Equally they aren’t as presently fielded actually ‘wonder’ weapons whatever the media hype they just make defending against them trickier in an environment however when we has seen from Moskva defending against far slower weapons is hardly reliable so it’s only a marginal… Read more »
Thank you spyinthesky 👍
It was interesting to note the type of aircraft used for the test and carrier-based.
“According to DARPA, in the new test the missile was released from a “carrier aircraft,” was boosted by a scramjet engine and then “quickly accelerated to and maintained cruise faster than Mach 5 (five times the speed of sound) for an extended period of time. The vehicle reached altitudes greater than 65,000 feet and flew for more than 300 nautical miles.”
https://breakingdefense.com/2022/04/us-hypersonic-missile-successful-in-flight-test-darpa-says/
The carrier aircraft was a B-52 and this was the fourth and first successful test. Whether any ‘black’ tests are ongoing with a different hypersonic weapon are of course unknown.
I think you’ll find that its manoeuvrability is proportional to its speed, i.e. the faster it goes the less manoeuvrable it gets.
Probably take a while to sort out all the hype.
This may add to the debate:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-physics-and-hype-of-hypersonic-weapons/
If its like the other tests it hit a moored barge at sea.
So it took off , flew fast , dived down and hit a GPS coordinate.
Absolute world leading and ground breaking tech that nobody else can do….Errr hang on…
Absolutely!
You are correct, it was a barge. Not sure what else could match that flight profile fired from a ship.
What is it with the fashion for ‘lethal’ as a description for everything now?
Would it not be cheaper just to procure new block v missiles to supplement those already in service ?
Then you have the cost of disposing or storing the old missiles.
£265 sounds like an awful lot of money to spend to upgrade ~100 missiles which cost £1M each. So I think we are buying more as well, probably doubling inventory, and updating launch systems on the subs.
It might, just might, include getting something on a surface ship to replace Harpoon?
There’s nothing in the US FMS release that indicates we’re increasing the stockpile (which is somewhere between 60-80 missiles). The request would have to list if there was additional missiles added in I’m afraid. This looks like a full contract to recertify them, upgrade and support until they go out of service.
I think your assessment is pretty much on the money IMO.
Can’t really see any version other than the Blk V missile either, although upgrading some to either the Va or Vb is a possibility, but unlikely.
There is something very expensive in that package. Probably software for the terrain following mode.
Another reason why more and more weapons are being built without US bits in them?
Could it be a hush hush upgrade and extra quantity? 70 TLAMs across 5-7 subs is bugger all. If a conflict ever erupted those would surely be used up in no time at all and then we’re left with no buffer replenishment stick unless there’s some easy access to US stocks?
Do we know of any US TLAM successor being planned for or will the FC/ASW also be sub based as I imagine that the French would want that for their subs to replace Scalp?
No I’m afraid it couldn’t. The FMS process is a legal thing, any additional sales of missiles would need to be listed.
US is working on a Tomahawk successor, but its likely that FCASW will fill that role for the UK. The MdCN is very new so the French might not need a replacement really quickly however.
A NL tweet alludes to us having 65 TLAMs, not sure how accurate that figure is, but fits in with @RBoys estimate of between 60-80 missiles.
It would be interesting to know if some were being upgraded to Blk Va/Vb standard too, although personally think that’s unlikely.
Hey Deep, Reading Raytheon’s press release on Blk V in 2020 it made it sound like you had 3 versions, V which sounds like a direct upgrade on IV with no ‘new’ ability just improvements. VA which appears to be a Blk V Anti-ship versions with a software changes to flight profile and moving target adjustment added, VB appears to be using the joint munitions warhead against hardened structure. To me it read as if you could have V now and VA or VB were future extras to improve your new Blk V as you wished. If I’ve totally misread… Read more »
That’s not much stock. Crikey, I was expecting 100-200!
If you trawl through all the references to UK and TLAM over the years, you come up with a figure of 212 (ish) that we have purchased. There are slight variations in the numbers that we have fired, depending on where you look, but I agree with @RBs total of some 60-80 left, so 65 is certainly a credible figure for remaining TLAM.
£265 million is an expensive upgrade for 65 missiles, I know it also includes support and maintenance as well as mods to both missile and kit, but still!!
I have to say I was shocked by the value as it doesn’t appear to include new munitions. The only thing I think that can justify it is if it includes all support/training etc until retirement. Otherwise it sounds bonkers…
Yes, have got to agree reference the lifetime support/trg and upgrades. Mind, if we use them up in the next 4-5 years say, will look even more expensive.
If the 65 figure is correct (can’t see it not being so), then it works out at a tad under £4mill a missile. Given that they cost approx £1 mill a pop, go figure why it didn’t include new ones……
I was just thinking that too, if it includes additional missile stock both sub and ship launched with the MK41s needing filling. TLAM v5s seem to be really good value and still very effective even in replacing any other interim AShM option.
Aren’t they missing something by not putting 2xMK41s onto the T45s too post current pip upgrades ? The space is already there! CAMM can go down the sides?
Could dispose of the old ones with exercises, tests, give some to boffins to see what they can do with it etc. I know a guy who will take anything at a scrap yard. The $1 million figure is most likely the cheapest possible sale price. Things get more expensive when you add in all the manuals, systems, servicing, training etc etc. As the U.K. are the only export customer there is nothing to compare prices to. My guess work would put a max of 32 on an astute leaving space for 4-6 spearfish torpedoes. Tomahawk to take out what… Read more »
Two ways the TLAM’s range can be extended. The first is by improving the efficiency of the engine. The second more likely method is to reduce the warhead size, leaving more space to increase the fuel volume.
Or miniaturised avionics, so a smaller bay, leaving more space for a bigger fuel tank.
Or flight software to improve the responsiveness to flight turbulence and manouevers by the control surfaces, therefore maintaining the most efficient flight profile.
Longer winglets maybe,
But you are probably right, a more compact warhead seems likely.
Engine efficiency has improved a lot as has warhead efficiency in recent times.
The shell of the missile could also be made from more advanced composites freeing up weight that way.
Agree.
The AGM-158 family of missiles are a good example of a missile body with the same overall dimensions.
The original JASSM had a reported range of 370km, JASSM-ER has a reported range of 930km and the Naval LRASM has a reported range of 560km.
Cheers,
Faster computing could also result in faster reaction to air pressure and movement of the fins which would result in less drag and better fuel efficiency. Lots of ways they could get a little extra here and there, no details of how much extra range it gives.
Could even be that after firing a load off over the last few years, the actual range of the missile has been discovered to be higher and so the official operating range has been increased to match, with no actual changes to hardware.
I think it is an improved turbo fan looking at press releases.
The anti ship version seems to have half the range suggesting a bigger/more complex warhead?
Another way to increase range is to increase the energy density of the fuel.
What with the T45 upgrades and this TLAM upgrade you could almost think the MOD is spending money wisely. Here’s another prudent decision…
https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/landwarfareintl/british-army-rules-out-jltv-acquisition/
That’s the Oshkosh one, right? I thought they’d go for that. What do you prefer? Souped-up Foxhounds? Quadbikes?
This isn’t an example of spending money wisely. Isn’t it just another example of failing to spend money at all?
They are skipping the phase 1 acquisition which is command, laison and logistic vehicles. Essentially battlefield jeeps.
They may move straight to the phase 2 troop transport i.e. Boxer and backfill the requirement for phase 1 with more Boxers.
That’s a v expensive battlefield jeep if they go for Boxers for Phase 1. Can’t see it myself, purely on financial grounds. Was the original requirement not for some 1700 vehicles in Phase 1? Even the ‘basic’ non fighty version of Boxer is something like £5mill a go, way to steep for our purse.
If they do decide to go that route, can’t see them buying anywhere near that amount.
Perhaps they are going to consider something based on the Supacat 400/600 series instead!
More Foxhound for the light duties and Boxer for the logistic duties. Foxhounds were about £0.9-1.1m each a decade ago depending on order size, so more likely £1.3/1.4m now. UK paid £4m on average for its last batch of Boxers of various configurations. The Okhosh/JPTV offer had a driveaway price of £300k before UK government furnished upgrades were applied (e.g. radios, weapons and other equipment).
Foxhound and Boxer are actually both part of the same program. It seems for the light un-protected role the options were JLTV or more Foxhound. Theres a really good overview here:
https://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/multi-role-vehicle-protected-mrv-p/
Cheers, yes have read it. There is another similar article over on UK Land Power ‘Re-thinking the UKs MRV -P requirements ‘ basically utilising Supacat series and or the Foxhound/Ocelot variants to fulfill the Phase 1-3 roles. It’s a pretty good read too.
I still think Boxer is far too expensive a battle taxi for this role, but you never know, stranger things have happened!!
Wasn’t that a TD update to the article Watcherzero linked?
https://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/rethinking-the-multi-role-vehicle-protected-programme/
In any event, the TD re-think article makes some good observations.
Yes it was mate.
There is a motor platoon for a Scots reg near my house with foxhounds and they sound like a beast.
When one broke down on the road they let my son sit in it. Seemed nice enough at the front. I only saw the drivers side looking from the road. They have some man trucks and land rovers but they don’t have the same meanness.
The few mastiffs have gone now or are in the sheds.
From first hand experience the armour also works. Normally after the teething issues we had in Afghan they were very reliable.
Per Watchers post I think what’s happening is a kind of ‘can it be done with a Boxer’ approach? I’m all for minimising the number of types. Generally try to standardize as far as makes sense. This reduces both purchase program costs and running costs. It simplifies logistics and training and increases availability. Boxer would also create more UK jobs.
If they wanted to boost British industry, I’d have expected Supacat to get the job.
I like the Boxers but they’re more than a bit overspecified even for phase 2, aren’t they? And the mind boggles when considering fuel efficiency. It would be a real coup if they could get the price point low enough that the general APC would be the same as the direct fire APC.
I don’t know Jon. Actually I suspect the Army and the MOD don’t know either. The cancellation of WCSP and the delay / possible cancellation of Ajax has thrown a spanner in the works and must be causing a certain focussing of the mind. Decisions have been made on C3 and GMRLS but I reckon requirements for everything else – Warrior replacement, tracked and towed artillery, other vehicles, is being re-assessed; re-evaluating ways of fighting in light of Ukraine. Things will clarify when we know the fate of Ajax.
“This lethality upgrade will make a lethal weapon even more lethal than it already was. Launched from our lethal aircraft carrier hybrids*, the lethal..er Tommyhawk missiles will certainly enhance our already lethal capabilities and ensure the Royal Navy remains at the cutting-edge of deploying lethal weapon systems or lethal effect. This is about achieving a lethal, dynamic and adaptable navy. Although we only have one ship, it has the capabilities of 5 aircraft carriers, 10 Type 45 destroyers, 11 Type 26 frigates and 3 Astute class submarines. It can also carry our one helicopter, making it a truly lethal asset.”… Read more »
Impressive, considering it is only Tuesday!
Bloody politicians.
They are only clearing their desks for the long weekend 😉
You missed out the most important bit. Agile.😐
A career in politics is on the cards for you Sir!
i’d like to see the u.k design and deploy a clubk like system. most modern conflicts begin with a cruise missile barrage. with the exception of the ssn the fleet cannot deploy a long range strike maybe a iso container sized weapon ocated on all the ship, in particularly the carrier escorts would significatley improve the ‘punch’ of a u.k battle group as it stands the u.k bttle group can present the f 35b and ssn launched based tomahawk missiles. otherwise that about it a carrier group needs to be a fearsome tool. as it is i fear its a… Read more »
Storm shadow and it’s replacement
We need a missile where we cannot be seen firing at the enemy and we need to go back to firing missiles from under water.
As for the Tomahawk missile it maybe precision guilded missiles but it has not got the distance like Zircon or Satan2 missiles has got to do much damage from 1000 miles out.
As other ships and submarines could be identified as upto no good and they could be stopped.
Woah there. Satan 2 is an ICBM, unless you are complete fruitcake you will never use it, as it will set off a nuclear reprisal from NATO, if it’s ever used against a NATO member. For that, the UK will use a bunch of Trident 2 D5s. Zircon, is bloody huge, its published length is 9m, compared to TLAM’s 5m. Zircon has to be huge, so that it carry the necessary fuel to give it a decent range and to allow it to go hypersonic. It can only realistic do hypersonic speeds above 80,000ft. Otherwise at very low level it… Read more »
Err… we currently fire Tomahawks from under water, so your first statement is utter tosh.
Tomahawk works. Given the Russians are currently experiencing 20% to 50% failure rate on their in-service missiles I’d hate to imagine the failure rate on something as new and unproven as Zircon.
Old Soviet era anti ship missiles that are still in service fly at m4.5 but only at high altitudes. As they dive down air resistance slows them and the manoeuvrability is reduced due to the high speeds increasing G forces. A small control surface movement at high speed = a big movement of the missile and a high G loading. Satan is a super heavy ICBM. If that thing ever cold launches and the motor fires I will be found sitting down with Mrs GB and a very expensive glass of artisan crafted rum whilst waiting for the flash and… Read more »
At least you won’t need to worry about lighting the BBQ.
TLAM is not comparable to an ICBM! 😀
I’m sure given its accuracy TLAM can do plenty of damage, especially if several dozen of them land on your airfield.
Indeed, the Russian version of the TLAM is the Kaliber.
Zircon has a scramjet engine for cruise. It will only work above Mach 4-5 and higher altitudes. Zircon is meant to fly to the target at upto Mach 9. As it gets to the area that it needs to come down from high altitude the engine would have to be shut off as it won’t work with higher air density. If kept running it would blow itself to pieces. So now you have a very fast unpowered weapon. The forces involved at high speeds are massive. While It’s stated that it can manoeuvre , it won’t be sudden direction changes.… Read more »
Good comment. The Zircon is essentially an Onyx with improved materials for higher speed flight, revised aerodynamic shape, the replacement of the ramjet motor with a scramjet and new higher energy fuel. This plus the need for it to use the UKSK VLS is what governs its size and so use in all kinds of potential hosts. It is designed to fly at 40km or higher over 1000 to 1500km with a flight time for 1000km of about 10 minutes. Although it is assumed that it will do a near vertical drop onto a target the only shots of it… Read more »
Are you excited about it? It will mean that Putin can kill more civvies, although the ground troops will be disappointed as they would prefer to rape the women and torture the men before they die! So, firstly any condemnation of Putins illegal invasion of Ukraine and, would you like to lay out your stall and stop pretending to be impartial, and have the balls to commit to your agenda and back up your support for the invasion. Stop being a coward!
Just please leave me alone. If you have to make a comment why not make a constructive one relevant to the topic.
I think that’s what the Ukraine people are saying to your fav Russian rapists!
I suspect from you continuing to mention it probably means that you missed the news earlier in the week that the Ukrainian Rada, their parliament, has, after an investigation, just fired their Ombudsman for Human Rights for, amongst other things, publishing stories about Russian soldiers raping Ukrainians with out any real evidence, basically fabricated tales.
Your answering in your own echo chamber pal! Any condemnation of Putins illegal invasion of Ukraine yet?
Hellooooo? Can’t hear any condemnation yet, so, you support it then as we all knew! Just be nice if you had the courage to admit your beliefs!
Send one over to Russia before he sends his nuck over here.
Nobody is afraid of the Royal navy 🤣🤣🤣🤣💣
Nobody with more than 1 million followers; that’s what really matters, right?
“GPS-enabled weapon” – Is GPS reliable in a war situation?