Lockheed Martin will continue to manufacture submarine-launched ballistic missiles for the US Navy and the Royal Navy under a four-year, $559.6M contract modification.

The company will also support both countries deployed Trident II D5 missile systems, the Department of Defense said Thursday.

The full text of the contract notice is displayed below.

“Lockheed Martin Space, Sunnyvale, California, is awarded $559,622,074 for cost-plus-incentive-fee, fixed-price-incentive, cost-plus-fixed-fee modification P00004 to a previously awarded contract (N00030-18-C-0100) for Trident II (D5) missile production and deployed system support.  

Work will be performed in Magna, Utah (29.47 percent); Sunnyvale, California (16.75 percent); Cape Canaveral, Florida (14.07 percent); Pittsfield, Massachusetts (6.00 percent); Denver, Colorado (5.56 percent); Camden, Arizona (3.96 percent); Titusville, Florida (3.87 percent); Kingsport, Tennessee (3.87 percent); Kings Bay, Georgia (3.15 percent); El Segundo, California (2.87 percent); Lancaster, Pennsylvania (2.00 percent); Clearwater, Florida (1.11 percent); Inglewood, California (1.08 percent); and other various locations less than one percent (6.24 percent total), and work is expected to be completed Sept. 30, 2023.  

Fiscal 2019 weapons procurement (Navy) funds in the amount of $412,117,013; fiscal 2019 other procurement (Navy) funds in the amount of $9,717,587; and United Kingdom funds in the amount of $137,787,474 will be obligated on this award. No funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year.  

Strategic Systems Programs, Washington, District of Columbia, is the contracting activity.”

Work is scheduled to conclude by Sept. 30, 2023.

Trident II D5 missiles are currently aboard U.S. Ohio-class and U.K. Vanguard-class submarines and designed to carry multiple independently targeted re-entry vehicle warheads.

41
Leave a Reply

avatar
6 Comment threads
35 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
24 Comment authors
WatcherzeroHFJulianRonDavid Flandry Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest
Notify of
Cam Hunter
Guest
Cam Hunter

Do we know what ballistic missile the Drednought class will have onboard? And why doesn’t France and the UK work on their own new one? Or Maybe we in the UK are to close to American systems now.

Levi Goldsteinberg
Guest
Levi Goldsteinberg

Dreadnoughts will pack Trident D5 ICBMs onboard, same as the USA’s Colombia class.

As for working with France? I wouldn’t trust them to codesign a pencil, let alone a nuclear missile. Plus America has far more experience and resources than France, making them a better partner and one that can be trusted (mostly) to uphold their end of the programme

Alex T
Guest
Alex T

Precisely.

Also, I believe that the Vanguard and Columbia class subs will have the same, identical launch tubes, which presumably reduces the cost all round?

As to the French, well said.

Cam Hunter
Guest
Cam Hunter

“As to the french well said”. The french have independently build there own nuclear warheads, ballistic missiles and systems and have also successfully adapted the Rafale for nuclear strike missions!. A bit more than Britain has done in the past few years and in future, we lost our RAF Nuclear bomb decades ago. But hey atleast we still build our own warheads in the UK, something to be really proud of I think, we also protect all of NATO and Europe with them, but what thanks do we get?

PKCasimir
Guest
PKCasimir

The UK is protecting the US with its nuclear missiles? With its one Vanguard submarine at sea. Right. What planet do you live on?

dave12
Guest
dave12

You have a point ,there are many on here who distrust France and europe more than the Russians.

HF
Guest

‘As for working with France? I wouldn’t trust them to codesign a pencil’

Why is that ? I’ve never seen the Russians buy serious hardware from a western nation before but they bought two Mistral class assault ships.

Mr Bell
Guest

The Russians would buy a dead dog from anAlbanian if they had the chance. They are not exactly picky. Who cares what the Russian’s buy and from whom?
Besides there is an arm’s embargo and sanctions on Russia on account of Russia invading a sovereign country, The Ukraine.

HF
Guest

Why do you need to tell me about Ukraine – irrelevant. The point about this is French capabilities. The comment was a blanket dismissal of French products. I asked why.

David Stephen
Guest
David Stephen

The fact that the frogs sold Putin 2 LPHs is enough reason to distrust them.

HF
Guest

Seems to me that distrust and dislike of France is a default attitude for a lot of people on here. You’ll have heard the term ‘perfidious Albion’, no doubt. Often just a question of perspective.

David Stephen
Guest
David Stephen

Sorry, I mean tried to sell them 2 LPHs.

Steve Taylor
Guest

Work with France?

Sean
Guest
Sean

Work with France, a country that yoyo’s in and out of NATO?!? ?

BB85
Guest
BB85

It makes you wonder how France could afford to go it alone with their strategic deterrent, nuclear carrier and Rafale. The UK doesn’t seem to get much work share from teaming up with the Americans on Trident which I assume is offset by lower risk and lower cost due to EOS. I take it RR receiving the updated reactor designs if included in the joint package.

HF
Guest

‘Also how hard can it be to make a missile leave point A and hit point B’ Extremely hard, especially if the target is small and hardened. The first generation of ballistics missiles had massive warheads because they were so inaccurate. Polaris didn’t have the capability to hit a hardened target with any accuracy and were purely ‘city buster’ area weapons that had no counterforce value. Improvements in accuracy meant that warheads could be made smaller, and more put on a missile (MRV or MIRV). With MIRV one missile could hit, in the case of Trident D5, up to 12… Read more »

Cam Hunter
Guest
Cam Hunter

It’s not as simple as hitting point B from point A it’s the ballistic side! Going into space pretty much then all the stresses and strains that puts on the systems. It’s more complicated than most people think. That’s why I laugh when people think North Korea have that capability lol! They don’t and won’t ever have! It’s not just a cruise missile….

Will
Guest
Will

Ballistic Missiles use dead reckoning and Astro guidance as they need to be able to to hit a target, even if satellites have been taken out leaving GPS down and out.

Julian
Guest
Julian

Firstly, the primary guidance for Trident is not GPS because in a scenario where nuclear weapons have already been released, potentially in great numbers and the SSBN is making a retaliatory strike, GPS might be off line. Trident is designed to use inertial navigation for the entire potentially more than 12,000 km flight (in fact much more because that’s just the range which is quoted, the flight path will be longer than the range). That requires incredibly accurate accelererometers and gyros to maintain constant awareness of position. In fact it’s not really possible with 100% confidence so Trident is also… Read more »

Trevor G
Guest
Trevor G

The new SSBNs will use the same Trident missiles. USN and RN missile bodies are drawn from a common pool. This contract does not involve replacing them.

David E Flandry
Guest
David E Flandry

Plus the UK designed the Common Missile Compartment module for 4 missiles to fit both the new US and UK SSBNs. UK subs will have 3 modules , the US 4.

captain P Wash.
Guest
captain P Wash.

Memory tells me, We joined the Nuclear Club with a little bit of British Craftiness having helped in the Initial Project only to be sidelined shortly after. Can’t remember which test It was but once our Package was seen to be the real thing, the US gave us Access to their ongoing program.

Not sure how the French did it but bugger, that Godzilla was a hard act to Kill.

captain P Wash.
Guest
captain P Wash.

RGR, I blame Brexit.

captain P Wash.
Guest
captain P Wash.

I blame Brexit for absolutely Everything at the moment, just going with the flow mate !!!!

HF
Guest

‘ the supersonic flight thing, chuck yeager ‘ – they actually used British research to do that, similar to the Manhattan project which was heavily based on British & Commonwealth research. After WW2 Congress passed the McMahon Act, which prohibited the sharing of nuclear weapons information with anyone. Gratitude, eh ?

Barry Larking
Guest

The critical mass necessary for an atomic explosive device was calculated correctly by Max Perls and Otto Frisch at the University of Birmingham in 1941. Heisenberg, acknowledge as one of the greatest mathematicians and atomic theorists of his time failed to find the correct answer for the Nazi program to develop the nuclear bomb. Perls and Frisch’s calculation and other research into atomic weapons pioneered in the U.K under the Tube Alloys project was handed to the U.S. allowing the speedy construction of the bombs developed by the American team. In return the U.K. was sidelined and eventually shut out… Read more »

captain P Wash.
Guest
captain P Wash.

Yup, That’s the Truth of It all.

Levi Goldsteinberg
Guest
Levi Goldsteinberg

Eisenhower the most pro-British president? Bollocks! He and his administration were solely responsible for the Suez Crisis and the final death blow to the British Empire

Ron
Guest
Ron

To make matters worse it now appears that some of the Uranium in the payload was actually German. So the Americans used a bomb partially developed by the UK where they kept then the UK out of future developments and used Uranium Oxide captured from a German U-Boot U234 that was shipping it to Japan to bomb Japan. You could make it up even if you wanted to.
Americans, I don’t know who I trust the most France or America, personally I trust the Germans, at least you know what you get with them.

HF
Guest

‘He and his administration were solely responsible for the Suez Crisis and the final death blow to the British Empire’. The people responsible were the UK & french governments. True, though, that a major war aim of the USA was the end of the Btitish Empire, for both economic and ideological reasons.

HF
Guest

Sorry if I misunderstood. I didn’t realise that the Yeager thing was based on British research until recently. Not sure many people do.

Kirk Jiao
Guest

Blame Kim Philby.

David Flandry
Guest
David Flandry

The US was leery of working with the UK after the fiasco of finding several British traitors among the group of nuclear scientists in the Manhattan Project. It was a major reason why the USSR obtained the bomb so quickly. None of the traitors really got what they deserved.

Watcherzero
Guest
Watcherzero

Was only well after they stopped working together that they found out about the British Communist spy Klaus Fuchs (1950) who by that time had already moved on to the British nuclear program. They had already found several American spies at the University of Berkley Rad Lab in 1944. And several less successful British and American spies were found around the same time as Fuchs. Meanwhile the second most successful spy, the American Theodore Hall, wasn’t identified till 1990, he had been interviewed by the FBI in 1951 but cleared.

David Flandry
Guest
David Flandry

That would be Operation Grapple, where the UK demonstrated ability to build a large nuclear weapon, then a true thermonuclear one.

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

Just remember if Godzilla kicks off we have snuggled very close with Japan, are we at risk of getting the Queen Elizabeth eaten…….. just saying…… I’m not sure we have invested heavily in the big metal monster killing robots needed to sort out Godzilla.

Steve R
Guest
Steve R

Unless the QE carriers are also actually giant transformers; could take out Godzilla then!

Would also explain the cost of the things!

captain P Wash.
Guest
captain P Wash.

Don’t be Silly mate.

Steve R
Guest
Steve R

Apologies. Though I thought why not, since comments are on Godzilla and giant robots, might as well continue in the same vein.

G. Jones
Guest

Enjoy the banter but the reality is Putin either sends Russia broke and gets overthrown or he goes to war. An economy the size of Italy’s cannot sustain his defence spending. Suggest UK spends its £39b on putting 12 warheads on trident; more type 41’s with Astor block 1&2 and two more trident subs so at least 4 at sea. You also need Astor land based in large numbers. Time May told EU what the deal is or learn to speak Russian very quickly. You are sleepwalking into WW3.

trackback

[…] Recently, the two nations also spent $560m on Trident missile production and support. […]