Lockheed Martin is being awarded $7,856,249 by the US and UK for various tasks relating to the Tactical Tomahawk Weapons Control System.

According to a contract note on the US DoD website, the order provides for the ‘management, sustainment, and upgrade of the Tactical Tomahawk Weapons Control System (TTWCS) software product baseline’.

The order also provides for the ‘procurement of requirements definition, design and development, system development activities, security and sustainability builds, and system and software documentation of new and existing TTWCS software’.

The combined purchase was funded by the US Navy ($5,630,504; 77.4 percent); and the government of the United Kingdom ($1,775,992; 22.6 percent), under the Foreign Military Sales programme say the US DoD.

“Work will be performed in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania (98 percent); and Patuxent River, Maryland (2 percent), and is expected to be completed in January 2019. Fiscal 2018 other procurement (Navy); fiscal 2018 research, development, test and evaluation; fiscal 2018 operations and maintenance (Navy); and foreign military sales funds in the amount of $7,406,496 will be obligated at time of award, $1,321,550 of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year.”

9
Leave a Reply

avatar
5 Comment threads
4 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
6 Comment authors
Daniele MandelliElliottTim sinnettSteveAV Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest
Notify of
Daniele Mandelli
Guest
Daniele Mandelli

Another of the key assets that the apparently 3rd world ( according to some on here ) Royal Navy possess.

If Falklands Mk 2 ever happened and a RN SSN is there, nothing the Argentinians can do about it.

Of course we know the state of the Argentinian military I’m just using a useful historical example.

maurice10
Guest
maurice10

This is very good news for once.

AV
Guest
AV

A soooooooo often over looked capability.
Glad were keeping them up to date.

Steve
Guest
Steve

Considering the tiny number of missiles we have, especially compared to the US, why are we paying 22% of the cost?

Great weapon for sure, but we already got embassed once for not having may of the missiles and I haven’t seen a big purchase, all we did was restock out limited supply.

Daniele Mandelli
Guest
Daniele Mandelli

I think it is 60 odd I read somewhere?

Tim sinnett
Guest

Surely a stock of only 60 would be gone in hours if we went to war!?
I believe we should have a state of the art missile development and test facility invested in. Missiles of all types seem to be of great importance and we are behind the curve.
Great opportunity to catch up, and create sales, manufacturing jobs and not have to rely on other nations. Please tell me if we already have such a facility?

Elliott
Guest
Elliott

More like minutes. To put into perspective one of the smaller strikes done by the USN was when President Trump ordered the missile strike on the Syrian airfield suspected of using of using chemical weapons. That stkrike used 59 missiles split between 2 ships neither firing their full complement.

Daniele Mandelli
Guest
Daniele Mandelli

Agreed Elliott. But this is USA compared to the rest of the world.

The UK is one of the few other nations to have the capability, however small, and I’m pleased with that, giving the PM the choice, if needed, for pinpoint strikes.

I assume Russia has an equivalent but thought only the UK has TLAM outside the USA.

Elliott
Guest
Elliott

The UK has the ability to theoretically build long range missiles. However the facilities that could build them decided that the order numbers would be to low be worth it so instead focused on shorter range air launched missiles.