Lockheed Martin UK – Integrated Systems, based in Havant in Hampshire, has been awarded a 3.5 year £1.8m contract from the Ministry of Defence for the in-service support of the Tomahawk Land Attack Missile.

Working to support Lockheed Martin UK is, Babcock International, based in Plymouth and Lockheed Martin Rotary and Mission Systems based in Manassas, US, via an existing Government to Government Foreign Military Sales arrangement.

The contract, which commenced in April 2019, will deliver the in-service support for the Tactical Tomahawk Weapons Control Systems (TTWCS) across both Royal Navy Trafalgar and Astute Class submarines, with associated shore-based establishments included.

Under this contract, Lockheed Martin will continue to maintain and sustain TTWCS, one of three major components that comprise the Tomahawk Weapons System. Lockheed Martin will also provide systems, software and hardware maintenance until September 2022.

“We are delighted to have won this competitive bid in support of a strategically important weapons system and ultimately provide an assured end user capability during this support programme,” said Paul Livingston, vice president and group managing director of Lockheed Martin UK – Rotary and Mission Systems.

“Our work on the Tomahawk Land Attack Missile across the Lockheed Martin Corporation spans over three decades and this is a true vote of confidence from our Royal Navy customer to continue and expand this existing relationship.”

0 0 vote
Article Rating
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Daniele Mandelli

By “associated establishments” that should also mean the Land Attack Cruise Missile Support Activity at Northwood.


Does anyone know how many we have? One estimate I read said it was only 64 in total. Granted, they aren’t cheap but it seems a pitifully small amount if true.


65 i believe, or at least that was the initial order and then the subsequent orders appear to be restocks.

This is why i don’t get the obsession with having land attack capability on the new frigates or the t45, we just don’t have the missiles to utilise the capability.


Yeah but don’t you think all of our escort fleet(maybe not 31s) and attack submarines should have a land attack capability, considering we have so few now you would think we should invest in that capability for all. Just now it’s only 6 submarines and that’s a total joke!. Maybe just have land attack capability for the type 26 and Astute then, maybe even type 45 eventually. The type 26 is costing so much just like the 45 so you would think both should have land attack options.


Considering the budget limitations, i think there are better priorities than fitting the surface fleet with missiles capability that we can’t afford to arm.


It’s a moot point. The US Navy has stopped production of the Tomahawk and has let a contract to modernize the Tomahawks it already possesses in is inventory. These will be designated Block V but no new Tomahawks will be ordered.

Paul T

Surely that’s a Chicken and Egg situation – the more platforms you have to use them the more of them you will have in stock .


Not in the UK Military!
The more platforms you have means the more platforms are designated Fit To Receive. (FTR)
You buy less systems and move them from unit to unit when the tasking of that unit means they need it.

Not every harpoon capable vessel gets harpoon.
Not every vessel gets Sonar 2170 (Surface Ship Torpedo Defence (SSTD))
Due to limited resources you only get something fitted when you absolutely need it.

Its not ideal but you make the best of what you have.


In my thought process, tomahawk is designed for a surprise / day 1 attack, which i would consider subs to be a much better asset to launch them from than a surface vessel, especially as they can get closer to shore without being spotted, giving the missile a greater chance of making it.

Daniele Mandelli

I have always believed TLAM, and the Land attack mission, should remain with the SSN fleet not surface escorts.

We have the capability, which few others have, of which we should be content. Spend our money elsewhere, like on ASM, a wider CIWS equipped fleet, and SAM.

Rob Young

No No No… the SSN fleet needs to be out of sight. That’s one thing from the Falklands – if you KNOW they are there, they are not as effective. Argentina didn’t know what was where and were crippled by it. Two different purposes. The surface fleet needs to be visible, the SSN fleet not so. So any visible action should be by the surface fleet while the SSNs..