The UK’s efforts to modernise its nuclear deterrent have taken another step forward with a $2.1 billion contract awarded by the U.S. Department of Defense to Lockheed Martin Space for the production and support of Trident II D5 missiles, alongside the development of the W93 warhead.
The contract also contributes to the UK’s parallel sovereign warhead programme, set to replace the ageing Mk4/A warhead.
According to the U.S. Department of Defense, Lockheed Martin Space, based in Titusville, Florida, has been awarded a “$2,122,872,740 hybrid fixed-price-incentive-fee, cost-plus-incentive-fee, and cost-plus-fixed-fee modification” for “Trident II D5 missile production and deployed systems support and Warhead 93-Mark-7 development.”
Importantly, this contract “also benefits a Foreign Military Sale to the United Kingdom.”
This development is crucial for the UK’s nuclear deterrent programme, as it ties into the ongoing development of the Astraea warhead (also known as A21/Mk7). This new warhead will replace the current Mk4/A warhead, which has been in service since 1994 and is based on the American W76 design.
The Mk4/A warheads are deployed on the UK’s Vanguard-class submarines, which carry the Trident II D5 missiles. These missiles form the backbone of the UK’s nuclear deterrent and are shared in a missile pool with the United States under long-standing defence agreements.
The UK’s new warhead, Astraea, is being developed as part of the UK’s sovereign nuclear deterrent capability. Although it is being developed in parallel with the U.S. W93 warhead, Astraea will remain a uniquely British design, developed by the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE).
The Ministry of Defence has stated that replacing the warhead will ensure the UK’s deterrent remains “cutting-edge, safe and effective.”
The U.S. contract reinforces the long-standing defence relationship between the UK and the U.S., as Trident missile systems continue to be manufactured in the U.S., while the UK produces and assembles its own warheads.
The Ministry of Defence has emphasised that the “requirements, design and manufacture” of the UK’s replacement warhead “will meet our obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.”
The U.S. Department of Defense’s contract notice specifies that the work will support the production and continued deployment of the Trident II D5 missile. Lockheed Martin will carry out the work across several locations in the United States, including “Denver, Colorado (24.0%); Valley Forge, Pennsylvania (19.3%); Titusville, Florida (14.5%); Magna, Utah (13.8%); and Kings Bay, Georgia (6.5%).”
The work is expected to be completed by “September 30, 2029.”
The Trident II D5 missile is a cornerstone of the UK’s nuclear deterrent. While the missiles are manufactured in the United States, they are fitted with UK-made warheads at HMNB Clyde before being deployed on the Royal Navy’s Vanguard-class submarines.
The contract confirms that “Fiscal 2024 weapons procurement (Navy) funds in the amount of $143,461,567 will be obligated on this award,” ensuring the continued production and support of these critical systems.
The contract was awarded by the U.S. on a sole-source basis under “10 U.S. Code 2304(a)(1)” and was previously synopsised on the Systems for Award Management (SAM) website, with only “one proposal received.” Strategic Systems Programs in Washington, D.C. is the contracting activity for this effort.
The UK’s nuclear deterrent is undergoing significant modernisation, not only with the Astraea warhead but also with the introduction of the new Dreadnought-class submarines, which are set to replace the current Vanguard fleet from the early 2030s.
The Astraea warhead is still in the concept phase, but with contracts like the one awarded to Lockheed Martin, it is clear that both the UK and the U.S. are investing heavily in ensuring their nuclear deterrents remain credible
“Trident II D5 missile production and deployed systems support and Warhead 93-Mark-7 development.”
I’m not surprised they want to build new Trident missiles. The last one we fired off – just before the election – was a dud
and the one before that.
Don’t worry the Russians have had 4 Sarmat duds out of 5 so at this rate we are all safe from nuclear destruction… well apart from the launch site personnel.
Yet somehow the USA has had 193 successful tests since 1989. The UK had successful tests until recently. What changed?
As the missiles come randomly from the same stock pile the cousins will be asking the same questions! Both left the boat so it was missile failure in both cases! The first one was flying but was terminated by range control as it was going off course.
As I say above the explanation for the second one was due to settings specific to the test regime causing the missile to abort its firing sequence so if true not a true missile failure in and of itself just the procedure for the test itself. Though that and dropping a plane off a carrier doesn’t necessarily instil one’s faith in their professionalism.
It was a test article unique to the test that caused the failure. These missiles are fired under incredibly safe conditions, some times too safe compared to combat.
Well the last one was due to incorrect test specific safety protocols around the launch which caused the missile to abort … or so they told us.
I’m willing to bet that absolutely no one in leadership in Moscow or Beijing has any doubts about whether or not they will work if fired in anger.
Total nonsense as per usual, it was a test article that caused the missile to abort, nothing to do with the reliability of the missile. Trident II D5 remains the most reliable SLBM ever developed.
Russia have the sarmat……and we still have..erm trident 🙄🙄
Astraea. Not heard that before.
Hi DM,now how to pronounce that? Is it like Daedalus (daydalus)orrr (diedalus)? Astraea-(ay)or(IE)? I may have been wrong for a lot of years by calling HMS Daedalus,Lee-on-Solent,the ay way .🙃🕳️btth
Not sure!!! ASTRA EEEEA maybe?
the first paragraph litterrally showcases what’s wrong with the British defence industry :
The UK’s efforts to modernise its nuclear deterrent have taken another step forward with a $2.1 billion contract awarded by the U.S. Department of Defense to Lockheed Martin Space for the production and support of Trident II D5 missiles, alongside the development of the W93 warhead.
Almost as important is getting all the tubes filled up on the boats.
We are in times where Russia may consider it can destroy the U.K. and out of 40 return warheads on 8 missiles it can deal with.
It may think 2 won’t work. 5 shot down and the one that gets through is worth it.
What’s the point? Until we can show we can launch the rockers without them sinking the host submarine our deterrent is a joke. The other thing, we need to add to our stockpile not replace it. Look where giving up nuclear weapons got Ukraine. Look how much the US commitment to their borders mattered when Russia invaded … Twice…then think whether the yanks will support the rest of us if push comes to shove and Russia threatens to nuke them…. They won’t let Ukraine destroy russian airfields with British weapons just in case Russia might use a nuke in America.… Read more »
So… a new, bigger, more sophisticated ‘set’ of boat’s I can fully understand, and get ‘on-board’ with.
However… as I am not a Nuclear physicist, I am struggling a little, with the notion that there must be a new missile and warhead, at a cost of zillions of GBP.
Surely a nuclear missile made in 1999, will kill, obliterate, maim and mangle as well as anything made today, tomorrow or last week for that matter?