Spare parts and support for the UK Tomahawk missile stockpile are being procured by the Ministry of Defence with work being carried out in the US and in Scotland.

The Tomahawk Land Attack Missile is a long-range, all-weather, subsonic cruise missile that is primarily used by the United States Navy and Royal Navy in ship and submarine-based land-attack operations.

According to a contract notification:

“Raytheon Co., Tucson, Arizona, is being awarded $260,345,336 for modification P00010 to a previously awarded firm-fixed-price (N00019-17-C-0034) for procurement of 196 Tomahawk Block IV all-up-round vertical launch system missiles and spares in support of the Navy.  In addition, this modification provides for the procurement of spare parts and support for the government of the United Kingdom.  

Work will be performed in Tucson, Arizona (23.95 percent); Walled Lake, Michigan (12.41 percent); Camden, Arkansas (10.76 percent); Gainesville, Virginia (7.5 percent); El Segundo, California (6.5 percent); Glenrothes, Scotland (4.4 percent); Fort Wayne, Indiana (3.7 percent); Clearwater, Florida (3.4 percent); Middletown, Connecticut (3.1 percent); Spanish Fork, Utah (2.46 percent); Ontario, California (2.4 percent); Midland, Ontario, Canada (2.21 percent); Vergennes, Vermont (1.96); Dublin, Georgia (1.9 percent); Berryville, Arkansas (1.7 percent); Westminster, Colorado (1.14 percent); Simsbury, Connecticut (0.73 percent); Moorpark, California (0.71 percent); Valencia, California (0.69 percent); Hollister, California (0.69 percent); Mesa, California (0.6 percent); East Camden, Arkansas (0.55 percent); South El Monte, California (0.51 percent), and various locations inside the continental U.S. (6.03 percent).  

Work is expected to be completed in August 2019.  

Fiscal 2017 and 2018 weapons procurement (Navy); and foreign military sales funds in the amount of $260,345,336 are being obligated at time of award, none of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year.  

This contract combines purchases for the Navy ($256,702,665; 98.6 percent); and the government of the United Kingdom ($3,642,671; 1.4 percent) under the Foreign Military Sales program.  

The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Maryland, is the contracting activity.”

The Kosovo War in 1999 saw the Swiftsure class HMS Splendid become the first British submarine to fire the Tomahawk in combat.

The Royal Navy has since fired Tomahawks during the 2000s Afghanistan War, in Operation Telic as the British contribution to the 2003 Iraq War, and during Operation Ellamy in Libya in 2011.

0 0 vote
Article Rating
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Bob Perry

Not much of an order for UK though.


Agreed – $3M is nothing. Peanuts. Wonder what the spare parts are? ROYAL NAVY stickers?
We have fired these missiles in the past, but some small number like 12 compared to USN which fired 200 or thereabouts. I do agree though, that in the case of say, the Falkland’s, these missiles would be absolutely a game changer. Imagine if we had this in 1982, we could have taken out the Argie air bases and aircraft ranged on the runway with precision.

David Steeper

If the politicians had the guts ?


I really do think we should be building our own missiles – either under licence or to our own designs. The Norwegians and India have shown this can be done and surely the UK does have enough demand to have an ordnance factory somewhere in the UK that produces everything that we need. We are pretty good at this and it could be a key area of competitive advantage for us. The Norwegians have been very clever with their JSM/NSM offering and I can’t help but think that should have been us. There’s also the opportunity for the UK to… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli

A key capability combining SSNs and TLAM that most nations lack.
Pity we only have a small stockpile due to cost.


Almost a million per mission to maintain it, now that is a good deal for Raytheon. Some insanely extensive missiles, considering that they probably couldn’t break through a modern air defense umbrella.


They fly close to the ground and around obstacles.

Cruise missiles are much harder to find and shoot than the faster but high and predictable trajectory of a ballistic missile.


It’s a good point

David Steeper

If a cruise missile couldn’t get through an aircraft def couldn’t.

Mr Bell

I think the tomahawk weapon system is first class. Look what the Americans tomahawk strike did to the Syrian airforce- 1/3rd of their frontline strength wiped out. airbase effectively destroyed. That was a 40 missile strike. If the RN could only order a couple of hundred tomahawks – or better still build under license in the UK, either tomahawk or a similar missile then we could really deliver a weapon that can take out very high priority targets with impunity. The Russian air defence umbrella around the Syrian air base did not intercept a single tomahawk and thus it could… Read more »


Russia’s S500 is not present in Syria and the Syrian airbase was operating within a few hours of the US strikes Where do you get your information ?


this is the problem. So far the tomahawk has not been tested against a relatively modern air defence system.

the trick is to take out the runways long enough to gain air supremacy and saturation bomb with conventional bombers to prevent repairs. The us strikes in Syria could have achieved this but they didn’t follow through fully. The question is can they get through modern air defence radar /missiles, a question we will hopefully never get answered.

Nick Bowman

Why do we need “vertical launch system missiles and spares” when we don’t launch Tomahawks vertically? We won’t until the first Type 26 frigate is built.

Geoffrey Roach

The worry Nick is that we are once again heading for a “fitted for rather tan incorporated” situation. It completely mystifies me how we can spend a billion on a ship and then try to save four or five million on a Harpoon stack or buy helo’s but not fully train the crews because of lack of resources.

Daniele Mandelli

I doubt the T26 will ever see Tomahawk.
And it does not need to. Our SSN’s provide that capability.
A bit like expecting the A400 to have Meteor!

Geoffrey Roach

Now your talking Daniele… Herky Birds with Storm Shadow…Christmas soon!!

Joking apart, I would put a V L S Mk 41 on a T26 anyway. then it’s there.

Daniele Mandelli

Agree they should be fitted with it. But it will be loaded with other missiles not the TLAM I believe. Treasury would not fund doubling the capability when what we have is already sufficient for the land attack mission.

Daniele Mandelli

In all seriousness I did read once when the FOAS was still with us and planned as a GR 4 replacement one proposal was indeed Storm Shadow or similar fired from transports. Utterly nuts.

Geoffrey Roach

Bring on Taranis!

Daniele Mandelli

Now you’re talking.
What’s the betting it never sees the light of day and is merged with another European program, with them gratefully absorbing the expertise of BAES special projects Division and HM government not funding an RAF purchase?