| Welcome to World's Armed Forces Forum. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Britain to buy 64 US Tomahawk Cruise Missiles | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Apr 22 2004, 12:37 PM (604 Views) | |
| icefire850 | Apr 22 2004, 12:37 PM Post #1 |
|
Lieutenant
|
LONDON strategicvision 04/20/04 Britain will buy 64 US-made Tomahawk missiles for use on Royal Navy submarines for a total 70 million pounds (105 million euros / 125 million dollars), the Ministry of Defence said Wednesday. Under Secretary of State and Minister for Defence Procurement Lord Bach said the cruise missiles would be fitted with non-nuclear warheads. Some British submarines already boast first-generation Tomahawks. The new TLAM/Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles can be fired from the seven Trafalgar class nuclear attack submarines (SNA) which are already in service, said Bach. They will also be fitted onto future Astute class SNAs once they are operational. The Tomahawks are made by the Massachusetts-based Raytheon company, a world leader in developing defence technologies. British submarines have fired Tomahawk missiles during conflicts in Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq |
![]() |
|
| RBTiger | Apr 23 2004, 04:27 PM Post #2 |
![]()
Field Marshal
![]()
|
NewsFlash Home | More Business News Business News U.K. to buy Tomahawk missiles From Raytheon For $124 million The Associated Press 4/21/04 10:29 AM LONDON (Dow Jones/AP) -- The British Ministry of Defense said Wednesday that it has reached an agreement with the U.S. government to buy 64 Block IV Tomahawk cruise missiles from Raytheon Co. for more than $124 million. The conventionally armed missiles will be capable of being fired from the Royal Navy's Trafalgar Class submarines as well as the new Astute attack submarines when they enter service. Unlike existing Tomahawks in the U.K. arsenal, the new Block IV models can be retargeted while in flight, according to the Ministry of Defense. The missiles will be made by Waltham, Mass.-based Raytheon in the U.S. and supplied to the U.K. under the terms of a foreign military sales agreement with Washington. Raytheon's plant at Glenthroes, Scotland, will make some of the missile electronics. Some upgrade work will be required to the British submarine fleet to enable the vessels to fire the new missile. The British armed forces have used Tomahawk cruise missiles extensively in operations in Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq. ------ On the Net: http://www.raytheon.com (P.s- Remember to give the link to the site you have copied the news bit from, for copyright reasons) |
![]() World's Armed Forces Forum-The best Forum around… World's Military Forces “In order to win a war, one must be ready to lose battles” “A country has no permanent friends, only permanent interests” | |
![]() |
|
| perestroika | Jun 11 2004, 09:36 PM Post #3 |
|
Imaginative Poster
|
thats great, its high time the brits start upgrading their defences, i was apaled when i read about the size of teh british military, thats unaceptable, |
![]() |
|
| Mogz | Jun 12 2004, 03:39 AM Post #4 |
|
Knowledgeable Member
|
I'm not sure what you read, but the British military is pretty large dude and well armed...some highlights include:
|
| |
![]() |
|
| PLA1021 | Jun 12 2004, 10:32 PM Post #5 |
|
Champion Poster
|
Does UK have nuclear weapons? |
![]() |
|
| Mogz | Jun 12 2004, 11:03 PM Post #6 |
|
Knowledgeable Member
|
They sure do, the last report I read had them down for having 185 nukes. |
| |
![]() |
|
| RBTiger | Jun 13 2004, 04:23 PM Post #7 |
![]()
Field Marshal
![]()
|
The nuclear warheads of nations (As far as I remember) 1. US- 10,00+ 2. Russia- same here 3. China- about 600 4. France- 400 5. UK-190 6. India- 70 7. Pakistan- 12 Correct me if I am wrong. |
![]() World's Armed Forces Forum-The best Forum around… World's Military Forces “In order to win a war, one must be ready to lose battles” “A country has no permanent friends, only permanent interests” | |
![]() |
|
| PLA1021 | Jun 19 2004, 11:25 PM Post #8 |
|
Champion Poster
|
wow that is scary. the earth's gonna blow up if a nuke war starts. |
![]() |
|
| RBTiger | Jun 20 2004, 12:49 PM Post #9 |
![]()
Field Marshal
![]()
|
In fact, Russia and US each have enough nukes to blow up the world completely. |
![]() World's Armed Forces Forum-The best Forum around… World's Military Forces “In order to win a war, one must be ready to lose battles” “A country has no permanent friends, only permanent interests” | |
![]() |
|
| EFA | Jun 20 2004, 10:37 PM Post #10 |
|
Dire Patriot
|
I believe the UK have around 400/500 Nuclear warheads. |
| [size=1]<span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'><span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>England Expects[/size] that every man will do his duty.</span></span> | |
![]() |
|
| Mogz | Jun 20 2004, 11:14 PM Post #11 |
|
Knowledgeable Member
|
The U.K. has had less than 200 nuclear weapons since the end of the cold war. I read 185, RBTiger says 190, either number is fine by me. But 400-500, no. |
| |
![]() |
|
| RBTiger | Jun 22 2004, 04:38 PM Post #12 |
![]()
Field Marshal
![]()
|
Yes. France has the third most number of nukes in this world-400. |
![]() World's Armed Forces Forum-The best Forum around… World's Military Forces “In order to win a war, one must be ready to lose battles” “A country has no permanent friends, only permanent interests” | |
![]() |
|
| EFA | Jun 23 2004, 11:48 PM Post #13 |
|
Dire Patriot
|
Just quoting what I've heard elsewhere http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/DisplayAnsw..._id=15&index=10 "Great Britain has an arsenal of 380 with a range of 7,500 miles" |
| [size=1]<span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'><span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>England Expects[/size] that every man will do his duty.</span></span> | |
![]() |
|
| RBTiger | Jun 24 2004, 05:42 PM Post #14 |
![]()
Field Marshal
![]()
|
Those were just personal opinions, no one knows for sure, I guarantee yo. Except the President of course. |
![]() World's Armed Forces Forum-The best Forum around… World's Military Forces “In order to win a war, one must be ready to lose battles” “A country has no permanent friends, only permanent interests” | |
![]() |
|
| Mogz | Jun 28 2004, 02:26 AM Post #15 |
|
Knowledgeable Member
|
Britain doesn't have a President. They're got a Prime Minister ;-) |
| |
![]() |
|
| RBTiger | Jun 30 2004, 08:52 PM Post #16 |
![]()
Field Marshal
![]()
|
Well,yes, and even in India the PM is the most important man, with the Prez as a nice puppet. |
![]() World's Armed Forces Forum-The best Forum around… World's Military Forces “In order to win a war, one must be ready to lose battles” “A country has no permanent friends, only permanent interests” | |
![]() |
|
| Infidellic | Jul 4 2004, 07:03 PM Post #17 |
![]()
Major
|
Ah the joys of soverignty! I don't think I would like a pure Presidential political system like the US. Ok, there is the Senate but I still am more happy with the various houses (of commons and of lords) and the Queen as a backup to determine the best actions for the country. (I am probably completely wrong about the political system in the US so heck ignore the above) But, yes the UK used to have more Nukes with deployment of them being given to the RAF but later the responsibility was handed over to the Royal Navy and now I think that our nukes can only be fired from the Trafalgar class subs. We have no silos or ICBMs so we have to rely on deploying the subs or hope that they will be in place if a nuclear war were to break out. Still we do have one of the only nuclear reprocessing plants in the world (Sellafield)(at least in europe) so we have a nice supply in case we want more! |
| |
![]() |
|
| Mogz | Jul 4 2004, 09:41 PM Post #18 |
|
Knowledgeable Member
|
Which is why i'm such a fan of the British Military. Yes they're not the largest in the world, however they have the equipment to do some serious damage, and if the shit hits the fan they have the ability to pump out additional equipment in no time. |
| |
![]() |
|
| PLA1021 | Jul 6 2004, 03:23 AM Post #19 |
|
Champion Poster
|
Glad US and Russia are planning to reduce their numbers of Nukes to 2,000. |
![]() |
|
| RBTiger | Jul 7 2004, 03:59 PM Post #20 |
![]()
Field Marshal
![]()
|
They are? Sounds funny. I don't quite know how they will manage it. |
![]() World's Armed Forces Forum-The best Forum around… World's Military Forces “In order to win a war, one must be ready to lose battles” “A country has no permanent friends, only permanent interests” | |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
![]() Our users say it best: "Zetaboards is the best forum service I have ever used." |
|
| « Previous Topic · Navy · Next Topic » |












1:42 PM Jul 11