An independent report published today by Strategy&, part of the PwC network, has revealed the scale of the Eurofighter Typhoon programme’s contribution to economies across Europe.

The in-depth report examines the entire spectrum of development, production, and support activities, encompassing the four Eurofighter Typhoon partner nations of the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy and Spain.

It provides a comprehensive look into the programme and delivers compelling data showing the current economic benefits of the programme as well as anticipating future economic contributions, focussing in particular on the next 10 years.

The “base scenario” takes into account orders for new Eurofighter Typhoons from Spain (Halcon I and II) and Germany (Quadriga). This scenario shows that, for the next decade, the programme is set to contribute €58 billion to the GDP of the four core nations’ economies; generate tax revenues of €14 billion for the respective governments; and support 62,700 jobs annually.

Those numbers increase significantly in the report’s “growth scenario” with opportunities for sales of approximately 200 Eurofighter Typhoons on the domestic and export market.

This scenario shows, for the next decade, a programme contribution of €90 billion to GDP; tax revenues of €22 billion generated; and more than 98,000 jobs each year. The benefit of future export opportunities would mean that around 30 per cent of the core nation investment would return as tax revenues.

Giancarlo Mezzanatto, Chief Executive Officer at Eurofighter Typhoon, said:

“The vital role that the Typhoon performs to keep Europe’s skies safe is widely known to all, however people are often less aware about the incredible economic benefits that the programme also brings. The Eurofighter Typhoon programme directly boosts European economies and supports tens of thousands of crucial aerospace jobs – benefiting the communities where we live and work. There is also significant spill over in regions where Eurofighter production lines are located and where the programme often sustains SMEs, start-ups and educational institutions.

Therefore, new Eurofighter Typhoon orders are essential to sustain and retain defence industry production assets in Europe. This will guarantee national and European technological independence and industrial know-how resilience to the core nations over a long period.”

Additional data published in the strategy& report shows that through the whole operational life of a single Eurofighter Typhoon aircraft, the contribution to the four core nations is €407 million of GDP and €100 million of taxes.

Tom Dunlop
Tom Dunlop
Tom has spent the last 13 years working in the defence industry, specifically military and commercial shipbuilding. His work has taken him around Europe and the Far East, he is currently based in Scotland.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

60 COMMENTS

  1. If MAGA does follow through this year with threats to withdraw or water down NATO commitments by the USA I think they most important contribution the UK could make other than a large increase in nuclear weapons would be a substantial increase in the Airforce.

    European countries boarding Russia already have substantial armies and reserve forces but have a severe lack of aircraft. The is the main capability the US woukd bring to any fight.

    If the UK a did move back to 3% of GDP following a US withdrawal then it should be possible for us to go up to a 400 fast jet force with orders for maybe 100 more Typhoons and 80 more F35’s. We could then probably move tranche 1 and 2 typhoon into a reserve. An RAF with around 400 F35 and Typhoons would easily dominate any Kind of threat Russian’s airforce might field.

    The UK would then have the largest most powerful Airforce and Navy in Europe.

    Much better idea that us setting up new armoured divisions for example when the likes of Poland will have plenty.

    • I would agree, makes sense when you capare us to countries like Poland Finland and Turkey we would be offering a token in terns of numbers of land systems and troops.

      Quite why we would give MAGA the excuse and ammunition to nake a case for exiting NATO is beyond me. But do get that there’s an element of the political spectrum who have pationate dislike of the US and would like MAGA to go through with it threat. That’s called cutting you nose off to spite your face.

        • Yeah. But heck, if we and other nations are committed to the alliance in full they don’t even have to.make shit up. I don’t like the MAGA bunch any more than you so I don’t to do that work for them. Like I said Trump could last just 4 years why let short term view destroy a relationship that been going for decades. We need us and Europe to have defence cooperation with the US all over the news almost daily.

          Good thing is we’re doing our part, we joined US in the red sea, we’re shooting down Iranian missiles we’re doing freedom of navigation in the SCS, deploying SSNs with the US to the Pacific, patrolling the strait of Hamouz, have joint carrier ops with the USMC to name a few. Tbh it’s the rest of Europe that needs to get off its arse.

    • I hope your post comes true Jim, what you say makes sense and your right about Poland plenty Tanks AFV etc . But would like to see a bigger British Army again to be honest specially in the GBAD, badly needed in that department. 👍

      • A land force is not so expensive. You can like in Poland have a very respectable land force for a cost far lower than an air-force or a navy.
        So it is true that not being a front line nation, UK may consider more AirPower and navy as a viable option.
        Though, this does not solve the real issue here: the Roadmap of the Typhoon is not agreed with partners, all the cell issues starting from programme inception are not solved, program members restrict exports and program members use against each other a F35 argument whenever they disagree. It would need a very strong government to save BAE next 5 years in UK. Though, light is on the horizon, Tempest is rising and Tempest is a good plane. Good luck!

  2. So ordering a further batch of typhoons makes economic sense as we’ll military and geostrategic…the reality is that the UK needs 12 front line fast jet squadrons…not 6 ( I include IX Bomber squadron) typhoon and 2 F35…it would be good to see HMG planning for 8 typhoon squadrons and 4 F35b.

    • 4 F35 squadrons shoud be a mininum – and I thought originally that was the plan.
      I assume the slow procurment rate and indeed apparent cuts to the totals may have put paid to that?

      As for Typhoon what do we currently have- and whats the plans reagrds upgrades and retirement of old tranchesetc.?

      As for costs they should just have to find it and ring fence it – (to allow for any upcoming change in government).

      All that without I may add impacting on the Tempest program…which is – of course- another story altogether.

      • After the Tranche 1’s go it is just 107 Tyhoons so using the 1/3 rule 70 in service. They need to order 24/36 just to have a reasonable force level.

        • mmmm and the chances of that happening…. ?
          Still they can always pull jets from Romania I suppose, or The Falklands , or …err….

    • Nailed it Jonathan, proportional and affordable.

      12 is very much the magic number, to be enhanced with UCAV at the earliest opportunity.

      So 8 squadrons of Thypoon, (to be replaced with Tempest on a one for one basis). 96 for the Squadrons, at 12 per squadron.

      12 aircraft OCU,
      4 trials aircraft
      20 in use reserves

      40 in maintenance cycle / reserve

      =172

      4 x F35B Squadrons, 48 aircraft
      1 x OCU 12 aircraft
      1 X OTU 3 aircraft
      In use reserves 12??
      Maintenance reserve 20??

      = 95

      This force needs to be backed up by a fully combat capable and survivable UCAV/ that can either operate as a Loyal wingman or operate autonomously on its own mission sets, say 150 aircraft.

      I would pick a single type that’s capable of carrier operations, with the carriers suitably modified.

      Ideally the airframe would also be suitable for Carrier embarked AEW and AAR.

      If that’s not possible, then a suitable drone for the Navy to take on those important tasks, preferably an off the shelf option.

      That gives you a very well rounded capability.

      Get this right, and we have a highly capable fast jet strike capability, from both land and sea.

      That’s doable on 3%

      • I’m sorry to say. But Typhoon will not be replaced 121 by Tempest. Its a different kind of capability all together.

        • I’m sure you’re right, however, if we don’t order enough, say 80 odd, as opposed to 180 ‘ish’, the unit price will be catastrophically high.

          Looking at the rapidly shaping up new world order, it’s a case of go big or go home, with the sort of force structure I’ve outlined above, along with the will to deploy and use it if needed.

          It’s not a large force, it’s still relatively small for a country of our standing, but it would represent a genuine first day of war capability and offer us the ability to kick down anyone’s door if needed.

          • The future of combat air capability is changing rapidly. I believe future mass will come from the unmanned element of the Tempest system. Future Air dominace and strike won’t be measured in sqn numbers and force structures like today. But the overall effects that can be achieved. With many systems linked together to dominate any future battle space. The manned version will just be a part of that future capability. Unit price will be high, but how we upgrade and develop these systems will again be very different to today. Let’s see what the technology demonstrator brings. Maybe by then, numbers may enter the wider conversation. It is interesting that numbers haven’t officially been discussed. Not publicly anyway. It’s also worth noting that after over 500 Typhoons built. It’s still very expensive to buy and operate.

          • A bit off side thoughts:
            How many AWACS do you need?Tempest will have to replace them mainly. Drones will do the fighting, tempest will do the coordination. So… numbers… force structure… As long as 6 gen concepts is not finalized… The big thing is not to loose sight of what you really want to achieve with 6 gen. Let’s say that it is far from certain. Some of them want the plane to act as communication node, others wants it to be a superfighter. I find very difficult to see the real superfighter benefit (very costly platform, in limited quantities) except in the main missions like nuclear strikes. But would you really pick 50 superfighter to defend British airspace? Makes no sense, 30 available, 10 in the air… it makes no sense at all. So the role of Tempest may be different. Drones are way cheaper… And as I am not in the confidence, imagination will have to do for the rest.

      • Hello John. From my ex- Air force days, I’d say your Typhoon & F35 aircraft arithmetic seems spot on! Its a straight A for you!

        • some may even buy a car made in the Uk.

          I seem to be in the minority in that respect 😀 49 billion a year on imported vehicles. Kinda makes the benefits of the Typhoon to be a bit miniscule.

          I had quick google on milk imports and we do import milk, but the plus side is we do export diary products in volume, 1.6b, not quite enough to cover the cost of imported vehicles 😀

          Since 1999 our trade deficit has been pretty bad. Before that it was more patchy with some surplus and some deficit years. But 25 years of deficit at 1.5-3% of GDP is not good. I did a quick calculation and its 40% of 1 years GDP thats left the country and had to be funded by debt.

          • Completely agree…as a basic premise you really need to produce and sell as a nation as much as you import and consume in value ….otherwise at some point your financial system will go pop..

          • Yep but the publics attitudes to the car industry in this country does annoy me, if we could swing the vehicle market just 20% more to UK manufacturers, then that’s a decent reduction in imports. I find the British public very hypocritical, demanding the UK government spends my tax money on UK equipment but then trotts off to the BMW showroom. I say practice what you preach.

          • I do agree, where I can I tend to buy as locally as I can in all things…with a very big avoidance of the exploitative economies…actively buying British and actively avoiding china.

            I don’t really understand why the government does not encourage Britain as a brand…the U.S. does as does china ( there is an active china first campaign).

          • Yep. We do the same. I have a huge concern over Chinese electronic items, especially things like doorbells, thermostats, etc, which people are connecting to there home networks and Internet. These could easily be used to snoop or in denial of service attacks

          • mini, Nissan, Suzuki, Toyota..for normal cars

            Land Rover, Jaguar for mid higher range

            Then the fun starts with Bentley, RR, astin Martin, lotus, maclaren etc.

            Infact in 2023 the UK manufactured 905,000 cars in the UK….it’s not bad but sadly we’ll behind Germany at 4 million.

  3. We just hope no bright European Commissioner asks the obvious question ! Why is the U.K deriving any financial benefit from the present Typhoon builds when they are only one of the 4 partner nations not funding any (didn’t we get the Memo about that nasty Mr Putin and the Tangerine Man).?

    And I have no idea how anyone answers that one except the banal “well it was in the original contractual agreement”.

    Just order 24 New builds plus options for 12 more to replace the Tranche 1 and maintain personnel numbers.
    And while your at it 41 extra F35B would be sensible, just so those Big Floating Boxes have some pressies inside. And the RAF still have some to play with !

    Yep 🐷 might 🛫

      • Correct! EAP was done in a couple of years as a demonstrator. Without it EFA may never have happened! The reason EFA took so long is the work share agreement causing issues on some equipments. Managing the politics of four disparate countries, their funding and reducing defence budgets in the face of the Berlin Wall coming down and the end of the Cold War

    • I think that would be a very wise decision. They needed to replace those tranche’s that are due for retirement with new Typhoons. It’s still a highly capable fourth generation plane and would enable BAe systems to retain skills as well. Moreover, the upgrades for the latest tranche would add capability to the RAF. It would also enable us to retain more RAF pilots so they can eventual transition to newer fifth and sixth generation fighter jets. It’s a win-win to build more of the latest generation Typhoons…we could even trial some newer technologies that could go into Tempest.

      • For all the reasons you mention and because of the political climate I think it’s a ‘no brainer’. I’m sure the euro partners would welcome the business; the RAF with the RN is our primary contribution to European and NATO defence; possibility of more exports; returns to the UK economy.
        But it seems Rishi is focussing on banning smoking. In the immortal words of Terry Wogan….is it me?

  5. We should order another tranche of the typhoon for the RAF . It is proving itself to be the workhorse of the RAF and we have pitifully low numbers

  6. Now compare to F35 on the same basis. for each £1M spent what is the benefit. Apart from R&D, sovereign capability etc

    • Well, according to LM in January, the original figure of 15% of every F-35 (all types) being manufactured by UK companies is actually less than reality. I believe that’s by parts, not value. But if the original estimate was £40B over the course of 2007-2038, then have to assume it’s more now- even factoring in inflation. That’s direct contracts, indirect economic benefits would add to that number.
      I don’t know what we’ll actually spending on our jets, but as of 2018 we’d spent £8.4B. So assuming that we buy 72 all in, and factor in the maintenance costs (not sure if we need to do that, but still) , then I’d be surprised if we go much beyond £25B. So we’re £15B in the black. Not bad, we haven’t been screwed over, but I have an inkling Typhoon has a better ROI.
      Got the figures from a Jane’s article, not going to post it because my comment will end up in moderation, but should be able to Google it if you want to check my numbers.

        • Well, £15B in the black for £25B expenditure is 60% return. If Jim’s post below is accurate that we make 32% on every Typhoon- so 23B Euros if Leonardo’s latest press releases are accurate (taking their most conservative number). But without knowing how much the UK government has spent on our own Typhoons, we can’t work out how much benefit we’re getting from the programme.
          I think it’s also fair to say that the UK as the prime entity would not have been able to bear the cost of getting to the capabilities of the F-35 in the same way that the US has been able to with partner input.
          That said, I’m all for a sovereign capability, and if we get Tempest right then it’ll be worth it even if we theoretically made more money from F-35.

          • Hmm, given the exchange rates, I’m not sure that we’ve made anything on Typhoon at all then..!
            That said, a sovereign capability, ITAR-free, with sovereign skills and infrastructure, has a value all of its own that I wouldn’t willingly want to lose.
            Ultimately, our involvement in and experience from Typhoon and F-35 will feed into Tempest which, if properly funded, will be a decent aircraft which will protect UK interests for a long time.

    • We only put in £2 billion to F35 but get about 15% if the work shares which is about 6 times more than total for typhoon.

      We paid in £14 billion to typhoon to get about 32% of work share roughly.

  7. As much as I’d like to see more airframes I’d much rather have more pilots and missiles at the moment. And the means to get things from A to B quicker. Much rather fight with what we’ve got for a couple of months than have another 50 airframes and have a situation where the pilots are too knackered after a week or we’ve run out of ammo.

  8. So glad we actually get to see how much benefit domestic production and development brings. When exports are added in its a large return for the money paid out.
    It is not the MODs job to fund domestic production when it costs more as they get none of the monetary benefits later. There needs to be a shake up of funding where the treasury puts up some of the value it gets from domestic production. As it looks 30% at least.

  9. I love these reports showing the alleged economic benefits of defence projects. They are as truthful as suggesting that paying a man to dig a hole every day and another one to fill it in enhances the economy because both get paid. With the exception of 3rd party exports, all the costs of Typhoon are borne by taxpayers in the 4 partner countries. That some is recouped by taxes on salaries should be taken into account but does not alter the fact that these aircraft are a huge net cost to the taxpayer. That’s why we don’t have many. Of course, buying from overseas is an even bigger net cost, so better Typhoon than F35.
    Having spent so much on development, we should maximize the benefit of it. The US continues to buy updated versions of much older airframes. So should we. With F35 development and production still having major problems, we should freeze our purchases and instead buy more Typhoons. After all, unlike F35, we actually use them in combat operations.

    • With regard to defence projects , not only do they benefit the economy by providing employment to those directly involved in production but also to the many thousands indirectly involved . They are also a great driver of technological development leading to the next generation of systems for use both military and civilian . There is also the plus side , if the weapons systems we develop are good enough there is a massive export market to be tapped into , the french rafale is a good example of this . The typhoon is an excellent aircraft and I don’t believe we sell it well enough in the export markets .

      • Spot on – I’ve worked on many defence projects Tonka, Typhoon, Hawk and many weapons and travelled all over the world exporting British equipment

  10. So many people in the comments talking sense about defence spending and military procurement, when the government will just laugh and spend it on more bike lanes.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here