Germany has taken the first formal step toward large-scale production of an upgraded TAURUS stand-off missile, with the Bundeswehr and TAURUS Systems GmbH signing a contract to prepare a serial production line in the country.
TAURUS Systems GmbH is a joint venture between MBDA and Saab.
The agreement focuses on establishing manufacturing capacity for the capability-enhanced TAURUS NEO variant, which MBDA intends to build in quantity at a German facility. The system is positioned by the company as a core element of Berlin’s effort to restore long-range strike capacity at scale following years of limited munitions stockpiles.
Thomas Gottschild, MBDA Executive Group Director Strategy, said the programme reflects a broader industrial and strategic shift in Europe. “MBDA has always been committed to delivering decisive capabilities that ensure European sovereignty. With TAURUS NEO, Germany is specifically building up its state-of-the-art deep strike capabilities, thereby providing a critical contribution to the deterrence capabilities of Europe and NATO. In so doing, MBDA demonstrates its unique expertise in Europe, offering a comprehensive portfolio of deep strike solutions launched from the ground, air, surface, and sub-surface.”
According to the company, TAURUS NEO offers a range beyond 500 kilometres, low-observability features and guidance systems intended to defeat modern air defence networks. MBDA argues this allows German Air Force aircraft to strike fixed targets from outside the envelope of hostile surface-to-air systems, reducing risk to crews and platforms.
MBDA has already begun technology development under a maintenance and modernisation contract signed in late 2024. The firm says this early work is intended to accelerate first deliveries once production begins. The latest agreement also supports expansion of the missile’s modular architecture for future growth, according to the company.
The deal arrives as MBDA increases throughput across its portfolio. Between 2023 and 2025 the manufacturer expects to have doubled missile output and plans to invest EUR 2.4 billion from 2025 to 2029 to support higher production rates across Europe.
Should the UK have a policy of matching Germany’s arms build-up to keep pace with Europe’s richest country and to avoid a repeat of pre – WW1&2 mismatch, which almost destroyed us on both occasions?
I would suggest not,
Of all our major Allie’s Germany is probably on the closest page to us. German rearmament is the best thing to happen to Europe for some time and the biggest boost to UK security in a generation.
With Germany and Poland handling the eastern border we can focus on the North and west and remove any need to count on fair weather friends to our south or west both of which have their own agendas and are quite happy to screw us over when it suits them.
Happy New Year Jim. I think the jury is out on that one, in some ways yes they probably are but in some others are. IMHO Sweden, Norway, Poland, Netherlands all have their own points of common interest with us and at present I’d say it’s Norway and Poland that closest to our stated position.
And that is the big issue our stated position just doesn’t get mirrored in either conventional capability or actual actions.
Which is why I’d look at it the other way round and ask a simple question “Is the the UK a reliable and fully committed Ally ?”.
It shames me to say this but at present the answer has been “TBC” for nearly 4 years now !
IMHO the really big “Elephant in the back yard” is actually ourselves, as at present I can honestly say the UK is probably the 2nd least reliable ally in NATO at least Spain was upfront about not meeting their obligations, we just hope no one is noticing. Our leaders talk, they blatantly mislead, make grandiose statements and have done absolutely nothing !
I may just have had too much Cheese, Port and Malt last night but I’m heading towards joining Mr Mandelli on the pessimist step.😱
No, you’re quite right, and it needs shouting from the rooftops.
These charlatans need calling out and I will keep highlighting the rhetoric vs the reality to whoever in the world reads this forum until this crap government change their behaviour.
Careful now. The mouth breathers on this site who say we should have a large land force in the east instead of playing to our strengths and focus on air and naval threats (to the west and north as you say) and only put a relatively small mobile force in the east or in Scandinavia, might get upset with you.
But anyway, island nation, island problems. We should most definitely put the army last in our NATO plans and focus on what we are expected to encounter e.g. naval and air threats to the NATO northern flank
If only we’d known in 2014 that we could get away with spending 1.5% of GDP of defence instead of 2%, like Germany, then we too could have been saving it and proudly announce a massive increase with 11 years worth of spare change and finally reach 2% only in 2025. Just imagine all of the things that we have today that we instead could have been boasting about purchasing in the future. Devil’s advocate 😀 Happy New Year.
Poland and Germany are far better at fielding large land armies. Frankly, there is no way we could offer more than minimal support there. Meanwhile, things like the Norwegian tie up are far more useful. Yes, we need more ground forces – but I would say they would be best orientated more towards the Baltic and Nordic areas rather than central Europe.