In a submission to the UK Parliament’s inquiry into European security, Airbus has called for enhanced defence collaboration between the UK and its European allies, while advocating for deeper integration with NATO’s industrial frameworks.
Airbus, the UK’s largest aerospace company, highlighted the critical role the UK plays in European defence and warned of the risks of strategic exclusion.
The company stated, “A European industrial strategy that excludes the UK would be very damaging to both sides.” It urged the government to continue its efforts to establish a Defence and Security Pact with the EU and to strengthen bilateral defence ties through initiatives like the recent UK-Germany agreement.
Airbus emphasised that the UK’s contributions to NATO, particularly in satellite communications and cryptographic security, are vital to the alliance’s operational success. It noted that the UK’s MilSatCom and SKYNET systems provide “assured, secure multidomain communication essential for success in modern conflict,” with the systems already in use by the US and 17 other NATO allies.
Airbus highlighted the export potential of UK military satellite technology, estimating up to £10 billion in possible revenue, which it said could help bolster the UK’s industrial base while reinforcing international security partnerships.
The company also pointed to its global leadership in Crypt-Key technologies, which are crucial for enabling secure and interoperable communications between NATO allies. “Control of CryptKey allows a nation to muster and coordinate its forces,” Airbus explained, while warning that without adequate national control, “NATO or a country could be left unable to act coherently.”
Airbus urged the UK to seize opportunities within NATO’s forthcoming CP122 programme to embed non-ITAR solutions, allowing sovereignty while maintaining compatibility with NATO operations.
Airbus called for a “NATO-first” approach in UK defence policy, prioritising interoperability with NATO forces and alignment of defence procurement strategies. The company referenced NATO’s Next Generation Rotorcraft (NGRC) programme as a model of multinational collaboration and stressed that exportability should be central to UK procurement.
“Exports are a means to drive the UK’s economic growth, strengthen the industrial base and drive down costs for the UK’s own defence needs,” Airbus stated, arguing that current UK procurement processes are too limited in considering the long-term benefits of exports.
The submission also recommended improvements in the UK’s government-to-government (G2G) sales approach, which Airbus said lags behind competitors like the US and France. “A new and properly resourced model in government to support G2G deals is required,” the company advised, citing the success of recent agreements with Romania as a template for future deals.
Airbus concluded by reaffirming its commitment to helping the UK and its European partners achieve greater defence integration, stating, “We believe the UK and EU have a co-dependency that is essential, not just in terms of industrial capability, but also in terms of our mutual contribution to the defence of Europe and to NATO.”
Interesting.
They were threatening to pull out of Filton if Brexit happened, I assume they’re still there? 😏
So no surprise here….
Airbus said it would have to leave the UK in the event of a no deal brexit which did not happen.
Nuance is certainly important otherwise we just end up like Trump Kai I g ‘wins’ when in reality they are anything but the latest Columbia debacle a minor example.
On the surface this Airbus statement seems quite sensible indeed obviously so, though there may be underlying messaging that is less clear to the observer when one isn’t deeply compos-mentis with the scenario as is or the full implications of what they are saying. Interesting that as a considerable degree of uk satellite business is in the hands of Airbus (including SST) are they seeking more freedom to increase sales of their technology with military application abroad? Are they claiming the Govt is holding this back? So would be interesting to get into the nitty-gritty of the messaging beneath the headline.
So let me understand this; Starmer is expected to make concessions on youth freedom of movement and fishing rights in order that the EU accepts UK help to defend Europe? In the immortal words of Terry Wogan….is it me?
That, was almost poetry.
You couldn’t make it up. The relationship with the EU has to be mutually beneficial.so freedom of youth movement for study and a defence and security pact has to go alongside free trade and acceptance of comparative equivalence without oversight or control from the EU. Unless we wish for a Norway style renegotiation which I’d be happy with as long as it is NOT in any way impacting on the UKs parliamentary rights to democratic decisions on the UKs own self determination and it’s courts being sacresanct. So compliance with EU rules around animal welfare, farming, use of chemicals and pesticides etc but this is for a complete free trade deal. Norway pays a token gesture towards EU funds of £2-3 billion a year. I’d be happy enough with that for the gain in trade and boost in growth.
If we sign up toa defence and security pact that is with the EU and separate to NATO then what does the UK gain?
Since the EU has potential to restrict the trade required to deliver Defence in the NATO context, that conflict of interest does need to be formally removed so that member states can invest in Defence with confidence in Europe and not with USA because that conflict is absent.
The assumption that USA is easy to trade with may not survive #47s love of tariffs. I suspect that some of his enthusiasm for more European Defence spending is his assumption that it will be spent stateside.
It sounds like Airbus touting for trade on behalf of the UK government.
Sounds like even AIRBUS is sensing the need in a change of direction for UK military
Maybe we should get the EU to donate to Dreadnought and all it’s systems if they want us to continue to provide their nuclear umbrella?
I was thinking the same recently.
The UK is arguably the most reliable nuclear power for most of Europe.
Not forgetting of course Frances’s nuclear deterrent is independent of NATO, so if Europe is relying on the orange one and the US to put up the goods on their behalf I ‘d suggest they think again.
I don’t see the US (in fact we know it isn’t) being a true nuclear umbrella for Europe in a real live sense, it is so only in terms of prevention and thereafter unpredictable escalation or the chance of missteps leading there and the only direct influence being the death of US personnel on European soil, so such issues would put questions in the mind of anyone contemplating attacking Europe with a nuclear weapon but fact is the US, especially under a MAGA President would do everything not to make a nuclear response whatever might be nuanced in the meantime. To be honest is Britain much different? We won’t respond unless there is an attack on Britain and to be honest even if the Shetlands were hit would we respond in kind? That is a question that most tests the mind I think. France? Probably Europes most likely reliable ‘nuclear defender’ but even they would obviously put national concerns first and the risks involved. I just hope it never all comes to the test because it’s something where Russia has a big advantage in terms of divide and rule and calling bluffs.
France ?
Whilst France as a nation is in NATO only their conventional forces are available to that force, it’s nuclear forces come outside of NATO and for use only to their discretion. Trump of course has said in the past that the US might not come to the aid of Europe unless the Europeans up their spending (which is right if course in my book). If the EU want to play hardball on trade we should take the same line on defence and adopt the French stance. Let to EU fork out for it’s own deterrence.
Well it has, under the form of the french nuclear umbrella. Not as prevalent but certainly a good deterrent. Counting on the Americans in this day and age isn’t advisable
Tallzter, as I stated earlier the French nuclear deterrent does not come under the NATO or EU or any other umbrella. Its purely for Frances own deterrent to use as and when they are threatened. The EU are the ones cherry pick want they want. Let them pick up there own bill, they’ve been eating at this table free for long enough.
Correct, it was actually French policy to launch strategic nuclear strikes on west Germany to slow the advance of the soviet army. I doubt it’s much different today.
Yes. Agree the EU should pay France and the UK for our strategic deterence
I see the cost of Dreadnought is estimated to be 31bn over its lifetime with another 10bn set aside for overruns (I think we all know government estimates fall far short of predictions) I’d say it would be fair to ask the EU for 15bn which in turn we could reinvest in our conventional forces. Cheap at half the price I’d say.
But do either of us want that responsibility and lack of freedom? After all if we use our deterrent we will be effectively wiping ourselves out so would we wish that on behalf of a Country ‘a long way away’ . I suspect both Britain and France want the deterrent to be just that putting risk in the minds of an aggressor and knowing if they do a full nuclear attack on the host Country they will suffer horrendously in reply. Beyond that all is much less predictable and I doubt either Britain or France would want to have to respond to attacks on other European Nations in kind. Britains deterrent may well be ‘gifted’ to NATO but would we be willing to be willing to launch nuclear strikes effectively under US orders (just as the. Vulcans were to be the spearhead of nuclear strikes in the 60s) when one suspects the US (certainly MAGA US) would very possibly be using us as cannon fodder while preserving themselves? Nothing here is black and white just as is the idea that every NATO Country would automatically come to the aid of one that’s attacked. As we know Trump has l ready declared that not to be the case of the US.
Your absolutely right of course. Ideally for me the EU should have its own deterrent and we adopt the French posture. Sure that would give the Kremlin something to think about.
This is Airbus sticking it to Dassault.
It seems increasingly there will not be another euro competitor to Tempest. French are talking now on Rafale F5 standard despite some pilots came to talk about how Rafale looses to F-35 in stealth.
The Rafael can’t even find the F-35 before it eats an AMRAAM.
Actually that is an interesting point. This was a defence orientated statement and Airbus is very much German orientated in its defence arm. With rumours about German interest in Tempest participation (I am just relying on others persistent comments here not my own presumptions) and the recent uk/Germany defence cooperation which Airbus even mention as a positive example it does raise questions perhaps. One never knows what is real and what is leverage in truth but one does wonder if this is Airbus protecting German interests and keeping options open which goes back to the underlying messaging I mentioned in my very first post. It might be wider messaging beyond just to the uk Govt perhaps. German and indeed Airbus interests would suffer badly if it was not involved in military cooperations and might be a message to France as well as a plea to the Govt here without directly spelling it out. Interesting.
I wouldn’t have a problem with exporting Tempest to other NATO coutries/partner nations, but I think allowing others to come on board the design and build program would be a bad idea. The more cooks you have in the kitchen, the more likely it is that your lovely meal is going to be an overly-expensive mess that is served a day late.