Italy has placed an order for up to 24 Eurofighter Typhoon jets, a contract signed on 23 December 2024 in Rome.
This order will replace the older Tranche 1 Eurofighter jets currently in service, significantly enhancing Italy’s air defence capabilities.
As Giancarlo Mezzanatto, Chief Executive of Eurofighter, stated: “Italy’s decision to purchase an additional 24 jets is, of course, fantastic news for our programme, further demonstrating the strength and importance that Eurofighter Typhoon brings to Europe.”
Stefano Pontecorvo, Chairman of Leonardo, also commented: “The level of technology delivered by the Eurofighter programme over years is unquestionable. Its success provides evidence of the outstanding synergies between industry and institutions.”
Lorenzo Mariani, Co-General Manager of Leonardo, remarked: “This contract is a major milestone for the Eurofighter programme in Italy. Since its inception, it has played a crucial role for national defence and security as well as in the development of advanced technologies and employment of thousands of skilled professionals.”
AVM Simon Ellard (ret.), General Manager of NETMA, added: “The additional 24 aircraft for Italy is yet another proud moment for the Eurofighter Programme. The order will enhance the Italian Air Force’s combat air capabilities and provide security for Italy, Europe and the NATO Alliance.”
The new Eurofighters will feature advanced avionics and enhanced weapon systems, including the Brimstone III and Meteor missiles, along with new sensors and improved connectivity. These upgrades will ensure the jets’ capabilities well into the future, with a service life extending beyond 2060. As Mezzanatto pointed out: “The Eurofighter continues to be the backbone of European air defence.”
I appreciate that uk defence spending has to cover the expensive nuclear deterrent, but when we see other western nations getting new kit, you wonder where uk money is spent?
UK, is rightly, regarded as a laggard in terms of real defence spending.
Because of the way that capital costs are dumped into the core budget particularly for SSN and SSBN that ears a lot of RN CAPEX.
We also tend to love really big ambitious bespoke Gucci projects that eat large blocks of cash over a decade and then we cancel them.
So Italy gets a lot more bang for bucks….
Does any nation not include capital expenditure in their defence budget? After all nato gdp% rules are a standard that nations are benchmarked against and you can guarantee every nation tries to artificially inflate their % by throwing in everything that is allowed.
Its worth noting that Italy’s armed forces haven’t really been used in anger but uk ones have been in constant use for decades. That brings additional wear and tear that comes at a cost to deal with.
Nuclear weapons are cheap. Very cheap.
Yes.
🤡💩🤣
When you look the full spectrum of capabilities we have.Its easy to see were the money goes. We also pay much better then countries like Italy/Spain.
Why not give them the 20 we are throwing away? as always we will get by with the least amount possible. Great if we do not loose any. The UK Armed Force just enough to get by nothing more.
Italy doesn’t want second hand tranche 1s. They are placing their own with these.
Are they getting the airframe mods as well?
UK needs more too (along with everything else) but ofc there is no money available.
But where is the money going?
Uk is not a poor country, so how are we having so little coming in compared to going out?
This is becoming embarrassing. Italy spends not much more than half the UK and will have more combat aircraft. Being a partner in GCAP isn’t stopping them buying more Typhoons. Rebuilding UK AirPower should be a priority.
It’s not just about airframe numbers. But what you do with them. We deploy far more, and are much better supported. We conduct genuine global Operations with our Typhoons. Italy doesn’t. Some of you guys cannot look past the simple numbers game, and forget the operational reality. We actually use ours in real combat Operations. We can sustain ours very far from home. Other nations don’t/can’t. Ours are the most capable in service. That is were the money goes.
We get what you’re saying and the UK does need to concentrate on upgrading what Typhoons it has but can it at least go beyond the 40 allocated for the radarupgrades? An extra 20+ newbies would surely help further with ops wouldn’t it?
Are they really though?
I have both seen and read on multiple occasions since Typhoon has been in service that on both NATO deployments and in defense of the relm (mainland UK) there haven’t been enough operational aircraft to scramble more than a single to response to threats.
That is beyond insane and should never be allowed. (ie you should always have minimum four operational aircraft for alert like the US do, not 2 plus 2 on maintenance, but 4 ready to go jets. ie that means an entire squadron (rule of 3) task for QRF, which would mean 2 squadrons in the UK. But because RAF haven’t had enough fighters since 2010 that’s not possible)
There is something very wrong with the way UK spends money on defense.
It has less of almost everything now than France, Germany, Spain, and Italy…..Ships, Tanks, Planes…….all of those countries have NATO deployment obligations and some of them such as Germany and France (and Italy to a slightly lessor degree) now deploy east of the Suez.
France spends: 59.4 billion USD
Britain spends: 76.9 billion USD (30% more)
France: 205,300 personal
Britain: 138,100 personal (just under 50% less)
(NATO figures above from 2023)
France: 226 fighter aircraft
UK: 144 fighter aircraft (57% less)
(flight international figures)
French Navy is now same strength as Royal Navy, has more surface combatants currently.
French Logistics has been massively improved in recent years, yes they don’t have C-17 or Chinook, but they make up for it in other assets, eg A400M and MRTT in much bigger numbers than UK, has a significantly more vertical lift in medium-heavy helicopters H225 and NH-90.
The British Armed force (and probably government as a whole lol) need to go over financial management or something because 5 years ago an argument could be made, but not now.
It’s precisely because we work our Typhoons harder than Italy or Germany that we need to order more. Germany’s Tornados were retained longer than UKs for the same reason. ,
Italy is not burdened with a nuclear detterent. It is a UK legacy from the time when we were still, due to Empire and Commonwealth, a global player.
The downside is that having 4 SSBNs and 7 SSNs costs us, according to the FT this week, £12bn a year. That is more than the entire army, navy, air force and strategic command’s entire equipment budget for the year.
Take nuclear out of the defence budget, fund it centrally from the Treasury – as used to be the case – and we could more than match Italy’s impressive list of acquisitions. Squeeze it out of the existing defence budget and every service is woefully underfunded and reduced to minimalist equipment numbers.
People generally support the idea of an independent nuclear deterrent, but have little clue how much that weakens our armed forces. Successive governments endorse the former and skate round the latter.
The same might be said of the carriers, a highly expensive undertaking when the air group is factored in, for not any great strategic advantage.
We do love our status symbols in the UK! Governments in particular. It will all go pear shaped if we have to field forces against a peer enemy, when the frailty of our conventional forces will be cruelly exposed. Each government of course hopes it won ‘t happen on their watch as they kick the defence can down the road.
Of course we should be ordering 25 more Typhoons to replace the 25 tranche 1 ones being retired. Our combat air strength.is the lowest of the five main Western European nations, by some way.
👍
If you are suggesting we get rid of our nuclear deterrant, I appreciate your boldness but frankly that is stupid. There is a reason we, at great cost, developed a soverign nuclear deterrent rather than blindly trust the American’s would trade Washington to avenge London.
Sure, you can’t hide behind the Nuclear shield forever, you do need conventional capability. However, nuclear weapons aren’t some archiac ceremonial piece, they actively shape the decision making off our enemies. Just the same of theirs shape ours.
The deterrence has always been part of the defence budget. It might have been seperately accounted for by the treasury but when the uk calculated it’s overall defence budget it was always included in the numbers.
Yeah, but what about the French, they have a nuclear deterrent and have the higher cost of developing everything in house, not sharing it with the US.
France spends: 59.4 billion USD
Britain spends: 76.9 billion USD (30% more)
France: 205,300 personal
Britain: 138,100 personal (just under 50% less)
(NATO figures above from 2023)
France: 226 fighter aircraft
UK: 144 fighter aircraft (57% less)
(flight international figures)
French Navy is now same strength as Royal Navy, has more surface combatants currently.
French Logistics has been massively improved in recent years, yes they don’t have C-17 or Chinook, but they make up for it in other assets, eg A400M and MRTT in much bigger numbers than UK, has a significantly more vertical lift in medium-heavy helicopters H225 and NH-90.
French have more responsibilities around the world too, they have alot of forces in Africa and the Pacific as well as NATO.
The sdsr will be interesting, as the air force really does need boosting, either through speeding up the f35 purchases or additional typhoon ones. The uk isn’t under direct threat and isn’t likely to be so, but I can see on the horizon many scenarios where the raf will be called on to do bombing missions on failed states.