Defence Minister Luke Pollard has confirmed that Britain will manufacture a large share of the components for the Typhoon aircraft expected to be ordered by both Germany and Italy.
Responding to written parliamentary questions from Ben Obese-Jecty MP on 9 September, Pollard detailed how the United Kingdom’s industrial base is guaranteed a 37% workshare in the Eurofighter programme.
Pollard explained that “it is the NATO Eurofighter and Tornado Management Agency who set the industrial sub-system production and workshare agreements across the partner nations. Through partner nation agreement, NETMA have set United Kingdom industrial workshare as 37%.”
He added that Eurofighter GmbH manages subsystem and component manufacturing orders across the industrial base of each partner nation in line with that agreement.
The workshare guarantees the UK a leading role in producing several of the most complex and critical sections of the Typhoon airframe and systems.
According to Pollard, “some of the major components that UK leads on the manufacturing include the front and rear fuselage, windscreen and canopy, fin and rudder, engine bay doors, foreplane and a range of major avionics systems.”
This applies equally to the Typhoons set to be procured by Germany and those ordered by Italy. In both cases, UK factories and suppliers will remain central to the production line, with British industry responsible for key structural assemblies and avionics integration.
While they are at it, can’t we slip in some more for the RAF?
Absolutely, show some European unity, industry support and add much needed additional upgraded Typhoons. We have now filled the urgent requirement and appeased the Americans, phase two in the aviation sector please…
Common sense, be good for industry and morale! If it’s good enough for Germany and Italy, both who have F35As, why is it not good enough for the UK? For 24-40? Hedging bets on more F35s and Tempest to come in on time?
Because we only do projects. We don’t actually order anything.
Spot on Geoff.
It would be the prudent move for sure. Over reliance on the United States, given it’s uncertain policy direction is not a good thing.
There must be consequences for erosion of Article 5, by the only nation to invoke A5 9/11 when everyone responded at significant cost of blood and treasure.
Because if you gave the RAF money for 30 more fast jets they would immediately spaff it on F35As before anyone could say “ CBG” “sustainable UK sovereign capability” or “ mature platform that can actually use modern long range complex weapons”.
The sad truth is the only way the RAF are getting more typhoons is if the MOD turn around and tell them what they can and cannot order with their own money.
With good reason though, The F35A is the plane purpose built to destroy Russian air defenses and it offers the most commonality with NATO allies.
With a 15% work share its also a much much larger industrial contribution to the UK than Typhoon could ever be at 37%.
Typhoon is a great work horse and its very capable in the interceptor role but its not really a bomber. It relies heavily on complex stand off munitions which we will run out of in days in any major shooting war.
Adding 76 F35A to a fleet of 76 F35B and getting 6 Squadrons of F35 to complement 6 Typhoon Squadrons is probably the best manned fighter force we can hope for.
F35 currently has limitations especially for British weapons but a moderate purchase of Storm Breaker can over come this and SPEAR would be in service by the time any F35 A come on line.
Having a some glide bombs to complement our Gucci mini cruise missiles is also not a bad idea anyway.
With orders for Germany, Italy and potentially Turkey, would there be much spare build capacity for extra RAF Typhoons? It might be the same calculation as the Norwegian order for Type 26 frigates: There are going to be X number of new Typhoons in ENATO regardless of which individual nations get them and they are going to be doing broadly the same thing whoever’s hands they are in. I think Germany has more pressing need. Somebody mentioned that they have F35A but as far as I know, they actually don’t have any F35s at this time. I also recall a story on this site a few year back claiming that, out of the Luftwaffe’s hundred odd Typhoons, only four were operational.
You forgot Spain (25 extra) which means 107 new Airframes for European countries, 40 for Turkey and Zilch for us.
The Spanish tranche 2s that they are looking to sell should be snapped up by the RAF. They’ve had easy service lives, done bog all active service and must still have tons of hours left on their airframes. Replace the tranche 1s we scrapped for more capable tranche 2s and keep RAF typhoon fleet around 140 aircraft. That’s a much healthier place to be than approx 100 available.
I completely agree, the RAF cannot run its Typhoon squadrons with 96 single seater jets.. it’s just not possible.. buying those extra second hand tranche two jets would be cheep as chips and give the RAF the appropriate number of jets for the present number of squadrons.. without those extra jets it’s inevitable the number of typhoon squadrons will drop.
Unless we are willing to block foreign buys of Typhoon which seems daft it’s probably going to be around the same time that tempest is available that new typhoons will come to us 2035 ish.
With the US cutting orders by 50% and F35 orders suddenly disappearing there is ample production to get UK F35 orders in for 2030.
Jim they are cutting the orders of the back of the timeline and Lockheed is rammed out with orders at present. So we can order what we like but fact is we are in a long queue.
The supposed 15% UK content of F-35’s includes all the work done in the US by US workers employed by UK owned companies.
No it’s not. Stop spreading nonsense like this.
Hi Jim the problems with our Typhoon Force aren’t just capability it’s Airframe / Pilot numbers and their age plus if Tempest is late then we are in deep do do. Which when you consider that I can’t think of any modern UK built military project that hasn’t been late, its a rather large risk that is avoidable.
We will very shortly have just 107 Typhoons and unlike anyone else we have to operate some in the Falklands and Cyprus so as 1/3 are usually in maintenance that leaves about 50/60 ! As fast jet numbers are dropping so are the number of fast jet pilots and that takes a long while to rectify, so yes I am in favour of actually ordering some New Typhoons for the RAF and also to keep the assembly lines busy.
What I also find significent is that Italy is a partner in Team Tempest also operates Typhoons and has more F35A on order than we do, but have ordered 24 Tranche 4 to replace the Tranche 1’s they have scrapped.
I do agree we should look at buying some more F35A but also some Typhoons as well, so I’d go 36/24 and see how Tempest progresses.
A cheap stop gap measure that will bridge the gap until Tempest. Buy the Spanish tranche 2s they are looking to sell off. They’ve still got plenty of flight hours left on their airframes and as tranche 2 can be adapted to carry the full array of UK munitions. Win win.
MOD should be pounding on their door. If we can get all Spain’s ex tranche 2s for say £10 million each that would be awesome.
A small additional batch of maybe another 12-24 F35As and then everything else should be Tempest.
Surely RAF are committed to GCAP Tempest so keeping Warton etc. busy is their concern.
Does this 37% work share of German, Italian, Spanish and Türkiye orders mean that the production line is busy and all BAe etc. jobs are safe until Tempest comes along?
No it doesn’t, it protects the component lines which then go to Germany, Italy and Spain to assemble and we fight over who assembles the Turkish ones (damn sure it will be in Turkey). So no aircraft being assembled !
And we do need assembly, I know people do it down and say the skilled bits is the components and design, but that is dog doo doo, it’s all high skill technical work and you don’t want to loss your assembly line.
I’m using an order for 40+ new RAF Typhons as a Litmus test to see if Starmer and his Gov are serious about defence, or still just have their heads in the sand.
They’re not.
They want to direct MoD spend to subsidise industry to try to boost the economy.
💯
Hi M8 Isn’t that a better use of Taxpayers money than a lot of Government spending ? And just bear in mind that Germany ordered their 1st Typhoon Top up of 38 back in 2020/21 before the Ukraine Invasion for precisely the same reason, their assembly lines were running out of orders. Workshare is fine but if we aren’t assembling anything then its the Clyde,Barrow and Belfast fiascos all over again, virtually shut down due to no orders and then re launched at absolutely eye watering costs.
Hi mate.
Absolutely, and that means HMG need to ensure a drumbeat of orders. Hopefully for our own forces as well as others.
Where are they?
Question for you then, as an industry guy, maybe you csn enlighten me.
I put this out there the other week, as nobody replied.
If i go to a restaurant, it’s because I want to eat something nice. Have I paid for the fitting out of the place first? Or did I pay for the place to be built, as well as then paying again to eat there?
It seems to happen all the time with the UK MIC. And they take full advantage.
We here bemoan the state of our military every day.
MoDs budget, meant to procure kit and pay for people in the right amounts to kill enemies at HMGs whim, seems to be more than an industry budget rather than a defence budget.
Statements for years and years from ministers say the same thing. Jobs.
That’s all they care about.
If UK industry is the priority then fine, but people need to understand it and HMG need to be honest with that.
And this needs to be called the UK Industry Journal, not the UK Defence Journal!
The two are now so blurred they go hand in hand, except the military side gets the short straw every time.
Our military ALWAYS is last on the list and it irritates me enormously.
The selling off of in house capabilities to save a few quid has only beholden the military even more to the MIC.
Even President Eisenhower warned of their power.
I know you’re an industry man and I respect that.
But that article the other day on GCAP Avionics, with the photo of those suited executives all lined up with one looking at the camera as if to say, f…. off.
My original thought was….”what a bunch of Vultures.”
Seriously
They all proudly proclaim about helping the military, keeping us safe, blag blah blah.
All secondary. They see £ signs, courtesy of the taxpayer, and see opportunity to fleece the MoD again. I don’t think they give two hoots for our under equipped, stretched, disrespected, cash starved military.
Sorry.
With respect the ‘fleecing the taxpayer’ talking point is supported by:
1) Taxpayers don’t know or understand the forces requirements.
2) Taxpayers don’t know the actual capabilities of modern platforms
3) Taxpayers have no idea how hard it is to deliver 1) and 2)
Obviously transparency in spending public funds is appropriate but oversight people are rarely engineers, program managers, or other critical specialists so their reactions are no better informed.
Mmmm wow I don’t know where to start but I’ll try by splitting your meal analogy into 2 separate meals at vastly different price points.
First meal is Simple Fish and Chips, nice Haddock, Chips and Mushy Peas unit cost about £12 and relatively easy to learn the skills, source the materials and provided it’s good quality and affordable you have a steady market and revenue stream. Start up costs are not too high and with a decent business plan you can probably get a bank loan or familiar backing. Pretty low risk and a decent business.
Second Meal is multi course Tasting experience with a full customised Wine selection to match your courses at a Michelin Star Restaurant. Skill set and training required is off the scale and takes years, the ingredients cost a fortune, the location has to be exquisite and the kitchen is state of the art. It’s a niche Market and subject to economic and changes in tastes, failure rate is high, setup costs are off the scale and very few people can fund it. Pretty high risk and very difficult to fund.
Now let’s apply this to defence spending.
Fish and Chip shop is a Truck or Workwear manufacturer selling goods to both Industry and the military, so very commercially viable, economies of scale, lots of competition and no need what so ever for Government funding.
Michelin Star is every high end bit of kit you can think of, very niche, very expensive, massive R&D costs and given that Governments have a nasty habit of cancelling projects (even when they are production) only an idiot would self fund or try to get a bank loan to do it.
The problem is Defence needs both meals and the only way to get the second is to fund all the high risk parts or buy from someone else and have no high end defence industry.
But just now and then it works very well indeed, take my old industry not one bit of it is commercially viable, but it’s 100% necessary and HMG started a massive investment about 8 years ago. On the back of that AUKUS and some of Australias money has come our way and over the next 30 years HMG may well get all its money back in taxes and spend it on more boats for us.
Hope that helps !
As for the MIC vultures, sorry but it’s just capitalism at work same as banking and any industry ! As for us normal bods we just concentrate on building things that work and hope to God no one ever needs to use them.
I for one look at a laid up old SSN / SSBN as a success story 🤔
Yep the old laid up SSBNs especially are the epitome of what success means in the MIC. Because if they were not built, commissioned, sent on deployment and then laid to rest we would have all been dead a long time ago.
Thanks for that mate! Post of the week!
I’m grateful you even tried…..as you can see, I have a deep rooted scepticism of the MIC.
Fish and Chips on the UKDJ! 😆
Aside from the core Transformation of the Strategic Defence Review, that includes the importance of sustainable demand signals to that industry can invest with confidence that MoD demand isn’t going to be on again, off again. Thus sovereign capabilities will be built and sustained.
Further, the Whole of Government approach (MOD, Foreign Office, and HM Treasury) means that all are aligned and committed to those demands, and the funds required. That’s a huge step change from politicians being able to prioritise Benefits over Defence with no consequences.
Unfortunately both in the US and UK a simple change in Government can trigger “changes in strategic direction” which result in number cuts, build times stretched, replacements delayed beyond the life’s of existing kit, capability gapping or even entire projects just cancelled in the seconds of a ministerial announcement.
Hence industry has even less trust in Governments sticking to long term commitments than we humble voters.
CVA01, TSR2, Nimrod, B3 T class, Warrior updates, to name but a few in U.K and it’s far worse in US but recently the US just cancelled the Booker M10 ASCOD variant after just 84 of 500 and were actually in build.
Would you invest in that climate ?
Yes, in Europe because the threat from RF and axis of evil Allies is persistent and the drivers behind that are beyond their ability to change.
Further UK government are working on the Defence Industrial Strategy and detailrd planning so once that NATO first commitment has been made would find it hard to retreat.
CDS already said of Strategic Defence Review that the funding will accelerate it according to need, and that started from 2.5% GDP base and now NATO members have committed to 5% GDP with 3.5% GDP direct Defence funding.
The US situation is very different since the administration is not competent and doesn’t listen to their service leaders, who are competent, so long as they’re not replaced with political loyalists.
I doubt that European NATO will rely on USA rather bring Defence spending to Europe since USA doesn’t care about Europe. Quite rightly, European taxpayers will want their money spent in Europe.
So if anything Europe is more investable and politicians desperate for growth will support the Defence Industrial Strategy.
40+ is never going happen. I’d settle for 16-24 given realistic expectations.
I agree. I think it depends on the timing of GCAP and getting upgrades to the F-35s, but for now, I reckon 24 new Typhoons will keep the fleet going until 2050, by which time we should be converting the final squadron to GCAP. I think F-35 won’t be sufficiently general purpose to work alone until after we start getting GCAP. That means we’ll be running them mixed with Typhoon for years.
The Thug and the Assassin make a great team, until those Loyal Wingmen come along..
Agreed and increase the F35A buy from 12 to 16 to give one full nuclear capable/special missions squadron plus spares.
An extra frontline squadron of typhoon and two more F35b, brining it to 8 and 4 respectively is a good aiming point until tempest is available. The sole F35A squadron being dedicated to OCU.
To be honest the aim should be first to maintain the number of typhoon squadrons.. because buying 30-40 extra typhoons will maintain the numbers needed, not give extra squadrons.. if you wanted an extra typhoon squadron you would need to buy 60 extra typhoons.
The retirement on the tranche 1 Typhoon F2s tells us that the RAF.sèes the lifespan of a fast jet combat aircraft (FJCA) as 20 years max. Which means the 67 tranche 2 Typhoons will be getting very long in the tooth by the time the first Tempests start coming off the production line in 10, 11, 12 or whenever. It would make sense to buy a top-up batch of tranche 4 Typhoons now to allow for the gap. 24 would about right.
Problem is that the FJCA budget can only afford 6 or maybe 7 new aircraft a year. We have 150 FJCA at the moment and the plan is to increase to 181: + 23 F-35Bs, + 12 F-35As, – 4 tranche 1 Typhoons in the Falklands.
It means that we would need to be buying 9 new aircraft every year to maintain that 181 figure. But unless the FJCA budget is increased by up to 50%, there is no money to do so.
So while we could really do with 24 new Typhoons, I see no chance of getting them. Most of the new money has already been nibbled by the RN to pay for the yawning gap in its procurement budget AND get armfuls of rather dubious new unmanned/optionally manned UUVs, sloops and missile trucks, whose survivability in a kinetic conflict would be doubtful.
So RAF will get its allotted F-35s and 40 of its tranche 3 Typhoons upgraded to tranche 4, with the new ECRS AESA radar, at eye-watering cost. In any future conflict, we will have to rely on the RN to send us some of their snazzy unmanned things to help the tiny air force to not lose the air war.
For ‘nibbled’, read nobbled, for ‘things’, read thingys…
That the key issue.. three questions
1) does 96 single seater typhoons give enough numbers for the present 6 front line squadrons, Falklands fight, joint squadron, OCU and TES.. the answer is no, so once they get rid of the very last tranche 1s squadron numbers will need to drop
2) can the fleet be sustained at present levels of flight hours into the 2040s, again I think the answer is probably not ?
3) can a tail of typhoon squadrons be maintained until 2050 ( because that’s probably when the last tempest squadron will get stood up and typhoon is fully replaced by tempest), again probably not ?
All this means is that essentially typhoon squadrons will need to be replaced by F35 squadrons, unless there is another purchase of typhoons. Essentially some new money must go into the RAF fast jet budget, but it needs a specific “ for typhoon only” label attached, because otherwise the RAF brass will just order more F35s… because they have been quite clear they see typhoon as a sunset capability they would prefer not to invest in if they have they choice between F35 and typhoon.
After reading all the letters a couple of things spring to mind 1.The defence budget should double it’s too late when combat starts. 2. The money should come out of the Welfare Budget as it is way above Defence Budget. Then there is the other point that the government should get a grip Defence, but the problem is too many MP’s think weapons grow on trees as they have no experience what defence involves. Perhaps then all armed services can be properly funded today not by 2030 or thereabouts. I dream on ⚓️⚓️