Typhoon Fighter Sovereign Capability

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Wednesday 12th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Mr Snowden]

That is the nub of the argument about why this debate is about sovereign capability. While there will be balance—I will come on to the difference in capabilities between the aircraft, as raised by the hon. Member for Swindon North (Will Stone)—this is about maintaining a sovereign capability that, once gone, would take a generation to bring back.

This goes beyond jobs. To maintain and develop our sovereign capability, the RAF needs to be investing in, using and supporting the development of Typhoon. The RAF needs to be fully bought into its development: working with BAE systems on future orders, defining new requirements and capabilities, and enabling the development of future generations of the aircraft—a role only the RAF can truly play. The 6,000 jobs at the Warton site make up a workforce who, if lost, take our sovereign capability with them.

The only way to secure the site to allow the time to secure multiple export orders was to place the order for the RAF as part of the strategic defence review. This also made sense because it would have boosted the export campaign itself—it is a pretty hard sell to make when we are not even buying it ourselves. Someone I spoke to about the export campaign said that one of the first questions they always get asked is, “Are you buying it yourselves?” What kind of message does it send to say, “Please buy our fighters while we go to buy somebody else’s”?

To go back to the need to bridge the period between now and Tempest coming live, it is important to note that Tempest will not replace Typhoon. The point is simply that the site is secured by the order book for the new aircraft going live. We will still need the more agile fighter jet category that Typhoon occupies, as the different aircraft will perform differing air combat roles. As one person from the military described it to me:

“Tempest is the big, bad aircraft that has the tech and payload to blast into the battlefield and establish air superiority. The role of future generations of Typhoon is to then clear up, run smaller missions and maintain that air superiority.”

That makes it even more critical that the RAF and the Government remain bought into the continued development of Typhoon. They must place regular new orders, in addition to carrying out refurbishment, as we will need that sovereign capability for generations to come alongside Tempest.

If we continue to erode the skills base, with investment and innovation in favour of paying for America to develop and maintain its own sovereign capability instead, ours will wither as a result of the UK’s short sightedness. That is why I have been like a dog with a bone about this issue since getting elected.

It has been obvious over the past few years that the decision about the order of the 25 Typhoon jets would fall on whoever was in power when the next big defence review was conducted. To address the hon. Member for Swindon North’s intervention, I had hoped that the review would take a holistic look at what placing an order would mean, not just for the RAF’s specifications and requirements but for maintaining our sovereign capability—a phrase I am deliberately using over and over again. We should count ourselves incredibly lucky as a country that we are more secure for being able to produce our own fighter jets. We should do everything at every opportunity to invest in and continue to develop and improve that capability.

Instead, the order has been sent across the Atlantic, with a vote of confidence in and a significant investment cheque for another country’s sovereign capability over our own. Even if there were certain requirements, and the RAF had been led to believe that the F-35 had advantages, the investment could and should have been made in the Typhoon programme, through BAE Systems, as part of the continued development of that aircraft. That is how it is supposed to work when we make our own aircraft. But I suspect that there may have been more to it than just that.

Members may be surprised to know that this is by far and away not the first time I have discussed Typhoon and Tempest in Parliament. The ebb and flow of questions and answers on this subject between me and Ministers runs through Hansard over the last 18 months. Let us take a little trip down memory lane and look at some of the timeline. We start on 7 November 2024, with a written parliamentary question to the Ministry of Defence. I simply asked whether the Department had a budget for new Typhoons in 2025-26. The then Minister for Defence Procurement, the right hon. Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle), replied:

“Budget allocations for 2025-26 will be set in the usual way and informed by the findings of the Strategic Defence Review.”

In a follow-up written question on 15 November 2024, I asked what steps the Department was therefore taking, given that the production line was already falling empty, to ensure that skilled workers in the defence sector were maintained. I received what can be described only as a public sector word salad of an answer, talking about partnership working and future procurement strategies, while the assembly line emptied.

On 28 November, starting to get frustrated, I asked a question in business questions. I gave the long timeline of written and oral questions I had asked, trying to get answers and certainty, only to be brushed off by Minister after Minister. I was promised a meeting with the Secretary of State for Defence to discuss the Typhoon order—it never happened.

On 6 January 2025, in defence questions, I asked:

“Christmas came early for the UK defence industry when Spain placed an order for 25 Eurofighters on 20 December, and Italy followed suit on the 24th. But there is still nothing from the UK Government on the 25 Typhoon jets that are needed for the RAF. Will the Minister spread some festive cheer into the new year, and give us an update on where the Government are with placing that order for 25 Typhoon fighter jets—a delayed Christmas present for the UK defence industry and the RAF?”

The Minister for Defence Procurement replied:

“I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s point. It is certainly true that exports are important”—

critically—

“in addition to production for our own use.”

There was then a general comment about the strategic defence review, and the Minister finished by saying:

“The rest of our spend on such matters is part of the SDR. Once that is completed, there will be conclusions”—

slightly obvious. She went on:

“It might not be a Christmas present—I do not know when his birthday is—but a present some time later.”—[Official Report, 6 January 2025; Vol. 759, c. 586.]

“Yes,” I thought, “there it is: a hint on the Floor of the House that the order for Typhoon is coming.” It was said in the strongest possible terms without saying, “Yes, we are about to buy them. Please, just wait.”

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

Possibly.

[Mr Snowden]

Possibly.

From January 2025 onwards, the sector press started reporting on the need for and the likelihood of a Typhoon order being placed. Then, on 2 June, the strategic defence review was published, and there was the shock announcement that the Government would not purchase Typhoon, as expected, and would purchase F-35. The question that I and so many others have is simple: what happened? I am sure the former Minister for Defence Procurement is a politician of such experience and integrity that she would not have given strong indications of a potential Typhoon order simply to get out of an awkward parliamentary question from a lowly Back Bencher such as myself, and neither would the Government would want to see expectations around a Typhoon order build in the media if they had no intention of placing one.

One big thing brewing throughout that period was that the US President made it clear that if NATO allies wanted to include defence infrastructure in their 5% target, they needed to buy US military kit. If countries wanted better trade deals in the tariff wars then—you guessed it—they had better buy more hardware from the US.

To conclude, I have the following concise, separate and clear questions that I and my constituents would like to be answered. First, given that the specification, lead time and price of both aircraft did not change between the Government hinting they were ordering Typhoon and their then going in the opposite direction with an order for F-35s, what changed? Secondly, have the Government ruled out placing any new Typhoon orders in this Parliament?

Thirdly, given that the Turkey order will not fill the order pipeline gap, and the urgency of the situation outlined by the shadow Minister, what financial support will the Government provide to maintain the Warton site this financial year and next? Fourthly, will the Government please clearly state that they accept the principle that the lighter sister fighter aircraft to Tempest should remain a sovereign capability and, therefore, will be Typhoon? I will be grateful if the Minister would answer those questions in turn when he responds; I shall count how many answers we get.

I want to finish by paying tribute to the workers at BAE Systems in Lancashire, in both Warton and Samlesbury. It is good to see cross-party representation here from MPs in Lancashire who also have dependent workforces and jobs. There is such pride in our community for the world-leading technology produced at Warton. I am so proud to see how the workforce have held it together, kept going and remained hopeful—even as the assembly line emptied—that the orders would come to keep the site going and their jobs secured. The workers I have spoken to celebrated the fact that Turkey has done its bit for Lancashire and Fylde by ordering new Typhoons; they are now waiting for their own Government to do their bit and place the order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I thank the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden) for presenting the debate so well, and his passion, knowledge and deep interest are obvious. I support his plea: he, I and other Members in the Chamber wish to see any work retained in our own businesses, wherever those may be in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I also support his determination to ensure we retain the reputation as the world’s top fighting force.

It is a pleasure, as always, to see the Minister in his place—he has certainly earned his money in the last couple of days, and I am sure he will earn his money tomorrow as well. It is also a pleasure to see the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), in his place. He has a deep interest in these matters, and I wish him well in his contribution. The spokesperson for the Lib Dems, the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas), also has a passion for this issue.

As a boy—that was not yesterday, by the way; I can just about remember when I was a boy—I imagined being a fighter pilot. Imagine Jim Shannon being a fighter pilot! People in the Ards peninsula would be scared stiff at the very thought. That came from listening to local men telling stories of the second world war; my grandchildren look up to their grandfather, and I suppose that when I heard the soldiers and Air Force people who came back from the second world war telling their stories, that sparked an energy and an interest in the subject right away. When I think of Typhoon fighters, that little boy in me from 60-odd years ago is excited once more—excited for what we can do, and excited by what the Labour party and the Government wish to do. It is the right thing, and it inspires us all.

This land-based, multi-role fighter, capable of both air-to-air and air-to-ground missions, forms the bulk of the RAF’s combat air fleet alongside the F-35. It also forms the RAF’s quick reaction alert force, providing air defence in the UK and across the wider NATO airspace when deployed overseas.

[Mr Gregory Campbell]

On the quick reaction alert force, the NATO coverage and the contribution the Typhoon fighter would provide, does my hon. Friend agree that the proximity of the Irish Republic to the UK means that, in effect, we offer that nation some coverage and protection—which I presume we are quite happy to do—but at no cost to it whatever? Every NATO state has to pay considerably into NATO expenditure; the Republic pays nothing. Should our Government not approach the Government in the Republic to say, “We are covering for you. How about spending some of your money?”?

[Jim Shannon]

I thank my hon. Friend, who always instils words of wisdom in these debates. He is right: the Republic of Ireland is our neighbour, and we want to have an economic friendship and relationship with it—by the way, we do not want to be annexed by it, and we are quite clear where we are on that. However, we do provide F-35 and Typhoon aircraft coverage, which the Republic gets the benefit of. I am not sure whether anybody from the Republic of Ireland listens to these debates or even knows about them, but maybe even as we speak someone is cluing in and saying, “You know something? There is an obligation for us. Let’s do our part alongside the UK.”

The envy of the world, the RAF had 129 Typhoon aircraft, of which 107 are still in service. When he introduced the debate, the hon. Member for Fylde said that almost 21,000 people are employed across the UK in support of the Typhoon programme. It is estimated that the programme contributed £1.6 billion to the UK’s gross domestic product in 2020. Its importance cannot be denied.

My constituency of Strangford and the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) have large numbers of manufacturing jobs, so we understand how the lumbering allocation of contracts can bring hope—and then sometimes despair—to the workforce. I understand the frustration of the hon. Member for Fylde at the Government’s refusal to back British and ensure that our countries supply and make all possible goods.

I have argued the same case with the Ministry of Defence in relation to using Harland and Wolff in shipbuilding for defence contracts. My right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East, myself and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) have had a meeting within the last month to help ensure that the company can get more contracts. When the Minister replies, perhaps he can give us some encouragement for Northern Ireland in relation to procurement and contracts. We do not get the maximum we should out of defence contracts in Northern Ireland. We have a very skilled and able workforce, with apprenticeship opportunities, so we should focus on that.

I completely support the hon. Member for Fylde in his quest to ensure that the Ministry of Defence fulfils promises in a timely manner. As always, I am encouraged by Thales and the extra two Government contracts that have been put in place. There are now 200 new jobs there and apprenticeship opportunities. I have spoken to the management, who are very keen to ensure apprenticeship opportunities. I know some of them young fellas—I have known them since they were born—and they are the new apprentices and the new workforce for Thales.

It is not simply the future of manufacturing in Fylde that is at risk; it is the defence of this nation. Whenever we speak for something, we do so collectively. This is about the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England —working together. Those who serve this country in uniform come from all over, and we want to make sure we all get the benefit.

If the war with Russia and the Israel conflict have shown me anything, it is that those with the best weaponry have the upper hand. People seem to forget that, were it not for the Iron Dome defence system, Israel would have been rubble because of the incessant onslaught. If the Ukrainians did not have access to Thales lightweight multi-role missiles—LMMs—the battle against the might of Russia would be very different. I remember, in the first stages of the Ukraine war, the way that Thales LMMs were used to halt Russia’s advances and basically destroy its advance forces. They could be fired over the tops of houses and bungalows, and into the roads in between, to destroy the Russian armour. Those are the things that we should be promoting. When I saw them working in Ukraine, I was encouraged to know that some of my Strangford constituents—as well as probably some of the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry and my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East—manufactured them, and that they were able to destroy and halt the Russian advance.

The capacity and capability of our armed forces are, of course, world renowned, and the availability of top-of-the-range Typhoons are part of that. We must have Government backing for our defence strategy. I do not doubt that that is coming, by the way—this is not a question for the Minister—but sometimes we need encouragement and reassurance, which I think is what the hon. Member for Fylde is seeking. He is right to do so for his constituents and, indeed, for this great nation. We must also have backing for our manufacturing industry, which is the backbone of this great nation.

I support the hon. Gentleman and look to the Minister for firm action behind the words of affirmation that are undoubtedly coming. The time for fulfilment is now, and our manufacturing industry is more than ready to fulfil. We can deliver. This great nation has done it before; we can do it again, and we should do it now.