Healey signs agreement paving way for export of Typhoon jets to Turkey
It comes after the German government reportedly cleared the path for the delivery of 40 Typhoon Eurofighter jets to Turkey.
'Today's agreement is a big step towards Turkiye buying UK Typhoon fighter jets,' Mr Healey said.
'It shows this government's determination to secure new defence deals, building on our relationships abroad to deliver for British working people.
'Equipping Turkiye with Typhoons would strengthen Nato's collective defence, and boost both our countries' industrial bases by securing thousands of skilled jobs across the UK for years to come.'
More than a third of each aircraft will be manufactured in the UK, with final assembly taking place at the BAE Systems site in Lancashire.
The Typhoon jet programme is a partnership with Germany, Spain and Italy.
Germany's security council has signed off on a Turkish request to buy the jets, which will use German parts, Der Spiegel reported, and has informed Turkish and Greek leaders of the decision.
The programme supports 20,000 jobs in the UK.
The RAF's own fleet of Typhoons is being upgraded over the next 15 years.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Statesman
3 hours ago
- New Statesman
How Britain lost the status game
Photo by Stefan Rousseau/AFP I've always been a bit puzzled by the 1956 Suez Crisis. The idea of Britain, France and Israel plotting together but being defeated by the honest, righteous Americans does feel, nearly a lifetime later, a little strange. But the most baffling thing about the Suez Crisis is the idea that it was a crisis. It's always described as this a great national humiliation which ruined a prime minister, the sort of watershed to inspire national soul-searching, state-of-the-nation plays and a whole library of books. And yet, compared to the sort of thing which literally every other European country had to deal with at some point in the 20th century, it's nothing. Britain was not invaded or occupied; Britain did not see its population starve. Britain simply learned that it was no longer top dog. That's all. The event and the reaction don't seem to go together. But this, of course, is to see the world from the perspective of today. Now, we all know that Britain cannot just do what it wants – that the US is the far more powerful player. At the start of 1956, though, large chunks of the map were still coloured British pink (or, come to that, French bleu), and the median opinion at home was that this was broadly a good thing. Suez was the moment when the loss of status we now date to 1945 came home. I wonder, in my darker moments, if we're going through something similar now – a less dramatic decline, perhaps, but a potentially more ruinous one. The loss of empire, after all, was mainly an issue for the pride of the political classes. Today's decline in status affects everyone. Consider the number of areas in which the current British government seems utterly helpless before the might of much bigger forces. It's not quite true to say that Rachel Reeves has no room for manoeuvre – breaking a manifesto pledge and raising one of the core taxes remains an option, albeit one that would be painful for government and taxpayer alike. But her borrowing and spending options are constrained by the sense of a bond market both far flightier than it once was, thanks to an increase in short term investors, and less willing, post-Truss, to give Britain the benefit of the doubt. The thing that much of the public would like Reeves to do – spend more, without raising taxes – is a thing it is by no means clear she has the power to do. Over in foreign policy, Keir Starmer has offended sensibilities by making nice with someone entirely unfit to be president of the United States, and whose actions place him a lot closer to the dictators of the 20th century than to Eisenhower or JFK. The problem for Starmer is that saying this out loud would likely result in ruinous tariffs, or the collapse of NATO before an alternative system for the defence of Europe can be prepared, or both. Again, he has no space to do what his voters want him to do. In the same vein, consider the anger about Britain's failure to act to prevent the horrors still unfolding in Gaza. It is not to imply the government has handled things well to suggest that at least part of the problem is that – 69 years on from Suez – the government of Israel doesn't give a fig about what the government of Britain thinks. The things the public wants may be outside the realm of things the government can actually deliver. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Even in less overtly political realms, the British state feels helplessly at the mercy of global forces beyond its control. The domestic TV industry, a huge British export, is in crisis thanks to the streamers. AI will change the world, we're told, and it's very possible that isn't a good thing: and what is Westminster supposed to do about that? And with which faculties? In all these areas and a thousand more, people want their government to do something to change the direction of events, and it is not at all obvious it can. Ever since 2016, British politics has been plagued by a faintly Australian assumption that, if a prime minister is not delivering, you should kick them out and bring in the next one. That is not the worst impulse in a democracy. But what if Britain is so changed that delivery is not possible? Researchers have found that social status affects the immune system of certain types of monkey – that the stress of lower status can, quite literally, kill. It already looks plausible the electorate might roll the dice on Nigel Farage. This is terrifying enough. But when it turns out he can't take back control either, but only trash what's there – what then? [See more: Trump in the wilderness] Related
South Wales Guardian
8 hours ago
- South Wales Guardian
Trump orders US nuclear subs repositioned over ex-Russian leader's statements
The move is 'based on highly provocative statements' from the country's former president Dmitry Medvedev. Mr Trump posted on his social media site that based on the 'highly provocative statements' from Mr Medvedev he had 'ordered two Nuclear Submarines to be positioned in the appropriate regions, just in case these foolish and inflammatory statements are more than just that'. The president added: 'Words are very important, and can often lead to unintended consequences, I hope this will not be one of those instances.' It was not immediately clear what impact Mr Trump's order would have on US nuclear subs, which are routinely on patrol in the world's hotspots, but it comes at a delicate moment in the Trump administration's relations with Moscow. Mr Trump has said that special envoy Steve Witkoff is heading to Russia to push Moscow to agree to a ceasefire in its war with Ukraine and has threatened new economic sanctions if progress is not made. He cut his 50-day deadline for action to 10 days, with that window set to expire next week. The post about the sub repositioning came after Mr Trump, in the wee hours of Thursday morning, had posted that Mr Medvedev was a 'failed former president of Russia' and warned him to 'watch his words'. Mr Medvedev responded hours later by writing: 'Russia is right on everything and will continue to go its own way.' Asked as he was leaving the White House on Friday evening for a weekend at his estate in New Jersey about where he was repositioning the subs, Mr Trump did not offer any specifics. 'We had to do that. We just have to be careful,' the president said. 'A threat was made, and we didn't think it was appropriate, so I have to be very careful.' Mr Trump also said 'I do that on the basis of safety for our people' and 'we're gonna protect our people' and later added of Mr Medvedev: 'He was talking about nuclear.' 'When you talk about nuclear, we have to be prepared,' Mr Trump said. 'And we're totally prepared.' Mr Medvedev was president from 2008 to 2012 while Russian President Vladimir Putin was barred from seeking a second consecutive term but stepped aside to let him run again. Now deputy chairman of Russia's National Security Council, which Mr Putin chairs, Mr Medvedev has been known for his provocative and inflammatory statements since the start of the war in 2022, a U-turn from his presidency, when he was seen as liberal and progressive. He has frequently wielded nuclear threats and lobbed insults at Western leaders on social media. Some observers have argued that with his extravagant rhetoric, Mr Medvedev is seeking to score political points with Mr Putin and Russian military hawks. Mr Trump and Mr Medvedev have gotten into online spats before. On July 15, after Mr Trump announced plans to supply Ukraine with more weapons via its Nato allies and threatened additional tariffs against Moscow, Mr Medvedev posted, 'Trump issued a theatrical ultimatum to the Kremlin. The world shuddered, expecting the consequences. Belligerent Europe was disappointed. Russia didn't care'. Earlier this week, he wrote: 'Trump's playing the ultimatum game with Russia: 50 days or 10″ and added, 'He should remember 2 things: 1. Russia isn't Israel or even Iran. 2. Each new ultimatum is a threat and a step towards war. Not between Russia and Ukraine, but with his own country.'
Glasgow Times
8 hours ago
- Glasgow Times
Trump orders US nuclear subs repositioned over ex-Russian leader's statements
The move is 'based on highly provocative statements' from the country's former president Dmitry Medvedev. Mr Trump posted on his social media site that based on the 'highly provocative statements' from Mr Medvedev he had 'ordered two Nuclear Submarines to be positioned in the appropriate regions, just in case these foolish and inflammatory statements are more than just that'. The president added: 'Words are very important, and can often lead to unintended consequences, I hope this will not be one of those instances.' It was not immediately clear what impact Mr Trump's order would have on US nuclear subs, which are routinely on patrol in the world's hotspots, but it comes at a delicate moment in the Trump administration's relations with Moscow. Mr Trump has said that special envoy Steve Witkoff is heading to Russia to push Moscow to agree to a ceasefire in its war with Ukraine and has threatened new economic sanctions if progress is not made. He cut his 50-day deadline for action to 10 days, with that window set to expire next week. The post about the sub repositioning came after Mr Trump, in the wee hours of Thursday morning, had posted that Mr Medvedev was a 'failed former president of Russia' and warned him to 'watch his words'. Mr Medvedev responded hours later by writing: 'Russia is right on everything and will continue to go its own way.' Asked as he was leaving the White House on Friday evening for a weekend at his estate in New Jersey about where he was repositioning the subs, Mr Trump did not offer any specifics. 'We had to do that. We just have to be careful,' the president said. 'A threat was made, and we didn't think it was appropriate, so I have to be very careful.' Mr Trump also said 'I do that on the basis of safety for our people' and 'we're gonna protect our people' and later added of Mr Medvedev: 'He was talking about nuclear.' 'When you talk about nuclear, we have to be prepared,' Mr Trump said. 'And we're totally prepared.' Mr Medvedev was president from 2008 to 2012 while Russian President Vladimir Putin was barred from seeking a second consecutive term but stepped aside to let him run again. Now deputy chairman of Russia's National Security Council, which Mr Putin chairs, Mr Medvedev has been known for his provocative and inflammatory statements since the start of the war in 2022, a U-turn from his presidency, when he was seen as liberal and progressive. He has frequently wielded nuclear threats and lobbed insults at Western leaders on social media. Some observers have argued that with his extravagant rhetoric, Mr Medvedev is seeking to score political points with Mr Putin and Russian military hawks. Mr Trump and Mr Medvedev have gotten into online spats before. On July 15, after Mr Trump announced plans to supply Ukraine with more weapons via its Nato allies and threatened additional tariffs against Moscow, Mr Medvedev posted, 'Trump issued a theatrical ultimatum to the Kremlin. The world shuddered, expecting the consequences. Belligerent Europe was disappointed. Russia didn't care'. Earlier this week, he wrote: 'Trump's playing the ultimatum game with Russia: 50 days or 10″ and added, 'He should remember 2 things: 1. Russia isn't Israel or even Iran. 2. Each new ultimatum is a threat and a step towards war. Not between Russia and Ukraine, but with his own country.'
