Generals sometimes make the mistake of trying to fight the last war. The UK government often equips its armed forces with weapons from another age. Britain is being urged to fulfil a pledge to buy 88 Eurofighter Typhoons for £1.45bn by its German, Italian and Spanish partners in the project. The UK may have no choice but to buy them, but the fighter aircraft are unnecessary. The UK needs a review to work out what kind of military it requires.

The Eurofighter project began in 1979, and its design reflects its cold war roots. The aircraft is built to streak at supersonic speeds towards approaching airborne armadas from the Soviet Union. While the Eurofighter can perform ground-attack roles, it was not designed to support troops fighting an asymmetrical war against enemies who pose little threat to the aerial supremacy of Britain and its allies.

Buying further batches of Eurofighters would swallow money that could be spent elsewhere to better effect. A Ministry of Defence review in 2002 identified ­intelligence-gathering, data-sharing, the special forces, unmanned drones and night operations as priorities for investment in a world of unconventional warfare and international terrorism. There is also a clear need for more soldiers – and more money to equip them.

The UK is not alone in wanting to make this kind of shift of emphasis towards smarter fighting forces. The experience of Iraq and Afghanistan has persuaded Robert Gates, the US defence secretary, of the need to move American military investment away from big-ticket projects, such as missile defence shields, towards equipping troops to deal with the grinding stress of drawn-out counter-insurgency wars.

The UK will find it difficult to walk away from its Eurofighter commitment. The government would suffer large financial penalties, acute diplomatic embarrassment and significant political damage from permitting such job losses. The lesson of the Eurofighter is that government must plan procurement to make sure it buys what the country really needs; it is time for a new strategic defence review.

Such an exercise should consider how much the UK needs to invest in its capacity to engage in different types of campaign, and take in every­thing, including the future of its nuclear deterrent. A review must also consider what the UK must retain the ability to produce domestically, and what reliance can be placed on which allies. In recent decades, protecting British jobs and the European arms industry have been given too high a priority. It is time to dust off the drawing board.