The future of Europe’s flagship Future Combat Air System (FCAS) appears more uncertain than ever as deepening disagreements between its principal industrial partners, Airbus and Dassault Aviation, threaten to derail the continent’s most ambitious defense project. Germany and France are now pressuring the companies to break the deadlock by December 18, according to sources who spoke to Reuters, warning that failure to reach an agreement could force a drastic restructuring—or even abandonment—of the program’s central Next-Generation Fighter (NGF).
FCAS, a trilateral project involving France, Germany, and Spain, was conceived as a “system of systems” designed to secure Europe’s military aerospace edge beyond 2040. It includes a crewed sixth-generation fighter, autonomous remote carriers, and a powerful “combat cloud,” expected to link aircraft, sensors, and command centers across domains. Yet after years of delays, political friction, and industrial rivalry, the project is now in danger of collapsing under the weight of unresolved disputes.
At the heart of the crisis is a long-running clash between Airbus—representing Germany and Spain—and France’s Dassault Aviation over leadership roles, work-share arrangements, design authority, and supplier selection for the NGF. Dassault insists it must retain primary control over the aircraft design, arguing that decades of experience producing the Rafale and Mirage fighters give it unmatched expertise. CEO Éric Trappier has publicly rejected proposals for equal work-sharing, warning that such an arrangement could compromise the fighter’s final capability.
Germany, however, has refused to concede the majority share to Dassault. Reports in German media suggested Dassault sought up to 80% of the work on the crewed fighter—a claim Paris has denied, but one that has added to Berlin’s distrust. The German Works Council of Airbus Defence and Space has been vocal in demanding clarity, questioning whether Dassault is still the right partner for such a program.
The rift has caused severe delays. FCAS is currently in Phase 1B—focused on research, early design, and technology development. A demonstrator was expected to fly by 2029, but that timeline is slipping further away as disagreements persist.
The impasse has reached a point where Germany and France are openly contemplating a radical restructuring. Officials from both countries told the Financial Times they are considering abandoning the jointly built fighter jet entirely and focusing instead on a scaled-back collaboration centered around the Combat Cloud—a multi-domain command-and-control architecture led by Airbus Germany.
“One option discussed ahead of high-level meetings this week is to narrow the collaboration to the joint combat cloud,” the FT reported, citing officials who emphasized that the cloud architecture is already a core FCAS pillar.
If adopted, this approach would effectively eliminate the NGF from the tri-national project, allowing each country—or France alone—to pursue its own aircraft development path. Dassault has long argued that the NGF is the “heart” of FCAS and that the rest of the program, including the Combat Cloud, is designed to enhance the fighter. Airbus, conversely, views FCAS primarily as the future of networked battle management—an effort that does not necessarily require a jointly developed aircraft.
Such divergent visions have deepened mistrust between the companies and their political sponsors.
In a high-profile interview with Der Spiegel, the Chief of the German Air Force, Lt. Gen. Holger Neumann, raised eyebrows when reflecting on the uncertain fate of FCAS. “We have GCAP—the highly ambitious sixth-generation program with Britain, Italy, and Japan—and we have the F-35,” he said. “Anyone who thinks we can meet all our future needs with the F-35 alone is mistaken.”
His comments have fueled speculation that Berlin may pivot toward the Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP) if FCAS collapses. Germany’s F-35 procurement has already tied it closely to U.S. systems, and GCAP’s success in keeping its timeline relatively stable has positioned it as a compelling alternative.
German Defence Minister Boris Pistorius has been explicit: without resolution by year’s end, Germany may withdraw from FCAS entirely. “There needs to be a decision by the end of the year,” he warned in October. “Otherwise, we will pull the plug.” Last week, he reiterated that discussions were ongoing about “whether the project should continue and how it should continue.”
France, meanwhile, has previously floated the idea of developing a next-generation fighter independently—similar to how the Rafale program split from the failed Eurofighter negotiations decades ago.
The uncertainty surrounding FCAS is unfolding as global competitors surge ahead. The U.S. is preparing to field its sixth-generation F-47 fighter by 2029, while the UK–Japan–Italy GCAP program is targeting entry into service in the mid-2030s. China, too, is advancing rapidly, with prototypes of its own next-generation fighter reportedly already airborne.
A collapse of FCAS would leave Europe years behind its rivals, undermining ambitions for strategic autonomy and jeopardizing billions in investment.
With the December deadline looming, the future of Europe’s most ambitious defense program hangs in the balance. Whether the NGF survives, whether FCAS is reduced to a Combat Cloud-only effort, or whether the coalition fractures entirely, one thing is clear: the conflict between Airbus and Dassault has pushed the program to the brink.
Whether France once again proves an “unreliable partner,” or whether Germany ultimately walks away, remains uncertain. But for now, the FCAS next-generation fighter stands at a dead end—caught between industrial rivalry, political impatience, and the unforgiving march of global aerospace competition.
