Why the 100 Billion Euro Project FCAS is Failing and What Europe Should Learn from It

Since 2017, France, Germany, and Spain have been working on the Future Combat Air System (FCAS), a sixth-generation fighter jet estimated to be worth 100 billion euros. According to the Süddeutsche Zeitung, the project is on the verge of collapse. President Macron is expected to announce its failure in a fundamental political speech at the end of February. However, the real problem is not that FCAS has failed – but why.

## The Design Problem of Parity Collaboration

At the project's inception in 2017, the shares were evenly distributed among the three partners. What sounds like fair collaboration turned out to be a design flaw. France's defense contractor Dassault, the only European manufacturer with experience in the independent development of modern fighter jets (Rafale, Mirage), soon made it clear: Those with the know-how want control.

Eric Trappier, head of Dassault, put it bluntly: Only his company possesses the necessary technologies. The message to Berlin and Madrid was unmistakable – you can pay and supply parts, but the leadership remains in Paris.

Germany declined. After decades of playing the junior partner in defense projects (Tornado, Eurofighter), Berlin did not want to be reduced again to the position of a paying supplier. The federal government insisted on a genuine technology partnership – especially since Germany had made significant investments in engine and system technology.

## The Timing Makes Everything Worse

The stalemate might have been bridged if the Russian invasion of Ukraine had not occurred in 2022. Germany decided – against French protests – to procure F-35 fighter jets from the USA. From Berlin's perspective, it was a necessity for nuclear participation in NATO; from Paris's perspective, a betrayal of the European project.

The irony: Germany invested billions in American jets while the European prestige project sank into trench warfare. France, in turn, refused to relinquish technological control, even though it can hardly manage the project without German funding. The result is a zero-sum game in which both sides lose.

## GCAP as a Contrast Model

At the same time, the competing Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP) – a cooperation between the UK, Italy, and Japan – is running largely smoothly. The crucial difference: GCAP is based on clearly defined work packages and centers of competence. Japan leads in sensor technology, the UK in system integration, and Italy in aerodynamics. No parity fiction, but functional specialization.

This model avoids the toxic dynamics of FCAS: Instead of arguing over shares and symbolic politics, GCAP focuses on actual capabilities. The question is not "Who has control?" but "Who can do what best?".

## The Costs of Failure

A cancellation of FCAS would weaken Europe in multiple ways:

**Industrial Policy:** Without FCAS, Europe will lose the ability to develop state-of-the-art combat aircraft independently of the USA in the medium term. Dassault alone cannot manage a sixth-generation project; Germany will continue to buy F-35s.

**Strategically:** The USA will take FCAS's failure as evidence that Europe is incapable of realizing its own defense projects. This strengthens Washington's position in all future arms debates.

**Politically:** After the sluggish Eurofighter program, the endless delays with the A400M transport aircraft, and now FCAS, it will be difficult to justify any cross-border large projects.

## What Europe is Really Suffering From

The FCAS debacle is symptomatic of a deeper problem: Europe confuses institutional parity with functional efficiency. Instead of acknowledging that France has a technological lead in combat aircraft and Germany in system integration and financing, there is insistence on a symbolic equality that does not actually exist.

The bitter truth: Parity industrial cooperation only works when the partners are genuinely on equal footing – or willing to accept asymmetric structures. FCAS had neither.

Even a shift by Germany to GCAP would not solve the fundamental problem. The question is not which program is chosen, but whether European states are even capable of setting aside national egos in favor of strategic necessities. As it stands now: rather not.

## The Paradox of European Sovereignty

Europe speaks of "strategic autonomy" but is unable to create the institutional prerequisites for it. FCAS is not failing due to a lack of money or technological limits, but due to the refusal to distribute power asymmetrically. This is the central dilemma: True sovereignty requires the willingness to cede national sovereignty in certain areas. As long as Paris and Berlin do not accept this, every major project will break at the same fault line.

Macron's announcement at the end of February will likely be accompanied by slogans of perseverance. But the real question is not how FCAS can still be saved. The question is whether Europe is ready to rethink its defense cooperation on a basis that prioritizes functional reality over symbolic parity. So far, there is little to suggest that it is.