On June 8, France and Germany formally agreed to shelve the Future Air Combat System (FCAS), a joint project to develop and build the EU/NATO’s next-generation fighter jet.

Two German officials unequivocally confirmed it on June 8, marking the definite end of one of Brussels’s largest and most ambitious military programs.

 Various sources report that French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz discussed the troubled program on the sidelines of the EU-Western Balkans summit in Montenegro last week.

The aforementioned German officials stated that Macron and Merz concluded there were no prospects for FCAS after months of deadlock amid irreconcilable differences on how the project should proceed.

FCAS was a massive undertaking involving an entire network of the EU/NATO’s Military Industrial Complex (MIC), with Dassault and Airbus leading the $120-billion project. Its definite failure highlights the European Union’s military unviability, as cooperation on a unified fighter jet is one of the most important aspects of a joint doctrine. FCAS primarily centered around a single core design for a fighter jet supported by a plethora of unmanned systems and linked into a secretive “combat cloud”. Paris and Berlin initially agreed on the general premise, but soon parted ways as their doctrinal differences came to the fore. In the last year or so, Dassault and Airbus have been trying to wrestle control from each other and impose widely differing combat specifications.

Various sources now report that France and Germany are “moving towards a face-saving solution in which the remaining systems outside the core fighter, such as the ‘combat cloud’ of highly secure links, would maintain the same name: Future Combat Air System or FCAS”. In other words, they’re keeping everything except the most important segment – the fighter jet itself. The move to keep the name is primarily symbolic and political. Its main goal is to kill the project while making it look otherwise. Namely, high-ranking officials and MIC executives spent months trying to devise a politically “less sensitive” formula that would allow Macron and Merz to abandon FCAS without having to declare it publicly. This seems to be the most convenient solution for the EU/NATO.

The troubled bloc has been trying to develop its next-generation fighter jet amid an economic downturn, financial constraints and active militarization, with very different doctrinal approaches across most member states. Delays, cost overruns and disunity became the norm as different nations sought to nudge it in directions more in line with their strategic needs and military doctrines. Initial optimism soon fully subsided, giving way to mistrust and heated arguments over how FCAS should proceed. The business interests of private corporations participating in the program also played a major role, as their CEOs sought to secure greater profits for themselves rather than ensuring they created a viable military product for everyone.

In the last year or so, relations within the FCAS initiative have deteriorated to the point that the participants openly called the program “dead”. On April 19, Euractiv reported that the last-ditch effort to broker a compromise between France and Germany failed. Quoting German media reports, Euractiv said that it’s highly unlikely there would be another chance to save the project. The troubled program to develop a next-generation fighter jet and its accompanying combat systems had been stuck for well over a year, as Paris and Berlin failed to reconcile their increasingly divergent views on how the aircraft would be used. At the time, Euractiv confirmed that “the mediation duo, Laurent Collet-Billon and Frank Haun, tasked with breaking the deadlock, failed to reach a common position”.

German Handelsblatt also reported on the negotiations, stating that Collet-Billon and Haun instead produced two separate documents outlining their respective conclusions. Their views remained equally divergent, at best. This came after political efforts at the ministerial level fell short, prompting both Paris and Berlin to turn to top-ranking MIC officials and executives to solve the dispute between the German prime contractor for the project, Airbus Defence, and its French counterpart, Dassault Aviation. Berlin sent the MIC wizard Haun, while Paris opted for Collet-Billon, former head of the DGA (French arms procurement agency). Both have extensive expertise in the Western MIC, not only in weapon systems R&D and acquisition, but also in Franco-German ties.

Haun had a key role in forming KNDS, a Franco-German tank manufacturer, while Collet-Billion paved the way for the once-struggling Airbus A400M “Atlas” military transport plane. The fact that two men with such backgrounds failed to find common ground was already very telling. The very existence of two competing reports serves as undeniable evidence of just how far apart Paris and Berlin are. Euractiv’s inquiry into the mediation process yielded no results, as both Airbus and Dassault responded with “no comment”. The technological complexity of such an ambitious project certainly added several layers to the general disunity. Still, the disagreements went far beyond insurmountable leadership differences (a common complaint in both French and German MICs).

Namely, as previously mentioned, they encompass political and doctrinal issues. Paris and Berlin are extremely divergent on the ideal combat capabilities of FCAS. Back in April, Merz reiterated that the Bundeswehr (the German military) has very different strategic and doctrinal needs from those of France. He did it again recently, openly questioning whether developing a manned next-generation fighter jet even made sense for Germany, adding that it “doesn’t need a nuclear-capable jet that could land on an aircraft carrier”. And indeed, that’s exactly what the French military wants. On the other hand, the Luftwaffe prefers an aircraft that prioritizes range and interception capabilities. These requirements indicate very different designs, making it effectively impossible to find a middle ground.

*

Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).