After the thrust of Chancellor Merz, who declared the FCAS dead, a veiled proposal arrives from Toulouse; build two independent systems or join those of the United Kingdom, Italy and Japan. The issue has come home to roost: France and Germany need two different planes
Airbus does not want to miss the opportunity to develop a sixth generation fighter and would be willing to re-enter the project with a “two-aircraft” solution. The intent of the Toulouse aeronautical giant would be not to have to give up the future air combat system which, until now, France, Germany and Spain were discussing and which now risks being closed.
It’s not just a question of money, the kind that Airbus would receive for this project, there is also the technology to be developed and then able to resell in exports, therefore the opportunity to take a leap forward and get on par with other large companies such as the American Lockheed Martin.
The stalemate between Airbus and Dassault
The CEO of the European group, Guillaume Faury, spoke of this intention, since work on the new generation fighter is currently at a standstill due to the lack of agreements between Airbus and Dassault Aviation.
Faury is well aware that the Future Combat Air System (FCAS) program is at a crossroads and he reiterated this at the press conference on Airbus’ annual results held on Thursday 19 February in Toulouse.
The reality is that the FCAS was being created without having a clear idea of what exactly it was supposed to be used for. When a new military airplane is born, things work like this: Defense defines the threats to be countered; politics (especially foreign politics) thinks about objectives and security by deciding missions for the military. These transform them into operational tasks and actions, receive the necessary financial resources and pass the ball to the industry that designs the equipment.
The political knot: Macron, Merkel and two different needs
Instead, the plane decided by Emmanuel Macron and Angela Merkel in 2017 served more to unite the European military industry and make it autonomous from the USA, giving rise to a great misunderstanding.
Germany would need a successor aircraft to the Eurofighter, therefore a high-performance multirole for air superiority, while France will need the heir to the Rafale, a more versatile aircraft, with better ground attack capabilities, advanced electronic warfare characteristics, the ability to transport nuclear weapons and above all one that can operate from aircraft carriers.
In short, two different vehicles, and this difference has revealed itself in front of a wall: Dassault would like to lead the program from a technological point of view and Airbus cannot accept it because the work generated would concern more areas in which Airbus would lag behind.
Not just the fighter: cloud, drones and new engine
Faury knows that, in addition to the flying machine project itself, it is necessary to create others such as the combat Cloud system, the unmanned aircraft that will fly collaboratively with the aircraft and above all the new engine.
It is no coincidence that he declared: “The stalemate of a single pillar of the program should not compromise the entire future of this European high-tech enterprise; it will strengthen our collective defense. If requested by our customers, we would support a two-fighter solution and are committed to playing a leading role in a reorganized FCAS implemented through European cooperation.”
A clear project to overcome the current division of work among French companies, but also the struggles for leadership and issues related to technology transfer.
The risk of missing the market
By giving up the program we would lose the opportunity to build and sell the system in a market destined to grow, but to achieve this we need to overcome doubts about who will lead the program and the ability to achieve the objectives in the right time.
Above all, as German Chancellor Friedrich Merz recently declared, Germany, which holds Airbus’ wallet, does not need the same plane as France. Thus Merz stated that if the technical requirements profile cannot be met, the project cannot be maintained.
Belgian Defense Minister Theo Francken summarized Merz’s interview in a social media post, saying: “FCAS is dead according to the German Chancellor, there will be no Franco-German fighter planes and Belgium will reevaluate its observer status in the program.”
The alternative hypothesis to Gcap
Faury explained: “We continue to believe that the program as a whole makes sense and that we should not compromise the progress and relevance of its other pillars. We must find a way out by waiting for customer decisions. Airbus has invested a lot of time and energy in the FCAS program and it would be unwise to give it up or abandon it to marry the Gcap program of Great Britain, Italy and Japan. If we manage to make two fighters we could take the opportunity to have other partners with us, but it is up to our customers to decide if and with whom join forces. I repeat, we are not at that point yet.”
Faury is definitely right about one thing, when he claims that “a project like the Fcas can only be achieved through cooperation between various nations. However it was born, this will be the last plane that can be piloted from on board, in the future there will only be unmanned aircraft”.
The Eurodrone chapter
This last sentence gave the journalists present the opportunity to ask what stage the troubled Eurodrone program is at, the long-range multinational project paid in part by Pesco funds, of which Airbus is the leader but which involves Leonardo and other partners, for which Italy has also given up one of its existing drones, the Piaggio P1HH.
On this, the Airbus number one said that discussions are ongoing on the way forward, although he expects the program to continue as most partners still support it.
