The European Future Combat Air System (FCAS), a joint project led by France and Germany with participation from Spain, has failed because of disagreements between Airbus, the German representative, and Dassault, the French firm. It was the most ambitious European project at a time when the EU says it wants to increase and coordinate military spending to develop shared defense technologies, programs, and platforms — like the one that collapsed on Monday, June 8. What happened with FCAS casts doubt on whether Europe can ever reconcile national sovereignty with the demands of building next-generation, complex weapons systems, at a moment when the EU is trying to bolster its defense sovereignty and the United States is beginning to withdraw its security umbrella. It also adds pressure and lessons for other projects trying to move forward.
In Brussels officials are confident the blow — another setback to Franco-German cooperation in an increasingly poorly oiled engine — will not divert the EU from its objective. “To increase investment in our defense industry and our defense companies. We have a target for 2030,” a European Commission spokesperson told this newspaper, referring to initiatives such as joint drone and tank development and to the SAFE program (Security Action for Europe), which will provide €150 billion in loans for member states to collaborate on projects of this kind.
Several diplomatic and EU institutional sources believe the failure of FCAS — in which Spain participated through Indra — will not spread to other programs. They point to the project’s specific peculiarities and to the attitude of the French company Dassault, which, according to the German government, refused to share leadership with Airbus. For France (a nuclear power), the decisive issue was retaining exclusive control over the technologies needed for its nuclear deterrent, which complicated the division of leadership and technology among European partners, industry sources say.
The most forceful and critical assessment of what happened has come from Brussels, but not from EU institutions — rather from the Belgian government. “I was disappointed to read that France and Germany cannot agree on the development of a European aircraft. What a waste of time, what arrogance!” Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever lamented on Tuesday, in comments reported by the Belgian press. The Flemish politician even called it “pure stupidity.”
“Germany and France want to develop different types of aircraft. For France, the ability to carry nuclear weapons and to land on an aircraft carrier is essential,” says Marion Messmer, director of the International Security Program at Chatham House. “Germany, for its part, is mainly seeking a fighter with conventional weaponry,” the expert notes in an analysis published Monday, shortly after news of the fighter’s abandonment broke.
The differing needs of the two countries help explain, in the view of Guntram Wolff of the Bruegel institute, that “it was likely the project would become very costly with questionable effectiveness in modern warfare.” Instead, the expert proposes: “Both countries should prioritize spending on modern artificial intelligence and cloud infrastructure, combined with autonomous capabilities. This will bring military benefits and broader social returns.”
Brussels insists that excessive zeal and capital-level control — putting national interest above the collective — ends up causing situations like this. And that sends a signal and a warning to others. “There must be a clearly defined common EU defense policy that does not exist today,” a European source says. “But everyone wants to use this wave to boost and strengthen their national industry.”
The irony is striking: FCAS has collapsed at a moment when the EU has more resources for defense than at any other point in its history, driven by Russia’s war on Ukraine and the rift with the U.S. Two unprecedented instruments are on the table. The European Defence Fund (EDF), endowed with €8 billion for 2021–2027, finances research and development but does not cover large-scale weapons systems. That responsibility remains with national governments. Even more significant is SAFE, the EU-backed loan instrument worth €150 billion, designed to support joint procurement of defense equipment.
In practice, SAFE reflects a more pragmatic approach: funding multiple capabilities, often developed in parallel and sometimes at national level. But it contains clauses that allow borrowing states to spend the money on national industry and priorities. Poland, for example, has requested €40 billion and intends to allocate it to drones, artificial intelligence, border defense infrastructure, and military mobility.
Despite confidence that there will be no knock-on effects, the FCAS failure worries officials in the European capital. Attention, Brussels sources explain, is now focused on other joint projects that could face similar difficulties. The Main Ground Combat System (MGCS), intended to replace Germany’s Leopard 2 and France’s Leclerc tanks, officially remains underway but is experiencing delays and growing doubts about its governance and industrial leadership. Like FCAS, it brings together national defense industries with differing and competing strategic priorities.
The Eurodrone program — initially driven by Germany, France, Italy, and Spain — continues to move forward, although French participation has been called into question following Paris’s withdrawal of funding and rising doubts about the platform’s operational and economic viability. For now, Berlin, Rome, and Madrid continue to support the project.
Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition
