Germany’s chancellor, Friedrich Merz, has publicly questioned the future of Europe’s most ambitious defense-industrial project: the Future Combat Air System (FCAS). His remarks have sent ripples through political and industrial circles in Berlin, Paris, and Madrid, raising fresh uncertainty about a program long seen as a cornerstone of European strategic autonomy.
FCAS – short for “Future Combat Air System” – is a trilateral initiative involving Germany, France, and Spain. It is designed to deliver a next-generation air combat architecture to replace the Eurofighter Typhoon in Germany and the Dassault Rafale in France beginning in the 2040s. But nearly nine years after its political launch, the project now faces renewed political doubt at the highest level.
A “Real Problem” in Requirements
In an interview with the political podcast Machtwechsel, Merz described FCAS as facing a “real problem” in its requirements profile. At the heart of the dispute lies the Next Generation Fighter (NGF), the crewed aircraft that will anchor a broader “system of systems” including unmanned remote carriers and a networked combat cloud. According to Merz, France and Germany have fundamentally different operational expectations for the future fighter. France requires an aircraft that is both nuclear-capable and able to operate from an aircraft carrier. Germany, he noted, does not currently share those requirements.
France’s need for nuclear capability is tied to its independent nuclear deterrent, a central pillar of its national defense strategy. Carrier capability is equally essential, as the French Navy operates the aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle and is planning its successor under the PANG program. The next-generation fighter is expected to operate from that future carrier, shaping its size, weight, and design constraints from the outset.
Germany, by contrast, does not operate aircraft carriers and participates in NATO’s nuclear-sharing arrangements using US-made aircraft. Berlin has already committed to acquiring the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II for the nuclear-sharing mission, raising questions about how a nuclear-capable FCAS fighter would fit into its force structure.
Merz posed a stark question: should FCAS attempt to build two different aircraft variants to meet diverging national needs? France, he suggested, prefers a single aircraft aligned primarily with its own specifications. That, he argued, does not necessarily match Germany’s requirements. Even more strikingly, Merz questioned whether Germany will need a manned fighter aircraft at all in 20 years, hinting at the rapid evolution of unmanned systems and networked warfare.
French Pushback and Commitment
French President Emmanuel Macron responded swiftly, reaffirming his commitment to the project. Speaking during a visit to India, Macron insisted that the military requirements of the participating states had not changed. From the French perspective, nuclear deterrence and carrier operations were always integral to the program’s design logic. The Élysée Palace emphasized that, given the strategic challenges facing Europe, it would be “incomprehensible” if industrial disagreements were allowed to derail such a crucial undertaking. France’s junior defense minister, Alice Rufo, echoed that sentiment at the Munich Security Conference, describing the project as complicated but achievable – and warning that failing to cooperate as Europeans would be strategically unsound.
Privately, French officials have also cast doubt on Germany’s ability to develop a next-generation fighter independently, noting France’s long experience in designing and producing advanced combat aircraft.
Industrial Governance: The Old Fault Line
The political disagreement overlays a long-running industrial dispute. FCAS is structured around several “pillars”, with different national champions leading each. The NGF pillar is led by Dassault Aviation, while Airbus represents German and Spanish interests. Spain’s technology company Indra Sistemas plays a major role in sensors and systems integration.
Dassault has consistently argued that a fighter program requires a single prime contractor with clear design authority to avoid blurred responsibility and technical risk. Airbus, backed by Berlin and Madrid, has pushed for a more balanced governance model reflecting the equal financial contributions of the three states. The program’s estimated lifetime cost – around €100 billion – adds political sensitivity. German lawmakers have repeatedly signaled that a structure perceived as French primacy would be difficult to justify domestically.
These tensions are not new. When FCAS was launched in 2017 by Macron and then-German Chancellor Angela Merkel, it was heralded as a symbol of deepened Franco-German defense cooperation. Spain formally joined two years later, and Belgium has since taken on observer status. Yet governance disputes delayed the demonstrator phase and repeatedly forced political interventions.
Strategic Stakes for Europe
FCAS is more than a fighter jet. It is intended to serve as the backbone of a future European air combat ecosystem, integrating crewed and uncrewed platforms through advanced networking. Supporters argue that without such a project, Europe risks technological dependency on the United States.
At the same time, Germany’s purchase of the F-35 and its increasing reliance on American systems complicate the strategic narrative. If Berlin is already anchoring part of its airpower in US technology, critics ask, how central is FCAS to Germany’s long-term defense planning? Merz’s remarks have therefore opened a broader debate about Germany’s future force structure. Should the Luftwaffe prioritize a highly advanced, possibly smaller fleet of crewed fighters? Or should it shift resources toward unmanned systems, electronic warfare, and missile capabilities?
A Decision Point Approaches
The political decision on how to proceed with FCAS has already been postponed twice. Leaders from France, Germany, and Spain have sought to resolve the impasse, but no definitive breakthrough has yet been announced. Another deadline looms at the end of February. Macron has warned that industrial disagreements must not undermine Europe’s strategic interests. Yet he has also acknowledged that failure remains a possibility.
Merz’s intervention marks a significant escalation. By questioning not only the requirements but the fundamental necessity of a manned fighter, he has reframed the debate from a technical disagreement into a strategic reconsideration. Whether FCAS survives will depend on whether Berlin and Paris can reconcile their differing visions of airpower – and whether political leaders are willing to compromise on national preferences for the sake of European integration.
Comments