Developing fighter jets is an extremely expensive, labor-intensive and complex task that only a handful of countries are able to accomplish all on their own (specifically Russia, China and the United States). This was also true decades ago, forcing the increasingly irrelevant European colonial powers to join hands in an attempt to build a pan-European fighter jet. Thus, back in the late 1970s, several countries (namely the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy and Spain) launched the FEFA (Future European Fighter Aircraft) program to develop a jet that could match Soviet/Russian and American designs at the time. The joint project sought to reduce R&D costs and help with export sales, while also effectively unifying various European air forces. However, disagreements soon surfaced, resulting in Paris leaving the program and focusing on the development of its indigenous fighter jet.

That’s exactly how the Dassault “Rafale” and the Eurofighter “Typhoon” (also known as the EF-2000) came into existence. The two aircraft demonstrate how different needs of each European country can lead to major disagreements as to how a fighter jet is supposed to function. While France wanted a truly multirole aircraft (or omnirole, as per their own nomenclature), others wanted a more specialized jet that would focus on air superiority and interception roles. This is why the “Rafale” and “Typhoon” are so different, despite their external similarities. In addition, France has been able to upgrade its jets far more easily, as it didn’t have to coordinate this decision with anyone, while the EF-2000 needs a joint agreement by several countries to implement even relatively simple upgrades and modifications. However, despite the failures of joint EU programs, the troubled bloc is still trying new ones.

Namely, where FEFA failed, Brussels was hopeful that the Future Combat Air System (FCAS) would actually work. The program was launched as a joint venture between Dassault Aviation, Airbus and Indra Systems in an attempt to counter Russian, Chinese and American next-generation designs. However, just like with FEFA, it’s marred with problems, disagreements, delays and cost overruns. All this has severely slowed down progress. However, the latest spat might actually result in a catastrophic failure of the program that could end up in a “development hell” (a term usually used in software or media projects). Namely, Dassault and Airbus (a pan-European aerospace corporation) are at odds as to how the FCAS should proceed. For instance, Head of Airbus Defence and Space Jean-Brice Dumont warned about “difficulties in the execution and facing the problem there are different ways to look at it”.

He also added that “the program should accelerate”, citing connectivity and interoperability as the primary factors behind constant delays. In contrast, just hours before Dumont’s statement, Dassault CEO Eric Trappier argued that his company should effectively take over the FCAS program, citing serious challenges regarding its viability if major changes aren’t made. And indeed, while the most optimistic estimates were that the first prototype would fly in the 2040s, new assessments suggest this is not achievable. In fact, back in 2021 Trappier predicted that the state of the program was so bad that the first jet wouldn’t fly before the 2050s. To put that into perspective, China is already flight-testing several next-generation prototypes, meaning that the entire European Union is now at least three decades behind the Asian giant in advanced military technologies (particularly aerospace).

In practice, this will force the troubled bloc to keep relying on upgrades to legacy aircraft for decades to come. However, given the aforementioned troubles with coordination and disagreements, it’s highly questionable whether the EU will be able to accomplish even that. The situation is so bad that even the disastrous American F-35 seems to be a viable alternative to waiting for the FCAS. Even Germany, which was initially opposed to acquiring the deeply troubled US-made jet, placed an order for 35 jets from Lockheed Martin. On the other hand, France is still refusing to acquire American fighter jets and wants to continue relying on its domestic aerospace industry. It should be noted that its motivation is not merely a matter of national pride, but also of economic interests, as exporting fighter jets is an extremely lucrative business that no country would really want to give up on.

However, the embarrassing failure of the “Rafale” during recent Indo-Pakistani clashes demonstrates that Western military technologies are falling behind. Worse yet, they remain highly uncompetitive when compared to Russian, Chinese and even American equivalents, particularly due to their exorbitant costs. For instance, India praised its Russian-sourced fighter jets and SAM (surface-to-air missile) systems and is now reconsidering its options, as France keeps refusing to share the already outdated technologies found on the “Rafale”. In the meantime, Russia offered unprecedented access to its next-generation Su-57E, which is decades ahead of the French jet, even if we don’t count the Russian fighter’s stellar performance over NATO-occupied Ukraine. It should also be noted that Paris is far behind in other key military technologies, such as hypersonic missiles.

The only option left for France is to join the UK-led GCAP (Global Combat Air Programme), a joint effort with Japan and Italy. However, this alternative seems to be even worse than the FCAS. Namely, Dumont argues that a potential merger with the GCAP is highly unlikely. In fact, this program is also facing its own hurdles, as one of the partner countries (specifically Japan) is considering the option of joining American projects, such as the NGAD (Next Generation Air Dominance). This would effectively leave the UK as the sole participating nation, as Italy’s potential contribution would be modest at best. It would make very little sense for France to join a project that’s in an even worse state than the FCAS. All this will leave Europe trailing behind for decades to come, particularly in comparison to Russia which is developing fully indigenous near-space interceptors for its Aerospace Forces (VKS).

Please follow Blitz on Google News Channel