The Franco-German-Spanish FCAS program is in crisis. IG Metall and BDLI call on Berlin to withdraw in the absence of an industrial agreement.
Summary
The FCAS (Future Combat Air System) program, the cornerstone of Europe’s ambition to develop a sixth-generation fighter jet to replace the Rafale and Eurofighter Typhoon from 2040, is going through another period of turbulence. On February 11, 2026, the German union IG Metall and the industrial federation BDLI publicly called on the German government to consider withdrawing from the program. The reasons for this are the lack of a signed contract for phase 2, which is supposed to launch the demonstrator, and persistent disagreements between Dassault Aviation and Airbus Defence & Space over the distribution of industrial responsibilities and technological leadership. This crisis raises profound questions about industrial sovereignty, the governance of major European defense programs, and Europe’s ability to innovate in the face of competition from the United States and China.
The strategic context of the FCAS program
The FCAS was officially launched in 2017 by France and Germany, joined by Spain in 2019. Its goal is ambitious: to design a complete air combat system centered on a new-generation aircraft (NGF), accompanied by escort drones, a combat cloud, and an integrated digital architecture.
The schedule calls for entry into service around 2040. The estimated budget for the duration of the program exceeds €100 billion. Phase 1B, dedicated to preliminary studies and technology models, has mobilized around €3.8 billion. Phase 2, expected in 2026, will finance the NGF demonstrator.
At this stage, no contract has been signed for this critical phase. This deadlock is fueling German concerns.
German perception and rising tensions
On February 11, 2026, IG Metall, a powerful union representing tens of thousands of German aerospace workers, and the BDLI publicly expressed their frustration. Their message is clear: Germany cannot remain in a program where industrial leadership is dominated by a French player.
The German perception is based on three factors.
First, the fear of industrial imbalance. Airbus Defence & Space, based in Germany and Spain, believes that the current governance gives Dassault too central a role in the design of the NGF fighter.
Second, concern about industrial spin-offs. Germany wants to ensure a fair share of the work, particularly on avionics systems, structure, and software integration.
Finally, there is the issue of technological sovereignty. Berlin believes that the expertise accumulated on the Eurofighter should be fully leveraged in the future program.
The dispute between Dassault and Airbus
The heart of the conflict concerns the prime contractor for the NGF. France defends the principle of clear leadership, provided by Dassault Aviation, as the historical designer of the Rafale.
Paris believes that a fighter jet cannot be developed effectively without a single prime contractor responsible for the overall architecture.
Germany is calling for more collegial governance. Airbus is demanding a role equivalent to that of Dassault in design and integration.
The dispute is not ideological. It is industrial. In large aeronautical programs, the fragmentation of responsibilities leads to delays and cost overruns. The example of the Eurofighter, developed by a four-party consortium, has shown the limitations of dispersed governance.
France fears a dilution of responsibilities. Germany fears the marginalization of its industry.
The question of industrial work sharing
Work sharing is central. The FCAS comprises several pillars: the NGF, escort drones, the engine developed by Safran and MTU, and the combat cloud.
Germany wants to secure a significant volume of production and development on its territory. IG Metall insists on preserving highly skilled jobs, estimated at tens of thousands in the long term.
German manufacturers believe that the proposed model does not guarantee a fair return on investment.
On the French side, the argument is different: technical leadership must be consistent with existing skills. Dassault designed the Rafale without external cooperation on the airframe. Paris defends this experience as a strategic asset.
Is France perceived as arrogant?
In some German political circles, France is perceived as inflexible. This perception is fueled by the French refusal to share certain source codes or critical elements related to flight architecture.
However, it should be remembered that protecting sensitive technologies is common practice in the defense industry. No country gives away all of its critical building blocks.
The issue goes beyond national pride. It touches on the notion of sovereignty. France wants to retain the autonomous capacity to design a complete fighter jet. Germany, for its part, does not want to become a mere supplier of subsystems.
The potential impact on European innovation
The stalling of the FCAS program comes at a time of increased competition. The United States is investing heavily in the NGAD program. China is already developing advanced prototypes.
A German withdrawal would significantly weaken European ambitions. It would fragment budgets and risk leading to two competing programs.
Europe invests around €240 billion per year in defense, but this spending remains fragmented among states. Without structured cooperation, the continent struggles to compete with the American giants.
Defense innovation requires long cycles, stable funding, and clear governance. The FCAS was supposed to embody this European industrial maturity.
The schedule and industrial challenges
Phase 2 of the demonstrator is crucial. It must validate key technologies: stealth, new-generation propulsion, and distributed digital architecture.
A delay of two to three years would automatically push back the entry into service beyond 2040. This would pose a capability problem for replacing the Rafale and Eurofighter.
European manufacturers need visibility. Without a signed contract, the engineering chains cannot be structured. Skills are likely to be dispersed to other programs.
Possible scenarios
Three scenarios are possible.
The first is a quick political compromise. Paris and Berlin redefine the industrial sharing and sign phase 2.
The second is a prolonged freeze. The program continues quietly, but loses its initial ambition.
The third is a break. Germany could strengthen its cooperation with the United Kingdom and Italy around the Tempest program.
A German withdrawal from the FCAS would be a strong political signal. It would reflect Europe’s inability to overcome its industrial rivalries.
The FCAS is not just an aircraft. It is a political test. It measures Europe’s ability to overcome its national reflexes in order to build a coherent industrial base. The coming months will tell whether Paris and Berlin can overcome their differences or whether Europe will accept to remain dependent on American solutions. The debate goes far beyond the question of a demonstrator. It commits the continent’s strategic autonomy for several decades.
Sources:
IG Metall press releases, February 2026
BDLI public statements, February 2026
Bundestag reports on FCAS 2024-2025
Dassault Aviation and Airbus Defence & Space communications
EU defense budget analyses 2025
Live a unique fighter jet experience