With the Rafale F5 and its combat drone, France aims to stay in the aerial race without waiting for FCAS or copying NGAD.
Summary
The transition from the Rafale F4 to the Rafale F5 marks more than a simple modernization. It prepares a shift in doctrine. The future standard is designed to pair the French fighter jet with a collaborative combat drone derived from the achievements of the neURon program. The objective is clear: penetrate denser air defenses, strike further, protect the pilot, and maintain the credibility of the airborne nuclear component with the ASN4G. This choice comes at a delicate time. FCAS remains uncertain. The American NGAD is moving forward with the F-47 and CCA drones. The war in Ukraine demonstrates the power of mass-produced drones. Yet, replacing fighter jets with drones would be a mistake. The real question is more severe: France must finance less prestige, more mass, and above all, a complete combat system.
The Rafale F5 Is Not a Simple Evolution of the Rafale F4
The Rafale F4 is already a significant milestone. The F4.1 standard was qualified by the DGA in March 2023. It brings new connectivity features, enhanced cyber protection, upgrades to the RBE2 radar, the OSF (front-sector optronics), the Talios pod, and the integration of new weapons, including the 1,000 kg AASM. All French Rafales are to be progressively upgraded to this standard. The F4 therefore transforms the Rafale into a more connected, more resilient aircraft, better integrated into a collaborative combat bubble.
The Rafale F5 goes much further. It is no longer just about improving sensors or data links. It is about preparing an operational pairing: a manned aircraft and a stealthy combat drone. On October 8, 2024, the Ministry of the Armed Forces announced the launch of the combat drone program intended to complement the future F5 standard after 2030. Dassault Aviation specifies that this drone will leverage the achievements of the neURon demonstrator. It will integrate stealth technologies, autonomous control with a human in the loop, an internal weapons bay, and an architecture designed for collaborative combat.
This point is decisive. The F5 should not be viewed as a more modern Rafale, but as the center of a system. The pilot will remain in the aircraft. The drone will become an advanced sensor, jammer, decoy, effector, scout, or weapons carrier. This logic reduces the Rafale’s exposure in the most dangerous areas. It also increases tactical volume without multiplying the number of manned aircraft.
The timeline remains long. Public texts and declarations refer to a standard expected in the early 2030s, a combat drone capable of complementing the Rafale F5 after 2030, and targeted technological superiority around 2033. In the 2026 parliamentary debates, an initial trial of wingman drones is mentioned for 2028, with an operational stealth drone demonstrator targeted for 2035. France will therefore not be in a logic of immediate disruption. It is preparing a transition.
The Drone Derived from neURon Must Open the Way to Collaborative Combat
The neURon program is often presented as an old demonstrator. This is true. Its first flight dates back to 2012. But this longevity can be a strength. neURon allowed Dassault Aviation and its European partners to work on stealth, flight controls, internal bay integration, autonomy, air-to-ground missions, and industrial cooperation around a combat drone. The future Rafale F5 drone will not be a recommissioned neURon. It will use its technological building blocks and the experience gained.
The primary function will likely be penetration into contested environments. Modern surface-to-air defenses combine long-range radars, multi-layered missiles, electronic warfare, passive sensors, airborne early warning aircraft, long-range air-to-air missiles, and distributed command networks. Facing this, sending an isolated aircraft becomes increasingly risky. The collaborative combat drone can act as an extension of the Rafale. It can detect before the aircraft does, transmit in its place, draw enemy fire, or carry a weapon into an area that is too dangerous.
This approach changes the role of the pilot. They will no longer just be a flight leader. They will become the manager of a mini-combat system. They will need to receive, filter, and exploit data coming from multiple platforms. Artificial intelligence will primarily serve to classify threats, suggest trajectories, manage priorities, and reduce cognitive load. The phrase “autonomous with a human in the loop” is important. It indicates that the machine can navigate, detect, and perhaps suggest engagements, but the lethal decision will remain controlled by a human.
Resilient connectivity will be one of the true challenges. A collaborative drone is only useful if it communicates. It becomes fragile if the adversary jams, intercepts, or disrupts its links. Therefore, discrete, directional, hardened communications are required, probably multi-band, and capable of operating in degraded modes. This is less spectacular than a stealthy shape. Yet, it is the heart of the system.
FCAS Remains Necessary, But It Can No Longer Be France’s Only Horizon
FCAS was intended to provide France, Germany, and Spain with a next-generation combat air system by 2040. Its theoretical core rests on a New Generation Fighter, remote carriers, a combat air cloud, and integration with existing fleets. The idea is coherent. No isolated aircraft will dominate the skies of 2040 alone. Superiority will depend on sensors, drones, electronic warfare, data processing, stealth, and long-range strike capabilities.
The problem is political and industrial. France has specific needs: airborne nuclear deterrence, carrier-capable aviation, exportability, continuity with the Rafale, and sovereignty over critical functions. Germany and Spain have other priorities. Debates over industrial workshare, intellectual property, the role of Dassault, the role of Airbus, engines, sensors, and program leadership have already slowed the timeline. These uncertainties are now publicly acknowledged in French parliamentary discussions.
FCAS remains relevant as a European horizon. But it cannot be the only gamble. Waiting for 2040 with an uncertain program would be irresponsible. The Rafale F5 therefore becomes a strategic insurance policy. It allows France to modernize its fighter fleet, prepare for the ASN4G deterrence missile, retain the skills of Dassault, Safran, Thales, and MBDA, and enter collaborative combat without depending entirely on a Franco-German-Spanish compromise.
This strategy is lucid. It also carries a risk. The more France invests in the F5, the more it creates a credible national alternative. The more credible this alternative becomes, the more FCAS may lose its political urgency. Paris must therefore manage a real tension: supporting FCAS without trapping itself inside it, developing the Rafale F5 without causing a European rift, and preparing for the post-Rafale era if the joint program fails to deliver.
The American NGAD Shows a Lead in Methodology, Not Just in Technology
The American NGAD is moving forward differently. In March 2025, the US Air Force awarded Boeing the development contract for the F-47, presented as its sixth-generation fighter jet. The program is part of a family of systems: manned aircraft, collaborative drones, sensors, software, electronic warfare, and connectivity. In June 2026, the US Air Force also awarded development and production contracts to General Atomics for the FQ-42 and to Anduril for the FQ-44, the first Collaborative Combat Aircraft, or CCAs. The stated objective is to have more than 150 combat-ready CCAs by the end of the decade.
The difference with France is stark. The United States is increasingly separating hardware and software. For the CCAs, the US Air Force selected a pool of suppliers for software autonomy: Anduril, General Atomics, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, RTX Collins Aerospace, and Shield AI. This separation allows airframes, software, and autonomy blocks to be put into competition. It prevents a single industrial player from controlling the entire chain.
France starts from a more integrated model. Dassault holds the architecture of the Rafale. Safran provides the engine. Thales brings sensors, electronics, and systems. MBDA develops the weapons. This coherence made the Rafale a success. It guarantees sovereignty. But it can slow down the rapid integration of new players in software, AI, and low-cost drones. The American lesson is not to copy the F-47. It is to build a faster, more modular, and more open acquisition process.
France will not be able to compete dollar for dollar. It can, however, choose tighter objectives. It does not need to dominate the Pacific over immense distances. It must preserve deterrence, protect its approaches, contribute to NATO, maintain an entry-first capability, and retain an exporting industry. The Rafale F5 can fit this profile. It will not be a French NGAD. It must be something else: a sovereign, credible, exportable combat system compatible with French budgetary constraints.
The War in Ukraine Proves the Effectiveness of Drones, But Not the Death of the Fighter Jet
The war in Ukraine has upended the debate. FPV drones, reconnaissance drones, loitering munitions, naval drones, long-range drones, and electronic warfare systems have transformed the battlefield. Ukraine plans to produce more than 7 million drones in 2026. It indicates that unmanned systems have become the backbone of its asymmetric defense, with an effect zone of 20 kilometers and a target extension to 100 kilometers in operational depth. The Brave1 Market system and e-Points have already delivered more than 181,000 drones, ground robots, electronic warfare systems, and other equipment to Ukrainian units in 2026.
These figures force a frank conclusion: drones are no longer an exotic addition. They have become a munition, a sensor, and sometimes a decisive tactical weapon. They cost less than a missile, are rapidly replaced, and force the adversary to consume expensive defensive assets. They also allow for a very short innovation loop. The front line tests. The industry adapts. The units order. The system evolves.
But Ukraine does not prove that the fighter jet is obsolete. It proves something else: in an airspace saturated with surface-to-air defenses, manned aviation can no longer operate as it did in the 1990s. Ukrainian and Russian aircraft remain limited by the surface-to-air threat, electronic warfare, and long-range missiles. Drones fill part of the void. But they do not completely replace fighter fleets.
An FPV drone does not perform air policing. It does not carry a nuclear missile. It does not execute a long-range interception. It does not project air power several hundred kilometers away with a heavy payload and high survivability. It does not replace an air superiority fighter, a deep-strike aircraft, or a platform capable of making decisions in a complex environment. Drones change the cost-effectiveness ratio. They do not eliminate the need for high-end combat aviation.
The real Ukrainian lesson is therefore more demanding: aircraft must be less isolated, drones much more numerous, munitions cheaper, electronic warfare denser, and development loops faster. The Rafale F5 must not become an isolated prestige program. It must be the heart of a broader ecosystem.
France Must Invest More in Drones Without Abandoning Manned Aircraft
It would be rational to heavily increase French investments in drones. Not just in a high-end stealth drone for the Rafale F5. France must also finance tactical drones, militarized FPV drones, consumable reconnaissance drones, loitering munitions, naval drones, decoys, communication relays, airborne jammers, and counter-drone systems. It must accept an idea that is uncomfortable for a top-tier air power: part of the future will be played out in less noble objects, produced in mass series.
But shifting the entire strategy toward drones would be dangerous. The low-cost drone is powerful under certain conditions. It becomes vulnerable if the adversary jams links, destroys relays, blinds sensors, or imposes a multi-layered defense. Long-range drones also require navigation, communications, intelligence, planning, engine production, warheads, and launch capabilities. They are not free. They are not magical.
The best model is hybrid. The Rafale F5 provides decision-making, deterrence, qualitative superiority, and integration. Drones bring mass, persistence, acceptable risk, and saturation. Long-range missiles strike high-value targets. Electronic warfare opens the breaches. Satellites, AWACS, ground radars, and distributed sensors feed the combat cloud. It is this complete system that matters.
France should therefore finance the Rafale F5, but with a clear condition: every euro invested in fighter aviation must produce a network effect. The new aircraft must not absorb the budget of the drones. It must organize them. It must not be a closed platform. It must be a node of command, firing, intelligence, and autonomy.
The State Must Subsidize Fighter Aviation Because the Civil Market Cannot Produce It
The question of public subsidies for fighter jets deserves a direct answer. Yes, the French state must finance the next fighter jets. No, it should not do so out of industrial reflex or nostalgia. It must do so because no civil market will finance sovereign combat aviation. An aircraft like the Rafale F5 requires billions of euros, lengthy trials, rare skills, secure supply chains, classified weapons, military engines, sovereign sensors, and an operational validation that only the state can carry.
The benefit goes beyond the Air and Space Force. The Rafale supports an industrial base that feeds Dassault Aviation, Safran, Thales, MBDA, and hundreds of subcontractors. It supports exports, qualified employment, design offices, digital sovereignty, materials, defense electronics, computers, radars, optronics, engines, and missiles. Abandoning this chain would create a lasting dependence on the United States or other suppliers.
The strongest justification remains deterrence. The Rafale F5 must carry the ASN4G, the future airborne nuclear missile. The airborne component gives the president a visible, flexible, and recallable option. It complements the oceanic component. This role cannot be entrusted to a consumable drone or a foreign aircraft. It dictates complete sovereignty over the aircraft, the missile, communications, procedures, and maintenance.
But the public subsidy must be more demanding. It must finance verifiable capabilities, not just promises. It must impose realistic schedules, open interfaces, controlled costs, ammunition stocks, and a true production capacity in times of crisis. The state must not just buy an aircraft. It must buy a credible warfare capability.
The Real French Gamble Will Be Played Out Between Sovereignty, Mass, and Speed
The Rafale F5 is relevant if it becomes the bridge between two worlds. On one side, the old model of the highly capable, expensive, manned, exportable multirole aircraft maintained through successive standards. On the other, the new model of distributed air combat, where value comes as much from drones, software, data, and remote effectors as it does from the aircraft’s airframe.
France does not have the means to do everything like the United States. Nor is it in its interest to wait passively for a politically uncertain FCAS. Its most credible path is therefore that of a highly connected Rafale F5, accompanied by a stealth combat drone, supported by a family of lower-cost drones, and preparing for either a renovated FCAS or a future national sixth-generation aircraft. The 2026 parliamentary debates are already moving in this direction, with the mention of a sixth-generation fighter demonstrator for national needs by 2035.
The weak point remains mass. France can produce excellent systems. It has more difficulty producing in numbers, quickly, and at a contained cost. Yet, modern warfare punishes formats that are too short. Fighter jets will survive. But they will survive surrounded by drones, decoys, missiles, sensors, and software. A Rafale F5 without an ecosystem would be a very good aircraft in a world that has changed. A Rafale F5 integrated into a collaborative combat architecture can become one of the most rational tools of French sovereignty.
The French decision must therefore not oppose the aircraft and the drone. It must reject this false choice. The future will be neither entirely manned nor entirely autonomous. It will be distributed. The question is whether France will know how to finance this system quickly enough, broadly enough, and robustly enough for it to exist otherwise than in programming files.
Live a unique fighter jet experience