Is the Future Combat Air System already a day Late and a dollar short?

Since its inception, the Future Combat Air System (FCAS) has been hailed as a revolutionary leap in Europe’s defence strategy. Envisioned as the next-generation air defense system jointly developed by France, Germany, and Spain, it aims to replace aging fleets of Rafale jets and Eurofighter Typhoons with cutting-edge capabilities that would ensure European air dominance well into the mid-21st century. The ambition is grand, the scale is unprecedented, and the potential is enormous. However, behind the headline-grabbing announcements and optimistic forecasts, the FCAS program may already be lagging, both in terms of technological readiness and strategic relevance. Over the past two years we have witnessed rapid technological advancement and increasingly agile threats, FCAS is starting to look like a project that is too slow to deploy and too expensive to justify, especially when compared to the faster-moving and more innovative defence programs of other global powers.

The Race for Sixth-Generation Dominance, Is FCAS Already Behind?

The global defense race has shifted focus from upgrading existing systems to developing sixth-generation fighters, an entirely new category of combat aircraft that will define the future of aerial warfare. Unlike their fifth-generation predecessors, such as the U.S. F-35 or the Russian Su-57, these new platforms are expected to bring unparalleled advancements in autonomy, artificial intelligence (AI), sensor fusion, stealth, and network-centric warfare. Yet, while the FCAS program claims to be at the forefront of this movement, its developmental timeline and its reliance on a crewed sixth-generation platform seems already outpaced by the swift deployment of autonomous systems that are more cost-effective, flexible, and quicker to bring into service.

The United States is making rapid strides in its own Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) program, which aims to replace its fleet of F-22 Raptors and maintain American air superiority for decades to come. Similarly, the United Kingdom, in collaboration with Japan and Italy, has launched the Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP), with the goal of delivering a multi-domain integrated system that includes both manned and unmanned aircraft by 2035. These programs, while ambitious, seem to be operating at a faster tempo than FCAS. They embrace newer and relevant military philosophies that prioritize speed, adaptability, and lower costs through modular design, AI integration, and a mix of crewed and autonomous systems.

In contrast, FCAS appears to be placing all its bets on a highly complex, crewed platform supported by an ecosystem of autonomous drones, known as "remote carriers," and a cloud-based network for real-time information sharing. While this concept is impressive, the focus on a manned fighter jet, despite clear trends pointing towards unmanned or optionally manned combat systems, could prove to be a critical miscalculation. By the time FCAS is operational, potentially in the late 2030s or even early 2040s, its very design philosophy will likely render it obsolete at launch, surpassed by more agile, cost-effective, and scalable solutions that other nations will have already deployed.

Technological Bottlenecks, the Achilles heel of FCAS

At the heart of FCAS’s potential pitfalls is the question of whether its ambitious technological goals can be achieved within a reasonable timeframe and a budget. FCAS is intended to be more than just a fighter jet; it is envisioned as an entire "system of systems" that integrates not only the manned aircraft but also unmanned remote carriers and a sophisticated "combat cloud" designed to share data across multiple platforms in real time. This is a tall order, even by modern defense standards. The technological gaps between the vision of what FCAS promises and the reality of what can be delivered are deeply significant, and the program has already encountered several challenges related to the integration of advanced AI, real-time sensor fusion, and autonomous control systems.

Moreover, while FCAS strives to incorporate AI and automation, the degree to which these capabilities can be fully trusted in live combat scenarios remains uncertain. Although autonomous systems have made enormous strides in recent years, the complexity of modern combat, especially in contested environments where electronic warfare, cyber-attacks, and data manipulation are likely to occur, raises serious doubts about the reliability of AI-driven decision-making in high-stakes situations. The development of truly autonomous systems capable of acting independently in combat without human intervention remains an unresolved issue, and this could further delay the already lengthy development timeline of FCAS.

Meanwhile, smaller, more agile defense programs around the world are embracing incremental advancements in autonomous systems, deploying drones and unmanned platforms that can be produced more quickly and at a fraction of the cost. These systems, such as the U.S. Loyal Wingman concept, are not only operationally efficient but cost effective and scalable, meaning that they can be fielded in large numbers to overwhelm enemy defenses. By focusing so heavily on a manned platform, FCAS may be tethering itself to an outdated concept of air superiority, where a single advanced fighter jet dominates the skies. In the future, air dominance will likely belong to swarms of autonomous drones that can be deployed en masse, each capable of performing a wide range of tasks, from air-to-air combat to ground attacks at lower risk and cost.

The Cost Factor and overruns

The financial burden of developing FCAS could very well become its Achilles heel. The program is already projected to cost over €100 billion, with that figure likely to increase as technical hurdles and political challenges arise. This massive price tag is not just a concern for defense budgets; it also raises questions about whether Europe can afford to maintain such a program in the face of mounting economic pressures. The cost overruns seen in other large defense programs, such as the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter should serve as a cautionary tale for FCAS. What began as a $400 billion project in the United States ballooned into an estimated $1.7 trillion over the program's lifecycle, largely due to the unforeseen complexities and integration issues.

FCAS is highly likely to face similar challenges. Integrating advanced AI, autonomous drones, and real-time data fusion into a single system is a monumental task. If the program encounters delays and all signs point to the likelihood of significant ones the costs will inevitably rise, creating a financial black hole that could siphon resources away from other essential defense initiatives. In a time of great economic uncertainty, this kind of financial commitment may become increasingly difficult for France, Germany, and Spain to justify, particularly if other, more agile solutions are available at a fraction of the cost.

While FCAS's budgetary challenges are significant, they are compounded by the shifting defense strategies of other European nations. The UK, through its GCAP program, has taken a more measured approach by sharing the financial burden with Japan and Italy. This partnership not only spreads the costs but also accelerates technological innovation through collaboration. Moreover, GCAP’s focus on modular design and the integration of unmanned systems makes it a more adaptable and cost-effective solution compared to FCAS’s more rigid and expensive architecture.

The World Won’t Wait for FCAS

Even if FCAS manages to overcome its technical and financial challenges, the question remains: will it be strategically relevant by the time it enters service?

The geopolitical environment is changing rapidly, with new threats emerging that demand immediate responses, not long-term promises. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has reawakened Europe to the reality of conventional warfare on its doorstep, while China’s military modernization and growing influence in global affairs have created a new era of great power competition. In this context, Europe’s need for flexible, immediately deployable air defence capabilities is critical.

FCAS, however, is not expected to be operational until at least the late 2030s, leaving Europe in a very precarious position. The program's reliance on a crewed platform could make it less adaptable to the unpredictable nature of modern warfare, where hybrid tactics, cyber warfare, and autonomous systems are becoming the norm. Moreover, Europe’s strategic autonomy the very principle that FCAS was designed to protect could erode as other nations develop and field their sixth-generation systems more quickly. If the United States’ NGAD program and the UK’s GCAP initiative are operational first, Europe may find itself reliant on external technologies, thereby undermining the strategic independence that FCAS was meant to ensure.

Defense Industry Pressure, the sunk cost fallacy

A significant factor keeping FCAS alive, despite its evident challenges, is the entrenched interests of the European defense industry. Major players such as Dassault Aviation, Airbus, and Indra Sistemas are heavily invested in the program and have a vested interest in seeing it through, regardless of whether the final product is strategically or technologically relevant by the time it enters service. This industrial inertia, however, could be driving the program toward failure by locking Europe into an outdated model of air combat rather than embracing the innovative, modular, and flexible approaches being pursued elsewhere.

The sunk cost fallacy plays a significant role here. With billions already committed to FCAS, European governments may be reluctant to pivot away from the program, even as emerging technologies suggest that smaller, faster, and smarter solutions may be the future of air warfare. Yet, the greater the investment in FCAS, the harder it becomes to abandon or adapt the project to new realities. Instead of clinging to the idea of a single, crewed platform, Europe should consider diversifying its air defence strategy, investing in a broader array of technologies that can evolve quickly as the nature of warfare changes.

Time for a Strategic Rethink?

FCAS represents a significant effort by Europe to maintain the illusion of air superiority in a complex and hostile geopolitical environment. However, the current trajectory of FCAS risks turning it into a relic of an outdated military strategy, overly dependent on a single crewed platform while the rest of the world shifts toward innovative and autonomous solutions. Given the rapid pace of technological advancements, budget overruns, and the urgency of emerging threats at its borders, Europe must reassess its approach, not as a long-drawn-out debate but on the urgency of the war footing it should have adopted the moment the annexing of Crimea by the Russian federation took place.

Instead of continuing to allocate resources to a project that are seemingly already eclipsed by advancements elsewhere, European leaders should adopt a more flexible and diversified strategy. This could and should involve investing in modular systems, enhancing collaborative defense initiatives, and prioritizing the integration of cutting-edge technologies. Time is a luxury that Europe doesn’t have. It must overcome bureaucratic inertia and adapt to the unpredictable realities of modern warfare and wake up to the fact that it is already in play on its doorstep.

Carl Cagliarini

?