Can France build a sixth-generation fighter jet on its own?
Many watched with glee as the triumvirate of Germany, France, and Spain to develop a sixth-generation fighter collapsed. And then Belgium stepped in with the money. But the money was the undoing.
The alliance, admittedly, was more than substantial: both France and Germany had significant contributions from their manufacturing companies. Spain, of course, played a minor role, but Belgium's arrival was a significant boost, as it is effectively no weaker than Switzerland in monetary and banking matters. It's no coincidence that the European Union and NATO are based there.
But the desire of Airbus, represented by the Spanish and German sides, to grab the majority of the development and production (and therefore the money) led to the fact that, to the crowing of the Gallic rooster (this is the symbol of France, by the way, and not Macron), the French side left the project.
Undoubtedly, the Germans are strong without any help; they have Airbus Defence and Space, MTU Aero Engines, Hensoldt, AEG, Rheinmetall and many other developers and manufacturers capable of ensuring the development and production of an aircraft from scratch.
The problem is that Germany didn't develop combat aircraft after World War II. They did build—yes, the American Phantoms, for example—but nothing indigenous emerged. The Tornado and Typhoon weren't German aircraft; they were international aircraft, as developers from several countries contributed to their creation.
Therefore, this desire to rip off more than anyone else from Airbus is legitimate, but illogical. And therefore, France's withdrawal from the project puts a 90% end to this Eurofighter project. It's no surprise that the Germans have begun to look across the English Channel to join the British, who have clearly formed a more stable alliance with Italy and Japan.
But we have France, so to speak.
And they're quite confident they can handle it themselves. Speaking to parliament, French Armed Forces Minister Catherine Vautrin stated that the country has sufficient technological potential to launch a next-generation fighter jet by 2040.
Frankly, it's a long shot, but 15 years is definitely enough time to design, build, and fly an airplane. Especially not from scratch.
The Minister reminded those who were undecided (that is, those who were likely to vote against the allocation of funds) that France is the only country in Europe capable of producing fighter jets entirely independently.
Of course, there's no arguing with that; it's all true. And there are chances for independent development, as the minister explained. The country's leading corporations are involved in the project: Dassault Aviation (platform), Safran (engines), and Thales (electronics). There's plenty of work to do, and weapons manufacturers will join in as the project progresses.
Vautrin went on to point out that €2,5 billion has already been allocated for preliminary studies over the past eight years, and that this money has not been wasted; the experience gained within the FCAS framework will be used to accelerate the national program.
It's worth noting that even within the now-defunct FCAS program, a lot was accomplished. And if you recall, the program got off to a very impressive start. We've published more than one forecast, and, frankly, the France-Germany-Spain trio looked much more preferable than the UK-Italy-Japan trio.
And if you look closely at the reasons for the collapse and disagreements between France and Germany, then at first glance everything seems simple, but upon closer examination everything becomes not so clear-cut.
If you remember, it all started with a patent dispute. Dassault was reluctant to share its sensitive technologies and intellectual property with Airbus. But the Germans were pressuring them, and they were really pushing. They were laying claim to leadership in the project, but then the French got their arrogance out of the way and declared, "Well, since you're in charge, you should be the one spending money on the development."
Considering that Airbus had turned to Dassault for technology, this was logical. And Dassault believed that since they held the files containing the most interesting developments, they should be the ones in charge. Airbus was unwilling to comply, and given that the company was represented by both German and Spanish companies, the French had a tough time.
But while the debate over who would be in charge continued, the two countries' militaries intervened and turned the project into a complete mess. In principle, militaries around the world are capable of this; even nuclear physicists can't compare.
It has been revealed that the French military wants to have a nuclear-capable aircraft in its Air Force. weapons, and in a deck-based configuration, no less. If you recall, they have the floating disaster "Charles de Gaulle" on their books, and the interests of this nuclear cataclysm must be taken into account. Although, it certainly wouldn't be worth it.
But you and I understand that a carrier-based aircraft differs significantly from a similar aircraft operating from land-based airfields in many ways. A nuclear weapons carrier isn't all that complicated; it just requires a few additional electronic control, activation, and guidance units. Complex, but not fatal.
But the problem was, the Luftwaffe had absolutely no need for such an aircraft! The German military believed the F-35 would be able to carry nuclear bombs, and Germany had no plans for an aircraft carrier or anything similar.
In short, the countries needed aircraft of different configurations, which inevitably led to conflict. In February 2026, Airbus CEO Guillaume Faury (who, incidentally, is French but serves as the head of a German company) proposed producing two versions of the fighter, which would have been entirely logical. A naval and land-based version would have been of great interest not only to program participants but also to third-party buyers.
That's what Dassault is doing with the Rafale, that's how the Americans have broken down the F-35 project into three parts, it's all quite logical and result-oriented.
However, for some reason, Dassault dismissed this proposal as sabotage, and France, head held high, withdrew from the project. Whether this was the last straw or simply a coincidence, it's difficult to say, and there's no need to.
Result: On June 8, 2026, the FCAS program was officially closed. The participants have retreated to their respective sandboxes, pondering their next steps. Germany is forming the "Team Gen.6" alliance with Airbus, Hensoldt, and MTU, while closely monitoring developments in the other triumvirate. France is pursuing its own path.
Why does France consider itself capable of independent development? Because it can.
Let's just look into the past and see there... And we will see airplanes there.
Mirage IIIJust under nine hundred were produced, and it served in service with a dozen countries. It was a truly versatile aircraft, a supersonic multirole fighter, interceptor, reconnaissance aircraft, and bomber.
Mirage 5A third-generation multirole fighter, a further development of the Mirage III. Various modifications, including the Dassault Mirage 50 and IAI Nesher (Dagger), served in service with 11 countries. A total of 582 were built.
Mirage 2000A fourth-generation multirole fighter. The last Mirage 2000 was assembled in 2007 for the Hellenic Air Force. A total of 614 aircraft were produced.
Dassault RafaleA fourth-generation multirole fighter. It made its maiden flight in July 1986. It entered service with the French Navy and Air Force in 2004 (Navy) and 2006 (Air Force), respectively. To date, 507 aircraft have been produced, and it is in service in nine countries.
These are certainly not record-breakers like the MiG-21 (14,000 units) or MiG-15 (15,500 units). These are solid mid-range fighters that solved all the problems of their Air Force and Navy, and even allowed them to recoup their costs through export sales. They are not one-hit wonders like the F-104, quiet servicemen who have survived many conflicts.
Dassault aircraft have many drawbacks, but they also have just as many advantages. And herein lies France's strength: despite acquisitions, France has never stopped developing and building its own aircraft. There have been gaps, but from the first Etandards, Mysteries, and Hurricanes to the Rafales, France has never stopped developing its own aircraft. This is a compelling argument in favor of French aircraft manufacturing.
In addition to Dassault Aviation, the French military-industrial complex includes such concerns as Thales Group, Safran Electronics & Defense, MBDA, which are able to solve any issue in terms of ensuring the technological autonomy of France, creating airframes, stealth technologies, combat avionics, nuclear deterrence systems and carrier-based aviation.
There aren't many names, but you have to look deeper. Safran isn't just a name; it actually hides much more. It all started in 2005, when the renowned manufacturer of aircraft and missile Engine maker Snecma and electronics and communications manufacturer Sagem merged to form the military-industrial group Safran. And so it went…
A series of acquisitions and purchases began, resulting in the manufacturer of aviation and tank Engine maker Turbomeca was renamed Safran Helicopter Engines, transmission maker Hispano-Suiza was renamed Safran Transmission Systems, optoelectronics and avionics maker Sagem Défense Sécurité was renamed Safran Electronics & Defense, and wiring harness maker Labinal Power Systems was renamed Safran Electrical & Power.
The result is a monster that will have to be reckoned with in any case. At the very least, the more than successful experience with the Rafale confirms this: the French fighter received a phased array antenna (PESA) as early as 2001, and an active electronically scanned array (AESA) in 2013 – 20 years before the Eurofighter. A significant investment in time, to say the least. Overall, the Rafale entered service five years before the Typhoon, and, what's more, it proved more effective in terms of cost/effectiveness. Perhaps not as significantly as the French would have liked, but also not as insignificant as the Germans and British would like to point out.
So can France create a competitive fighter?
Answer: it depends on what you are creating!
Recall that the F-35's development cost US taxpayers over $100 billion, for which the entire program has drawn even more criticism than the F-22. European defense programs historically require even greater resources to achieve comparable results, if only because the Americans, when developing the F-35, had the experience of developing the F-22 as a fifth-generation fighter, while France lacks such expertise.
Moreover, some experts doubt the French electronics industry will be able to achieve the sixth generation. They say France is lagging behind the US and China in microelectronics, which is critical for advanced radars, communications systems, and artificial intelligence.
Today, microelectronics manufacturers confidently maintain the Rafale at a global level, and French thermal imagers are generally considered the best in the world. But we're talking about the sixth generation, not the fifth…
No one has yet clearly defined the distinction between Projects 5, 5+, and 6. Each country that is developing new aircraft—and few can afford it—is pursuing projects to the best of its ability and nothing more.
And of all the buzz about sixth-generation fighters, at the moment, if we set aside lasers, blasters, hypersonics, hybrid power systems, active IR camouflage systems, and so on—all these semi-fictional and downright fantastical projects—we're limited to more tangible things like integration with ground-based information networks and space satellite constellations to create a unified tactical field. And yes, swarms. drones as support vehicles for AI-controlled aircraft.
There are some doubts that the French aviation industry, which is significantly inferior to the US and China, will be able to create an aircraft comparable to the F-35 or J-20. This is simply because the aircraft would require many more components that would make up the sought-after sixth generation.
According to American analysts, even a joint European project could, at best, produce a 5+ generation aircraft, not a full-fledged 6th generation. For France alone, the bar is even higher. But nothing is impossible; the question is how to approach the implementation of such a project. A wide range of outcomes are possible, ranging from the most optimistic to the most pessimistic.
Independent development will likely be successful in terms of ensuring national sovereignty; the French are quite capable of creating a “5+” for themselves, but the creation of a machine competitive on the global market against American and Chinese counterparts remains a big question.
Money is also a factor, as strange as it may sound. 2,5 billion euros have already been allocated for R&D, but that's largely insignificant; the total cost could exceed 50-80 billion, which is a significant amount for France.
But, I repeat, creating a replacement for the Rafale to protect France's sovereignty is entirely within the capabilities of French companies; they have extensive experience. A next-generation fighter, drawing on the experience of Dassault, Safran, and Thales, is entirely feasible. However, in terms of combat capabilities, it will likely be inferior to American and Chinese aircraft, remaining a niche product for France's own security. And its price will be, you understand, like... the Rafale for India, which will automatically bar it from the global market.
Everything depends on how effectively the French can use the experience accumulated over the past decades and the funds that France can allocate to this project.
Information