(FRANCE) Dassault Aviation’s chief executive Eric Trappier said on September 23, 2025 that the company can build Europe’s next‑generation fighter jet on its own if it must, describing such a move as a political choice rather than a technical limit. His comments arrive as talks over the Franco‑German‑Spanish Future Combat Air System face renewed strain over workshare allocation and control of key technologies, with partners far apart on who leads the core aircraft.
Core dispute: leadership of the fighter platform
At the heart of the dispute is leadership on the fighter platform—the flagship pillar within the broader Future Combat Air System program, which aims to replace today’s Rafale, Eurofighter, and related platforms by around 2040.
- France (Dassault Aviation) argues for stronger control over the fighter component.
- Germany (Airbus) wants a more balanced split and clearer national roles.
- Spain is a partner in the trilateral talks, aligned on cooperation but affected by the outcome.
Each side says it supports cooperation, but both accuse the other of slowing progress: German voices say Dassault is holding up talks by insisting on exclusive leadership; Dassault says it simply seeks proper control over areas it will be responsible for.
Program status, cost and schedule
Negotiations continue, and no deadline has been set for a deal. The next major step—a demonstrator aircraft—remains on hold until partners agree on roles and how intellectual property (IP) will be shared.
- Estimated total program cost: more than €100 billion
- Demonstrator phase: pending agreement on leadership and IP
- Pressure points: industry workers, suppliers, and taxpayers who expect steady progress
Dassault’s position and capability
Trappier’s assertion rests on Dassault Aviation’s long record of designing and producing complex combat aircraft. The company points to its experience building the Rafale after France left the Eurofighter consortium decades ago.
- This history is presented not as mere pride but as proof of the technical and industrial base needed to deliver a new fighter alone if political leaders choose that path.
- Trappier framed a solo path explicitly as a political decision, not an engineering impossibility.
Germany’s options and stance
Germany is weighing options as talks drag on. Officials in Berlin want guarantees on national roles before the end of 2025 and have frankly considered alternatives:
Possible alternatives under consideration:
– Splitting from France and exploring partnerships with Spain, Belgium, the United Kingdom, or Sweden
– Continuing under the current trilateral framework if concrete guarantees for German industry are secured
Airbus has reiterated its commitment to the Future Combat Air System framework and existing agreements, but German policymakers continue to stress the need for clear, long‑term roles for German industry.
Historical context and recurring friction
The friction is not new in European defense. Current debates over workshare allocation and IP echo past struggles to balance national interests and industrial leadership.
- France’s decision to leave the Eurofighter program and pursue the Rafale alone is a reminder that cooperation can falter when partners cannot agree on lead roles.
- Today’s standoff centers on who leads, who follows, and how technology and future exports are shared.
Practical impacts on industry and personnel
For engineers, pilots, and factories tied to the program, uncertainty has real effects.
- A delayed agreement can:
- Slow hiring and complicate training plans
- Push suppliers to postpone investments
- Cause schedule slippage and budget strain
- Erode public and political support
When timelines stretch, national leaders face pressure to defend jobs and protect sensitive technologies while trying to keep a joint vision alive.
Strategic implications of fighter leadership
Industry watchers note that leadership on the central aircraft often sets the tone for the rest of the project. The fighter sits at the core, with other systems—sensors, combat cloud, unmanned carriers—built around it.
- Whoever leads the fighter platform gains influence over:
- Timelines and integration choices
- Export terms and future upgrades
- Overall strategic direction of the program
That is why workshare allocation is not a simple split of tasks; it is a struggle over control and long‑term advantage for national industries.
Potential outcomes and consequences
If partners resolve their differences, benefits include:
– Shared costs
– Pooled technology and expertise
– A European flagship program capable of competing globally
If they fail to agree, risks include:
– Parallel, duplicative efforts across Europe
– Higher overall costs
– Repeated work and reduced efficiency—similar to past separations between France and the Eurofighter nations
Trappier’s reminder that Dassault can deliver alone appears intended to force a timely political choice rather than allow drift to become the default.
Recommended path forward (if partners agree)
The partners have a clear path forward if they can settle leadership and IP questions:
- Agree on a clear prime for the fighter platform, with defined authority and accountability.
- Lock in a balanced but realistic workshare allocation that reflects each firm’s strengths.
- Create a binding framework for IP that protects core know‑how while enabling joint development and future upgrades.
- Set a firm timeline for the demonstrator, with shared milestones and public reporting to maintain momentum.
Political weight and final takeaways
While the dispute is industrial, it carries significant political weight in Paris, Berlin, and Madrid. A program above €100 billion will shape budgets, defense strategy, and the future of Europe’s combat aviation industry.
Dassault Aviation says it has the people, the tools, and the experience to build the next fighter jet without partners. Whether it should is not an engineering question, Trappier said—it is a political one.
According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, long cross‑border projects require steady policy signals so companies can plan teams and partnerships with confidence. Clear roles and transparent IP rules make cooperation easier to sustain over time — the stability executives say they need to move from negotiation tables to factory floors.
For official background and updates, the French Ministry of the Armed Forces provides resources and statements on defense programs, including air combat modernization: see the ministry’s site at the Ministère des Armées.
Until leadership and IP questions are settled, all eyes remain on the next round of talks between Dassault Aviation and Airbus.
This Article in a Nutshell
Dassault Aviation’s CEO Eric Trappier declared on September 23, 2025 that Dassault could independently build Europe’s next‑generation fighter if political leaders allowed it. His statement highlights growing friction within the Franco‑German‑Spanish Future Combat Air System (FCAS) over leadership of the core fighter platform, workshare allocation and intellectual property rules. The demonstrator phase is stalled while partners negotiate roles; the program is estimated to cost more than €100 billion. Germany seeks clear industrial guarantees before the end of 2025 and has considered alternative partnerships. Dassault points to its Rafale experience as evidence of technical capability, framing any unilateral path as a political choice rather than an engineering necessity. The dispute risks delays, higher costs and disruption for suppliers, workers and national industrial strategies unless partners define prime responsibility, a fair workshare split and binding IP rules.
