The longer the dispute over FCAS continues, the more the project will be delayed. If the partners decide against the project in its current format and look for alternatives, this would increase costs and lead to delays due to later entry into other projects. But the consequences of failure went deeper: “If it is not possible to implement this project within a European framework, larger joint arms efforts in Europe will become increasingly unlikely,” wrote the SWP in 2020 about the consequences of a failure of FCAS. Since then, the security situation has worsened considerably due to the Russian war against Ukraine, tensions over Taiwan and doubts about the USA’s loyalty to NATO.
The attempts of EUto become more independent of the USA in terms of defense policy would be a big step back. A failure of FCAS would send a “problematic message,” says the ECFR’s analysis from the beginning of December: “If it fails even partially, FCAS will show that a European defense industry, and thus also Europe’s strategic sovereignty, are pipe dreams.”
And another, very specific European arms project would then be at risk: The Main Ground Combat System (MGCS). The aim of this project, which is also led by Germany and France, is to develop a new main battle tank. Here, too, similar to FCAS, it is not just about a new model, but about a series of systems that are intended to complement it.
Although the two projects were decided independently of each other, a failure of FCAS would weaken trust between the partners. Unlike in aviation, where France sees itself at an advantage, the German defense industry, which is strong in the field of ground vehicles, could rely on its own know-how here. With Rheinmetall, which has developed a possible successor to the Leopard 2 with its Panther main battle tank, there is at least one large arms company that would probably even be interested in it.
With material from the Reuters news agency.
