Simmering tensions between the main partners on the French/German/Spanish project to develop a sixth-generation fighter were again evident during the Paris air show, with the public re-emergence of discord between Dassault Aviation and Airbus’s defence unit.

Now in its Phase 1B activity, the Future Combat Air System (FCAS) effort aims to deliver capabilities including a New Generation Fighter (NGF), to enter operational use from 2040. Design definition work is currently being advanced, with a demonstrator for the manned strike asset due to be flown around 2028.

Perhaps symbolising the dispute, a full-scale concept model of the NGF at Paris sat alone, next to the French Ministry of Defence’s outside exhibit area, although by the third day of the show the mock-up had been moved.

Prior to an agreement being reached for Phase 1B, Dassault chief executive Eric Trappier was adamant that only his company could lead work on the future fighter, with Airbus Defence & Space to be involved in a supporting role.

His position on the matter has remained unchanged – earlier this year he stated that “you need partners who believe in the prime, in the architect”.

Speaking at the show on 17 June, Jean-Brice Dumont, head of air power at Airbus Defence & Space, noted: “We are at the beginning of the end of Phase 1B,” while adding: “We have observed with Phase 1B difficulties in the execution.

“We have to accelerate, because there is war everywhere, so some areas of this major programme have to deliver products earlier,” he argues.

“We want to demonstrate our leading contribution to the aerospace and defence of tomorrow,” he says, while adding: “there are naturally roles for all of us in the programme.”

The positioning by industry comes ahead of the project’s Phase 2, where work will include flying the NGF, and demonstrating “the system of systems principle, and the technologies of the fighter and unmanned vehicles or remote carriers”.

“Any co-operation isn’t an easy endeavour,” Dumont states, while adding: “It doesn’t have to become toxic in the programme.

“What we don’t challenge is that there is an appointed leader for the fighter programme – that leader is Dassault Aviation. But what we as Airbus have to claim is that there is an even share corresponding to the share of our governments.

“I believe it is possible with a smart workshare and proper rules of engagement,” he says. “At the moment you have two competitors, poised to marry. We are today married with BAE [Systems] and Leonardo on the Eurofighter programme, but tomorrow with Dassault. The transition from one to the other isn’t easy, when we will have to share everything,” he says.

“We are committed to the programme, to contributing to Europe’s defence of tomorrow. But we need to simplify it. The rules and some elements of workshare may have to be changed, to make the programme executable.

“We need to find a way to create and maintain that appetite for all of us to play, and many consider that the conditions are not there,” he notes. “We are reflecting on how to do it differently to ensure that we meet the schedule objectives that the nations have set us.”

The current strain on the FCAS partnership inevitably raises questions about whether it could fail, perhaps prompting Airbus and Germany to explore other avenues: specifically the Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP) – a venture between Italy, Japan and the UK.

Asked about the matter, Leonardo chief executive Roberto Cingolani notes that any decision to incorporate new partners in GCAP would depend on the three governments currently involved.

“I’m quite happy with how it’s moving,” he says of the current industrial joint venture for GCAP. However, he adds: “I believe that in the future it could be very advantageous for everybody and the community in general to let other partners enter, depending of course on the new technologies or resources they can bring in.”

Airbus has “very good capability, so why not in the future?”, he suggests, while adding: “I am not able to answer directly”.

“I am always in favour of big alliances. My point is that the planet is not so big – we don’t need 25 different sixth-generation fighters. For such ‘trip to Mars programmes’ – huge, gigantic, frontier technologies – maybe three to four.

“I don’t think we should expect so many competitors – it is better to have few and to be very advanced.”

Additional reporting by Dominic Perry