A single statement from the top of Europe’s aerospace industry has sent shockwaves through defence circles on both sides of the Atlantic. Airbus Defence and Space CEO Michael Schöllhorn has effectively drawn a line in the sand: Europe’s next-generation fighter jets should no longer come from the United States.
Speaking in a recent interview with a Swedish financial newspaper, Schöllhorn was unusually direct.
“I do not want to see sixth-generation fighter aircraft bought from the United States as Europe did with the fifth generation.”
It was a short remark, but one loaded with geopolitical weight.
For decades, European air power has leaned heavily on American technology, with the F-35 stealth fighter becoming the backbone of multiple NATO air forces. More than a dozen European countries now operate the aircraft, a symbol of deep transatlantic defence integration—but also, critics argue, strategic dependence.
Schöllhorn’s comments suggest that era may be coming to an end.
A SHIFT TOWARD STRATEGIC AUTONOMY
Behind the CEO’s statement lies a much larger transformation unfolding across Europe: a growing push for defence sovereignty. The message from Airbus is clear—Europe must be able to design, build, and control its own most advanced military systems.
This is not just about aircraft. It is about who holds technological power in the 21st century.
Modern fighter jets are no longer simple combat machines. They are flying networks of stealth systems, artificial intelligence, electronic warfare suites, advanced sensors, and real-time data integration. Nations capable of building them sit at the top tier of global defence capability.
And those that cannot build them remain dependent.
That dependency is exactly what European industry leaders are now challenging.
Airbus and Saab: A New European Axis?
Behind closed doors, Airbus is already exploring deeper cooperation with Swedish defence giant Saab. Discussions reportedly include the development of a sixth-generation European fighter jet—an aircraft designed entirely outside U.S. frameworks.
Such a partnership would be a major disruption in Europe’s defence landscape. Airbus would bring industrial scale and manufacturing strength, while Saab contributes decades of fighter design experience, including the widely respected Gripen programme.
The idea is not simply to build another aircraft—but to create a fully independent European combat aviation ecosystem.
Schöllhorn also hinted at expanding collaboration in airborne surveillance systems, particularly Saab’s GlobalEye platform, which has already gained international attention for its advanced radar capabilities.
A combined Airbus–Saab system could, in theory, compete directly with American aerospace giants such as Boeing in intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance technologies.
FCAS IN TROUBLE: EUROPE’S INTERNAL STRUGGLE
The timing of Airbus’s pivot is no coincidence. Europe’s flagship defence aviation project—the Future Combat Air System (FCAS)—is increasingly mired in political tension.
Originally launched as a trilateral project between France, Germany, and Spain, FCAS was meant to be Europe’s answer to next-generation American and Chinese fighter programmes. Instead, it has become a symbol of industrial rivalry and political deadlock.
At the heart of the dispute are fundamental questions: who leads, who builds, and who owns the technology.
French aerospace leader Dassault Aviation insists on maintaining control over critical design elements. Germany, meanwhile, has raised concerns over workshare distribution, intellectual property rights, and long-term decision-making authority.
Despite repeated diplomatic efforts—including interventions from French President Emmanuel Macron—the disagreements remain unresolved.
Some industry insiders now openly question whether FCAS can survive in its current form.
A CONTINENT UNDER PRESSURE
The broader geopolitical context is impossible to ignore.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has forced Europe to rethink its defence readiness and supply chain vulnerabilities. At the same time, shifting political dynamics in the United States have raised concerns about long-term reliability of security commitments.
European leaders insist they are not abandoning NATO. But they are increasingly determined to reduce strategic dependence—particularly in high-end military aviation.
Combat aircraft sit at the centre of that ambition.
The urgency is also financial and technological. Developing a sixth-generation fighter is a decades-long effort requiring immediate investment. Decisions made today will shape air combat capabilities well into the second half of the century.
Schöllhorn made that point explicitly: delay could force Europe back into buying foreign systems by default.
THE AMERICAN COUNTERWEIGHT
The United States is not standing still. Its Next Generation Air Dominance programme is already advancing, with a future platform widely expected to succeed the F-22 and redefine American air superiority.
If Europe fails to produce a competitive alternative, pressure to adopt U.S. systems again could become unavoidable.
That scenario is precisely what Airbus is trying to prevent.
The message from the company is both strategic and urgent: Europe must act now or risk repeating the dependency cycle of the F-35 era.
A NEW EUROPEAN DEFENCE ORDER?
If FCAS collapses or stalls further, a new coalition could emerge. Germany would likely provide financial and industrial weight, Sweden would contribute advanced fighter expertise, and Spain could support manufacturing and integration.
Together, Airbus and Saab could lay the foundation for a fully European sixth-generation combat aircraft programme.
Such a shift would not just reshape procurement—it would redefine Europe’s role in global military power.
Success would signal that Europe can stand independently in the most advanced domains of defence technology.
Failure would reinforce a long-standing reality: that Europe’s security ultimately depends on American air power.
THE STAKES COULD NOT BE HIGHER
Air superiority has always determined the outcome of modern conflicts. As warfare evolves into a domain driven by automation, networking, and artificial intelligence, control of advanced fighter technology becomes even more decisive.
That is why Schöllhorn’s comments have resonated far beyond the aerospace industry.
They are not just about aircraft.
They are about power, independence, and the future architecture of global defence.
And for the first time in years, Europe’s aerospace leadership has said it plainly:
The next generation will not be borrowed.
It will be built.
