With GE Resolving F404 Engine Delays, HAL Now Poised to Market Its Cost-effective Tejas Mk1A Fighter for Exports

India's state-owned aerospace and defence company, Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL), is set to aggressively renew its international marketing efforts for the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) Tejas Mk1A.

This strategic push comes after General Electric (GE) Aerospace committed to an accelerated delivery schedule for the F404-IN20 engines, resolving a two-year delay that had previously constrained production and stalled export discussions.

With the critical engine supply chain now stabilising, HAL is confident in its ability to meet domestic orders for the Indian Air Force (IAF) while simultaneously pursuing foreign sales.

The renewed export drive is bolstered by significant domestic demand, with an existing contract for 83 jets and government approval for an additional 97 aircraft.

This combined order for 180 Tejas Mk1A fighters creates a robust and long-term production pipeline, allowing HAL to expand its manufacturing capacity.

The assurance of a steady engine supply from GE positions the Indian fighter as a reliable and competitive option for nations looking to modernise their air forces, strengthening India's goal to become a major player in the global defence market.

The Tejas Mk1A is a single-engine, 4.5-generation multi-role fighter aircraft featuring advanced systems, including an indigenous Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar, a modern electronic warfare suite, and an array of sophisticated weaponry.

The aircraft's performance is powered by the GE F404-IN20 engine, a proven turbofan capable of producing 84 kilonewtons of thrust. Production of this engine was temporarily halted due to a five-year gap in orders between 2016 and 2021, which was further complicated by global supply chain disruptions during the COVID-19 pandemic, leading to significant delays from the initially planned delivery date of March 2023.

Under the revised plan, GE has already delivered the first two engines this year and is set to supply a total of 12 by December 2025 by providing two units per month.

Starting in 2026, the delivery rate will increase to 20 engines annually. To meet the large domestic order and cater to potential export clients, HAL is reportedly negotiating to further increase this supply to 30 units per year by 2027.

This resolution has effectively removed a major production bottleneck, allowing HAL to plan its manufacturing schedule with greater certainty.

Reflecting the strength of their long-standing relationship, HAL has chosen not to impose financial penalties on GE for the delays.

This decision underscores the strategic importance of the 40-year partnership, which is set to deepen with a landmark 2023 agreement for the joint production of the more powerful F414 engine in India.

This future collaboration, which includes an 80% technology transfer, will power India's next-generation aircraft like the LCA Mk2 and the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA), ensuring a self-reliant engine supply for decades.

A key advantage of the Tejas Mk1A on the international stage is its cost-effectiveness, with a price tag estimated between $40 to $50 million per aircraft. This is substantially lower than Western competitors such as the F-16 or Gripen, which can cost between $70 to $100 million.

This competitive pricing has already attracted interest from several countries, including Argentina, Egypt, Nigeria, and the Philippines. Previously, HAL had to pause these negotiations to prioritise deliveries to the IAF, which urgently needs to address its depleting squadron numbers, currently at 31 against a sanctioned strength of 42.

With the engine supply issue resolved, HAL is now able to confidently re-engage with potential international customers. The aircraft is being marketed as an affordable, high-performance solution for nations seeking to replace ageing fleets of fighters like the MiG-21 or F-5.

Its ability to carry a mix of indigenous weapons, such as the Astra beyond-visual-range missile, and integrate with NATO-standard systems makes it a versatile and attractive option.

HAL officials have confirmed that by 2026, production capacity will be sufficient to fulfil export orders without impacting its primary commitment to the Indian Air Force.

 

Over 700 armed forces personnel to participate in exercise Bright Star 2025 in Egypt

ARDE Plans for Domestic Production of Gatling Guns for India’s Multi-layered Air Defence

[Snowstrike]

Thales developed and began serial production and installation of AESA radars 5 years earlier than the Euroradar consortium with their CAPTOR-E. France has a clear advantage in the development of fighters and key systems for aircraft, Rafale has only 3 drawbacks - it is too compact (Because of which the M88 engines also had to be made compact, although they have considerable potential for increasing power), it has a non-retractable refueling boom and it is very expensive (Although even in this case it is cheaper than Typhoon). France has technologies for radio-absorbing materials, gold-based spraying and others are used for the canopy, stealth geometry was tested during the nEUROn program. But the military budget of France was limited for a long time, because of which the programs were delayed (the Left course also interfered at one time, and even now Macron is quite limited in his capabilities by the Left) and sometimes canceled. Fortunately, even nEUROn became the basis for a new program to develop and produce a loyal wingman using stealth technologies; after all, Trump's pressure is having an effect.

Thales developed and began serial production and installation of AESA radars 5 years earlier than the Euroradar consortium with their CAPTOR-E. France has a clear advantage in the development of fighters and key systems for aircraft, Rafale has only 3 drawbacks - it is too compact (Because of which the M88 engines also had to be made compact, although they have considerable potential for increasing power), it has a non-retractable refueling boom and it is very expensive (Although even in this case it is cheaper than Typhoon). France has technologies for radio-absorbing materials, gold-based spraying and others are used for the canopy, stealth geometry was tested during the nEUROn program. But the military budget of France was limited for a long time, because of which the programs were delayed (the Left course also interfered at one time, and even now Macron is quite limited in his capabilities by the Left) and sometimes canceled. Fortunately, even nEUROn became the basis for a new program to develop and produce a loyal wingman using stealth technologies; after all, Trump's pressure is having an effect.

Fair points, but that’s a very selective framing. Yes, Thales had RBE2 AESA in production earlier than CAPTOR-E, but the French radar is smaller, less powerful, and with lower cooling margins because Rafale itself is a compact jet – CAPTOR-E has far more growth potential thanks to its swashplate and larger antenna. Rafale is definitely more “self-contained” in French industry, but Eurofighter has deeper multinational industrial strength, and Hensoldt today is arguably ahead of Thales in scalable AESA tech. On stealth, France did gain experience with nEUROn and coatings, but Rafale itself is not remotely VLO – its RCS is reduced, but still closer to Typhoon than to F-35. And the “too compact” point is actually a limitation: M88 is reliable but underpowered versus EJ200, and Rafale’s space constraints cap future upgrades. France is great at making a balanced, fully sovereign fighter, but pretending Rafale is technologically superior across the board ignores where Typhoon leads – raw kinematics, radar aperture, high-altitude performance, and long-term adaptability. Apart from this, I see no response to my previous points on the GCAP, Germany, etc. I wonder what happened? If you can, address those in a rational and intellectual manner, rather than throwing things at the forum.

 

[Snowstrike]

A local production and technology transfer(as offered by Russia) can help India build a decent SU-57. Similar to Super 30 upgrade, by having indigenous Radar, EW suite, Mission computer, IRST, other avionics the 'SU 57MKI' can be chinese independent and in a better shape than today. As for stealth, the AL-51 engine's reduced IR does improve the stealth. It can be improved further based on learnings from other stealth programs. If the design is changed then it can take around 3 more years, but even with moderate changes, the RCS can be brought close to Chinese jets which are not that stealthy when compared with American jets.

I get where you’re coming from, and on paper “Su-57MKI” sounds tempting- take Russia’s airframe, add Indian brains, and make it better. The catch is that stealth isn’t just about bolt-on upgrades. The Su-57’s very shaping, materials, and production standards are the real bottlenecks, and no amount of avionics swapping fixes that. Russia itself is struggling to produce them in numbers, which should tell us something. If India pours resources into this, we’ll just end up patching someone else’s flawed design instead of building long-term strength. That’s why AMCA, despite being slower upfront, is the smarter play: we get full control, clean-sheet stealth, and tech that scales for decades instead of a stopgap “Frankenjet” that will age badly. Going for local production too isnt a good idea- as it risks being further locked into Russian supply chains like we did for the Su-30MKI. We are currently locked into that ecosystem, and frequently have to deal with delays, and sudden price spikes for spares. Btw, I appreciate the effort to research on the info you got- you have a lead, but I just wanted to clear up some misconceptions haha!

 

[智子 伊瀬]

Fair points, but that’s a very selective framing. Yes, Thales had RBE2 AESA in production earlier than CAPTOR-E, but the French radar is smaller, less powerful, and with lower cooling margins because Rafale itself is a compact jet – CAPTOR-E has far more growth potential thanks to its swashplate and larger antenna. Rafale is definitely more “self-contained” in French industry, but Eurofighter has deeper multinational industrial strength, and Hensoldt today is arguably ahead of Thales in scalable AESA tech. On stealth, France did gain experience with nEUROn and coatings, but Rafale itself is not remotely VLO – its RCS is reduced, but still closer to Typhoon than to F-35. And the “too compact” point is actually a limitation: M88 is reliable but underpowered versus EJ200, and Rafale’s space constraints cap future upgrades. France is great at making a balanced, fully sovereign fighter, but pretending Rafale is technologically superior across the board ignores where Typhoon leads – raw kinematics, radar aperture, high-altitude performance, and long-term adaptability. Apart from this, I see no response to my previous points on the GCAP, Germany, etc. I wonder what happened? If you can, address those in a rational and intellectual manner, rather than throwing things at the forum.

Compactness has always been the Rafale's biggest weakness. The RBE2 can be scaled up without problems, but the Rafale's cone simply cannot accommodate a larger radar. Even in its current size, the M88 can develop higher thrust, but it began to finance the program only recently, although Safran proposed it back in the 00s (Peace Dividends).

Germany has not produced a single serial production fighter aircraft on its own since 1945. The Typhoon is based on the BAe EAC, the Tornado traces its roots to the Anglo-French AFVG project, the engines for the Tornado and Typhoon are based on the RR Pegasus and XG-40. France is superior to Germany in aircraft technology.

The roles and work in GCAP have already been distributed among the participants, the company was established with its head office in UK. UK and Italy invited India to the project when it was called Tempest, Japan has not officially proposed joining GCAP(It was just Nikkei's opinion). The Indian and Japanese defence ministers didn't discuss GCAP during their last meeting; Ishiba and Modi didn't talk about it today either.

 

[SandeepGupta]

For Tejas Single Crystal Blade Oxy Glow OBOGS Need to be protected as my technologies. So also Uttam AESA and Virupaksha AESA Radars and RF Dispenser in Tarang RWR need to be protected again based on my technologies. They are some of critical technologies and not to be misused for exports.

 

[Snowstrike]

Compactness has always been the Rafale's biggest weakness. The RBE2 can be scaled up without problems, but the Rafale's cone simply cannot accommodate a larger radar. Even in its current size, the M88 can develop higher thrust, but it began to finance the program only recently, although Safran proposed it back in the 00s (Peace Dividends).

Germany has not produced a single serial production fighter aircraft on its own since 1945. The Typhoon is based on the BAe EAC, the Tornado traces its roots to the Anglo-French AFVG project, the engines for the Tornado and Typhoon are based on the RR Pegasus and XG-40. France is superior to Germany in aircraft technology.

The roles and work in GCAP have already been distributed among the participants, the company was established with its head office in UK. UK and Italy invited India to the project when it was called Tempest, Japan has not officially proposed joining GCAP(It was just Nikkei's opinion). The Indian and Japanese defence ministers didn't discuss GCAP during their last meeting; Ishiba and Modi didn't talk about it today eith

Ah yes, the “Rafale is compact, and therefore doomed!” hot take. Because apparently aircraft design is just about how big your nose cone is. By that logic, the B-52 must be the pinnacle of military aircraft design. Every platform has trade-offs: Rafale sacrificed growth margins for size/weight efficiency; Typhoon sacrificed range and strike flexibility for altitude/supersonic optimization. Acting like this is some earth-shattering flaw unique to France just screams “I skimmed a forum once and never let it go.”

Then there’s the “Germany hasn’t made a fighter since 1945” gem. You do realize it’s 2025, right? Nobody in Europe is building solo fighters anymore- that’s literally the point of multination programs. Germany didn’t just show up with bratwurst and beer; Airbus Germany designs and manufactures the Typhoon’s entire center fuselage, does the flight control software, and MTU was critical in the EJ200 program. Not to mention they are major partners in developing the Typhoons' EW too. That’s not “dead weight,” that’s the backbone.

And GCAP… this is where your argument properly trips over its shoelaces. “They didn’t invite India because roles are already distributed”? Hate to break it to you, but roles in GCAP are still being negotiated between the UK, Italy, and Japan, and the project has repeatedly stated that workshare will evolve as new partners are added. India wasn’t left out because it’s “too late”- India hasn’t joined because it’s juggling AMCA, MRFA, and F-414 engine production. The whole invitation to GCAP happened back in APRIL this year. Why would Modi and Ishiba talk about something ALREADY rejected months before? So no, it’s not “they didn’t invite India,” it’s “India hasn’t RSVP’d.” There’s a difference- one requires reading defense journals, the other just requires scrolling Reddit.

France has a great aerospace base, yes. But turning that into a sermon about how Germany is useless and GCAP is a fantasy doesnt make you sound like a defense analyst.

 

[智子 伊瀬]

Ah yes, the “Rafale is compact, and therefore doomed!” hot take. Because apparently aircraft design is just about how big your nose cone is. By that logic, the B-52 must be the pinnacle of military aircraft design. Every platform has trade-offs: Rafale sacrificed growth margins for size/weight efficiency; Typhoon sacrificed range and strike flexibility for altitude/supersonic optimization. Acting like this is some earth-shattering flaw unique to France just screams “I skimmed a forum once and never let it go.”

Then there’s the “Germany hasn’t made a fighter since 1945” gem. You do realize it’s 2025, right? Nobody in Europe is building solo fighters anymore- that’s literally the point of multination programs. Germany didn’t just show up with bratwurst and beer; Airbus Germany designs and manufactures the Typhoon’s entire center fuselage, does the flight control software, and MTU was critical in the EJ200 program. Not to mention they are major partners in developing the Typhoons' EW too. That’s not “dead weight,” that’s the backbone.

And GCAP… this is where your argument properly trips over its shoelaces. “They didn’t invite India because roles are already distributed”? Hate to break it to you, but roles in GCAP are still being negotiated between the UK, Italy, and Japan, and the project has repeatedly stated that workshare will evolve as new partners are added. India wasn’t left out because it’s “too late”- India hasn’t joined because it’s juggling AMCA, MRFA, and F-414 engine production. The whole invitation to GCAP happened back in APRIL this year. Why would Modi and Ishiba talk about something ALREADY rejected months before? So no, it’s not “they didn’t invite India,” it’s “India hasn’t RSVP’d.” There’s a difference- one requires reading defense journals, the other just requires scrolling Reddit.

France has a great aerospace base, yes. But turning that into a sermon about how Germany is useless and GCAP is a fantasy doesnt make you sound like a defense analyst.

The Rafale is so compact because it was supposed to be based on aircraft carriers, although the Navy initially wanted to buy the F/A-18 instead. Extensive development of the radar on this modification (F4) is impossible, therefore only improvement of technological processes and intensive development remain, for example, the transition to GaN and the like.


This does not prevent Dassault from producing the entire aircraft, Safran from producing engines, and Thales from producing a full range of avionics and electronic warfare. Formally, France is capable of producing missiles and other weapons for aircraft without Germany's help, and Germany cannot refuse French components from the French part of MBDA, but fortunately, such idiocy has not come to pass and MBDA includes components and developments from all participants of the concern. Therefore, France and Spain are capable of completing FCAS (especially with increased funding), but Germany and Spain are unlikely to.

So Germany did not build a single serial fighter of its own design in 1955, 1985 or 2005. Even Britain built its Hunter and Lightning in the 50s and 60s. Again, Rafale and Gripen are still being produced by Dassault and SAAB (not multinational consortiums) and have orders for years to come. And this is despite the fact that France and Britain were forced to develop strategic bombers, among other things, when Germany simply did not need such expenses and had more free resources. The B-52 was certainly ahead of its time, since it has served for so long and requires much less money for maintenance, while providing good performance 70 years after production ceased.

The Japanese Ministry of Defence never confirmed the information about the invitation to India when BAE officially invited India back in Tempest.

As we can see, all three parties received equal shares and distributed their roles. Although it is clear that the informal leadership in the program is for Britain and the participants recognize this, unlike Germany and Airbus .

The GCAP Program: A Step Toward Europe’s Military Autonomy and Interoperability

A new study by the Italian Institute for International Affairs examines GCAP’s organization and the three partners’ approaches, offering recommendations

theaviationist.com

 

[Sun Beam]

Aamen....... Let GE resolve our engine requirements..... Meanwhile K9+ should become a reality......

 

[Snowstrike]

The Rafale is so compact because it was supposed to be based on aircraft carriers, although the Navy initially wanted to buy the F/A-18 instead. Extensive development of the radar on this modification (F4) is impossible, therefore only improvement of technological processes and intensive development remain, for example, the transition to GaN and the like.


This does not prevent Dassault from producing the entire aircraft, Safran from producing engines, and Thales from producing a full range of avionics and electronic warfare. Formally, France is capable of producing missiles and other weapons for aircraft without Germany's help, and Germany cannot refuse French components from the French part of MBDA, but fortunately, such idiocy has not come to pass and MBDA includes components and developments from all participants of the concern. Therefore, France and Spain are capable of completing FCAS (especially with increased funding), but Germany and Spain are unlikely to.

So Germany did not build a single serial fighter of its own design in 1955, 1985 or 2005. Even Britain built its Hunter and Lightning in the 50s and 60s. Again, Rafale and Gripen are still being produced by Dassault and SAAB (not multinational consortiums) and have orders for years to come. And this is despite the fact that France and Britain were forced to develop strategic bombers, among other things, when Germany simply did not need such expenses and had more free resources. The B-52 was certainly ahead of its time, since it has served for so long and requires much less money for maintenance, while providing good performance 70 years after production ceased.

The Japanese Ministry of Defence never confirmed the information about the invitation to India when BAE officially invited India back in Tempest.

As we can see, all three parties received equal shares and distributed their roles. Although it is clear that the informal leadership in the program is for Britain and the participants recognize this, unlike Germany and Airbus .

https://theaviationist.com/2025/03/17/gcap-institute-for-international-affairs-study/[/U

Your argument is basically eating itself. Yes, Rafale’s compactness comes from carrier requirements—but pretending that limits radar evolution is lazy. Radome volume isn’t the end-all. Cooling, power distribution, GaN tech, and integration are the real bottlenecks. Acting like Dassault’s engineers just throw their hands up because “cone too small” is comical.

Your Germany-bashing is equally flimsy. MTU’s engine contributions, Airbus’s systems work, and German composite tech are not “optional extras”—they’re critical. Without them, Typhoon wouldn’t be flying. France can go it alone because it was politically forced to, not because it exists on some higher plane. By your metric, Sweden’s Gripen doesn’t count either, since it leans on GE engines, Selex radars, and US weapons. France and Spain would take much longer, with much more funding if they theoretically wanted to 'kick the Germans out.' Why do you think despite the plethora of problems in FCAS their still in it?

The bomber comparison is just embarrassing. Germany didn’t build a B-52 equivalent because geopolitics literally forbade it. You might as well slam Japan for not building carriers in the 1970s. That’s not a technology gap—it’s a treaty restriction.

And your GCAP point is the biggest own goal. You said roles are “already distributed,” yet just this year the UK, Italy, and Japan formed a new joint company called Edgewing to manage it- and publicly said that it is to distribute roles and workshare. India has been directly invited to explore collaboration by both the UK and Japan, but turned the offer down back in April. So if anything, your claim proves the opposite of what you’re arguing: the program is deliberately flexible enough to bring in new partners.

So no, France and Spain “being able to do it alone” doesn’t magically erase Germany’s role, and your timeline does not make sense. You’re trying to tell a neat little story, but every example you’ve used either ignores context or contradicts itself.

 

[Gajanan Hirde]

Keep this as a screenshot. GE will not supply the engines. It will further delay. GE hasn't shown any remorse on delay. I don't understand why HAL is Licking the GE boots.

 

[Gajanan Hirde]

Aamen....... Let GE resolve our engine requirements..... Meanwhile K9+ should become a reality......

Remove from your mind that GE will ever keep up the promise. It will delay for sure. Its just delay and deny

 

[Ashok Kandimalla]

Any idea what has happened to the two engines already delivered to HAL? Why are the Mk1As at least two not delivered. Will they be only delivered in batches of 5 or 10?

 

[智子 伊瀬]

Your argument is basically eating itself. Yes, Rafale’s compactness comes from carrier requirements—but pretending that limits radar evolution is lazy. Radome volume isn’t the end-all. Cooling, power distribution, GaN tech, and integration are the real bottlenecks. Acting like Dassault’s engineers just throw their hands up because “cone too small” is comical.

Your Germany-bashing is equally flimsy. MTU’s engine contributions, Airbus’s systems work, and German composite tech are not “optional extras”—they’re critical. Without them, Typhoon wouldn’t be flying. France can go it alone because it was politically forced to, not because it exists on some higher plane. By your metric, Sweden’s Gripen doesn’t count either, since it leans on GE engines, Selex radars, and US weapons. France and Spain would take much longer, with much more funding if they theoretically wanted to 'kick the Germans out.' Why do you think despite the plethora of problems in FCAS their still in it?

The bomber comparison is just embarrassing. Germany didn’t build a B-52 equivalent because geopolitics literally forbade it. You might as well slam Japan for not building carriers in the 1970s. That’s not a technology gap—it’s a treaty restriction.

And your GCAP point is the biggest own goal. You said roles are “already distributed,” yet just this year the UK, Italy, and Japan formed a new joint company called Edgewing to manage it- and publicly said that it is to distribute roles and workshare. India has been directly invited to explore collaboration by both the UK and Japan, but turned the offer down back in April. So if anything, your claim proves the opposite of what you’re arguing: the program is deliberately flexible enough to bring in new partners.

So no, France and Spain “being able to do it alone” doesn’t magically erase Germany’s role, and your timeline does not make sense. You’re trying to tell a neat little story, but every example you’ve used either ignores context or contradicts itself.

Gripen relies on Selex radars only from the E version onwards. SAAB did not have to form a multinational consortium to fit imported parts to Gripen (although the engine afterburner was made in Sweden in early versions). Well, Ericsson tested the PS-05/A Mk5 radar, which uses GaN instead of GaAs.
Composites for Typhoon are supplied mainly by Hexcel and Rockwood, with smaller contributions from Kongsberg, Airbus (Spanish branch) and others.

MTU has not developed a serial aircraft engine for fighters in the entire history of the company. ATAR 101,9,9K-50, Snecma M53, Turbomeca engines, Safran M88 just laugh in the face of MTU. Consortium should kick the Germans out if they are not going to change their idiotic policy on arms exports (Because of which the Typhoon has a weak export history) at least. FCAS was born in 2019, when defense budgets did not reach even 2% of GDP.

France and Spain are capable of doing this
, or inviting someone more adequate instead of Germany. SAAB as an option, but the Swedes have always preferred light aircraft rather than heavy ones, like the future NGF from the FCAS program.

Only the USSR built an analogue of the B52. The above-mentioned Britain and France created other strategic bombers that sucked up a lot of money without much benefit, which Germany avoided and had more money for conventional aircraft. Restrictions on the construction of fighters were lifted back in the 50s, at that time even the Italians created the once popular G91, and the Germans... Never created a single serial fighter.

 

[kunitesh]

Let HAL fulfill IAF requirements first by producing 30 aircrafts annually then only think about export.
HAL has a habit of overcommitment and later inability to meet any deadlines. It has not supplied even a single MK1A to IAF even after Engine is delivered by GE. MK2 programme is also delayed by a year.

 

[Snowstrike]

Gripen relies on Selex radars only from the E version onwards. SAAB did not have to form a multinational consortium to fit imported parts to Gripen (although the engine afterburner was made in Sweden in early versions). Well, Ericsson tested the PS-05/A Mk5 radar, which uses GaN instead of GaAs.
Composites for Typhoon are supplied mainly by Hexcel and Rockwood, with smaller contributions from Kongsberg, Airbus (Spanish branch) and others.

MTU has not developed a serial aircraft engine for fighters in the entire history of the company. ATAR 101,9,9K-50, Snecma M53, Turbomeca engines, Safran M88 just laugh in the face of MTU. Consortium should kick the Germans out if they are not going to change their idiotic policy on arms exports (Because of which the Typhoon has a weak export history) at least. FCAS was born in 2019, when defense budgets did not reach even 2% of GDP.

France and Spain are capable of doing this
, or inviting someone more adequate instead of Germany. SAAB as an option, but the Swedes have always preferred light aircraft rather than heavy ones, like the future NGF from the FCAS program.

Only the USSR built an analogue of the B52. The above-mentioned Britain and France created other strategic bombers that sucked up a lot of money without much benefit, which Germany avoided and had more money for conventional aircraft. Restrictions on the construction of fighters were lifted back in the 50s, at that time even the Italians created the once popular G91, and the Germans... Never created a s

This whole take reads like it was written with a baguette instead of a brain.

On Gripen: you conveniently forget that the PS-05/A radar is basically a Blue Vixen spin-off. Saab has always plugged in outside tech-Volvo engines which were licensed F404s, US/European weapons, Selex AESAs. Gripen is a Frankenstein of imported parts stitched together in Sweden. Pretending it’s some shining example of national independence and capability to produce 6th gens is laughable.

Composites? Sure, Hexcel and others provide the raw fiber. But who do you think turns that raw material into certified, high-load-bearing fighter structures? Airbus Germany and Airbus Spain. Structural design, stress testing, integration-those aren’t “side contributions.” Without that expertise, you don’t get Typhoon, and you sure as hell don’t get FCAS.

Now, your favorite punching bag: MTU. No, they don’t slap their logo on a whole “MTU fighter engine,” but you know what they do? The EJ200’s hot section. You know, the part of the engine that decides whether the jet flies or melts. They’re also leading FCAS engine work with Safran in EUMET. If you think that’s trivial, you’re basically admitting you don’t understand what makes a fighter engine viable in the first place.

And this fantasy that France and Spain could “do FCAS without Germany”? Please. Germany brings avionics, mission systems, sensor fusion, stealth structure design, advanced composites, and propulsion expertise. Airbus DS (Ottobrunn and Manching) isn’t just a passenger here-they’re leading the Next Generation Weapon System integration. Kick Germany out, and FCAS becomes a PowerPoint program in Paris.

Dragging in bombers just makes it worse. Germany didn’t waste money on them because NATO nuclear doctrine made that unnecessary-they had US and UK deterrence overhead. You spinning that as “Germany had more for conventional fighters” is like saying you’re rich because your neighbor pays your electricity bill. It’s geopolitics, not clever budgeting.

And the “Germany never built a serial fighter” line? That’s a 3rd grader’s argument. Post-war restrictions meant they went multinational-and in the process, became essential. Their industrial base, design know-how, and subsystem expertise kept Tornado, Typhoon, and now FCAS alive. Without Germany, those programs are dead on arrival.

So your whole rant boils down to this: France rules, Germany drools. Reality check? France alone can’t build and sustain a sixth-gen fighter ecosystem. Spain can’t bankroll it. Germany is not just the money guy-they’re the technical spine. Without them, FCAS collapses into Dassault making shiny renders for air shows.

 

[StealtH]

Very interesting, considering the fact that the Tejas mk1a's ENTIRE ECCM capability comes from ONE singular jamming pod! The Israeli ELM8222. It is EXTREMELY underpowered, has a horrible survability against modern jets, and is STILL being procured in massive numbers. Are they really replacing the MiG-21 'Flying Coffin' with a Floating grave? Screaming 'Atmanirbhar Bharat!' from the rooftops does NOT change the fact that this is pointless. Come 2050, its gonna be obsolete. While the world moves on the the 6th generation of fighters, and China mass-produces J-20 5th gens, our babus are hyping up a barely-respectable 4.5 gen. (I consider it a 4++ gen, not worthy of the 4.5 gen title, but for the sake of uniformity using it.) What ARE the Tejas mk1a's strengths? Well, nothing. yes, nothing. It doesnt do well in ANYTHING. Radar, EW, Payload, ECCM, all next to ZERO. A radar which is modern yes, but underpowered, a midget-sized payload of 3.5 tonnes, and ECCM which consists of one singular pod, compared to the integrated EW + several pods of modern fighters. But of course, our MoD babus are great at acquiring worthless pieces of metal as 'stopgaps' after all.

Well india needs about 800 - 900 jets and among them 200 tejas mk1a is not too big number + we can upgrade it anytime with any indigenous redar (uttam) or BVR(astra mk3) rest well have tejas mk2, them rafale, and then amca mk1, mk2. No country has just 5th gen jets us has 1700 aprox fighter out of them only 180 f22 and 300 f35

 

[Snowstrike]

Well india needs about 800 - 900 jets and among them 200 tejas mk1a is not too big number + we can upgrade it anytime with any indigenous redar (uttam) or BVR(astra mk3) rest well have tejas mk2, them rafale, and then amca mk1, mk2. No country has just 5th gen jets us has 1700 aprox fighter out of them only 180 f22 and 300 f35

Hey there! I'm glad we're both interested in the topic of India's defense- but there are a couple misconceptions in your message.

I get the sentiment behind ordering 200 Tejas Mk1As- support the domestic industry, reduce imports, and keep HAL’s lines hot. But let’s be honest: 200 of them is an over-investment in a platform that was never capable to be the backbone of the IAF.

The Mk1A is basically a polished 4th-gen (barely 4.5) light fighter. That’s fine for filling out numbers, but its limitations are baked in. Payload? Around 3.5 tons-half of what a Rafale or Su-30 can haul. Survivability? Not great- it’s a small airframe with limited internal fuel, limited redundancy, and no real internal EW, highly susceptible against modern fighters with proper EW. The EW suite has been improved but it’s still behind the curve compared to what China is fielding with its J-10C or even worse- the J20s they are mass-producing. In any high-threat environment, Mk1As will be first to bleed. It COULD be a Gripen-style light fighter, with great modern EW and sensor fusion- but unfortunately, the mk1a is NOT that. Not even close, actually.

And that’s the problem with “200.” Numbers don’t automatically translate to combat power. You can have 200 cannon-fodder jets, or the 84 properly balanced Mk1As complemented by medium and heavy fighters that can actually punch through contested airspace. Beyond a certain point, pouring billions into Mk1As means starving funds from Tejas Mk2, AMCA, or MRFA squadrons- all of which are actually survivable in the 2030+ battlespace.

So yes, Tejas Mk1A has its place: point defence, patrols, low-intensity missions, maybe even swarm tactics in war. But 200 of them is like trying to use a lightweight sparring partner as your heavyweight champion. The IAF needs depth, but not at the expense of quality and survivability.

 

[aero India]

Most immature caption ! Let HAL learn, build, supply to IAF before jumping the gun towards export. Defence exports is as sophisticated as developing an engine. Go one step at a time, and please don't fool yourselves.

 

[智子 伊瀬]

This whole take reads like it was written with a baguette instead of a brain.

On Gripen: you conveniently forget that the PS-05/A radar is basically a Blue Vixen spin-off. Saab has always plugged in outside tech-Volvo engines which were licensed F404s, US/European weapons, Selex AESAs. Gripen is a Frankenstein of imported parts stitched together in Sweden. Pretending it’s some shining example of national independence and capability to produce 6th gens is laughable.

Composites? Sure, Hexcel and others provide the raw fiber. But who do you think turns that raw material into certified, high-load-bearing fighter structures? Airbus Germany and Airbus Spain. Structural design, stress testing, integration-those aren’t “side contributions.” Without that expertise, you don’t get Typhoon, and you sure as hell don’t get FCAS.

Now, your favorite punching bag: MTU. No, they don’t slap their logo on a whole “MTU fighter engine,” but you know what they do? The EJ200’s hot section. You know, the part of the engine that decides whether the jet flies or melts. They’re also leading FCAS engine work with Safran in EUMET. If you think that’s trivial, you’re basically admitting you don’t understand what makes a fighter engine viable in the first place.

And this fantasy that France and Spain could “do FCAS without Germany”? Please. Germany brings avionics, mission systems, sensor fusion, stealth structure design, advanced composites, and propulsion expertise. Airbus DS (Ottobrunn and Manching) isn’t just a passenger here-they’re leading the Next Generation Weapon System integration. Kick Germany out, and FCAS becomes a PowerPoint program in Paris.

Dragging in bombers just makes it worse. Germany didn’t waste money on them because NATO nuclear doctrine made that unnecessary-they had US and UK deterrence overhead. You spinning that as “Germany had more for conventional fighters” is like saying you’re rich because your neighbor pays your electricity bill. It’s geopolitics, not clever budgeting.

And the “Germany never built a serial fighter” line? That’s a 3rd grader’s argument. Post-war restrictions meant they went multinational-and in the process, became essential. Their industrial base, design know-how, and subsystem expertise kept Tornado, Typhoon, and now FCAS alive. Without Germany, those programs are dead on arrival.

So your whole rant boils down to this: France rules, Germany drools. Reality check? France alone can’t build and sustain a sixth-gen fighter ecosystem. Spain can’t bankroll it. Germany is not just the money guy-they’re the technical spine. Without them, FCAS collapses into Dassault making shiny renders for air shows.

Only a small part of the radar, and officially acquired, therefore, it is impossible to challenge Ericsson's ownership. Ericsson produced 4 major serial modifications of this radar, converted it into AESA using GaN technology and carries out regular minor upgrades (MSXX). Ericsson managed without creating an international concern, having a limited budget even during the Cold War. So yes, in terms of technology of radars for fighters, the Swedes have bypassed the French and this must be recognized. Sweden did not even begin to develop engines for Gripen (Although they still redesigned the afterburner for RM12) because they did not need it, and there was also a negative experience with the creation of the engine for the J-35, although it was created. In principle, it is not much different from the position of Germany, which played a secondary role in the creation and production of RB199 and EJ200 (Basis-Pegasus and XG-40, respectively). SAAB is obviously looking for partners for further development, and since Putin and Trump pushed through 5% of GDP defense spending, there is no longer any point in fearing cost overruns, which was the main stumbling block for Swedish participation in Tempest/GCAP and the reason for leaving. Although local generals also live in the Cold War era and buy useless Leopard 2s for €33 million, instead of investing in something that works now and in the future. Another thing is that the Swedes have always preferred light fighters, not heavy ones, and the Swedes do not need to base aircraft on aircraft carriers, unlike France and Spain (Another reason why the Spanish will hold on to FCAS to the end, abandoning the F-35), so it is very difficult to lure them into developing NGF.

Germany didn't have to spend money on these useless flying cows, and strategic bombers were always much more expensive to build than fighters. BAe created EAC and in parliament there were already proposals to leave the consortium and finish the development themselves. As we can see, Germany's role was not decisive, AFVG became the "father" of Tornado.

RR:Combustion system, high-pressure turbine and engine health monitoring system.
MTU:Their website wouldn't lie, isn't it?

EJ200 - MTU Aero Engines

EJ200 – MTU's contribution to the EJ200 engine powering the Eurofighter Typhoon with advanced technology.

www.mtu.de

So, what can't France and Spain do that Germany can? They certainly can't impose an embargo on arms supplies to Saudi Arabia for shoot themselves in their foots.

 

[Vishwanath Vijay Thomre]

Apart from all these tantrums of resolving issues, the news is we have still not received the 3rd engine slated to be received in August. These are the worrying signs with the fall of tariffs and ever growing salt in the bilateral relations. Navarro has already feud venom on ToT issue must be very careful in entering the deals.

 

[Snowstrike]

Only a small part of the radar, and officially acquired, therefore, it is impossible to challenge Ericsson's ownership. Ericsson produced 4 major serial modifications of this radar, converted it into AESA using GaN technology and carries out regular minor upgrades (MSXX). Ericsson managed without creating an international concern, having a limited budget even during the Cold War. So yes, in terms of technology of radars for fighters, the Swedes have bypassed the French and this must be recognized. Sweden did not even begin to develop engines for Gripen (Although they still redesigned the afterburner for RM12) because they did not need it, and there was also a negative experience with the creation of the engine for the J-35, although it was created. In principle, it is not much different from the position of Germany, which played a secondary role in the creation and production of RB199 and EJ200 (Basis-Pegasus and XG-40, respectively). SAAB is obviously looking for partners for further development, and since Putin and Trump pushed through 5% of GDP defense spending, there is no longer any point in fearing cost overruns, which was the main stumbling block for Swedish participation in Tempest/GCAP and the reason for leaving. Although local generals also live in the Cold War era and buy useless Leopard 2s for €33 million, instead of investing in something that works now and in the future. Another thing is that the Swedes have always preferred light fighters, not heavy ones, and the Swedes do not need to base aircraft on aircraft carriers, unlike France and Spain (Another reason why the Spanish will hold on to FCAS to the end, abandoning the F-35), so it is very difficult to lure them into developing NGF.

Germany didn't have to spend money on these useless flying cows, and strategic bombers were always much more expensive to build than fighters. BAe created EAC and in parliament there were already proposals to leave the consortium and finish the development themselves. As we can see, Germany's role was not decisive, AFVG became the "father" of Tornado.

RR:Combustion system, high-pressure turbine and engine health monitoring system.
MTU:Their website wouldn't lie, isn't it?

EJ200 - MTU Aero Engines

EJ200 – MTU's contribution to the EJ200 engine powering the Eurofighter Typhoon with advanced technology.

www.mtu.de

So, what can't France and Spain do that Germany can? They certainly can't impose an embargo on arms supplies to Saudi Arabia for shoot themselves in their foots.

Honestly, your take just doesn’t hold up- Ericsson’s PS-05/A was decent, but created in partnership with foreign companies, while sharing technology with the Blue Vixen- hardly an indigenous Swedish achievement. Ericsson was sold to Saab, who then unveiled the NORA program to upgrade to AESA- but was only an option for customers to upgrade the Gripen C/D radars to AESA.Gripen E’s Raven AESA is Leonardo’s work, while Thales’ RBE2 AESA was operational years earlier, so let’s not pretend Sweden leapfrogged France; Gripen’s RM12 was a reworked F404 and the E runs a GE F414, so Sweden never built an indigenous fighter engine, whereas MTU does real work on the EJ200’s compressors, hot section, and sustainment, not just stamping parts; composites aren’t just Hexcel fibres, they’re about certifying and building full structures, which Airbus Germany actually does; and dragging in “Germany didn’t build a bomber” is irrelevant, since that was a political choice, not a lack of capability; even your “5% of GDP” Sweden claim is way off reality, they’re heading toward ~2.4%; in truth, Saab excels at clever integration of imported systems, but that’s a different league entirely from Germany’s role. Germany brings irreplaceable depth in propulsion (MTU), systems integration (Airbus Defence & Space), airframe design and certification, and advanced materials production. Without Germany, there’s no Typhoon program, and there’s no FCAS backbone- France and Spain alone simply don’t have the scale, and Sweden has never attempted a project of that magnitude. Pretending otherwise isn’t analysis, it’s wishful thinking dressed up as history.Trying to spin Saab’s niche into “Germany is irrelevant” really just shows you’re confusing what integration is with what actual industrial depth looks like. I suggest you read up on information regarding this topic. You may not be purposefully spreading misinformation- but it is still harmful. Please refrain from posting fabricated content on the site.

 

[智子 伊瀬]

Honestly, your take just doesn’t hold up- Ericsson’s PS-05/A was decent, but created in partnership with foreign companies, while sharing technology with the Blue Vixen- hardly an indigenous Swedish achievement. Ericsson was sold to Saab, who then unveiled the NORA program to upgrade to AESA- but was only an option for customers to upgrade the Gripen C/D radars to AESA.Gripen E’s Raven AESA is Leonardo’s work, while Thales’ RBE2 AESA was operational years earlier, so let’s not pretend Sweden leapfrogged France; Gripen’s RM12 was a reworked F404 and the E runs a GE F414, so Sweden never built an indigenous fighter engine, whereas MTU does real work on the EJ200’s compressors, hot section, and sustainment, not just stamping parts; composites aren’t just Hexcel fibres, they’re about certifying and building full structures, which Airbus Germany actually does; and dragging in “Germany didn’t build a bomber” is irrelevant, since that was a political choice, not a lack of capability; even your “5% of GDP” Sweden claim is way off reality, they’re heading toward ~2.4%; in truth, Saab excels at clever integration of imported systems, but that’s a different league entirely from Germany’s role. Germany brings irreplaceable depth in propulsion (MTU), systems integration (Airbus Defence & Space), airframe design and certification, and advanced materials production. Without Germany, there’s no Typhoon program, and there’s no FCAS backbone- France and Spain alone simply don’t have the scale, and Sweden has never attempted a project of that magnitude. Pretending otherwise isn’t analysis, it’s wishful thinking dressed up as history.Trying to spin Saab’s niche into “Germany is irrelevant” really just shows you’re confusing what integration is with what actual industrial depth looks like. I suggest you read up on information regarding this topic. You may not be purposefully spreading misinformation- but it is still harmful. Please refrain from posting fabricated content on the site.

The PS-05A Mk5 is an Ericsson GaN AESA radar that has been tested. So technically Sweden has overtaken Thales in fighter radar technology, as the Rafale still uses a GaAs-based radar. The most interesting thing is that the Captor-M is based on the same Blue Vixen

The RM12 was a heavily modified version of the F404. Sweden worked mainly on the afterburner, although some changes were made to other sections as well. Germany was not very far behind Sweden in this area.

The ban on aircraft construction was lifted by the end of the 1950s, but nothing is known about German fighters, except for one experimental vertical takeoff aircraft (it must be said that it was more successful than the French Balzac).

Without Germany, the Typhoon could well have evolved from the BAe EAP. Even so, France managed to adopt the Rafale before the four-nation consortium.

Sweden increases military spending to 3.5% by 2030, the remaining 1.5% is military-related spending. Only a few NATO countries have rejected increasing their military budget.

 

[Snowstrike]

The PS-05A Mk5 is an Ericsson GaN AESA radar that has been tested. So technically Sweden has overtaken Thales in fighter radar technology, as the Rafale still uses a GaAs-based radar. The most interesting thing is that the Captor-M is based on the same Blue Vixen

The RM12 was a heavily modified version of the F404. Sweden worked mainly on the afterburner, although some changes were made to other sections as well. Germany was not very far behind Sweden in this area.

The ban on aircraft construction was lifted by the end of the 1950s, but nothing is known about German fighters, except for one experimental vertical takeoff aircraft (it must be said that it was more successful than the French Balzac).

Without Germany, the Typhoon could well have evolved from the BAe EAP. Even so, France managed to adopt the Rafale before the four-nation consortium.

Sweden increases military spending to 3.5% by 2030, the remaining 1.5% is military-related spending. Only a few NATO countries have rejected increasing their military budget.

Again, you mentioned Ericsson. They sold their defense business to Saab a while ago, and Saab are the ones developing the PS-05/A mk5, NOT Ericsson. It isn’t some magical AESA breakthrough- it’s still a mechanically scanned radar in service, and while a GaN AESA testbed has been flown, it’s not operational, not fielded, and certainly not ahead of Thales’ RBE2-AA AESA, which has been flying on frontline Rafales for over a decade, exported, combat-proven, and continuously upgraded. That’s the gulf between “lab demo” and “deployed technology.” And let’s not forget: the Gripen E’s actual radar is Leonardo’s ES-05 Raven, not Saab's. On engines, the RM12 was essentially a license-built F404 with Swedish tweaks, nothing like designing a clean-sheet powerplant. Germany’s MTU, by contrast, provides the EJ200’s entire intermediate compressor, low-pressure turbine, digital engine health system, and more- that’s not “close” to Sweden, it’s a different universe of technical depth.

The “Germany didn’t build fighters after the 50s” claim ignores why: the Luftwaffe deliberately tied itself to European collaborative programs (Tornado, Eurofighter) as a strategic choice, not from lack of capability. And the BAe EAP without Germany would have been just that- a British tech demonstrator. The Eurofighter only became real because Germany and Italy brought the funding, manpower, and industrial base to mass-produce it. France left the consortium precisely because it wanted a nuclear-capable and carrier-capable aircraft, not because Germany was dead weight.

As for Sweden’s defense spending, the numbers don’t even add up- they’re targeting 2.6% of GDP by 2026, not 3.5% or some mythical 5%. Even at those levels, Sweden’s entire defense budget will be a fraction of Germany’s, which is surging past €80 billion annually with a €100 billion Sondervermögen. Saab is clever with limited budgets, but let’s not kid ourselves: they’ve never delivered a heavy twin-engine multirole fighter, a world-class indigenous engine, or a radar that sets the global benchmark. Germany, meanwhile, anchors the FCAS with Airbus’ integration expertise and MTU’s propulsion technology- take them out and the program collapses.

All in all- your rant collapses the moment anyone takes out a few minutes of their day to research on the topic. Germany is a technological POWERHOUSE, encompassing several key systems and components required for FCAS, which is why France is partnering with them along with Spain. I strongly suggest you find credible sources and do your due diligence on this topic, before spreading misinformation. Thank you!

 

[Aby]

First fulfill your own needs and then you can dream of the rest

 

[智子 伊瀬]

Again, you mentioned Ericsson. They sold their defense business to Saab a while ago, and Saab are the ones developing the PS-05/A mk5, NOT Ericsson. It isn’t some magical AESA breakthrough- it’s still a mechanically scanned radar in service, and while a GaN AESA testbed has been flown, it’s not operational, not fielded, and certainly not ahead of Thales’ RBE2-AA AESA, which has been flying on frontline Rafales for over a decade, exported, combat-proven, and continuously upgraded. That’s the gulf between “lab demo” and “deployed technology.” And let’s not forget: the Gripen E’s actual radar is Leonardo’s ES-05 Raven, not Saab's. On engines, the RM12 was essentially a license-built F404 with Swedish tweaks, nothing like designing a clean-sheet powerplant. Germany’s MTU, by contrast, provides the EJ200’s entire intermediate compressor, low-pressure turbine, digital engine health system, and more- that’s not “close” to Sweden, it’s a different universe of technical depth.

The “Germany didn’t build fighters after the 50s” claim ignores why: the Luftwaffe deliberately tied itself to European collaborative programs (Tornado, Eurofighter) as a strategic choice, not from lack of capability. And the BAe EAP without Germany would have been just that- a British tech demonstrator. The Eurofighter only became real because Germany and Italy brought the funding, manpower, and industrial base to mass-produce it. France left the consortium precisely because it wanted a nuclear-capable and carrier-capable aircraft, not because Germany was dead weight.

As for Sweden’s defense spending, the numbers don’t even add up- they’re targeting 2.6% of GDP by 2026, not 3.5% or some mythical 5%. Even at those levels, Sweden’s entire defense budget will be a fraction of Germany’s, which is surging past €80 billion annually with a €100 billion Sondervermögen. Saab is clever with limited budgets, but let’s not kid ourselves: they’ve never delivered a heavy twin-engine multirole fighter, a world-class indigenous engine, or a radar that sets the global benchmark. Germany, meanwhile, anchors the FCAS with Airbus’ integration expertise and MTU’s propulsion technology- take them out and the program collapses.

All in all- your rant collapses the moment anyone takes out a few minutes of their day to research on the topic. Germany is a technological POWERHOUSE, encompassing several key systems and components required for FCAS, which is why France is partnering with them along with Spain. I strongly suggest you find credible sources and do your due diligence on this topic, before spreading misinformation. Thank you!

MTU is only a contractor, and the "hot part" is mainly produced by RR, the EJ200 engine itself is a "son" of the British XG-40. Sweden produced not only the afterburner, which does not make it the owner of advanced technologies for aircraft engines, as well as Germany. Germany independently developed ... Nothing. There is simply not a single engine and serial fighter since 1945, therefore without France, Germany is not able to continue FCAS, France without Germany - quite.

Yes, yes, and then it turns out that Germany deliberately carried out the design of fighters, although it was never able to implement them in metal, which is why it was forced to participate in the creation of the unsuccessful Tornado and subsequently constantly interfere with the export of the Typhoon.

Your tirade is easily destroyed by one fact: There is not a single German aviation technology that France does not have. France has long been able to produce composite materials, France has been producing radars since the Mirage III, aviation weapons are of both French and pan-European production, ejection seats are produced by Britain, why do France need such a "partner" who, due to its "values", will block exports?

 

[Snowstrike]

MTU is only a contractor, and the "hot part" is mainly produced by RR, the EJ200 engine itself is a "son" of the British XG-40. Sweden produced not only the afterburner, which does not make it the owner of advanced technologies for aircraft engines, as well as Germany. Germany independently developed ... Nothing. There is simply not a single engine and serial fighter since 1945, therefore without France, Germany is not able to continue FCAS, France without Germany - quite.

Yes, yes, and then it turns out that Germany deliberately carried out the design of fighters, although it was never able to implement them in metal, which is why it was forced to participate in the creation of the unsuccessful Tornado and subsequently constantly interfere with the export of the Typhoon.

Your tirade is easily destroyed by one fact: There is not a single German aviation technology that France does not have. France has long been able to produce composite materials, France has been producing radars since the Mirage III, aviation weapons are of both French and pan-European production, ejection seats are produced by Britain, why do France need such a "partner" who, due to its "values", will block exports?

This is a very lazy take, because it reduces Germany’s aerospace role to “they didn’t build an engine or a jet since 1945” while conveniently ignoring the layers of critical tech they have mastered. Let’s break it down. First, the EJ200: yes, the XG-40 was a British precursor, but the EJ200 is not “just a son of XG-40.” MTU’s role is not some “bolt-tightening contractor”- they own 30% of the program, and their responsibility is the core cold section and DECMU (the BRAIN!): MTU's pioneering blisk technology in the compressors was a major technological leap for the EJ200, plus its digital engine health monitoring. Those are some of the crown jewels of turbofan design, the parts that make or break efficiency, life, and thrust. No country subcontracts that out to someone they consider irrelevant.

Second, the whole “Germany hasn’t built a serial fighter since 1945” line is just unserious. If you’re going to use that logic, then Sweden hasn’t built a heavy fighter ever, and Japan hasn’t fielded a domestic engine in decades- does that make them technologically irrelevant? Of course not. Germany’s role in Tornado and Typhoon wasn’t accidental; they were central in avionics, structures, and propulsion work. MTU, Diehl, Hensoldt, Premium AEROTEC- these are Tier 1 suppliers on every European program. Try building FCAS without MTU's blisk experience, Hensoldt’s AESA radars/EW, or Diehl’s missile integration. France alone simply cannot cover all of those bases at once- Dassault builds excellent airframes and Thales has top-tier avionics, but FCAS is a systems-of-systems effort, and that needs German industrial depth. Tornado not being successful? flew four decades, and was exported multiple times. Your success metric seems to be 'Omg France produced Rafale by itself!', except that too falls apart when you realize they only starting selling once Dassault started begging with heavy discounts. While Thales is stuck with GaAs-based radars, Hensoldt is mass-producing GaN-based AESAs. If France REALLY couldve done the '6th gen FCAS' all by itself, they wouldnt be coming back to throw a tantrum every few months- they'd just walk out. They need German expertise, money, and industrial capability- the 6th generation of fighters is envisioned to be like a 'system of systems', and almost no nations on Earth can do that independently.

And the export-blockade argument? Come on. That’s politics, not engineering. German industry isn’t less capable because the Bundestag drags its heels on exports. By that logic, the U.S. should be considered technologically inferior because Congress blocks half of its arms deals. It’s a false equivalence.

Finally, the claim that “there’s no German aviation tech France doesn’t already have” is flat-out wrong. Hensoldt leads Europe in several fields, and MTU along with RR is Europe’s only true competitor to Safran in engine technology, and Premium AEROTEC is Airbus’s backbone in composites. France needs Germany because FCAS isn’t just about “can you build a plane?”- it’s about integrating engines, sensors, datalinks, materials, AI, unmanned teaming, and industrial scale. You can’t do that with Dassault and Thales alone. Which is why Paris still keeps Berlin on board, however much that frustrates so-called 'Purists' like you.

So, if the argument is “Germany has no tech, France can do it alone,” it collapses the second you actually list the subsystems. France is very good- but Germany is irreplaceable in the modern aerospace ecosystem. Spreading fake news on defense.in isnt a very good use of your time- I strongly suggest you spend it researching on this topic instead. Thanks!