Are Europe’s SCAF and GCAP 6th-generation fighter jet projects threatened by the F-35 Plus?

Several EU nations have either purchased or expressed an intention to purchase the F-35 fighter jet since Donald Trump was reelected as US president in 2025. For instance, Belgium has recently confirmed its acquisition of the F-35 program and has publicly expressed its disinterest in the European SCAF (Future Combat Air System) project. The Czech Republic signed an agreement in early 2024 to acquire 24 F-35As, and Finland’s order for 64 F-35As is currently in progress, with deliveries scheduled to commence in 2025. Although the order is presently under political scrutiny due to concerns about US reliability under the Trump administration, Germany announced its intention to purchase 35 F-35As in 2022. However, there has been no official cancellation of the order. Poland’s order for 32 F-35s is currently in progress, and Greece and Romania have expressed interest in purchasing the F-35. Greece is currently awaiting the finalization of the contract, while Romania has authorized the acquisition but has not yet signed it.

Since Trump’s return, Portugal has been the sole EU nation that has formally rescinded its intentions to acquire the F-35. Portugal’s decision in March 2025 was justified by its apprehensions regarding operational reliability and the unpredictability of US policy. As of April 2025, neither Denmark nor Germany has formally canceled their F-35 commitments, although Germany’s order is currently being reviewed. Denmark has also expressed reservations.

Furthermore, It is evident that there is apprehension regarding European alternatives such as SCAF and GCAP (Global Combat Air Program). As mentioned, Belgium has explicitly expressed its disinterest in the SCAF, favoring the F-35 for its NATO compatibility and demonstrated capabilities. In general, numerous EU countries have chosen the F-35 over European initiatives as a result of the latter’s political complexities and slower development timelines. The ongoing Russian threat has created an urgency that has made immediate, interoperable solutions like the F-35 more appealing.

Now, Lockheed Martin, Boeing’s unsuccessful competitor for the NGAD, has made it known that it will not challenge the decision of the US Air Force in court, if you take hints from James D. Taiclet, its CEO, during a telephone meeting with the press on April 22. And for good reason: the American group intends to offer an improved version of its F-35A fighter-bomber, with the idea of eventually making it a less expensive alternative to a 6th-generation combat aircraft.

“We’re going to take the F-35 chassis and turn it into a Ferrari,” said Mr. Taiclet. Ironically, this aircraft is often likened to a car from the “prancing horse” brand—particularly due to its price.

That being said, the plan is to incorporate specific technologies into the F-35A that are co-financed by Lockheed Martin under the NGAD (Next Generation Air Dominance) program.”. The challenge is to reach 80% of sixth-generation capabilities at half the cost. Mr. Taiclet said the engineers wouldn’t have accepted it if they didn’t think it was possible, but he wouldn’t say what the improvements are since they’re classified.

Nevertheless, the F-35’s capacity to manage future CCA-type (Collaborative Combat Aircraft) combat drones, which are a component of the NGAD program, could be one such upgrade. Lockheed Martin had, in fact, made an announcement in that direction last October.

The cost of a modernized F-35A would be approximately $150 million, compared to the current $82.5 million, given that the unit cost of the F-47 is estimated to be $300 million. That continues to be costly.

“In aerial combat, we want to shoot down the others […]. And for that, the first step is to use essential sensors to locate them. Then, you have to make sure they don’t find you—and that’s where stealth technology comes in,” the Lockheed Martin CEO further explained. This is why Lockheed Martin is embarking on a project to develop a fighter jet that can outperform its competitors.

The company’s fighter-bomber, known as Block 4, integrates certain technologies proposed for the NGAD. This version is not yet operational and will necessitate a new engine to accommodate additional power needs due to the proposed features. “But the U.S. government will have the final say on what improvements will be made available to international F-35 customers,” Mr. Taiclet noted.

The strategy Lockheed Martin intends to follow—having also been excluded from the U.S. Navy’s F/A-XX program—is similar to that adopted by Boeing after being left out of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program, which ultimately resulted in the F-35. Boeing, in response, developed new versions of its fighter aircraft, such as the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and, more recently, the F-15EX “Eagle II.”

The European GCAP and SCAF programs are substantially threatened by Lockheed Martin’s proposal to upgrade the F-35 with next-generation technologies, which challenges their cost-effectiveness, timeliness, and relevance. The company’s objective is to incorporate sophisticated capabilities from the Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) program into the F-35, thereby establishing a “fifth-generation plus” fighter. It is anticipated that this enhanced F-35 will provide approximately 80% of the capabilities of a sixth-generation fighter while costing approximately half as much as a brand-new sixth-generation fighter, such as the NGAD F-47. This modernized F-35 provides a compelling balance of cost and capability, with an estimated unit cost of approximately $150 million, in contrast to the current F-35 price of approximately $82.5 million and the NGAD F-47’s $300 million value.

In contrast, European programs like SCAF (which involves France, Germany, and Spain) and GCAP (which involves the UK, Italy, and Japan) encounter intricate multinational coordination challenges and lengthy development timelines. For instance, SCAF is unlikely to be operational before 2040 as a result of industrial disputes and technical challenges, whereas GCAP is currently in the early phases of development and aims to be operational by the mid-2030s. The potential for an upgraded F-35 with advanced features to become operational years earlier places significant pressure on these European programs, potentially rendering them obsolete or less appealing to European governments seeking immediate capability enhancements.

Cost is an additional critical factor. It is anticipated that the unit costs of European sixth-generation fighter programs will exceed $200 million, excluding the significant investments in research and development. To provide a more cost-effective and low-risk alternative, the F-35 has been upgraded by using an existing platform and incremental enhancements. Moreover, the F-35 program capitalizes on NATO interoperability, established production lines, and streamlined decision-making processes, whereas the political and industrial intricacies of multinational European projects frequently result in delays and disagreements.

Geopolitically, Lockheed Martin’s strategy capitalizes on European apprehensions regarding the dependability of U.S. assistance, particularly during the Trump administration, and concerns regarding the potential U.S. withdrawal from European defense. Nevertheless, the upgraded F-35’s assurance of earlier availability and advanced capabilities may encourage European countries such as Belgium, Germany, and Poland to continue or expand their F-35 purchases rather than invest in uncertain European initiatives, despite these concerns. This dynamic poses a threat to the industrial and economic viability of SCAF and GCAP by potentially reducing their customer base.

In terms of technology, the upgraded F-35 is anticipated to include enhancements in the control of collaborative combat aircraft (drones), sensor fusion, and stealth, which are also essential to the design objectives of SCAF and GCAP. The F-35 matches or surpasses the technological advancements that European programs aim to achieve, potentially undermining their efforts.

Europe faces a strategic quandary as a result of this situation. The main motivations for the development of SCAF and GCAP were the potential erosion of European defense autonomy and industrial sovereignty, which could result from a heavy reliance on U.S.-made F-35s. European efforts have been encouraged to be consolidated into a unified program in order to more effectively compete with U.S. dominance. However, political and industrial divisions continue to impede the success of such initiatives.

Lockheed Martin’s strategy for upgrading the F-35 poses a threat to the relevance of the European GCAP and SCAF programs by providing a technologically competitive, cheaper, and speedier alternative. Without explicit political will, increased funding, and accelerated collaboration, these European sixth-generation fighter projects are at risk of being shelved before they even achieve operational status.