As governments invest tens of billions of dollars in next-generation combat aircraft, autonomous “collaborative combat aircraft” are emerging alongside traditional fighter jets, reshaping military strategy, defence alliances and procurement priorities.
The spectacle above the Farnborough International Airshow last month still belonged to fast jets carving dramatic arcs across the sky, thrilling spectators with displays of speed and precision. Yet, according to reporting by the Financial Times, the real story of the event unfolded on the ground, where sleek autonomous aircraft bearing names such as Ghost Bat, Ravenstorm, Valkyrie and Fury drew sustained attention from military officials, defence executives and industry observers. Their presence reflected a profound transformation in military aviation, signalling that the next era of aerial warfare will rely not only on highly capable fighter aircraft but also on intelligent, uncrewed systems designed to operate alongside them.
Unlike the relatively inexpensive drones that have become familiar features of conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East, these collaborative combat aircraft represent an entirely different category of military capability. They are larger, significantly more sophisticated and equipped with advanced weapons systems capable of supporting conventional fighters or carrying out missions independently. Their emergence demonstrates how advances in autonomous flight technology are beginning to redefine not only the conduct of air combat but also the allocation of defence budgets worth tens of billions of dollars.
For defence manufacturers, the applications extend well beyond traditional combat support. Charles Woodburn, chief executive of UK defence contractor BAE Systems, whose company is developing the Brontanax collaborative combat aircraft, told the Financial Times that these aircraft are being considered for a wide range of missions. While some are intended to accompany piloted fighters, others could undertake “sentinel” operations, remaining airborne to patrol the skies continuously for incoming drones before engaging threats immediately. Such missions illustrate how autonomous aircraft are expected to assume responsibilities that would otherwise require significant human resources and operational planning.
As autonomous systems become more capable, the role of the fighter pilot is also expected to evolve. Rather than acting solely as the operator of a powerful aircraft, pilots may increasingly serve as mission commanders overseeing networks of crewed and uncrewed platforms. Peter Nilsson, a former fighter pilot who now heads advanced programmes at Saab’s aeronautics division, predicts that “The pilot, the guy with the hot rod and guns, will become more of a mission commander.”
The aircraft themselves are also changing. The sixth-generation fighters currently under development, expected to enter service no earlier than the mid-2030s, are being designed around artificial intelligence, advanced data processing, stealth and networked operations as much as speed, manoeuvrability and firepower. Eliot Pence, chief executive of Canadian defence technology start-up Dominion Dynamics, described these future aircraft as being “stealthy enough to live, long-range enough to stay useful, sensor-rich enough to understand the battlespace and networked enough to direct lower-cost assets at multiple altitudes.”
Such technological sophistication comes with substantial financial demands. Douglas Barrie, senior fellow for military aerospace at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, estimates that each Boeing F-47, the US Air Force’s planned sixth-generation fighter, could cost between $200mn and $300mn before research, testing and maintenance costs are considered. That represents roughly two to three times the price of an F-35 Lightning, currently among the world’s most advanced combat aircraft. Autonomous collaborative combat aircraft are also expected to require significant investment, with Barrie estimating prices of between $20mn and $40mn per aircraft. At those levels, he argues, only “two countries on the globe will play in that game — the US and China”.
For many other nations, those costs present a strategic dilemma. Some are choosing to extend the operational life of fourth- and fifth-generation aircraft such as the Eurofighter Typhoon by equipping them with more advanced radar, weapons and electronic systems while investing separately in autonomous aircraft. Others are pursuing multinational partnerships to share both the financial burden and technological expertise required to develop entirely new combat platforms.
The Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP), bringing together companies from the United Kingdom, Italy and Japan, has become one of the most significant examples of this collaborative approach. Designed to develop a successor to today’s frontline fighters while reducing dependence on the US-built F-35, the programme also reflects how future combat aircraft projects are becoming instruments of long-term geopolitical cooperation. Governments are increasingly being asked to make commitments that will shape defence partnerships and industrial relationships for decades as their air forces prepare for a fundamentally different operational environment.
The urgency surrounding these decisions has become even more apparent following setbacks elsewhere in Europe. Éric Trappier, chief executive of France’s Dassault Aviation, urged governments to move forward rapidly after the collapse in June of the central fighter-jet element of the Future Combat Air System alliance involving Dassault, Airbus and Spain’s Indra Sistemas. Trappier has since advocated a French-led demonstrator project, acknowledging that while it is impossible to predict precisely what warfare will look like in 30 or 40 years, delaying development would simply leave European nations dependent on technologies developed elsewhere. “If we ask ourselves that question, we’ll do nothing — and if we do nothing, we’ll just have to have US developments imposed on us,” he told reporters.
The evolution of combat aircraft reflects this broader shift in military thinking. Popular culture continues to associate air combat with the 1986 film Top Gun, in which Tom Cruise and Val Kilmer portrayed F-14 Tomcat pilots engaged in dramatic dogfights. Yet the aircraft now being conceived differ fundamentally from those earlier generations. While the F-14 was engineered primarily for speed, payload and power, successive platforms such as the F-35 Lightning and F-22 Raptor have prioritised stealth and versatility. The sixth-generation fighters now under development are expected to push those characteristics further still, combining greater range, enhanced survivability, advanced engines and artificial intelligence with unprecedented data-processing capabilities.
A mock-up of the aircraft at the centre of GCAP, known in the United Kingdom as Tempest, illustrates this direction of travel. Featuring a large delta-wing design and an internal weapons bay, it embodies what Simon Barnes, head of the air sector at BAE Systems, described as common characteristics emerging across all permanent members of the Security Council. According to Barnes, these aircraft are substantially larger than previous generations, remain crewed, place survivability and range at their core and are all being developed at pace. At the same time, the United States has positioned Boeing’s F-47 programme, awarded by President Donald Trump in March last year, as the centrepiece of its Next Generation Air Dominance initiative, intended to counter China’s expanding military capabilities. China, meanwhile, is believed by western intelligence agencies to be developing its own sixth-generation fighter, designated the J-36.
The collapse of the Future Combat Air System has intensified efforts across Europe to establish new industrial partnerships capable of sharing the immense financial and engineering demands associated with these aircraft. Canada has joined GCAP as an observer as it seeks to reduce reliance on the United States amid strained relations with President Trump, while countries including Australia are lobbying to participate. Airbus Defence and Space chief executive Mike Schoellhorn has indicated that his preferred outcome would secure Airbus a significant position in a sixth-generation fighter programme with a Spanish and German industrial footprint. Leonardo chief executive Lorenzo Mariani acknowledged that Germany would bring industrial advantages should Airbus eventually join GCAP, while noting that the programme would require substantial funding in the years ahead. Sweden’s Saab has also become the subject of discussions involving both Airbus and Dassault as it studies future fighter development under a contract running until 2030, although Peter Nilsson stressed that any decision ultimately rests with the Swedish government.
As governments continue to invest in crewed fighters, they are simultaneously accelerating development of the autonomous aircraft intended to accompany them. Sensors already play a defining role aboard the F-35, enabling the aircraft to function as an airborne intelligence and data-processing hub capable of gathering battlefield information through radar, infrared cameras and electro-optical systems. One former senior air force officer from a Nato country told the Financial Times that these technologies combine to create “a rich picture of what’s out there”, adding that another significant leap forward is expected in the sixth generation.
Germany is already considering three proposals for what it calls a Jagdbomberdrohne, or fighter-bomber drone. Boeing has offered a variant of its MQ-28 Ghost Bat in partnership with Rheinmetall, while Kratos Defense’s Valkyrie has already flown with both the US Air Force and US Marine Corps, with Airbus proposing to provide the mission system for a European version. AI-focused defence start-up Helsing has entered the competition with the CA-1 Europa, describing it as the only fully European proposal despite the aircraft not yet having completed a test flight. Airbus’s Schoellhorn has argued that the arrival of uncrewed aircraft is reshaping the sector, stating in June that “This whole ecosystem is in flux” and predicting that collaborative combat aircraft would play “a huge role” in the future of air combat. Britain’s Air Chief Marshal Sir Harv Smyth similarly described BAE Systems’ Brontanax as the “start of a meaningful pivot towards sixth-generation air power”, adding that it was designed to integrate seamlessly with crewed platforms. In the United States, production contracts have also been awarded for semi-autonomous aircraft designed by General Atomics and Anduril.
Not everyone is convinced that expanding fleets of collaborative combat aircraft represent the most effective use of defence resources. Justin Bronk of the Royal United Services Institute argues that maintaining these aircraft requires considerable investment in personnel, maintenance and funding, and suggests that many force structures would be more effective if equivalent resources were devoted to additional weapons and decoy systems for existing piloted aircraft. Although Bronk believes larger collaborative combat aircraft such as Brontanax appear operationally viable for missions including surveillance and reconnaissance inside defended airspace, he cautions that they remain expensive to acquire, develop and operate, meaning they do not provide “free combat mass”. Others point to recent conflicts as evidence that air superiority alone does not guarantee decisive outcomes. Despite overwhelming aerial dominance, the recent US-Israeli bombing campaign against Iran did not produce a clear victory, while Russian air power has struggled to achieve decisive battlefield results in Ukraine despite facing an opponent with comparatively limited resources.
Cost remains another defining consideration. Byron Callan of Capital Alpha Partners observed that the United States is effectively producing the equivalent of “Ferraris and Lamborghinis” through the F-47 and F/A-XX programmes, an approach unlikely to be affordable for many allies even if export approvals are granted. As a result, many countries are expected to retain existing fighter fleets while progressively integrating collaborative combat aircraft into their air forces. Sweden continues to field the Gripen E, Dassault is developing the F5 upgrade for the Rafale, and, according to Bronk, China continues to produce “several hundred traditional fighter aircraft a year” even as it develops sixth-generation platforms. Existing combat aircraft, he concluded, “are going to be around for decades”.
Yet even as autonomous technologies reshape military aviation, many defence leaders believe the human pilot will remain central to aerial warfare. Germany’s air force chief, Holger Neumann, argued that no machine can replace a pilot capable of making decisions close to the battlefield when communications are disrupted, noting that while machines excel at processing vast quantities of data, intuition, escalation control and judgement remain distinctly human qualities. Dassault’s Éric Trappier expressed a similar view, predicting that people would remain “at the heart of the action, with his human brain, his reason, his fear and his genius”. As the Financial Times’ reporting illustrates, the future of air combat may increasingly be defined by intelligent machines operating alongside advanced fighters, but for this next generation at least, the pilot in the cockpit is expected to remain an indispensable part of the decision-making chain.
