>The theory that Europe can only afford one military aviation project, which is repeatedly voiced in expert circles, must be questioned. Because then it would also be impossible for countries such as Turkey or South Korea to develop their own fighter aircraft despite their limited experience in aircraft construction and limited financial resources. The emergence of “disruptors” such as Kratos or Anduril on the US market also shows that it is possible to save massively on development costs by breaking new ground. Apparently, the US armed forces sometimes trust these newcomers more than the long-established players. There is no other explanation for the fact that the Air Force has narrowed down the competition for a collaborative combat aircraft to Anduril and General Atomics.

>There are also such innovators in Germany who could certainly make a contribution in some areas of FCAS. Moreover, the question arises as to whether the integration of Airbus Defense and Space into the parent company, with its rigid rules and national reservations, is still appropriate in a permanently growing market. The spin-off of Hensoldt from ADS and the state's minority stake in the company, which produces key German technologies, could serve as a blueprint here. A national FCAS project can certainly be coordinated with other partners, such as the Swedes, who are also working on the successor to their fighter jet. The same applies to the UK-led Global Combat Air Program (GCAP).

Helsing has succesfully integrated their Centaur ai with a Gripen and had it perform an exercise above the Baltic.
What implications do you think this will have?
https://helsing.ai/newsroom/helsing-ai-agent-successfully-completes-saab-gripen-e-test-flight