Follow us on social

Incredibly shrinking defense industry is a boon for the fat cats

Incredibly shrinking defense industry is a boon for the fat cats

L3Harris’ plan to acquire Aerojet Rocketdyne means more market consolidation, less competition.

Analysis | Military Industrial Complex

Defense contractor L3Harris announced Sunday that it plans to acquire Aerojet Rocketdyne for $4.7 billion in a move that would cement the firm as one of America’s leading arms makers.

It’s unclear if the deal will go through, especially given that the Federal Trade Commission recently torpedoed Lockheed Martin’s attempt to purchase Aerojet Rocketdyne on antitrust grounds. Due to potential national security concerns, the Pentagon will also have a chance to block the move.

But, assuming it does clear these bureaucratic obstacles, the deal will represent a significant step in the decades-long consolidation of the defense industry — a trend that risks driving up the military budget while slowing innovation, experts say.

As the Pentagon recently noted, the number of defense prime contractors has plummeted from 51 to five since the 1990s. And nearly 20,000 small businesses have been pushed out of the defense market in the last decade alone, according to the Government Accountability Office.

With fewer companies competing for contracts, observers worry that defense firms will engage in price gouging, leaving taxpayers to foot the bill. (Some companies, like Boeing and Transdigm Group, have already been caught overcharging for parts.) Rapid consolidation can also discourage companies from investing in the types of innovative technologies that the United States will need to defend itself from future threats, according to military analyst Mark Thompson of the Project on Government Oversight.

“Innovation requires the levers of competition to work,” Thompson wrote in 2019 following Raytheon’s merger with the defense division of United Technologies Corp. “Competition drives the perpetual quest to get more bang for the buck by harnessing new technologies.”

In some ways, the Aerojet deal is a perfect illustration of the ever-shrinking defense industry. L3Harris has ridden a wave of mergers and acquisitions to become the sixth largest weapons contractor in the United States and the 13th in the world, according to a recent report from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.

This process began back in 1997, when a group of defense industry veterans teamed up with Lehman Brothers to found L-3 Communications. Their first move was to acquire a few divisions of Lockheed Martin, which had only recently formed as the result of a merger between Lockheed Corporation and Martin Marietta. 

L-3 Communications then went on something of a shopping spree, buying as many as 30 companies between 1997 and 2017. Given this ever-expanding portfolio of businesses, the firm’s leadership decided in 2016 to change its name to L3 Technologies.

But all of this was the prologue for L3’s most ambitious decision: its 2018 merger with Harris Corporation, a leading surveillance and electronic warfare company. Following that deal, newly-minted L3Harris quickly rose to its current spot as one of the biggest defense contractors in the world.

Meanwhile, Aerojet and Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne, both of which made rocket propulsion systems, came together in 2013 to create Aerojet Rocketdyne. The company is now one of only two U.S.-based firms that produce rocket motors at large scales, leaving little competition for a crucial component in many weapons. (Northrop Grumman, the world’s fourth largest weapons maker, bought the other leading rocket propulsion company in 2017.)

Notably, the Aerojet acquisition is not the only big move that L3Harris has trumpeted in recent months. In October, the company announced that it planned to purchase Viasat’s military communications unit for a cool $2 billion in a deal that is set to close next year.

In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, L3Harris CEO Chris Kubasik described the recent moves as an attempt to shake up the defense industry. “We want to be the disrupter,” Kubasik said.

For all this talk of disruption, L3Harris has grown thanks to the same playbook as its peers: namely, buying up companies until the government feels the need to yell “Stop!” Now, it’s up to regulators to decide whether that moment has come.


“The Bosses of the Senate,” by Joseph Keppler. Originally published in Puck on Jan. 23, 1889.|“The Bosses of the Senate,” by Joseph Keppler. Originally published in Puck on Jan. 23, 1889.
Analysis | Military Industrial Complex
Trump Zelensky
Top photo credit: Joshua Sukoff / Shutterstock.com

Blob exploiting Trump's anger with Putin, risking return to Biden's war

Europe

Donald Trump’s recent outburst against Vladimir Putin — accusing the Russian leader of "throwing a pile of bullsh*t at us" and threatening devastating new sanctions — might be just another Trumpian tantrum.

The president is known for abrupt reversals. Or it could be a bargaining tactic ahead of potential Ukraine peace talks. But there’s a third, more troubling possibility: establishment Republican hawks and neoconservatives, who have been maneuvering to hijack Trump’s “America First” agenda since his return to office, may be exploiting his frustration with Putin to push for a prolonged confrontation with Russia.

Trump’s irritation is understandable. Ukraine has accepted his proposed ceasefire, but Putin has refused, making him, in Trump’s eyes, the main obstacle to ending the war.

Putin’s calculus is clear. As Ted Snider notes in the American Conservative, Russia is winning on the battlefield. In June, it captured more Ukrainian territory and now threatens critical Kyiv’s supply lines. Moscow also seized a key lithium deposit critical to securing Trump’s support for Ukraine. Meanwhile, Russian missile and drone strikes have intensified.

Putin seems convinced his key demands — Ukraine’s neutrality, territorial concessions in the Donbas and Crimea, and a downsized Ukrainian military — are more achievable through war than diplomacy.

Yet his strategy empowers the transatlantic “forever war” faction: leaders in Britain, France, Germany, and the EU, along with hawks in both main U.S. parties. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz claims that diplomacy with Russia is “exhausted.” Europe’s war party, convinced a Russian victory would inevitably lead to an attack on NATO (a suicidal prospect for Moscow), is willing to fight “to the last Ukrainian.” Meanwhile, U.S. hawks, including liberal interventionist Democrats, stoke Trump’s ego, framing failure to stand up to Putin’s defiance as a sign of weakness or appeasement.

Trump long resisted this pressure. Pragmatism told him Ukraine couldn’t win, and calling it “Biden’s war” was his way of distancing himself, seeking a quick exit to refocus on China, which he has depicted as Washington’s greater foreign threat. At least as important, U.S. involvement in the war in Ukraine has been unpopular with his MAGA base.

But his June strikes on Iran may signal a hawkish shift. By touting them as a decisive blow to Iran’s nuclear program (despite Tehran’s refusal so far to abandon uranium enrichment), Trump may be embracing a new approach to dealing with recalcitrant foreign powers: offer a deal, set a deadline, then unleash overwhelming force if rejected. The optics of “success” could tempt him to try something similar with Russia.

This pivot coincides with a media campaign against restraint advocates within the administration like Elbridge Colby, the Pentagon policy chief who has prioritized China over Ukraine and also provoked the opposition of pro-Israel neoconservatives by warning against war with Iran. POLITICO quoted unnamed officials attacking Colby for wanting the U.S. to “do less in the world.” Meanwhile, the conventional Republican hawk Marco Rubio’s influence grows as he combines the jobs of both secretary of state and national security adviser.

What Can Trump Actually Do to Russia?
 

Nuclear deterrence rules out direct military action — even Biden, far more invested in Ukraine than Trump, avoided that risk. Instead, Trump ally Sen.Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), another establishment Republican hawk, is pushing a 500% tariff on nations buying Russian hydrocarbons, aiming to sever Moscow from the global economy. Trump seems supportive, although the move’s feasibility and impact are doubtful.

China and India are key buyers of Russian oil. China alone imports 12.5 million barrels daily. Russia exports seven million barrels daily. China could absorb Russia’s entire output. Beijing has bluntly stated it “cannot afford” a Russian defeat, ensuring Moscow’s economic lifeline remains open.

The U.S., meanwhile, is ill-prepared for a tariff war with China. When Trump imposed 145% tariffs, Beijing retaliated by cutting off rare earth metals exports, vital to U.S. industry and defense. Trump backed down.

At the G-7 summit in Canada last month, the EU proposed lowering price caps on Russian oil from $60 a barrel to $45 a barrel as part of its 18th sanctions package against Russia. Trump rejected the proposal at the time but may be tempted to reconsider, given his suggestion that more sanctions may be needed. Even if Washington backs the measure now, however, it is unlikely to cripple Russia’s war machine.

Another strategy may involve isolating Russia by peeling away Moscow’s traditionally friendly neighbors. Here, Western mediation between Armenia and Azerbaijan isn’t about peace — if it were, pressure would target Baku, which has stalled agreements and threatened renewed war against Armenia. The real goal is to eject Russia from the South Caucasus and create a NATO-aligned energy corridor linking Turkey to Central Asia, bypassing both Russia and Iran to their detriment.

Central Asia itself is itself emerging as a new battleground. In May 2025, the EU has celebrated its first summit with Central Asian nations in Uzbekistan, with a heavy focus on developing the Middle Corridor, a route for transportation of energy and critical raw materials that would bypass Russia. In that context, the EU has committed €10 billion in support of the Trans-Caspian International Transport Route.

keep readingShow less
Syria sanctions
Top image credit: People line up to buy bread, after Syria's Bashar al-Assad was ousted, in Douma, on the outskirts of Damascus, Syria December 23, 2024. REUTERS/Zohra Bensemra

Lifting sanctions on Syria exposes their cruel intent

Middle East

On June 30, President Trump signed an executive order terminating the majority of U.S. sanctions on Syria. The move, which would have been unthinkable mere months ago, fulfilled a promise he made at an investment forum in Riyadh in May.“The sanctions were brutal and crippling,” he had declared to an audience of primarily Saudi businessmen. Lifting them, he said, will “give Syria a chance at greatness.”

The significance of this statement lies not solely in the relief that it will bring to the Syrian people. His remarks revealed an implicit but rarely admitted truth: sanctions — often presented as a peaceful alternative to war — have been harming the Syrian people all along.

keep readingShow less
The 8-point buzzsaw facing any invasion of Taiwan
Taipei skyline, Taiwan. (Shutterstock/ YAO23)

The 8-point buzzsaw facing any invasion of Taiwan

Asia-Pacific

For the better part of a decade, China has served as the “pacing threat” around which American military planners craft defense policy and, most importantly, budget decisions.

Within that framework, a potential Chinese invasion of Taiwan has become the scenario most often cited as the likeliest flashpoint for a military confrontation between the two superpowers.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.