Aircraft Survivability Equipment Market by Platform Type (Fixed Wing, Rotary Wing, Unmanned Aerial Vehicle), Equipment Type (Hardware, Services, Software), Technology, System Type, End Use - Global Forecast 2025-2032
Description
The Aircraft Survivability Equipment Market was valued at USD 5.28 billion in 2024 and is projected to grow to USD 5.72 billion in 2025, with a CAGR of 8.82%, reaching USD 10.39 billion by 2032.
Framing the critical strategic context and evolving operational demands that elevate aircraft survivability equipment from component level to programmatic mission enabler
Aircraft survivability equipment sits at the intersection of rapidly evolving threat environments and complex defense acquisition cycles. Recent advances in sensor fidelity, seeker resilience, and networked electronic warfare have elevated survivability from a discrete equipment concern into a program-level imperative that shapes platform design, mission planning, and sustainment strategies. This introduction synthesizes the strategic context, key capability tensions, and decision levers modern defense stakeholders must navigate when evaluating survivability investments.
Threat evolution is driving demand for adaptive countermeasures that can respond to increasingly sophisticated missile seekers and multi-domain targeting chains. This in turn imposes engineering, certification, and logistics requirements that ripple across airframe, avionics, and supply chains. Consequently, procurement leaders must balance platform performance, upgradeability, and total lifecycle support while anticipating near-term technology refreshes and emergent threat vectors.
Transitioning from concept to fielding requires aligning operational doctrine with technical capabilities. That means integrating survivability considerations early in the platform development cycle, harmonizing sensor and countermeasure interfaces, and planning for iterative software and hardware upgrades. Forward-looking programs also embed modularity and open architectures to ease future insertions of advanced electronic warfare suites, infrared countermeasures, and missile warning sensors. Ultimately, this introduction frames survivability as both a tactical enabler and a strategic risk mitigator for air operations across contested environments.
How technological acceleration, operational resilience needs, and modular integration trends are reshaping survivability procurement and program planning across defense portfolios
The landscape for aircraft survivability equipment is shifting under the combined pressure of technological acceleration, changing threat doctrines, and supply chain reconfiguration. Advances in multi-spectral seekers, data-linked targeting, and autonomous weapons create demand for countermeasures that are faster, smarter, and more tightly integrated with platform avionics. At the same time, digital engineering practices and modular open systems architectures are enabling quicker capability insertions and more frequent software-defined updates, which alters how programs budget and plan sustainment cycles.
This transformation also manifests in operational concepts. Distributed operations and contested logistics mean survivability solutions must be resilient to degraded communications and operate autonomously when central networks are impaired. That increases emphasis on onboard processing, machine learning algorithms for threat discrimination, and robust sensor fusion. From a procurement perspective, the shift drives greater priority for lifecycle agility, where the capacity to upgrade hardware blocks and deploy software patches quickly becomes a program advantage.
Concurrently, rising interoperability expectations-driven by coalition operations and cross-domain missions-pressure vendors to provide standardized interfaces and certification support to accelerate integration across mixed fleets. Taken together, these shifts force program managers to rethink requirements acquisition cycles, emphasize supplier roadmaps, and invest in verification regimes that accommodate iterative capabilities while maintaining rigorous safety and certification standards.
Assessing how new trade measures and tariff dynamics alter supply chains, procurement timing, and industrial incentive structures for survivability programs
The imposition of new tariffs can reverberate through defense supply chains in ways that impact procurement strategy, industrial basing, and program schedules. When tariffs increase the cost of imported components, prime contractors and subsystem suppliers often respond by reassessing sourcing footprints, prioritizing domestic suppliers where feasible, and accelerating supplier qualification programs to reduce exposure to elevated duties. Over time, these adjustments can increase near-term unit costs while incentivizing capital investment in local manufacturing capability and supplier diversification.
Tariff-driven adjustments also have operational implications. Programs reliant on specialized foreign-made sensors, warhead-safe fuses, or niche electronic components may experience longer lead times as alternative sources are validated and integrated. This can necessitate contingency stockpiling, earlier contract awards, or schedule resilience measures to avoid capability gaps. In addition, compliance and customs administration add administrative overhead that can slow component flow, particularly for small and medium-sized suppliers without established trade-compliance functions.
Strategically, tariffs tend to accelerate localization where industrial policy and defense imperatives align, but they can also prompt manufacturers to regionalize production by shifting assembly or subassembly to tariff-friendly jurisdictions. This reconfiguration improves supply security in the medium term but often requires significant supplier coordination, requalification, and capital expenditure. In sum, tariffs reshape cost structures, compel supply chain resilience investments, and influence the competitiveness calculus of firms operating in the survivability ecosystem.
Comprehensive segmentation-driven insights that align platform constraints, equipment modalities, and system architectures to operational and sustainment priorities
Granular segmentation provides a practical lens for prioritizing investment and understanding how capabilities map to operational need. Examining platform differentiation clarifies that fixed wing platforms encompass fighter aircraft, surveillance aircraft, and transport aircraft each with distinct survivability footprints; rotary wing platforms require tailored solutions for attack helicopters and utility helicopters where maneuverability and exposure differ; and unmanned aerial vehicle classes range from rotary UAVs to strategic and tactical UAVs, each with unique size, power, and mission constraints. Understanding equipment type disaggregation reveals that hardware, services, and software demand different procurement cadences and business models, with hardware focused on qualification and logistics, services emphasizing sustainment and training, and software driving recurring update cycles.
Technology segmentation yields further insight because chaff, electronic countermeasures, and flares present divergent engineering, certification, and deployment characteristics; chaff and flares remain physically consumable while electronic countermeasures increasingly rely on software-defined waveforms and signal processing. System type analysis highlights how electronic warfare suites, infrared countermeasures, and missile warning systems interact within a layered defense posture; the infrared countermeasures domain itself divides between directed infrared countermeasures and flares, necessitating careful integration between point-defense systems and distributed countermeasure dispensers. Finally, end-use distinctions between aftermarket and original equipment manufacturer channels demonstrate differing procurement drivers: aftermarket demand focuses on retrofitability, sustainment, and field upgrades, whereas original equipment manufacturer acquisitions center on baseline integration and factory-fit certification. By weaving these segmentation dimensions together, decision-makers can prioritize capability insertions that align with platform constraints, program timelines, and sustainment philosophies.
How distinct regional modernization drives, export controls, and partnership dynamics in the Americas, Europe Middle East & Africa, and Asia-Pacific shape procurement and supplier strategy
Regional dynamics shape procurement priorities, supply chain strategies, and partnership opportunities in distinct ways. In the Americas, a sustained emphasis on modernization and coalition interoperability encourages investments in integrated electronic warfare suites, advanced missile warning sensors, and domestic supply chain upgrades, while defense industrial policy often incentivizes local manufacturing and sovereign capability development. Europe, Middle East & Africa exhibits a mix of legacy fleet upgrades and accelerated acquisition cycles driven by geopolitics, which elevates demand for retrofitable countermeasure systems and rapid supplier qualification to support urgent operational needs.
Asia-Pacific is characterized by intense regional modernization programs and a focus on asymmetric capabilities, driving demand for scalable solutions across manned and unmanned platforms. This environment also encourages multinational partnerships and technology transfers, coupled with regional supply chain investments to mitigate geopolitical risk. Across these regions, interoperability with coalition partners, certification pathways, and export compliance frameworks remain persistent considerations that influence vendor selection and procurement timing. Consequently, firms that can navigate regional regulatory environments, offer fast integration support, and provide clear sustainment pathways will be positioned to serve diverse regional priorities effectively.
Analysis of competitive positioning, technology specialization, and collaboration patterns that determine supplier success across platform integrations and aftermarket opportunities
The competitive landscape combines established defense primes, specialized avionics suppliers, and emerging technology firms focused on signal processing, sensing, and countermeasure lethality. Incumbent primes often leverage systems integration expertise, program management scale, and certification experience to win platform-level contracts and complex retrofits. Specialized suppliers differentiate through focused engineering capabilities in areas such as directed infrared countermeasures, passive and active missile warning sensors, and software-defined electronic warfare payloads. At the same time, agile technology entrants are pushing innovations in machine learning for threat discrimination, miniaturized optical sensors for small UAVs, and low-SWaP (size, weight and power) countermeasure dispensers that open new retrofit opportunities.
Partnerships and subcontracting patterns continue to evolve as primes seek to de-risk development and accelerate fielding through joint ventures and technology licensing. Suppliers that can demonstrate rigorous systems engineering, supply chain resilience, and clear lifecycle support plans gain preference in competitive procurements. For aftermarket opportunities, service providers offering integrated training, depot-level repair, and software sustainment contracts are increasingly strategic to maintain long-term revenue streams. Overall, the ecosystem rewards firms that combine technological differentiation with predictable delivery performance and deep understanding of aerospace certification and export compliance regimes.
Actionable strategic steps for primes and suppliers to improve integration speed, supply resilience, and lifecycle outcomes for survivability programs
Industry leaders should adopt a pragmatic, capability-focused approach to preserve competitiveness and program agility. First, prioritize modular open systems architectures and standard interfaces to reduce integration risk and enable rapid insertion of emergent countermeasure capabilities. This eases supplier change management, shortens upgrade cycles, and supports coalition interoperability. Second, strengthen supplier diversification and near-term inventory strategies to mitigate exposure to trade policy shocks and single-source dependencies, while investing in supplier qualification programs that broaden domestic and allied sourcing options.
Third, accelerate investments in software-defined capabilities and secure update mechanisms so that waveform revisions, threat libraries, and algorithmic improvements can be deployed with minimal platform downtime. Fourth, align sustainment contracts to incentivize performance-based logistics and lifecycle responsibility, enabling predictable readiness outcomes and clearer total-cost-of-ownership signals. Finally, cultivate cross-domain partnerships-linking avionics, mission systems, and training providers-to present integrated offerings that lower systems-integration risk for primes and end users. Collectively, these actions will improve fielding speed, resilience to supply disruptions, and long-term cost-effectiveness of survivability programs.
Methodology combining stakeholder interviews, technical document review, and scenario analysis to derive practical, engineering-grounded insights into survivability challenges
Research combined primary engagements with defense procurement officers, program managers, systems engineers, and supplier executives, alongside secondary analysis of open-source technical papers, regulatory guidance, and certification frameworks. Qualitative interviews targeted stakeholders responsible for requirement definition, systems integration, and sustainment, ensuring perspectives spanned platform primes, subsystem vendors, and end users. In parallel, technical assessments evaluated interoperability standards, interface control documents, and typical qualification pathways to corroborate interview insights and identify recurring integration challenges.
Analytical processes emphasized cross-validation between stakeholder feedback and technical documents to surface persistent capability gaps and supply chain risks. Scenario analysis was used to test sensitivity of procurement timelines to factors such as trade measures, supplier disruptions, and emergent threat sets. Wherever possible, engineering-level considerations-such as SWaP constraints, EMI/EMC interaction, and certification timelines-were integrated into qualitative assessments to ground strategic recommendations in practical program realities. The methodology thus balances frontline practitioner input with technical review to produce findings that are both actionable and defensible.
Concluding synthesis on embedding modularity, supply resilience, and software agility into survivability programs to maintain operational credibility in contested environments
Modernizing aircraft survivability equipment requires balancing technological ambition with pragmatic program execution. The convergence of advanced seekers, networked targeting, and software-driven countermeasures elevates the need for modular solutions, resilient supply chains, and interoperable interfaces. Programs that embed these principles early in acquisition achieve greater agility to adapt as threat vectors evolve and as trade and geopolitical conditions change.
Going forward, sustained investment in secure software update mechanisms, diversified sourcing strategies, and robust qualification pathways will determine which programs can field upgraded survivability capabilities without onerous schedule or cost impacts. Decision-makers should treat survivability not as a peripheral add-on but as an integral element of mission planning, platform design, and international interoperability. Doing so will ensure aircraft remain operationally credible in contested environments and that defense organizations can respond rapidly to emergent threats while managing industrial and fiscal constraints.
Please Note: PDF & Excel + Online Access - 1 Year
Framing the critical strategic context and evolving operational demands that elevate aircraft survivability equipment from component level to programmatic mission enabler
Aircraft survivability equipment sits at the intersection of rapidly evolving threat environments and complex defense acquisition cycles. Recent advances in sensor fidelity, seeker resilience, and networked electronic warfare have elevated survivability from a discrete equipment concern into a program-level imperative that shapes platform design, mission planning, and sustainment strategies. This introduction synthesizes the strategic context, key capability tensions, and decision levers modern defense stakeholders must navigate when evaluating survivability investments.
Threat evolution is driving demand for adaptive countermeasures that can respond to increasingly sophisticated missile seekers and multi-domain targeting chains. This in turn imposes engineering, certification, and logistics requirements that ripple across airframe, avionics, and supply chains. Consequently, procurement leaders must balance platform performance, upgradeability, and total lifecycle support while anticipating near-term technology refreshes and emergent threat vectors.
Transitioning from concept to fielding requires aligning operational doctrine with technical capabilities. That means integrating survivability considerations early in the platform development cycle, harmonizing sensor and countermeasure interfaces, and planning for iterative software and hardware upgrades. Forward-looking programs also embed modularity and open architectures to ease future insertions of advanced electronic warfare suites, infrared countermeasures, and missile warning sensors. Ultimately, this introduction frames survivability as both a tactical enabler and a strategic risk mitigator for air operations across contested environments.
How technological acceleration, operational resilience needs, and modular integration trends are reshaping survivability procurement and program planning across defense portfolios
The landscape for aircraft survivability equipment is shifting under the combined pressure of technological acceleration, changing threat doctrines, and supply chain reconfiguration. Advances in multi-spectral seekers, data-linked targeting, and autonomous weapons create demand for countermeasures that are faster, smarter, and more tightly integrated with platform avionics. At the same time, digital engineering practices and modular open systems architectures are enabling quicker capability insertions and more frequent software-defined updates, which alters how programs budget and plan sustainment cycles.
This transformation also manifests in operational concepts. Distributed operations and contested logistics mean survivability solutions must be resilient to degraded communications and operate autonomously when central networks are impaired. That increases emphasis on onboard processing, machine learning algorithms for threat discrimination, and robust sensor fusion. From a procurement perspective, the shift drives greater priority for lifecycle agility, where the capacity to upgrade hardware blocks and deploy software patches quickly becomes a program advantage.
Concurrently, rising interoperability expectations-driven by coalition operations and cross-domain missions-pressure vendors to provide standardized interfaces and certification support to accelerate integration across mixed fleets. Taken together, these shifts force program managers to rethink requirements acquisition cycles, emphasize supplier roadmaps, and invest in verification regimes that accommodate iterative capabilities while maintaining rigorous safety and certification standards.
Assessing how new trade measures and tariff dynamics alter supply chains, procurement timing, and industrial incentive structures for survivability programs
The imposition of new tariffs can reverberate through defense supply chains in ways that impact procurement strategy, industrial basing, and program schedules. When tariffs increase the cost of imported components, prime contractors and subsystem suppliers often respond by reassessing sourcing footprints, prioritizing domestic suppliers where feasible, and accelerating supplier qualification programs to reduce exposure to elevated duties. Over time, these adjustments can increase near-term unit costs while incentivizing capital investment in local manufacturing capability and supplier diversification.
Tariff-driven adjustments also have operational implications. Programs reliant on specialized foreign-made sensors, warhead-safe fuses, or niche electronic components may experience longer lead times as alternative sources are validated and integrated. This can necessitate contingency stockpiling, earlier contract awards, or schedule resilience measures to avoid capability gaps. In addition, compliance and customs administration add administrative overhead that can slow component flow, particularly for small and medium-sized suppliers without established trade-compliance functions.
Strategically, tariffs tend to accelerate localization where industrial policy and defense imperatives align, but they can also prompt manufacturers to regionalize production by shifting assembly or subassembly to tariff-friendly jurisdictions. This reconfiguration improves supply security in the medium term but often requires significant supplier coordination, requalification, and capital expenditure. In sum, tariffs reshape cost structures, compel supply chain resilience investments, and influence the competitiveness calculus of firms operating in the survivability ecosystem.
Comprehensive segmentation-driven insights that align platform constraints, equipment modalities, and system architectures to operational and sustainment priorities
Granular segmentation provides a practical lens for prioritizing investment and understanding how capabilities map to operational need. Examining platform differentiation clarifies that fixed wing platforms encompass fighter aircraft, surveillance aircraft, and transport aircraft each with distinct survivability footprints; rotary wing platforms require tailored solutions for attack helicopters and utility helicopters where maneuverability and exposure differ; and unmanned aerial vehicle classes range from rotary UAVs to strategic and tactical UAVs, each with unique size, power, and mission constraints. Understanding equipment type disaggregation reveals that hardware, services, and software demand different procurement cadences and business models, with hardware focused on qualification and logistics, services emphasizing sustainment and training, and software driving recurring update cycles.
Technology segmentation yields further insight because chaff, electronic countermeasures, and flares present divergent engineering, certification, and deployment characteristics; chaff and flares remain physically consumable while electronic countermeasures increasingly rely on software-defined waveforms and signal processing. System type analysis highlights how electronic warfare suites, infrared countermeasures, and missile warning systems interact within a layered defense posture; the infrared countermeasures domain itself divides between directed infrared countermeasures and flares, necessitating careful integration between point-defense systems and distributed countermeasure dispensers. Finally, end-use distinctions between aftermarket and original equipment manufacturer channels demonstrate differing procurement drivers: aftermarket demand focuses on retrofitability, sustainment, and field upgrades, whereas original equipment manufacturer acquisitions center on baseline integration and factory-fit certification. By weaving these segmentation dimensions together, decision-makers can prioritize capability insertions that align with platform constraints, program timelines, and sustainment philosophies.
How distinct regional modernization drives, export controls, and partnership dynamics in the Americas, Europe Middle East & Africa, and Asia-Pacific shape procurement and supplier strategy
Regional dynamics shape procurement priorities, supply chain strategies, and partnership opportunities in distinct ways. In the Americas, a sustained emphasis on modernization and coalition interoperability encourages investments in integrated electronic warfare suites, advanced missile warning sensors, and domestic supply chain upgrades, while defense industrial policy often incentivizes local manufacturing and sovereign capability development. Europe, Middle East & Africa exhibits a mix of legacy fleet upgrades and accelerated acquisition cycles driven by geopolitics, which elevates demand for retrofitable countermeasure systems and rapid supplier qualification to support urgent operational needs.
Asia-Pacific is characterized by intense regional modernization programs and a focus on asymmetric capabilities, driving demand for scalable solutions across manned and unmanned platforms. This environment also encourages multinational partnerships and technology transfers, coupled with regional supply chain investments to mitigate geopolitical risk. Across these regions, interoperability with coalition partners, certification pathways, and export compliance frameworks remain persistent considerations that influence vendor selection and procurement timing. Consequently, firms that can navigate regional regulatory environments, offer fast integration support, and provide clear sustainment pathways will be positioned to serve diverse regional priorities effectively.
Analysis of competitive positioning, technology specialization, and collaboration patterns that determine supplier success across platform integrations and aftermarket opportunities
The competitive landscape combines established defense primes, specialized avionics suppliers, and emerging technology firms focused on signal processing, sensing, and countermeasure lethality. Incumbent primes often leverage systems integration expertise, program management scale, and certification experience to win platform-level contracts and complex retrofits. Specialized suppliers differentiate through focused engineering capabilities in areas such as directed infrared countermeasures, passive and active missile warning sensors, and software-defined electronic warfare payloads. At the same time, agile technology entrants are pushing innovations in machine learning for threat discrimination, miniaturized optical sensors for small UAVs, and low-SWaP (size, weight and power) countermeasure dispensers that open new retrofit opportunities.
Partnerships and subcontracting patterns continue to evolve as primes seek to de-risk development and accelerate fielding through joint ventures and technology licensing. Suppliers that can demonstrate rigorous systems engineering, supply chain resilience, and clear lifecycle support plans gain preference in competitive procurements. For aftermarket opportunities, service providers offering integrated training, depot-level repair, and software sustainment contracts are increasingly strategic to maintain long-term revenue streams. Overall, the ecosystem rewards firms that combine technological differentiation with predictable delivery performance and deep understanding of aerospace certification and export compliance regimes.
Actionable strategic steps for primes and suppliers to improve integration speed, supply resilience, and lifecycle outcomes for survivability programs
Industry leaders should adopt a pragmatic, capability-focused approach to preserve competitiveness and program agility. First, prioritize modular open systems architectures and standard interfaces to reduce integration risk and enable rapid insertion of emergent countermeasure capabilities. This eases supplier change management, shortens upgrade cycles, and supports coalition interoperability. Second, strengthen supplier diversification and near-term inventory strategies to mitigate exposure to trade policy shocks and single-source dependencies, while investing in supplier qualification programs that broaden domestic and allied sourcing options.
Third, accelerate investments in software-defined capabilities and secure update mechanisms so that waveform revisions, threat libraries, and algorithmic improvements can be deployed with minimal platform downtime. Fourth, align sustainment contracts to incentivize performance-based logistics and lifecycle responsibility, enabling predictable readiness outcomes and clearer total-cost-of-ownership signals. Finally, cultivate cross-domain partnerships-linking avionics, mission systems, and training providers-to present integrated offerings that lower systems-integration risk for primes and end users. Collectively, these actions will improve fielding speed, resilience to supply disruptions, and long-term cost-effectiveness of survivability programs.
Methodology combining stakeholder interviews, technical document review, and scenario analysis to derive practical, engineering-grounded insights into survivability challenges
Research combined primary engagements with defense procurement officers, program managers, systems engineers, and supplier executives, alongside secondary analysis of open-source technical papers, regulatory guidance, and certification frameworks. Qualitative interviews targeted stakeholders responsible for requirement definition, systems integration, and sustainment, ensuring perspectives spanned platform primes, subsystem vendors, and end users. In parallel, technical assessments evaluated interoperability standards, interface control documents, and typical qualification pathways to corroborate interview insights and identify recurring integration challenges.
Analytical processes emphasized cross-validation between stakeholder feedback and technical documents to surface persistent capability gaps and supply chain risks. Scenario analysis was used to test sensitivity of procurement timelines to factors such as trade measures, supplier disruptions, and emergent threat sets. Wherever possible, engineering-level considerations-such as SWaP constraints, EMI/EMC interaction, and certification timelines-were integrated into qualitative assessments to ground strategic recommendations in practical program realities. The methodology thus balances frontline practitioner input with technical review to produce findings that are both actionable and defensible.
Concluding synthesis on embedding modularity, supply resilience, and software agility into survivability programs to maintain operational credibility in contested environments
Modernizing aircraft survivability equipment requires balancing technological ambition with pragmatic program execution. The convergence of advanced seekers, networked targeting, and software-driven countermeasures elevates the need for modular solutions, resilient supply chains, and interoperable interfaces. Programs that embed these principles early in acquisition achieve greater agility to adapt as threat vectors evolve and as trade and geopolitical conditions change.
Going forward, sustained investment in secure software update mechanisms, diversified sourcing strategies, and robust qualification pathways will determine which programs can field upgraded survivability capabilities without onerous schedule or cost impacts. Decision-makers should treat survivability not as a peripheral add-on but as an integral element of mission planning, platform design, and international interoperability. Doing so will ensure aircraft remain operationally credible in contested environments and that defense organizations can respond rapidly to emergent threats while managing industrial and fiscal constraints.
Please Note: PDF & Excel + Online Access - 1 Year
Table of Contents
197 Pages
- 1. Preface
- 1.1. Objectives of the Study
- 1.2. Market Segmentation & Coverage
- 1.3. Years Considered for the Study
- 1.4. Currency
- 1.5. Language
- 1.6. Stakeholders
- 2. Research Methodology
- 3. Executive Summary
- 4. Market Overview
- 5. Market Insights
- 5.1. Integration of digital twin modeling in predictive maintenance for survivability equipment
- 5.2. Adoption of multi-sensor infrared missile warning systems for low observable aircraft
- 5.3. Implementation of AI-driven electronic warfare countermeasure optimization in modern platforms
- 5.4. Development of lightweight composite flare and chaff dispensers for vertical lift aircraft
- 5.5. Expansion of software-defined radio jammers for networked cooperative self-protection
- 5.6. Rising investment in directed energy defensive systems for next-generation fighter jets
- 5.7. Collaboration between defense contractors and startup accelerators to innovate survivability tech
- 6. Cumulative Impact of United States Tariffs 2025
- 7. Cumulative Impact of Artificial Intelligence 2025
- 8. Aircraft Survivability Equipment Market, by Platform Type
- 8.1. Fixed Wing
- 8.1.1. Fighter Aircraft
- 8.1.2. Surveillance Aircraft
- 8.1.3. Transport Aircraft
- 8.2. Rotary Wing
- 8.2.1. Attack Helicopter
- 8.2.2. Utility Helicopter
- 8.3. Unmanned Aerial Vehicle
- 8.3.1. Rotary UAV
- 8.3.2. Strategic UAV
- 8.3.3. Tactical UAV
- 9. Aircraft Survivability Equipment Market, by Equipment Type
- 9.1. Hardware
- 9.2. Services
- 9.3. Software
- 10. Aircraft Survivability Equipment Market, by Technology
- 10.1. Chaff
- 10.2. Electronic Countermeasures
- 10.3. Flares
- 11. Aircraft Survivability Equipment Market, by System Type
- 11.1. Electronic Warfare
- 11.2. Infrared Countermeasures
- 11.2.1. Directed Infrared Countermeasures
- 11.2.2. Flares
- 11.3. Missile Warning System
- 12. Aircraft Survivability Equipment Market, by End Use
- 12.1. Aftermarket
- 12.2. Original Equipment Manufacturer
- 13. Aircraft Survivability Equipment Market, by Region
- 13.1. Americas
- 13.1.1. North America
- 13.1.2. Latin America
- 13.2. Europe, Middle East & Africa
- 13.2.1. Europe
- 13.2.2. Middle East
- 13.2.3. Africa
- 13.3. Asia-Pacific
- 14. Aircraft Survivability Equipment Market, by Group
- 14.1. ASEAN
- 14.2. GCC
- 14.3. European Union
- 14.4. BRICS
- 14.5. G7
- 14.6. NATO
- 15. Aircraft Survivability Equipment Market, by Country
- 15.1. United States
- 15.2. Canada
- 15.3. Mexico
- 15.4. Brazil
- 15.5. United Kingdom
- 15.6. Germany
- 15.7. France
- 15.8. Russia
- 15.9. Italy
- 15.10. Spain
- 15.11. China
- 15.12. India
- 15.13. Japan
- 15.14. Australia
- 15.15. South Korea
- 16. Competitive Landscape
- 16.1. Market Share Analysis, 2024
- 16.2. FPNV Positioning Matrix, 2024
- 16.3. Competitive Analysis
- 16.3.1. BAE Systems plc
- 16.3.2. Northrop Grumman Corporation
- 16.3.3. RTX Corporation
- 16.3.4. Lockheed Martin Corporation
- 16.3.5. Thales Group S.A.
- 16.3.6. Leonardo S.p.A.
- 16.3.7. Saab AB
- 16.3.8. Elbit Systems Ltd.
- 16.3.9. Israel Aerospace Industries Ltd.
- 16.3.10. Aselsan A.S.
- 16.3.11. Chemring Group plc
- 16.3.12. L3Harris Technologies, Inc.
- 16.3.13. General Dynamics Corporation
- 16.3.14. Airbus SE
- 16.3.15. Rheinmetall AG
Pricing
Currency Rates
Questions or Comments?
Our team has the ability to search within reports to verify it suits your needs. We can also help maximize your budget by finding sections of reports you can purchase.
