Close-in Weapon System Market by Weapon Type (Gun System, Laser System, Missile System), Platform (Aircraft, Land Vehicle, Naval Vessel), Component, Range, End User - Global Forecast 2025-2032
Description
The Close-in Weapon System Market was valued at USD 6.05 billion in 2024 and is projected to grow to USD 6.75 billion in 2025, with a CAGR of 11.76%, reaching USD 14.73 billion by 2032.
Introduction to modern close-in weapon system dynamics, operational roles, technological drivers, and strategic drivers for defense procurement decisions
Close-in weapon systems (CIWS) remain a critical layer of defense across maritime, land, and air domains, providing last-line protection against high-speed, low-signature threats. Recent operational deployments and doctrinal evolutions have emphasized the need for rapid detection, decisive engagement, and integrated command-and-control to neutralize incoming precision munitions, small unmanned systems, and swarming tactics. As platforms proliferate and threat sets diversify, acquisition decisions increasingly prioritize systems that can be integrated across multiple platforms and updated to counter emergent attack profiles.
Technological maturation in sensing, fire-control algorithms, and effectors has created new options for mission planners, but this complexity also raises questions about interoperability, sustainment, and total life-cycle logistics. Consequently, procurement stakeholders must weigh trade-offs between traditional gun systems, emerging laser systems, and missile-based defenses when specifying requirements. These trade-offs are driven not only by technical performance but also by integration timelines, maintenance architectures, and cross-domain operational concepts. In short, modern CIWS planning is as much about systems-of-systems orchestration as it is about individual weapon effectiveness.
Transformative shifts reshaping close-in weapon system design, deployment, and integration driven by autonomous sensing, directed energy, and modular armaments
The landscape of close-in defensive technologies is undergoing transformative shifts as directed-energy solutions, autonomous sensing, and modular design philosophies mature. Directed-energy options offer the promise of lower per-engagement costs and virtually limitless magazines subject to power and cooling constraints, while advances in fiber and solid-state laser technologies are shortening the gap between laboratory demonstrations and fielded capability. At the same time, improved electro-optical sensors and radar processing enable faster target discrimination, enabling fire-control systems to execute engagement sequences with reduced operator burden.
Simultaneously, autonomy and improved tracking modules are reshaping human-machine interaction. Automated cueing and tracking allow decision timelines to compress, but they also impose stricter requirements on validation, rules-of-engagement logic, and cybersecurity resilience. Modular mounting and plug-and-play component designs facilitate rapid upgrades and multi-platform deployment across fixed-wing aircraft, helicopters, unmanned aerial vehicles, armored vehicles, fixed installations, naval vessels, and mobile launchers. Taken together, these shifts are accelerating the transition from single-purpose CIWS units to integrated defensive ecosystems that emphasize adaptability, networking, and cross-domain coordination.
Cumulative impact of United States tariffs 2025 on procurement, supply chains, component sourcing, and collaboration among allied and domestic defense suppliers
The introduction of tariffs and trade policy adjustments can materially alter procurement timelines, sourcing strategies, and supplier relationships in defense supply chains. Tariff measures influence component selection, favoring suppliers within preferential trade agreements or domestically sourced alternatives when duty impacts are significant. This can prompt prime contractors and subsystem suppliers to reevaluate their tiered sourcing plans and to accelerate localization of critical components such as fire-control electronics, cooling subsystems, and key sensor elements to manage cost and schedule exposure.
In addition, tariff-driven shifts can change collaborative dynamics with international partners. When duties affect imported subassemblies, defense programs may pursue deeper co-production arrangements, transfer of technical data under offset agreements, or the relocation of certain manufacturing steps to allied jurisdictions. These adaptations have implications for program risk profiles, lead times, and contractual terms, including warranties and performance guarantees. Consequently, program managers should consider tariff sensitivity when structuring long-lead procurements and when negotiating supply agreements that cover technology transfer, liability allocation, and supply resilience.
Key segmentation insights that illuminate weapon type, platform, component, range, and end-user drivers to guide capability prioritization and procurement choices
An effective segmentation lens clarifies where capability investments and industrial effort should be focused. Based on weapon type, decision-makers must weigh traditional gun systems-including rotary cannon and single-barrel designs-against laser systems split between fiber laser and solid-state architectures, and missile systems that differentiate guided missiles from heat-seeking missiles; each pathway introduces distinct integration, sustainment, and logistics demands. Based on platform considerations, systems must be evaluated for compatibility with aircraft variants such as fixed-wing, helicopter, and unmanned aerial vehicle platforms, for land vehicle installations ranging from armored vehicles to fixed installations and mobile launchers, and for naval vessel classes including amphibious ships, patrol vessels, and warships, each of which imposes distinct constraints on size, weight, power, and environmental hardening.
Further granularity emerges when examining components where ammunition choices-explosive projectiles versus kinetic rounds-interact with cooling strategies such as air cooling versus liquid cooling, and with fire control subdivisions encompassing target acquisition modules and tracking modules. Mounting choices between fixed and swivel systems, and sensor differentiation between electro-optical instruments and radar, also shape integration timelines and interoperability. Range segmentation-medium, short, and very short range-directly informs tactical employment and layered defense concepts. Finally, user segmentation across defense forces, which includes air force, army, and navy components, and homeland security entities such as border patrol, coast guard, and urban security units, determines prioritization of features like rapid engagement, footprint minimization, and ease of operation for non-specialist units. Together, these segmentation vectors provide an analytical foundation for capability trade-offs and investment prioritization.
Key regional insights examining demand, industrial strengths, interoperability priorities, and procurement strategies across the Americas, EMEA and Asia-Pacific
Regional dynamics shape procurement priorities, industrial participation, and interoperability objectives in distinct ways. In the Americas, procurement emphasis commonly reflects naval modernization programs, coastal security missions, and integration with allied maritime tasking; industrial collaboration frequently centers on domestic primes and specialized suppliers that can meet lifecycle sustainment expectations. In Europe, Middle East & Africa, interoperability with multinational forces, integration onto legacy platforms, and domestic defense industrial policies determine acquisition pathways; partners often balance multinational procurement frameworks with national sovereignty considerations when selecting systems.
Across Asia-Pacific, demand is driven by maritime domain awareness, island defense postures, and high-tempo littoral operations, prompting interest in both hardkill and softkill capabilities optimized for distributed operations. Regional power projection and proximity-driven threat perceptions accelerate interest in modular systems that can be adapted for both coastal patrol vessels and larger combatants. In each region, procurement authorities weigh industrial participation, local maintenance capabilities, and interoperability with coalition assets when defining acceptance criteria and sustainment strategies. These regional distinctions underline the importance of tailored engagement strategies for vendors and program planners operating across multiple theaters.
Company insights on strategic positions, product portfolios, R&D priorities, partnership models, and differentiators among prime firms and niche suppliers
Leading firms and emerging specialists are shaping the CIWS competitive environment through concentrated investments in R&D, strategic partnerships, and focused product roadmaps. Prime firms typically emphasize integrated systems that combine advanced fire control, multi-sensor fusion, and proven effectors to deliver full-system solutions that meet platform-level integration requirements. Specialized suppliers concentrate on component innovation, such as high-reliability cooling systems, compact power electronics for directed-energy options, and advanced electro-optical sensors that reduce false alarm rates in cluttered littoral environments.
Across the supplier base, strategic moves include joint ventures to access new industrial bases, licensing arrangements to facilitate local production, and modular design approaches that accelerate upgrades while managing obsolescence. Companies are also investing in simulation and testing capabilities to demonstrate performance against contemporary threat profiles and to support risk-reduction for acquisition authorities. These strategic behaviors influence procurement roadmaps and create differentiation in response times, upgradeability, and total life-cycle risk exposure for end users.
Actionable recommendations to accelerate capability integration, optimize sustainment, and align procurement with emerging threats and interoperability requirements
To remain competitive and reduce program risk, industry leaders should adopt specific, actionable measures that bridge near-term operational needs with long-term capability goals. First, prioritize modular architectures and standardized interfaces to enable rapid capability insertion and reduce platform-specific integration costs. Next, invest in robust validation and verification regimes for autonomous targeting functions, ensuring that rules-of-engagement logic, human-in-the-loop pathways, and cybersecurity protections are demonstrable under realistic conditions. Additionally, develop resilient supply strategies that diversify sourcing for critical components-such as sensors, cooling subsystems, and power electronics-through a mix of qualified domestic suppliers and allied manufacturing partnerships to mitigate trade policy and logistics disruptions.
Moreover, leaders should pursue collaborative testing with end users to refine maintenance concepts and to validate sustainment procedures in the intended operating environment. Finally, align commercial and operational roadmaps by offering scalable sustainment contracts and training packages that enable smaller end-user units, including coast guard and urban security units, to field advanced capabilities without excessive overhead. These steps will enhance competitiveness while reducing procurement and operational friction for customers.
Research methodology outlining data collection, expert interviews, component mapping, validation, and analytical frameworks to ensure robust and replicable findings
The research approach integrates qualitative and evidence-driven methods to ensure robust, replicable conclusions. Primary data collection includes structured interviews with subject-matter experts, program managers, platform integrators, and procurement officers to capture operational priorities, integration challenges, and sustainment expectations. Technical assessment draws on component-level analysis of ammunition types, cooling architectures, fire-control modules, mounting solutions, and sensor suites, complemented by system integration reviews on representative platform classes.
Secondary sources include open-source technical literature, defense technical reports, and verified supplier documentation used to triangulate claims and to validate product capabilities. Analytical frameworks bring together capability-readiness scoring, integration risk matrices, and scenario-based performance assessments to compare technology pathways and to identify critical enablers and chokepoints. Validation of findings is achieved through cross-referencing interview inputs with documented field trials and public demonstrations, and through peer review by independent technical advisors to minimize bias and to enhance reproducibility.
Conclusion synthesizing implications for defense stakeholders and industry partners to inform near-term priorities and strategic capability planning
Synthesis of the research highlights that modern CIWS decision-making is driven by the interplay of threat evolution, technology maturation, supply resilience, and regional mission priorities. Decision-makers should adopt a layered approach that balances mature kinetic options with directed-energy investments where power, cooling, and integration constraints permit, while also planning for modular upgrades to keep pace with autonomous sensing and improved fire-control capabilities. Supply-chain resilience and interoperability commitments are equally central, shaping vendor selection and program architecture to ensure that capabilities remain supportable during extended operations.
In closing, practitioners and planners should treat CIWS procurement as both a tactical procurement and a strategic industrial engagement. Effective programs will synchronize platform integration, supplier ecosystems, and sustainment models to deliver reliable defensive capability where it is most needed. By doing so, defense stakeholders can manage risk, enhance operational readiness, and maintain flexibility to respond to emergent threats and evolving mission profiles.
Note: PDF & Excel + Online Access - 1 Year
Introduction to modern close-in weapon system dynamics, operational roles, technological drivers, and strategic drivers for defense procurement decisions
Close-in weapon systems (CIWS) remain a critical layer of defense across maritime, land, and air domains, providing last-line protection against high-speed, low-signature threats. Recent operational deployments and doctrinal evolutions have emphasized the need for rapid detection, decisive engagement, and integrated command-and-control to neutralize incoming precision munitions, small unmanned systems, and swarming tactics. As platforms proliferate and threat sets diversify, acquisition decisions increasingly prioritize systems that can be integrated across multiple platforms and updated to counter emergent attack profiles.
Technological maturation in sensing, fire-control algorithms, and effectors has created new options for mission planners, but this complexity also raises questions about interoperability, sustainment, and total life-cycle logistics. Consequently, procurement stakeholders must weigh trade-offs between traditional gun systems, emerging laser systems, and missile-based defenses when specifying requirements. These trade-offs are driven not only by technical performance but also by integration timelines, maintenance architectures, and cross-domain operational concepts. In short, modern CIWS planning is as much about systems-of-systems orchestration as it is about individual weapon effectiveness.
Transformative shifts reshaping close-in weapon system design, deployment, and integration driven by autonomous sensing, directed energy, and modular armaments
The landscape of close-in defensive technologies is undergoing transformative shifts as directed-energy solutions, autonomous sensing, and modular design philosophies mature. Directed-energy options offer the promise of lower per-engagement costs and virtually limitless magazines subject to power and cooling constraints, while advances in fiber and solid-state laser technologies are shortening the gap between laboratory demonstrations and fielded capability. At the same time, improved electro-optical sensors and radar processing enable faster target discrimination, enabling fire-control systems to execute engagement sequences with reduced operator burden.
Simultaneously, autonomy and improved tracking modules are reshaping human-machine interaction. Automated cueing and tracking allow decision timelines to compress, but they also impose stricter requirements on validation, rules-of-engagement logic, and cybersecurity resilience. Modular mounting and plug-and-play component designs facilitate rapid upgrades and multi-platform deployment across fixed-wing aircraft, helicopters, unmanned aerial vehicles, armored vehicles, fixed installations, naval vessels, and mobile launchers. Taken together, these shifts are accelerating the transition from single-purpose CIWS units to integrated defensive ecosystems that emphasize adaptability, networking, and cross-domain coordination.
Cumulative impact of United States tariffs 2025 on procurement, supply chains, component sourcing, and collaboration among allied and domestic defense suppliers
The introduction of tariffs and trade policy adjustments can materially alter procurement timelines, sourcing strategies, and supplier relationships in defense supply chains. Tariff measures influence component selection, favoring suppliers within preferential trade agreements or domestically sourced alternatives when duty impacts are significant. This can prompt prime contractors and subsystem suppliers to reevaluate their tiered sourcing plans and to accelerate localization of critical components such as fire-control electronics, cooling subsystems, and key sensor elements to manage cost and schedule exposure.
In addition, tariff-driven shifts can change collaborative dynamics with international partners. When duties affect imported subassemblies, defense programs may pursue deeper co-production arrangements, transfer of technical data under offset agreements, or the relocation of certain manufacturing steps to allied jurisdictions. These adaptations have implications for program risk profiles, lead times, and contractual terms, including warranties and performance guarantees. Consequently, program managers should consider tariff sensitivity when structuring long-lead procurements and when negotiating supply agreements that cover technology transfer, liability allocation, and supply resilience.
Key segmentation insights that illuminate weapon type, platform, component, range, and end-user drivers to guide capability prioritization and procurement choices
An effective segmentation lens clarifies where capability investments and industrial effort should be focused. Based on weapon type, decision-makers must weigh traditional gun systems-including rotary cannon and single-barrel designs-against laser systems split between fiber laser and solid-state architectures, and missile systems that differentiate guided missiles from heat-seeking missiles; each pathway introduces distinct integration, sustainment, and logistics demands. Based on platform considerations, systems must be evaluated for compatibility with aircraft variants such as fixed-wing, helicopter, and unmanned aerial vehicle platforms, for land vehicle installations ranging from armored vehicles to fixed installations and mobile launchers, and for naval vessel classes including amphibious ships, patrol vessels, and warships, each of which imposes distinct constraints on size, weight, power, and environmental hardening.
Further granularity emerges when examining components where ammunition choices-explosive projectiles versus kinetic rounds-interact with cooling strategies such as air cooling versus liquid cooling, and with fire control subdivisions encompassing target acquisition modules and tracking modules. Mounting choices between fixed and swivel systems, and sensor differentiation between electro-optical instruments and radar, also shape integration timelines and interoperability. Range segmentation-medium, short, and very short range-directly informs tactical employment and layered defense concepts. Finally, user segmentation across defense forces, which includes air force, army, and navy components, and homeland security entities such as border patrol, coast guard, and urban security units, determines prioritization of features like rapid engagement, footprint minimization, and ease of operation for non-specialist units. Together, these segmentation vectors provide an analytical foundation for capability trade-offs and investment prioritization.
Key regional insights examining demand, industrial strengths, interoperability priorities, and procurement strategies across the Americas, EMEA and Asia-Pacific
Regional dynamics shape procurement priorities, industrial participation, and interoperability objectives in distinct ways. In the Americas, procurement emphasis commonly reflects naval modernization programs, coastal security missions, and integration with allied maritime tasking; industrial collaboration frequently centers on domestic primes and specialized suppliers that can meet lifecycle sustainment expectations. In Europe, Middle East & Africa, interoperability with multinational forces, integration onto legacy platforms, and domestic defense industrial policies determine acquisition pathways; partners often balance multinational procurement frameworks with national sovereignty considerations when selecting systems.
Across Asia-Pacific, demand is driven by maritime domain awareness, island defense postures, and high-tempo littoral operations, prompting interest in both hardkill and softkill capabilities optimized for distributed operations. Regional power projection and proximity-driven threat perceptions accelerate interest in modular systems that can be adapted for both coastal patrol vessels and larger combatants. In each region, procurement authorities weigh industrial participation, local maintenance capabilities, and interoperability with coalition assets when defining acceptance criteria and sustainment strategies. These regional distinctions underline the importance of tailored engagement strategies for vendors and program planners operating across multiple theaters.
Company insights on strategic positions, product portfolios, R&D priorities, partnership models, and differentiators among prime firms and niche suppliers
Leading firms and emerging specialists are shaping the CIWS competitive environment through concentrated investments in R&D, strategic partnerships, and focused product roadmaps. Prime firms typically emphasize integrated systems that combine advanced fire control, multi-sensor fusion, and proven effectors to deliver full-system solutions that meet platform-level integration requirements. Specialized suppliers concentrate on component innovation, such as high-reliability cooling systems, compact power electronics for directed-energy options, and advanced electro-optical sensors that reduce false alarm rates in cluttered littoral environments.
Across the supplier base, strategic moves include joint ventures to access new industrial bases, licensing arrangements to facilitate local production, and modular design approaches that accelerate upgrades while managing obsolescence. Companies are also investing in simulation and testing capabilities to demonstrate performance against contemporary threat profiles and to support risk-reduction for acquisition authorities. These strategic behaviors influence procurement roadmaps and create differentiation in response times, upgradeability, and total life-cycle risk exposure for end users.
Actionable recommendations to accelerate capability integration, optimize sustainment, and align procurement with emerging threats and interoperability requirements
To remain competitive and reduce program risk, industry leaders should adopt specific, actionable measures that bridge near-term operational needs with long-term capability goals. First, prioritize modular architectures and standardized interfaces to enable rapid capability insertion and reduce platform-specific integration costs. Next, invest in robust validation and verification regimes for autonomous targeting functions, ensuring that rules-of-engagement logic, human-in-the-loop pathways, and cybersecurity protections are demonstrable under realistic conditions. Additionally, develop resilient supply strategies that diversify sourcing for critical components-such as sensors, cooling subsystems, and power electronics-through a mix of qualified domestic suppliers and allied manufacturing partnerships to mitigate trade policy and logistics disruptions.
Moreover, leaders should pursue collaborative testing with end users to refine maintenance concepts and to validate sustainment procedures in the intended operating environment. Finally, align commercial and operational roadmaps by offering scalable sustainment contracts and training packages that enable smaller end-user units, including coast guard and urban security units, to field advanced capabilities without excessive overhead. These steps will enhance competitiveness while reducing procurement and operational friction for customers.
Research methodology outlining data collection, expert interviews, component mapping, validation, and analytical frameworks to ensure robust and replicable findings
The research approach integrates qualitative and evidence-driven methods to ensure robust, replicable conclusions. Primary data collection includes structured interviews with subject-matter experts, program managers, platform integrators, and procurement officers to capture operational priorities, integration challenges, and sustainment expectations. Technical assessment draws on component-level analysis of ammunition types, cooling architectures, fire-control modules, mounting solutions, and sensor suites, complemented by system integration reviews on representative platform classes.
Secondary sources include open-source technical literature, defense technical reports, and verified supplier documentation used to triangulate claims and to validate product capabilities. Analytical frameworks bring together capability-readiness scoring, integration risk matrices, and scenario-based performance assessments to compare technology pathways and to identify critical enablers and chokepoints. Validation of findings is achieved through cross-referencing interview inputs with documented field trials and public demonstrations, and through peer review by independent technical advisors to minimize bias and to enhance reproducibility.
Conclusion synthesizing implications for defense stakeholders and industry partners to inform near-term priorities and strategic capability planning
Synthesis of the research highlights that modern CIWS decision-making is driven by the interplay of threat evolution, technology maturation, supply resilience, and regional mission priorities. Decision-makers should adopt a layered approach that balances mature kinetic options with directed-energy investments where power, cooling, and integration constraints permit, while also planning for modular upgrades to keep pace with autonomous sensing and improved fire-control capabilities. Supply-chain resilience and interoperability commitments are equally central, shaping vendor selection and program architecture to ensure that capabilities remain supportable during extended operations.
In closing, practitioners and planners should treat CIWS procurement as both a tactical procurement and a strategic industrial engagement. Effective programs will synchronize platform integration, supplier ecosystems, and sustainment models to deliver reliable defensive capability where it is most needed. By doing so, defense stakeholders can manage risk, enhance operational readiness, and maintain flexibility to respond to emergent threats and evolving mission profiles.
Note: PDF & Excel + Online Access - 1 Year
Table of Contents
199 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 multi-spectral electro-optical tracking and active radar seekers to enhance CIWS target detection in littoral environments
- 5.2. Deployment of hybrid directed energy and kinetic interceptors in naval CIWS to counter hypersonic missile threats
- 5.3. Adoption of AI-driven fire control algorithms for predictive threat prioritization and engagement in CIWS platforms
- 5.4. Development of modular plug and play CIWS architectures for rapid mission-specific payload reconfiguration on combat vessels
- 5.5. Increasing demand for remotely operated and networked CIWS with integrated C4ISR connectivity for fleet-wide situational awareness
- 5.6. Evolution of low-collateral damage munitions and non-lethal countermeasures within CIWS for asymmetric maritime security operations
- 6. Cumulative Impact of United States Tariffs 2025
- 7. Cumulative Impact of Artificial Intelligence 2025
- 8. Close-in Weapon System Market, by Weapon Type
- 8.1. Gun System
- 8.1.1. Rotary Cannon
- 8.1.2. Single Barrel
- 8.2. Laser System
- 8.2.1. Fiber Laser
- 8.2.2. Solid-State Laser
- 8.3. Missile System
- 8.3.1. Guided Missile
- 8.3.2. Heat-Seeking Missile
- 9. Close-in Weapon System Market, by Platform
- 9.1. Aircraft
- 9.1.1. Fixed-Wing
- 9.1.2. Helicopter
- 9.1.3. Unmanned Aerial Vehicle
- 9.2. Land Vehicle
- 9.2.1. Armored Vehicle
- 9.2.2. Fixed Installation
- 9.2.3. Mobile Launcher
- 9.3. Naval Vessel
- 9.3.1. Amphibious Ship
- 9.3.2. Patrol Vessel
- 9.3.3. Warship
- 10. Close-in Weapon System Market, by Component
- 10.1. Ammunition
- 10.1.1. Explosive Projectiles
- 10.1.2. Kinetic Rounds
- 10.2. Cooling System
- 10.2.1. Air Cooling
- 10.2.2. Liquid Cooling
- 10.3. Fire Control System
- 10.3.1. Target Acquisition Module
- 10.3.2. Tracking Module
- 10.4. Mounting
- 10.4.1. Fixed Mounting
- 10.4.2. Swivel Mounting
- 10.5. Sensor
- 10.5.1. Electro-Optical Sensor
- 10.5.2. Radar
- 11. Close-in Weapon System Market, by Range
- 11.1. Medium Range
- 11.2. Short Range
- 11.3. Very Short Range
- 12. Close-in Weapon System Market, by End User
- 12.1. Defense Forces
- 12.1.1. Air Force
- 12.1.2. Army
- 12.1.3. Navy
- 12.2. Homeland Security
- 12.2.1. Border Patrol
- 12.2.2. Coast Guard
- 12.2.3. Urban Security Units
- 13. Close-in Weapon System 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. Close-in Weapon System Market, by Group
- 14.1. ASEAN
- 14.2. GCC
- 14.3. European Union
- 14.4. BRICS
- 14.5. G7
- 14.6. NATO
- 15. Close-in Weapon System 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. ASELSAN A.Ş.
- 16.3.2. BAE Systems plc
- 16.3.3. Hindustan Aeronautics Limited
- 16.3.4. JSC Instrument Design Bureau
- 16.3.5. JSC United Shipbuilding Corporation
- 16.3.6. Kongsberg Gruppen ASA
- 16.3.7. Leonardo S.p.A.
- 16.3.8. LIG Nex1 Co., Ltd.
- 16.3.9. Lockheed Martin Corporation
- 16.3.10. MBDA SAS
- 16.3.11. Naval Group SA
- 16.3.12. Northrop Grumman Corporation
- 16.3.13. Rafael Advanced Defense Systems Ltd.
- 16.3.14. Rheinmetall AG
- 16.3.15. RTX Corporation
- 16.3.16. Saab AB
- 16.3.17. Singapore Technologies Engineering Ltd.
- 16.3.18. Tata Advanced Systems Limited
- 16.3.19. Thales Group
- 16.3.20. The Boeing Company
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.
