Naval Combat Systems Market Size and Share

Naval Combat Systems Market (2025 - 2030)
Image © Mordor Intelligence. Reuse requires attribution under CC BY 4.0.

Naval Combat Systems Market Analysis by Mordor Intelligence

The naval combat systems market size is valued at USD 53.65 billion in 2025 and is projected to reach USD 73.48 billion in 2030, delivering a 6.49% CAGR. The current expansion is propelled by simultaneous fleet-modernization programs, fast-maturing directed-energy technologies, and the rapid move toward distributed, unmanned naval architectures that reshape mission concepts and crew models. Growing investment in integrated combat-management suites, rising demand for electronic-warfare and C4ISR capabilities, and steady progress in DevSecOps pipelines all reinforce long-term spending momentum. Meanwhile, accelerated acquisition of unmanned surface and underwater vehicles redefines naval force structure, enabling persistent ISR and low-risk strike missions across contested seas. North American dominance is underpinned by the US Navy's large modernization budget. However, Asia-Pacific's growth outpaces all regions as China's third aircraft carrier and regional counter-moves from India, Japan, South Korea, and Australia spur parallel procurement cycles.

Key Report Takeaways

  • By type, weapon systems led with 45.65% of the naval combat systems market share in 2024, while directed-energy weapons are forecasted to expand at a 9.63% CAGR to 2030.
  • By platform, destroyers accounted for 25.67% of the naval combat systems market size in 2024; unmanned surface vessels are projected to grow at an 8.34% CAGR through 2030.
  • By geography, North America held 37.89% revenue share in 2024, but Asia-Pacific records the highest projected CAGR at 6.71% to 2030.

Segment Analysis

By Type: Directed-Energy Systems Accelerate Transition

Directed Energy Weapons claimed the fastest trajectory with a 9.63% CAGR forecast, supported by successful HELIOS proofs aboard Burke-class destroyers that validated beam-control stability at sea. Weapon Systems still hold a 45.65% slice of the naval combat systems market share for 2024, reflecting enduring demand for kinetic strike but acknowledging an inflection toward energy arms. Electronic-warfare suites secured multiyear funding upticks because electromagnetic denial dominates early-phase conflict. C4ISR packages ride the same wave, driven by a joint all-domain doctrine that links space, air, and surface sensors. Integrated combat software anchors every package, allowing navies to deploy updates between patrols and protecting the naval combat systems market size advantage for primes able to scale agile pipelines. Unmanned sea-system payload bays are being pre-wired for directed-energy turrets, ensuring backwards compatibility with future high-power modules. Training and simulation investments keep pace, as evidenced by the USD 563 million contract to J.F. Taylor, without which crews could not rehearse complex multi-domain kill chains.

Naval Combat Systems Market: Market Share by Type
Image © Mordor Intelligence. Reuse requires attribution under CC BY 4.0.

Note: Segment shares of all individual segments available upon report purchase

Get Detailed Market Forecasts at the Most Granular Levels
Download PDF

By Platform: Unmanned Surface Vessels Redefine Force Design

Destroyers dominate high-end integration budgets, holding 25.67% of 2024 spending yet sharing the spotlight with unmanned surface vessels that grow at 8.34% CAGR. Jack H. Lucas (DDG 125) delivered with SPY-6 and virtualized Aegis stacks, cementing destroyers as premier test beds for next-gen suites. Frigates are rebounding as cost-controlled multi-mission assets; Australia is weighing Japan’s Mogami-class to hedge delivery risk. Corvettes maintain regional deterrence roles but rely on exportable combat suites rather than bespoke fits. Submarines remain strategic, validated by Norway’s Ula-class mid-life upgrade contract. Aircraft carriers carry the heaviest integration burden yet face protracted certification gates, demonstrated by USS Gerald R. Ford’s extended trials. Littoral Combat Ships pivot to mine-countermeasure conversion as survivability debates erode blue-water missions. Unmanned underwater vehicles join surface drones to deliver distributed lethality. Collectively, these patterns elevate software portability, ensuring any hull—manned or unmanned can run common combat-system kernels, sustaining long-term expansion of the naval combat systems market.

Naval Combat Systems Market: Market Share by Platform
Image © Mordor Intelligence. Reuse requires attribution under CC BY 4.0.

Note: Segment shares of all individual segments available upon report purchase

Get Detailed Market Forecasts at the Most Granular Levels
Download PDF

Geography Analysis

North America retained 37.89% of 2024 revenue as the largest regional naval combat systems market contributor. The US Navy’s FY25 topline preserved multi-billion funding lines for Aegis, Next Generation Jammer, and the long-range surface drone program that added 49 hulls in 2024. HII’s USD 3 billion umbrella contract amplifies the region’s pull-through effect on subsystem suppliers. At the same time, partnerships with South Korean yards hint at a blended production model that externalises capacity to allies. Canada’s CSC frigate and Mexico’s OPV modernization widen the customer base, though still modest in dollar terms. Across the region, primes prioritise secure DevSecOps pipelines to comply with zero-trust directives and protect an expansive naval combat systems market.

Asia-Pacific is the fastest-growing theatre at 6.71% CAGR to 2030. Fujian’s sea trials triggered accelerated Japanese, Indian, and Korean fleet renewals; each now embeds open-architecture combat suites to guarantee allied plug-in during coalition missions. Australia’s decision to double its surface fleet unleashes a USD 10 billion opportunity actively courted by Japanese yards offering the Mogami-class. The Hudson Institute reports that Japan could fill US capacity gaps by exporting turnkey combatants, a scenario that multiplies subsystem orders anchored in the naval combat systems market. India’s adoption of KONGSBERG logistics suites for five ships widens Scandinavian supplier reach.

Europe shows steady, policy-driven growth. Berlin’s 2035 naval plan funds modular combat suites for F126 frigates, prioritising software refresh over hull count. Paris co-finances Horizon destroyer upgrades with Rome, reinforcing Franco-Italian radar and missile chains. London’s Type 83 concept champions a software-centric core but grapples with pacing against cyber-hardening targets. Madrid and Oslo upgrade legacy tonnage through competitively tendered CMS refits. While aggregated European budgets trail US outlays, pooled R&D and standardised interfaces sustain a robust, export-oriented Naval Combat Systems market.

Naval Combat Systems Market CAGR (%), Growth Rate by Region
Image © Mordor Intelligence. Reuse requires attribution under CC BY 4.0.
Get Analysis on Important Geographic Markets
Download PDF

Competitive Landscape

Market concentration remains moderate as primes exploit integration track records while new entrants target micro-niches. Lockheed Martin virtualised Aegis to cut upgrade windows from months to hours, preserving incumbency on US and allied programs. BAE Systems leverages combat-air synergies to pitch cross-domain mission data clouds. RTX doubles down on gallium-nitride radar monopolies but hedges supply risk by co-funding alternative wafer fabrication lines. HII couples shipbuilding with autonomous-systems IP, evidenced by the Lionfish SUUV milestone shipment. Saab and Babcock form mid-tier coalitions to chase exportable surface combatants that tilt European market share.

Competitive energy swings to software agility. Small firms offering containerised cyber-defence agents win carve-outs on legacy fleet refreshes. AI-enabled fire-control add-ons, exemplified by Saab’s BVR agent, threaten to displace larger primes in point solutions.[5]Gareth Jennings, “Saab AI Agent Advances,” flightglobal.com Supply-chain resilience is now a big discriminant; vendors with secure gallium and rare-earth sources score higher in risk evaluations. International joint ventures proliferate, aligning R&D cost pools with alliance defence strategies and widening naval combat systems market access.

Primes respond by embedding DevSecOps into conops. Continuous Authority to Operate frameworks let fleet commanders field patches during patrols, eroding prior barriers where hardware primes dominated post-delivery sustainment. The race now pivots to who can prove machine-speed integration testing without compromising safety cases. Over the forecast horizon, expect deeper vertical tie-ups between chip foundries, software houses, and shipbuilders to defend position in the expanding naval combat systems market.

Naval Combat Systems Industry Leaders

  1. Lockheed Martin Corporation

  2. RTX Corporation

  3. Thales Group

  4. BAE Systems plc

  5. Northrop Grumman Corporation

  6. *Disclaimer: Major Players sorted in no particular order
BAE Systems PLC, Lockheed Martin Corporation, Thales Group, General Dynamics Corporation, Raytheon Technologies Corporation
Image © Mordor Intelligence. Reuse requires attribution under CC BY 4.0.
Need More Details on Market Players and Competitors?
Download PDF

Recent Industry Developments

  • April 2025: HII delivered initial Lionfish SUUVs to the US Navy, validating unmanned underwater force multipliers.
  • May 2025: Saab upgraded Visby corvettes with improved air-defense suites.
  • February 2025: BAE Systems secured a substantial five-year contract worth USD 251 million from the US Navy to bolster the AEGIS Combat System.
  • January 2025: BAE Systems secured a Euro 285 million (USD 348 million) contract from the UK Ministry of Defence to strengthen the Royal Navy’s shared infrastructure, combat management systems, and warship networks.

Table of Contents for Naval Combat Systems Industry Report

1. INTRODUCTION

  • 1.1 Study Assumptionsand Market Definition
  • 1.2 Scope of the Study

2. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

4. MARKET LANDSCAPE

  • 4.1 Market Overview
  • 4.2 Market Drivers
    • 4.2.1 Fleet-modernization programs in major navies
    • 4.2.2 Rising Indo-Pacific geopolitical tensions
    • 4.2.3 Rapid uptake of integrated combat-management suites
    • 4.2.4 Expansion of naval electronic warfare (EW) and C4ISR demand
    • 4.2.5 Shift to distributed unmanned surface/underwater fleets
    • 4.2.6 DevSecOps-based “continuous upgrade” architectures
  • 4.3 Market Restraints
    • 4.3.1 Budget caps delaying surface-combatant procurement
    • 4.3.2 Extended weapon-integration certification cycles
    • 4.3.3 Cyber-vulnerability of network-centric warships
    • 4.3.4 GaN radar-chip supply-chain bottlenecks
  • 4.4 Value Chain Analysis
  • 4.5 Regulatory Landscape
  • 4.6 Technological Outlook
  • 4.7 Porter’s Five Forces Analysis
    • 4.7.1 Threat of New Entrants
    • 4.7.2 Bargaining Power of Buyers/Consumers
    • 4.7.3 Bargaining Power of Suppliers
    • 4.7.4 Threat of Substitute Products
    • 4.7.5 Intensity of Competitive Rivalry

5. MARKET SIZE AND GROWTH FORECASTS (VALUE)

  • 5.1 By Type
    • 5.1.1 Weapon Systems
    • 5.1.2 Electronic Warfare (EW)
    • 5.1.3 C4ISR
    • 5.1.4 Directed Energy Weapons (DEW)
    • 5.1.5 Integrated Combat Systems
    • 5.1.6 Unmanned Sea Systems
    • 5.1.7 Simulation and Training Systems
    • 5.1.8 Combat-Management Software
  • 5.2 By Platform
    • 5.2.1 Aircraft Carriers
    • 5.2.2 Destroyers
    • 5.2.3 Frigates
    • 5.2.4 Corvettes
    • 5.2.5 Submarines
    • 5.2.6 Littoral Combat Ships (LCS)
    • 5.2.7 Unmanned Surface Vessels (USV)
    • 5.2.8 Unmanned Underwater Vehicles (UUV)
    • 5.2.9 Other Platforms
  • 5.3 By Geography
    • 5.3.1 North America
    • 5.3.1.1 United States
    • 5.3.1.2 Canada
    • 5.3.1.3 Mexico
    • 5.3.2 Europe
    • 5.3.2.1 United Kingdom
    • 5.3.2.2 France
    • 5.3.2.3 Germany
    • 5.3.2.4 Italy
    • 5.3.2.5 Spain
    • 5.3.2.6 Rest of Europe
    • 5.3.3 Asia-Pacific
    • 5.3.3.1 China
    • 5.3.3.2 India
    • 5.3.3.3 Japan
    • 5.3.3.4 Australia
    • 5.3.3.5 Rest of Asia-Pacific
    • 5.3.4 South America
    • 5.3.4.1 Brazil
    • 5.3.4.2 Rest of South America
    • 5.3.5 Middle East and Africa
    • 5.3.5.1 Middle East
    • 5.3.5.1.1 Saudi Arabia
    • 5.3.5.1.2 Israel
    • 5.3.5.1.3 Rest of Middle East
    • 5.3.5.2 Africa
    • 5.3.5.2.1 Egypt
    • 5.3.5.2.2 South Africa
    • 5.3.5.2.3 Rest of Africa

6. COMPETITIVE LANDSCAPE

  • 6.1 Market Concentration
  • 6.2 Strategic Moves
  • 6.3 Market Share Analysis
  • 6.4 Company Profiles (includes Global level Overview, Market level overview, Core Segments, Financials as available, Strategic Information, Market Rank/Share for key companies, Products and Services, and Recent Developments)
    • 6.4.1 BAE Systems plc
    • 6.4.2 Lockheed Martin Corporation
    • 6.4.3 RTX Corporation
    • 6.4.4 Thales Group
    • 6.4.5 General Dynamics Mission Systems (General Dynamics Corporation)
    • 6.4.6 Saab AB
    • 6.4.7 L3Harris Technologies, Inc.
    • 6.4.8 Northrop Grumman Corporation
    • 6.4.9 Elbit Systems Ltd.
    • 6.4.10 Terma A/S
    • 6.4.11 Kongsberg Gruppen ASA
    • 6.4.12 Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc.
    • 6.4.13 Leonardo S.p.A
    • 6.4.14 ATLAS ELEKTRONIK GmbH
    • 6.4.15 MBDA
    • 6.4.16 Naval Group
    • 6.4.17 Israel Aerospace Industries Ltd.
    • 6.4.18 Hanwha Systems Co., Ltd.
    • 6.4.19 Mitsubishi Electric Corporation

7. MARKET OPPORTUNITIES AND FUTURE OUTLOOK

  • 7.1 White-space and Unmet-Need Assessment
You Can Purchase Parts Of This Report. Check Out Prices For Specific Sections
Get Price Break-up Now

Research Methodology Framework and Report Scope

Market Definitions and Key Coverage

Our study defines the naval combat systems market as the annual spending that navies allocate to buy, integrate, or modernize onboard weapon suites, electronic-warfare devices, C4ISR modules, directed-energy payloads, combat-management software, unmanned sea-system packages, and associated simulation tools across surface combatants and submarines. According to Mordor Intelligence, values capture new-build installations and mid-life upgrades, expressed in constant 2025 US dollars.

Scope exclusion: Land-based coastal-defense batteries and shore command centers are not counted.

Segmentation Overview

  • By Type
    • Weapon Systems
    • Electronic Warfare (EW)
    • C4ISR
    • Directed Energy Weapons (DEW)
    • Integrated Combat Systems
    • Unmanned Sea Systems
    • Simulation and Training Systems
    • Combat-Management Software
  • By Platform
    • Aircraft Carriers
    • Destroyers
    • Frigates
    • Corvettes
    • Submarines
    • Littoral Combat Ships (LCS)
    • Unmanned Surface Vessels (USV)
    • Unmanned Underwater Vehicles (UUV)
    • Other Platforms
  • By Geography
    • North America
      • United States
      • Canada
      • Mexico
    • Europe
      • United Kingdom
      • France
      • Germany
      • Italy
      • Spain
      • Rest of Europe
    • Asia-Pacific
      • China
      • India
      • Japan
      • Australia
      • Rest of Asia-Pacific
    • South America
      • Brazil
      • Rest of South America
    • Middle East and Africa
      • Middle East
        • Saudi Arabia
        • Israel
        • Rest of Middle East
      • Africa
        • Egypt
        • South Africa
        • Rest of Africa

Detailed Research Methodology and Data Validation

Primary Research

To tighten assumptions, we interviewed naval procurement officers in the United States, Japan, France, and India, system-integrator engineers, and program managers at tier-one defense primes. Their inputs on retrofit frequency, export clearance lead times, and pricing shifts for open-architecture CMS suites filled data gaps and guided scenario ranges.

Desk Research

Mordor analysts first mapped historic demand using open data such as SIPRI military-expenditure tables, NATO and US DoD budget justifications, EU EDA defense indices, and customs codes for shipborne electronics. We then enriched the picture with insights from authoritative bodies like the International Maritime Organization, the Royal United Services Institute, and think-tank white papers that track fleet deployments. Company 10-Ks, investor decks, and court-filed contracts were screened through D&B Hoovers and Dow Jones Factiva to benchmark supplier pipelines and average program outlays. Patent families from Questel helped gauge the diffusion pace of GaN AESA radars and laser weapons. This list is illustrative; many other credible sources informed the desk work and subsequent validation.

Market-Sizing & Forecasting

A top-down build starts with each navy's published combat-system appropriation, which is then split by platform counts and typical fit-out costs. Select bottom-up checks, sampled supplier roll-ups and channel ASP × unit estimates, serve as guardrails before totals lock. Variables driving the model include fleet expansion schedules, average cost per destroyer combat suite, upgrade cycle length, directed-energy adoption rates, and region-specific inflation. Forecasts rely on a multivariate regression that ties real defense spending, platform growth, and cost-learning curves to annual outlays; coefficients are stress tested with the expert panel. Missing or noisy series are interpolated using three-year moving averages capped by primary research bounds.

Data Validation & Update Cycle

Outputs pass two independent analyst reviews, variance checks against external defense indicators, and anomaly triggers that reopen interviews when deviations exceed set thresholds. Reports refresh yearly, and an interim update is issued if material events, such as budget swings or major program awards, occur.

Why Our Naval Combat Systems Baseline Commands Credibility

Published figures often diverge because publishers adopt differing platform lists, treat upgrades variably, or fix exchange rates at dissimilar points.

Key gap drivers here include narrower subsystem scopes, the choice to omit unmanned retrofits, older currency bases, and less frequent dataset refreshes.

Benchmark comparison

Market Size Anonymized source Primary gap driver
USD 53.65 B (2025) Mordor Intelligence
USD 65.53 B (2025) Regional Consultancy A Counts digital add-ons twice and ignores unmanned platform spending ceilings
USD 34.10 B (2023) Industry Journal B Limits scope to weapons and C2, applies historic FX without inflation rebasing
USD 10.38 B (2025) Global Data Provider C Tracks only new-build CMS cores, excludes missiles and lifecycle upgrades

The comparison shows that when scope, currency rebasing, and refresh cadence vary, estimates scatter widely. Mordor's disciplined blend of transparent variables, yearly reviews, and cross-checked assumptions yields a balanced, decision-ready baseline clients can retrace with confidence.

Need A Different Region or Segment?
Customize Now

Key Questions Answered in the Report

What is the current size of the Naval Combat Systems market?

The naval combat systems market is valued at USD 53.65 billion in 2025.

How fast will the Naval Combat Systems market grow by 2030?

It is forecasted to expand at a 6.49% CAGR, reaching USD 73.48 billion.

Which platform segment is growing the quickest?

Unmanned surface vessels (USV) show the fastest rise with an 8.34% CAGR through 2030.

What technology trend is reshaping procurement decisions?

Virtualised, software-defined combat-management suites that can receive overnight updates now guide many acquisition strategies.

Why are gallium-nitride chips a concern for the market?

Export restrictions on key gallium compounds threaten radar production schedules, posing a short-term drag on deployment timelines.

Which region will see the strongest demand acceleration?

Asia-Pacific is projected to grow at 6.71% CAGR, buoyed by intensified geopolitical tensions and large fleet-expansion programs.

Page last updated on:

Naval Combat Systems Report Snapshots