Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Airbus, and Northrop Grumman dominate the Western aerospace and defense industry as the only manufacturers capable of designing and producing complete, frontline military aircraft at scale. France’s Dassault Aviation and the UK’s BAE Systems are also major players, particularly in combat aviation, but the four US and European giants still define the upper tier of the market.
In pure market value terms, Boeing currently leads the pack, with a capitalization of around $197 billion, closely followed by Airbus at roughly $193 billion. Lockheed Martin sits some distance behind at about $134 billion, while Northrop Grumman rounds out the group at approximately $96 billion. At first glance, this might suggest Airbus and Boeing dominate aviation production, while Lockheed and Northrop are more niche defense players.
Yet market capitalization masks a more interesting question: who actually produces more military aircraft?
A closer look at deliveries, revenue mix, and program scale shows that while Airbus builds more helicopters overall, Lockheed Martin remains the larger producer of military aircraft by value and combat relevance—largely because of its overwhelming dominance in fighter jets.
Airbus is, at its core, a civilian aerospace company. The vast majority of its business comes from commercial aircraft such as the A320neo, A350, and A220 families. Its defense activities are concentrated in Airbus Defence and Space and Airbus Helicopters, which together form a substantial but clearly secondary part of the company.
Only around 17 percent of Airbus’ total business comes directly from Airbus Defence and Space. Helicopters are roughly split 50/50 between civil/parapublic and military customers. When defense-related helicopter revenue is added to Airbus Defence and Space, the company’s total defense exposure rises to around 26–29 percent of overall revenue, equivalent to roughly $20–23 billion annually.
That is a significant defense business by any measure, but it also highlights Airbus’ fundamentally different profile compared with Lockheed Martin. Airbus is airplane-focused first and foremost, with defense as a major but not dominant pillar.
Lockheed Martin sits at the opposite end of the spectrum. Around 96 percent of its business is defense-related, and roughly 73 percent of its total revenue comes directly from US government contracts. Its annual revenue, at around $71 billion, is similar to Airbus’—but how that money is earned is dramatically different.
Only about 39 percent of Lockheed Martin’s revenue comes from its Aeronautics division, which produces aircraft such as the F-35, F-16, and C-130J. The rest comes from missiles and fire control systems, space systems, sensors, and classified programs. This means that Lockheed, despite being synonymous with combat aircraft, is actually less airplane-focused than Airbus when measured purely by revenue share.
However, the aircraft Lockheed does build are extraordinarily valuable. The F-35 Lightning II alone accounts for roughly a quarter of the company’s total revenue. Even if satellites, missiles, and other non-aircraft products were stripped out of Lockheed’s balance sheet, its military aircraft business would still outweigh Airbus’ in both value and strategic impact.
Both companies are among the world’s largest helicopter producers, but their portfolios differ in emphasis and economics.
Airbus Helicopters is the largest helicopter manufacturer in the Western world. In 2024, it delivered 361 helicopters to 182 customers in 42 countries, giving it a commanding 57 percent share of the civil and parapublic market. It also secured 450 new orders that year. Airbus does not publish a detailed civil-versus-military breakdown, but industry estimates suggest that around 150 of those annual deliveries are military helicopters.
Globally, around 2,600 Airbus military helicopters are currently in service. These include light utility platforms like the H125, H135, and H145, as well as heavier and more specialized types such as the NH90, Tiger attack helicopter, and H225.
Airbus Helicopters represents about 11 percent of Airbus’ total business, with roughly half—or slightly more—linked to defense. The emphasis is on versatility, exportability, and mixed civil-military use.
Lockheed Martin’s helicopter business sits within its Rotary and Mission Systems (RMS) division, primarily through its Sikorsky subsidiary. Sikorsky delivers roughly 80 helicopters per year, almost all of them military. These include the MH-60/S-70 Black Hawk and Seahawk families, the CH-53 heavy-lift helicopter, and the VH-92 Marine One presidential helicopter.
In January 2026, Sikorsky reported the delivery of the 350th MH-60R to the US Navy, underlining the scale and longevity of its naval helicopter programs.
RMS contributes about a quarter of Lockheed Martin’s total revenue. If Sikorsky accounts for roughly two-thirds of that division, helicopters alone may represent 11–17 percent of Lockheed’s overall revenue—roughly comparable to Airbus in proportional terms.
The key difference is value per unit. Sikorsky’s helicopters are typically larger, more complex, and more heavily militarized than Airbus’ average military helicopter. As a result, Lockheed likely earns more revenue from helicopters than Airbus despite delivering far fewer units.
The biggest disparity between Airbus and Lockheed Martin lies in combat aircraft.
Lockheed Martin is, by a wide margin, the world’s largest producer of Western fighter jets. In 2025 alone, it delivered 191 F-35 Lightning II aircraft—more than all other non-Chinese fighter jet deliveries combined. This marked a dramatic increase from 110 deliveries in 2024 and 98 in 2023, largely due to clearing aircraft previously held up by TR-3 software and hardware refresh issues.
In addition, Lockheed delivered around 19 new-build F-16 Fighting Falcons to export customers, though precise figures have not been publicly confirmed. It also continues to support and upgrade hundreds of existing F-16s worldwide.
Looking ahead, Lockheed aims to stabilize F-35 production at 156 or more aircraft per year and is exploring ways to ramp up F-16 output to meet renewed international demand.
Airbus, by contrast, does not produce a fighter jet on its own. Its sole combat aircraft program is the Eurofighter Typhoon, a multinational project jointly owned by the UK, Germany, Italy, and Spain. Airbus holds a 46 percent industrial share, with BAE Systems at 33 percent and Leonardo at 21 percent.
Eurofighter production has typically ranged between 10 and 22 aircraft per year, with around 10 delivered in 2025. While new orders are flowing in from Germany, Spain, Italy, Turkey, and potentially other customers, the program’s output remains modest compared with the F-35.
Even accounting for Airbus’ nearly 50 percent stake in Eurofighter, there is no meaningful comparison between its fighter output and Lockheed’s.
Both companies also produce military transport and tanker aircraft, though again with different philosophies.
Airbus’ flagship military transport is the A400M Atlas, a large strategic/tactical airlifter positioned between the C-130J Super Hercules and the now-closed C-17 Globemaster III. Airbus delivered eight A400Ms in 2024 and seven in 2025, bringing the total to around 130 aircraft delivered, primarily to European operators.
Airbus also builds the A330 MRTT aerial refueling tanker, marketed in the UK as the Voyager. The A330 MRTT has become the most successful export tanker in the world, with around 66 delivered to nine customers and additional orders pending. However, annual delivery rates remain in the low single digits.
Lockheed Martin’s equivalent transport offering is the C-130J Super Hercules, the latest variant of one of the most successful military aircraft in history. More than 590 C-130Js are currently in service, with new aircraft delivered each year at a steady rate in the low teens.
While the C-130J is not as dominant as earlier C-130 variants once were—and faces growing competition from aircraft like the Embraer C-390 Millennium—it remains a cornerstone of global airlift fleets.
Lockheed Martin’s dominance in fighters has not gone unchallenged. It lost the US Air Force’s Next Generation Air Dominance contract for the F-47 to Boeing and has also been eliminated from the US Navy’s sixth-generation fighter competition. This leaves Lockheed heavily dependent on the F-35 to maintain its position as the world’s leading fighter manufacturer.
Airbus, meanwhile, is a key partner in Europe’s Future Combat Air System (FCAS) program alongside Dassault Aviation and Spain’s Indra Sistemas. However, FCAS has been plagued by disputes between Airbus and Dassault over leadership, workshare, and intellectual property, raising the risk that the program could stall or even collapse.
If FCAS fails, Airbus could be forced to pursue a sixth-generation fighter independently, seek a partnership with Saab, or attempt to join the UK-Italy-Japan-led Tempest/GCAP program.
Even if sixth-generation fighters enter production, they are expected to be built in far smaller numbers—around 185 F-47s for the US Air Force, for example—making one-for-one comparisons even harder.
Beyond crewed aircraft, both companies are increasingly focused on uncrewed combat aerial vehicles.
Airbus unveiled its Loyal Wingman concept in 2024 and announced in 2025 that it would produce a German Air Force variant of the Kratos XQ-58A Valkyrie, equipped with Airbus systems.
Lockheed Martin, meanwhile, lost the US Air Force’s Collaborative Combat Aircraft Increment 1 competition to General Atomics and Anduril, with the service judging Lockheed’s proposal overly complex and expensive. In response, Lockheed has unveiled a revised high-end combat drone concept known as Vectis.
Comparing Airbus and Lockheed Martin directly is inherently difficult because they occupy different niches. Airbus’ military aircraft portfolio is broader in mission types but lighter in combat intensity, while Lockheed’s is narrower but far more focused on high-end warfare.
Overall, Lockheed Martin is clearly the larger military aircraft producer, particularly in fighters, where it remains unmatched. Airbus, however, is well positioned to grow as European countries increasingly prioritize European-made defense equipment.
Whether that shift is enough to narrow the gap remains an open question—especially in a world where, for some missions, there is still no true alternative to US systems like the F-35.
