The move comes after Lockheed Martin ended its acquisition effort in February.

L3Harris, which is the United States’ sixth-largest defense company, said it would pay $58 per share in an all-cash deal to acquire the defense contractor, which specializes in propulsion systems and energetics. Aerojet, which generates about $2.3 billion in annual revenue, has facilities in California, Arkansas, Florida, Alabama and Washington, among other states.

Two years ago, Lockheed announced it would acquire Aerojet, but the deal quickly drew controversy. Raytheon Technologies publicly objected, saying the transaction would force it to negotiate with Lockheed, a major competitor, for solid-rocket motors.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., also questioned the deal and called for the Federal Trade Commission to examine it.

In early 2022, the FTC announced a lawsuit that sought to block the proposed $4.4 billion merger on antitrust grounds. The agency said it was concerned the deal would hurt competition in the defense industry by allowing Lockheed to cut off other contractors from vital missile components Aerojet provides, particularly scramjet engines for hypersonic missiles and control systems for missile interceptors.

Weeks later, Lockheed announced it would no longer seek to acquire Aerojet. In a statement, Jim Taiclet, Lockheed’s chief executive, said the company “determined that in light of the FTC’s actions, terminating the transaction is in the best interest of our stakeholders.”

L3Harris has dramatically reshaped itself in recent years. In 2019, L3 Technologies and Harris Corp. merged into what became the ninth-largest defense firm in the world at the time. The year before, L3 Technologies ranked 18th, and Harris Corp. ranked 26th.

The combined company, with $14.9 billion in 2021 defense revenue, was the 10th largest defense firm in this year’s rankings. Aerojet’s nearly $1.5 billion in defense revenue put the company at 65th place on this year’s Defense News Top 100 list.

In its announcement Sunday, L3Harris and Aerojet said the deal “will ensure the defense industrial base and our customers will have a strengthened merchant supplier to effectively address both current and emerging threats — and promote scientific discovery and innovation — through targeted investment in advanced missile technologies, hypersonics and more.”

The deal is slated to close in 2023 and requires regulatory approvals.

Stephen Losey contributed to this report.

At BAE Systems, the company is looking to address both areas, Tom Arseneault, who heads the contractor’s U.S. business, told Defense News during an interview on the sidelines of the forum.

He said the February invasion of Ukraine by Russia created both a near- and midterm horizon, adding to the longer-term one focused on China. The near-term effort is centered around “what can we get to Ukraine and how quickly,” while the medium-term horizon, meaning the next few years, is focused on the defensive posture of Eastern Europe, he said.

This interview was edited for clarity and length.

You indicated the war in Ukraine created two new horizons, adding to the longer-term one. Can you explain that?

The near-term horizon is the one we’ve all been scurrying to do. What’s transpired there is the recognition that you can’t just turn the production lines on like a light switch. We’re going to lean on legacy technologies, draw out of the inventories of the services, and then have a backfill strategy where appropriate and possible.

So to the extent possible, how can we draw off of more current production lines to backfill? Case in point: M113s, the old Vietnam War-era personnel carriers, of which 152 are in Ukraine today from a number of countries. The U.S. Army has seen fit to now backfill those with our Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle. It’s a good example of trading out legacy hardware for a more current version.

The medium-term horizon — we’re starting to see that play out, most notably at our BAE Systems Hägglunds business in Sweden, where there’s been an acceleration of procurements in both the Czech Republic and in Slovakia, very close to the conflict. We’ll be working our CV90 infantry fighting vehicle into those two countries.

The China horizon — the long-term one — seems relatively certain for you as a company. The short-term and the medium-term horizons seem more uncertain. The makeup of Congress is changing; members may lose some of the appetite for Ukraine aid. How do you think about it as a company?

It all comes down to budgets and priorities. The balancing act will be the urgency of the defense of Eastern Europe juxtaposed against the threat and the timeline of the pacing challenge in China.

The fact that today [militaries] are drawing out of current inventories, they’re creating a gap in what they would hope to have. In fact, it has woken much of the world up to the inventories that they thought were sufficient. Now, as they draw these down in support of Ukraine, it raises some questions as to whether we had the right inventory level then and what’s it going to take to get back there.

There’s some certainty around that because no country wants to be vulnerable in that way. Somehow or another, both of these horizons will need to be dealt with, and the budgets will need to support them.

As you’re seeing equipment head to Ukraine, what lessons has industry learned?

Just to pick an example, the relevance of a certain system and the inventory levels at which that system should be stocked are being reviewed. The M777 towed artillery gun is out of production effectively. Now, artillery suddenly becomes an interesting thing in the wake of the conflict in Ukraine. So the call for more M777s around the world comes back up. The relevance of the system is in review, and the stocks of those systems around the world is in review.

These are things that have been out of production for a while. If they continue to be relevant in some way, what does it take to start those back up? And was it wise to shut them down?

Wouldn’t it have real effects for industry if militaries around the world decide that they need to pay for higher levels of inventory, that they need to keep some production lines they’d rather let go, just in case?

If we’re going to decide that we want to shut down the line, that we cannot sustain it for 20 years longer, then let’s get a sense of what’s the real demand out in the world, and let’s put that in inventory. So when the time comes, and if we need to do like we’ve done in Ukraine and send some of these systems elsewhere around the world, they’re there and there’s enough left for us to satisfy our own needs in the long term.

It’s a balancing act. What industry would love to see is just a steady, predictable budget and demand signal. That’s when we can create the economies of scale that get the services the best buying power. But it is very difficult to do in the environment we’re in with cyclical budgets and demand volatility.

Though known as a shipbuilder, HII, which includes Newport News Shipbuilding and Ingalls Shipbuilding, has sought to expand its portfolio. The company last year acquired Alion for $1.65 billion, adding more than 3,200 employees. In 2016, the company had picked up Camber, including 1,700 employees.

Alion was best known for its expertise in training and simulation, cyber technology, and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, whereas Camber contributed capabilities including software engineering and intelligence analysis.

In an interview with Defense News on the sidelines of the Reagan National Defense Forum, which took place Dec. 2-3, Chris Kastner said the company is focused on getting out of debt. The top executive added that HII doesn’t see significant capability gaps for which it needs acquisitions to fill, but remains open to evaluating potential deals.

The McLean, Virginia-based mission technologies division includes six groups: C5ISR; cyber, electronic warfare and space; unmanned systems; live, virtual, constructive solutions; fleet sustainment; and nuclear and environmental services. While Kastner said this business will grow faster than the shipbuilding units, he doesn’t have a specific target for its size.

Meanwhile, he said inflation is going to make it “potentially a challenge getting new ships under contract.” The question will be whether there’s “enough funding to support the price,” he added.

He told Defense News the company is providing the U.S. Navy and the Office of the Secretary of Defense with data about increased costs, including for the workforce and parts.

“We’re trying to get in front of it,” he said. “It’s going to play out over the next three years.”

The problem of inflation, Kastner added, will weigh on both the company’s supply chain and lead times.

WASHINGTON — Software and data specialist Deltek, which keeps tabs on major government contracting programs, has created a list of the largest competitive opportunities emerging next year among defense agencies.

Some contracts have incumbent prime contractors; others pull together existing deals to create a larger one. But all are expected to release solicitations in FY23, with awards to follow.

1. Medical Q Coded Support and Services Next Generation

Description: This contract will provide supplemental medical staffing, medical support services and contract management to military treatment facilities throughout the United States.

Government lead: Defense Health Agency

Data of solicitation release: Nov. 15, 2022

Proposals due: Jan. 30, 2023

Anticipated value: $44 billion

2. Contract Field Team Program

Description: This program is meant to provide contract field teams who can modify, maintain, inspect and repair systems ranging from aircraft to missile systems to subsystems like engines. The government is considering 10 large and 10 small contractors.

Government lead: Air Force

Expected solicitation date: June 2023

Anticipated value: $8 billion

3. Mission Partner Environment Program

Description: This contract is expected to provide worldwide information sharing capability to help the Pentagon and its partners work together. This IT initiative consolidates more than 70 contracts.

Government lead: Air Force

Expected solicitation date: May 2023

Anticipated value: $10 billion

4. Common Hardware Systems 6th Generation

Description: This deal is meant to help the Army and other Defense Department organizations acquire simplified C5ISR tech. It’s focused on commercial IT hardware and services; General Dynamics Mission Systems has been the incumbent for decades.

Government lead: Army

Date of solicitation release: Oct. 7, 2022

Proposals submitted: Nov. 22, 2022 (currently under protest)

Anticipated value: $7.9 billion

5. Defense Logistics Agency J6 Enterprise Technology Services

Description: This program, dubbed JETS 2.0, provides IT support to the Pentagon and the Defense Logistics Agency, including to DLA program executive officers and DLA’s information operations enterprise.

Government lead: Defense Department

Expected solicitation date: March 2023

Anticipated value: $6 billion

6. Warfighter Training Readiness Solutions

Description: This initiative was previously known as the Army Training Aids, Devices, Simulators and Simulations, or TADDS, maintenance program. Lockheed Martin is the incumbent.

Government lead: Army

Expected solicitation date: September 2023

Anticipated value: $5 billion

7. Missile Defense Agency Integration and Operations for Enterprise Solutions

Description: This program will focus on a broad range of areas, from research and development IT services to mission operations to systems engineering. It is a follow-on to a contract held by Jacobs Engineering, but the scope of this effort will be different.

Government lead: Defense Department

Expected solicitation date: August 2023

Anticipated value: $4.6 billion

Speaking at the Reagan National Defense Forum in Simi Valley, California, on Saturday, Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., said the focus on oversight is “part of Russian propaganda.”

“Ukraine is spending the money really well; that’s why they’re winning,” he added. “Yes, we need oversight, but we don’t need that as an excuse to not fund what we’re doing.”

The White House last month requested another $38 billion in Ukraine aid. If approved, it would bring the total amount Congress has appropriated for Ukraine to more than $100 billion.

There are signs of waning conservative support. Earlier this year, 57 House and 11 Senate Republicans voted against a $40 billion Ukraine supplemental. And last month, a coalition of a dozen conservative groups signed a letter urging the House not to approve the new request.

During the same panel at the Reagan Forum, Sen. Deb Fischer, R-Neb., advocated for closer oversight of Ukraine spending and said involving more members of Congress in classified briefings would help.

That would allow them to be “informed [so] they don’t buy into a lot of noise that’s going on out there.”

“We have to be more transparent with the American people so that they can filter through the barrage of information that they receive and that they then are … more capable of discerning for themselves what the truth is,” said Fischer, a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. “I don’t think it’s going to change minds on one side or the other for us to sit up here and say, ‘This is what you should believe.’”

Both Fischer and Smith said the chaotic Afghanistan withdrawal have weighed on the American public’s willingness to engage abroad.

Fischer called it a “tipping point” that “made the American people question more,” while Smith said it led to “this feeling that America was too engaged.”

“There’s a certain amount of humility that every single one of us has to have,” Smith added.

He told forum attendees the government must “build a better narrative for why spending money on defense actually does make sense.”

“Ukraine is helping,” Smith added, noting that while many Democrats want to spend less on defense, “Democrats support helping Ukraine more than Republicans do.”

Meanwhile, Smith vowed to file compromise 2023 defense authorization bill on Monday, following bipartisan negotiations between the House and Senate. Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., last month threatened to delay passage of the bill until January when Republicans take control of the House.

“There are a fair number of people that are trying to stand in the way of that,” he said. “We will vote and we will pass it this week one way or another.”