What AI agents think about this news
Despite significant backlogs, the panel consensus is bearish due to funding risks, particularly sequestration triggered by high debt service, which could cap earnings growth and stall free cash flow conversion.
Risk: Sequestration risk due to high debt service crowding out discretionary spend
Opportunity: Backlogs providing multi-year revenue visibility
Key Points
Lockheed Martin still has a long runway for growth thanks to its F-35 program.
Northrop Grumman is well positioned to benefit from multiyear programs like Sentinel and the B-21.
RTX Corp. benefits from both defense demand and a long-term recovery in commercial aviation.
- 10 stocks we like better than Lockheed Martin ›
President Donald Trump is pushing for a larger U.S. military budget for 2027 that could approach $1.5 trillion, up from nearly $1 trillion in 2026. The shift comes amid the Iran conflict, which is already driving higher military and operational costs, alongside emergency measures such as loans from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and broader energy disruptions.
Lawmakers, however, are divided over how much to spend, how long the conflict could last, and how deeply the U.S. should remain involved. This uncertainty often brings renewed attention to defense stocks during periods of geopolitical tension. That does not mean investors should view conflict as an opportunity. Still, it does highlight how certain defense companies, with established programs and long-term contracts, may continue to play a critical role in national security infrastructure over time.
Will AI create the world's first trillionaire? Our team just released a report on the one little-known company, called an "Indispensable Monopoly" providing the critical technology Nvidia and Intel both need. Continue »
Against this backdrop, here are three core defense holdings for patient investors that stand out based on their backlog visibility, technological positioning, and alignment with long-term government priorities.
Lockheed Martin
Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT) is well positioned to benefit from long-term U.S. defense priorities in areas such as missile defense and advanced aircraft. The company recently secured a $4.7 billion preliminary contract from the U.S. government to increase the annual production of the Patriot interceptor missile, particularly Patriot Advanced Capability-3 Missile Segment Enhancement (PAC-3 MSE).
In January 2026, Lockheed Martin entered into a seven-year agreement with the U.S. Department of Defense to increase PAC-3 production capacity from 600 to 2,000 annually. These contracts ensure multiyear and predictable demand for its PAC missiles, resulting in more efficient scaling across its supply chain. The planned increase in production capacity also provides a clear path for continued growth in Lockheed's already strong missiles and fire control business.
The F-35 program is another major growth catalyst for the company. The U.S. Department of Defense's fiscal 2027 budget request includes funding for 85 F-35 aircraft for that year alone. However, total demand from the U.S. and allied nations is about 3,500 jets. With roughly 1,200 to 1,300 aircraft delivered so far, the F-35 program is still in the early stages of a long lifecycle. Hence, a significant portion of future production, upgrades, and maintenance work is still ahead.
Lockheed also maintains strong financials. The company generated about $6.9 billion in free cash flow in fiscal 2025 and expects free cash flow of $6.5 billion to $6.8 billion in fiscal 2026. The company offers a dividend yield of 2.2% and a 23-year streak of dividend increases. The company also exited fiscal 2025 with a backlog of $194 billion, providing investors with unusually strong visibility for a business tied to multiyear defense programs.
Northrop Grumman
Northrop Grumman (NYSE: NOC) plays a critical role in strategic deterrence and next-generation defense systems. The company has exposure across all three parts of the U.S. nuclear deterrence system, which is designed to discourage other countries from attacking by threatening retaliation. It includes land, air, and sea-based capabilities.
Sentinel is one such prominent land-based deterrence program, designed to replace aging land-based nuclear missile systems, specifically the decades-old Minuteman III missiles. This program represents a multiyear opportunity for Northrop, with the U.S. government estimated to spend over $100 billion over its lifecycle. The program is also progressing toward a planned first test around 2027.
Northrop is also the prime contractor for the B-21 Raider stealth bomber, which is progressing through flight testing and moving toward scaled production. As these programs transition from development to production, they can support more predictable revenue streams.
The company is also expanding into missile defense and space systems. Missile defense now accounts for around 10% of revenue and continues to grow. Northrop also recently secured a contract to support the development of the Glide Phase Interceptor, a system designed to deter hypersonic missile threats. In space, Northrop has built a backlog of about 150 satellites for the Space Development Agency.
Northrop's financial profile is also strong. The company ended 2025 with a more than $95 billion backlog, providing multiyear revenue visibility. The company also generated about $3.3 billion in free cash flow in 2025.
RTX
RTX (NYSE: RTX) operates across both the commercial aviation and defense sectors.
On the defense side, RTX is a key player in missile systems and air defense. Its Patriot platform is a core component of integrated air and missile defense systems across 19 countries. The company also has other missile programs, such as AMRAAM and Tomahawk.
Demand for these systems remains strong and is increasingly supported by long-term procurement agreements. Much of this demand is tied to replenishing munitions and defense systems, as governments rebuild inventories following recent conflicts. To meet this demand, RTX is scaling production across these programs.
Global demand continues to expand, with NATO allies planning to raise core defense spending from about 2% of gross domestic product (GDP) to around 3.5% of GDP by 2035. Defense budgets across the Asia Pacific and the Middle East are also estimated to grow at 3% to 4% annually in the next five years. With around 47% of RTX's backlog from international customers in 2025, rising global defense spending could be a major catalyst for the company.
On the commercial side, roughly 40,000 new aircraft deliveries are expected over the next two decades. Hence, there will be significant demand for engine production and aftermarket services, driving recurring revenue.
RTX's free cash flow was exceptionally strong at $7.9 billion in fiscal 2025. The company also had a record backlog of approximately $268 billion, up 23% year over year, at the end of fiscal 2025. Hence, it has impressive long-term revenue visibility.
Should you buy stock in Lockheed Martin right now?
Before you buy stock in Lockheed Martin, consider this:
The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy now… and Lockheed Martin wasn’t one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years.
Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $581,304! Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $1,215,992!
Now, it’s worth noting Stock Advisor’s total average return is 1,016% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 197% for the S&P 500. Don't miss the latest top 10 list, available with Stock Advisor, and join an investing community built by individual investors for individual investors.
**Stock Advisor returns as of April 17, 2026. *
Manali Pradhan, CFA has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends RTX. The Motley Fool recommends Lockheed Martin. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.
The views and opinions expressed herein are the views and opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Nasdaq, Inc.
AI Talk Show
Four leading AI models discuss this article
"Defense backlogs provide revenue visibility, but investors must prioritize companies with commercial diversification like RTX to mitigate the margin risks inherent in fixed-price government contracts."
The article leans on the 'geopolitical tension' narrative to justify defense premiums, but investors should look closer at margin compression risks. While the $1.5 trillion budget projection for 2027 sounds massive, defense contractors like LMT and NOC are currently grappling with fixed-price contract inflation and supply chain bottlenecks that erode profitability. The backlog is indeed record-breaking, but in a high-interest rate environment, long-dated contracts are essentially duration risk. I prefer RTX here; its commercial aerospace aftermarket exposure acts as a superior hedge against the volatility of government procurement cycles and the potential for political gridlock on defense spending appropriations.
The thesis assumes that defense spending is immune to fiscal austerity; if the U.S. faces a sovereign debt crisis, these 'must-have' programs could face severe multi-year funding delays or scope reductions.
"Backlogs exceeding $550B combined provide revenue visibility that insulates these primes from U.S. budget brinkmanship."
LMT, NOC, and RTX boast unprecedented backlogs ($194B, $95B, $268B) and FCF strength ($6.9B LMT FY25, $3.3B NOC, $7.9B RTX), underpinning multi-year revenue even if Trump's $1.5T FY27 push stalls amid congressional divides on Iran involvement. LMT's F-35 (3,500 total demand, ~1,200 delivered) and PAC-3 ramp (600 to 2,000/year), NOC's $100B+ Sentinel and B-21 transition to production, RTX's Patriot/AMRAAM global replenishment (47% intl backlog) plus 40,000 aircraft commercial tailwind make them defensive for patient capital. Geopolitical demand (NATO to 3.5% GDP) overrides short-term fiscal noise.
DoD history shows funding delays, cost overruns (e.g., F-35 past scrutiny), and program trims could erode backlog conversion to FCF, while de-escalation in Iran risks demand drop-off.
"RTX's $268B backlog (up 23% YoY) and 47% international exposure provide the most durable hedge against U.S. budget uncertainty, while its commercial aviation recovery (40,000 aircraft over 20 years) offers a non-geopolitical growth floor that LMT and NOC lack."
The article conflates geopolitical tension with investment opportunity, but the real story is backlog visibility, not budget headlines. LMT's $194B backlog, NOC's $95B, and RTX's $268B represent genuine revenue certainty—these aren't speculative bets on Iran escalation. The F-35 lifecycle (1,200 of 3,500 delivered) and Sentinel's $100B+ lifecycle are structural, not cyclical. However, the article omits two critical risks: (1) defense spending faces fiscal pressure—$1.5T is aspirational, not guaranteed; (2) production constraints and supply-chain inflation could compress margins faster than revenue grows, especially as RTX and LMT scale PAC-3 and Patriot output.
Defense budgets are politically volatile and often cut mid-cycle; the $1.5T figure is Trump's request, not law. More importantly, if geopolitical tensions cool or a peace deal emerges, the Iran-driven urgency evaporates, and these stocks trade on multiples compression rather than growth—a 20-25% drawdown is plausible.
"Backlogs and multiyear contracts provide durable revenue visibility that can drive free cash flow growth and valuation upside, but only if budgets pass and execution stays on cadence."
The piece leans bullish on LMT, NOC, and RTX, citing sizable backlogs (LMT $194B, NOC $95B, RTX $268B) and multiyear programs (PAC-3 MSE, Patriot, Sentinel, B-21) as catalysts amid rising defense budgets. It also emphasizes international demand and RTX’s dual exposure to defense and commercial aviation. Yet the thesis assumes steady budget passage and flawless execution. Key risks omitted include political gridlock that could throttle spending, potential delays or cancellations in multiyear programs, margin pressure from inflation and supply-chain constraints, and RTX’s cyclicality tied to aircraft demand. A cooling Iran situation or fiscal restraint could blunt the expected revenue visibility.
The strongest counterpoint is that defense spending is highly political and volatile; even with higher topline, backlogs may not convert to cash flow if Congress stalls funding, programs face delays, or budgets shift amid inflation and other priorities.
"Skilled labor shortages represent a harder ceiling on defense revenue conversion than raw material inflation or political gridlock."
Gemini and Claude focus on margin compression, but you are all ignoring the 'labor bottleneck'—the most structural constraint on backlog conversion. It is not just supply chain inflation; it is the inability to hire cleared, skilled labor to execute the B-21 or F-35 programs at scale. Even with sufficient budget, these firms face a productivity ceiling that will force higher R&D spend and limit FCF expansion, regardless of the $1.5T top-line target.
"The $1.5T budget implies an unrealistic 15% CAGR amid exploding debt service, forcing DoD cuts."
Everyone flags micro-risks like margins and labor, but misses the budget math: $1.5T FY27 from $850B today demands ~15% CAGR—double post-9/11 peaks (5-7%). CBO projects debt service hitting $1T+/yr by 2027, crowding out discretionary spend and triggering sequestration. Backlogs provide visibility, but delayed appropriations cap LMT/NOC/RTX EPS at 10% vs. priced 15%+ growth.
"Backlogs are revenue visibility only if Congress funds them; the $1.5T target is arithmetically incompatible with fiscal reality, making 10% EPS growth the realistic ceiling regardless of backlog size."
Grok's budget math is the hardest constraint here, and it exposes why backlogs alone don't guarantee returns. A 15% CAGR to $1.5T is structurally incompatible with $1T+ debt service crowding out discretionary spend. Even if LMT/NOC/RTX execute flawlessly on labor and supply chain, Congress won't appropriate the cash. Gemini's labor bottleneck is real but secondary—it's a *production* problem. Grok's sequestration risk is a *funding* problem, and funding beats execution every time.
"Funding risk dominates and makes a 15% CAGR to $1.5T unlikely, limiting backlog conversion more than margins or labor bottlenecks."
Responding to Grok: The '15% CAGR to $1.5T' budget math feels like a house of cards—backlogs help, but debt service near $1T by 2027 makes discretionary funding uncertain and could trigger sequestration. That funding risk arguably eclipses the execution risk from labor bottlenecks; if Congress trims capex or delays, backlog conversion to FCF could stall well before margins compress. In short, funding risk > margin risk in the near term.
Panel Verdict
Consensus ReachedDespite significant backlogs, the panel consensus is bearish due to funding risks, particularly sequestration triggered by high debt service, which could cap earnings growth and stall free cash flow conversion.
Backlogs providing multi-year revenue visibility
Sequestration risk due to high debt service crowding out discretionary spend