NATO Defense Spending at 5% GDP: A Complete Guide to Global Defense Stocks

The Hague Summit Changed Everything

5% of GDP. When we first saw the number, we ran it twice. Then we pulled up the actual communiqué. It was real. At the June 2025 Hague Summit, NATO allies formally committed to spending 5% of gross domestic product on defense by 2035 — a target that would have been dismissed as fantasy just three years ago. For context, the alliance spent decades arguing about whether 2% was achievable. Most members weren't even hitting that.

Now the goalpost has moved so far that the entire defense industrial base needs to recalibrate. We're not talking about incremental budget adjustments. We're talking about a structural rearmament of the Western world, funded by government commitments that extend a full decade into the future. For equity investors, that kind of demand visibility is extraordinarily rare.

The numbers tell the story. Global defense spending is projected to reach $3.6 trillion by 2030 — 33% above 2024 levels, according to IISS and SIPRI estimates. The US alone proposed its first trillion-dollar defense budget for fiscal year 2026. European defense spending is expected to roughly double from 2023 levels by the end of the decade. And unlike prior spending cycles that were tied to specific conflicts and unwound quickly, this one is anchored to long-term treaty commitments and a structural reassessment of the threat environment.

The European Inflection: Where the Real Money Is

We've been tracking European defense budgets for the better part of two years now, and the acceleration is unlike anything we've seen in the post-Cold War era. The Zeitenwende — Germany's historic policy reversal on military spending, announced in February 2022 — was the catalyst. But the follow-through has exceeded even bullish expectations.

Germany issued over 60 billion euros in new military contracts through 2025. That includes massive orders for Leopard 2 tanks, Puma infantry fighting vehicles, IRIS-T air defense systems, and ammunition stockpile replenishment. The 100-billion-euro special defense fund (Sondervermögen) authorized in 2022 is nearly fully committed, and Berlin is now debating a permanent increase to its baseline defense budget above 3% of GDP.

Poland is even more aggressive. Already spending above 4% of GDP on defense (the highest proportion in NATO after the US), Warsaw has signed deals for Korean K2 tanks, HIMARS rocket systems, and F-35 fighters. Poland's defense procurement budget alone is larger than what Germany was spending five years ago.

The Numbers Across Key European NATO Members

Look at the gap between the 2025 column and the 2035 target. That gap — roughly 2–3 percentage points of GDP for most countries — represents hundreds of billions of euros in incremental defense spending that hasn't been contracted yet. The procurement pipeline stretching out to 2035 is the thesis. It's not about what's already been ordered. It's about what's coming.

And here's what most analysts miss: European defense procurement has a strong “buy European” bias. The EU's European Defence Industrial Strategy (EDIS), published in 2024, explicitly targets 50% of defense procurement from EU-based manufacturers by 2030, rising to 60% by 2035. That channels the spending directly to Rheinmetall, BAE Systems, Leonardo, Thales, and Saab rather than US primes.

The US Defense Budget: Trillion-Dollar Territory

The US side of the equation is less about acceleration and more about sustained scale. The proposed FY2026 defense budget crossed the trillion-dollar threshold for the first time when you include Department of Energy nuclear weapons programs and supplemental funding. The base DoD budget alone sits around $895 billion, with another $50–70 billion in nuclear weapons and intelligence community funding on top.

That's roughly 3.5% of US GDP. Reaching 5% would mean something north of $1.4 trillion annually — a figure that strains credulity but is technically what the Hague commitment demands. Our base case assumes the US settles somewhere around 4–4.5% of GDP, which still implies $200–400 billion in incremental annual spending by the early 2030s.

Where does the money go? The Pentagon's stated priorities are clear: long-range precision strike (benefiting Lockheed and RTX), next-generation air dominance (Lockheed, Northrop), shipbuilding (General Dynamics, HII), space and missile defense (Northrop, L3Harris), and ammunition and munitions production capacity (virtually everyone). The Ukraine conflict exposed critical shortfalls in US ammunition stockpiles — 155mm shell production capacity was roughly 14,000 rounds per month in early 2023 versus a wartime consumption rate of 90,000+ rounds per month. Capacity is now being scaled to 100,000 rounds monthly, with billions in new plant investment.

Backlog Is the Key Metric

For US defense primes, the metric that matters most right now isn't revenue growth — it's backlog. Orders are flowing in faster than they can be fulfilled. Lockheed Martin's backlog exceeded $166 billion at the end of 2025, representing roughly 2.5 years of revenue. RTX's backlog stood at over $210 billion (including its commercial aerospace segment). These aren't speculative pipeline figures — they're contracted orders with delivery schedules and payment milestones.

The constraint isn't demand. It's supply chain capacity and labor. Defense manufacturers are running at full utilization and hiring aggressively. That's a quality problem to have, but it means revenue recognition lags contract awards by 12–24 months, creating a built-in earnings growth runway that extends well beyond 2026.

US Defense Stocks: The Big Five

The US defense sector is dominated by five companies that collectively capture the majority of Pentagon procurement dollars. Each occupies a different niche, but all benefit from the NATO spending ramp.

Lockheed Martin (LMT) — The F-35 Machine

Lockheed remains the largest defense contractor globally, with roughly $71 billion in 2025 revenue. The F-35 program alone accounts for about 27% of sales and is the backbone of NATO's fifth-generation air power. With 17 NATO nations now operating or committed to the F-35, every new defense budget increase in Europe includes F-35-related spending — aircraft, spare parts, maintenance, and upgrades. The backlog provides years of revenue visibility. The stock trades at roughly 18–19x forward earnings, which is a modest premium to its historical range but arguably justified by the backlog quality. Our concern with Lockheed is concentration risk: the F-35 program is so dominant that any production hiccup or contract renegotiation disproportionately impacts the entire company.

RTX Corp (RTX) — The Diversified Giant

RTX (formerly Raytheon Technologies) is the most diversified of the US primes, straddling both defense and commercial aerospace through its Pratt & Whitney engine and Collins Aerospace businesses. On the defense side, RTX's missiles and air defense systems (Patriot, NASAMS, Stinger) are in massive demand — Patriot battery orders have surged as NATO allies scramble to build integrated air and missile defense capacity. The Patriot system has become the backbone of European air defense posture. Revenue growth is running in the high single digits, and the defense backlog alone exceeds $90 billion. At roughly 20–21x forward earnings, RTX offers a balanced risk profile between defense tailwinds and commercial aerospace recovery.

Northrop Grumman (NOC) — The Classified Programs Play

Northrop is the go-to name for investors who want exposure to the most advanced (and often classified) defense programs. The B-21 Raider stealth bomber is ramping toward production, the Sentinel ICBM program is the largest nuclear modernization effort in decades, and the company's space and missile defense systems portfolio aligns directly with NATO's stated priorities. Northrop trades at a premium to peers — roughly 21–22x forward earnings — reflecting the higher-margin, higher-growth profile of its program mix. The risk is execution on large developmental programs where cost overruns can compress margins.

L3Harris (LHX) — The Communications Backbone

L3Harris is the NATO communications and electronic warfare specialist. Every alliance interoperability initiative — and there are many when you're trying to get 30+ nations to fight together — flows through command, control, and communications (C3) infrastructure. That's L3Harris's sweet spot. The company also has significant exposure to intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) platforms. At roughly 17–18x forward earnings, it trades at a slight discount to peers, partly because of integration challenges from its 2019 merger. We think it's underappreciated.

General Dynamics (GD) — Submarines and Ground Combat

General Dynamics is a dual play on naval shipbuilding (through its Electric Boat subsidiary, which builds Columbia-class and Virginia-class submarines) and ground combat vehicles (through GDLS, which produces Abrams tanks and Stryker vehicles). The submarine backlog alone extends through the mid-2030s and is arguably the most defensible revenue stream in the entire defense sector — there is no realistic alternative supplier. The Gulfstream business jet division provides additional diversification (and controversy among defense purists). GD trades at roughly 18x forward earnings.

Note: Revenue and backlog figures are estimates based on public disclosures and consensus forecasts as of early 2026. Forward P/E ratios are approximate and fluctuate with market conditions.

European Defense Stocks: The Higher-Beta Play

Here's our contrarian take: the biggest winners from NATO's 5% commitment won't be the US primes. They'll be European defense companies. The math is simple. US defense spending is already enormous and growing at mid-single digits. European spending is growing at 15–25% annually from a much lower base. That rate-of-change difference is where alpha gets generated.

Rheinmetall (RNMBY) — Our Top Pick

Rheinmetall might be the single best-positioned defense stock globally right now. The Düsseldorf-based company dominates European ground systems (Leopard 2 turrets, Lynx infantry fighting vehicles, Boxer armored vehicles) and is the continent's largest ammunition manufacturer. Those happen to be exactly the two categories where European procurement is accelerating fastest — ground forces readiness and ammunition stockpile replenishment.

The numbers are striking. Rheinmetall's order backlog surged past 50 billion euros in 2025, roughly 5x the company's annual revenue. Revenue growth is running above 30% year-over-year, with management guiding for continued double-digit growth through 2028 at minimum. The company is building a new ammunition factory in Lithuania, expanding Leopard production lines in Germany, and establishing a joint venture with Ukraine's state defense company for armored vehicle maintenance and production.

The stock has tripled since early 2024. But here's why we think there's still runway: the backlog hasn't peaked. Germany, Poland, and other Eastern European NATO members are still in the early phases of their procurement cycles. If Rheinmetall's backlog grows to 80–100 billion euros by 2027 (which is plausible given the committed spending trajectories), the stock could re-rate further even from elevated levels. Trades at roughly 35–40x forward earnings — expensive in absolute terms, but potentially cheap relative to the growth rate.

BAE Systems (BAESY) — The Transatlantic Bridge

BAE Systems is uniquely positioned with major operations in both the UK and the US. Its US subsidiary is one of the largest defense contractors in America in its own right, with significant positions in electronic warfare, armored vehicles (the Bradley replacement program), and munitions. On the UK side, BAE builds the Astute-class and Dreadnought-class submarines, Typhoon fighters, and is a lead partner on the GCAP sixth-generation fighter program with Italy and Japan.

BAE trades at roughly 20–22x forward earnings with a backlog exceeding £70 billion. The AUKUS submarine deal (providing Australia with nuclear-powered attack submarines) adds another multi-decade revenue stream. Revenue growth is running at 10–14% annually. It's the most “all-weather” European defense stock — diversified by geography, customer, and platform.

Leonardo (FINMY), Thales, and Saab

Leonardo is the Italian national champion, with strengths in helicopters (the AW149 and AW101), electronics, and cyber security. It benefits directly from Italy's defense budget increase and the GCAP fighter program. The stock is cheaper than peers at roughly 14–16x forward earnings, reflecting Italy's historically less predictable defense procurement patterns (and the Italian government's 30% stake, which some investors view as an overhang).

Thales is the French electronics and defense systems specialist, with leading positions in radar, sonar, communications, and cybersecurity. The company also has a fast-growing civilian digital identity business. Thales benefits from France's status as NATO's second-largest European spender, and its technology portfolio maps well to the alliance's emphasis on integrated command and control systems.

Saab (the defense company, not the defunct car brand) is a Swedish mid-cap that has been one of the best-performing defense stocks in Europe. The Gripen E fighter is a cost-effective alternative to the F-35, attracting interest from NATO members and non-aligned nations alike. The Carl-Gustaf recoilless rifle system is in service with over 40 countries. And Saab's submarine and naval systems businesses are well positioned for the Nordic region's expanding defense requirements, particularly after Finland and Sweden joined NATO.

Where the Spending Actually Goes: Category Breakdown

Not all defense spending is created equal, and understanding where the procurement dollars flow matters for stock selection. We've broken down the NATO spending ramp into the categories that are seeing the sharpest acceleration.

Ammunition and Munitions — The Immediate Bottleneck

Ammunition is the unglamorous category that's seeing the most urgent spending. NATO stockpiles were drawn down to alarming levels by aid to Ukraine, and replenishment is a multi-year effort. 155mm artillery shells, GMLRS rockets, Javelin and Stinger missiles — production capacity for all of these is being expanded dramatically. Rheinmetall, General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems, and Nammo (a Nordic joint venture) are the primary beneficiaries. This is the category with the shortest time-to-revenue — ammunition is consumed, reordered, and consumed again. It's recurring revenue in the truest sense.

Integrated Air and Missile Defense — The Top Priority

Air defense has become NATO's number one capability gap. The conflict in Ukraine demonstrated that modern warfare is defined by missiles, drones, and the systems that intercept them. Patriot (RTX), NASAMS (RTX and Kongsberg), IRIS-T (Diehl Defence), and the European Sky Shield Initiative are all seeing massive order inflows. RTX's Patriot production line is booked out through the end of the decade. This category benefits both US and European manufacturers, but the system integration work (connecting disparate national air defense networks into a coherent NATO shield) particularly favors Thales and L3Harris.

Ground Combat Vehicles — The European Opportunity

European armies are re-equipping after decades of post-Cold War drawdowns. Germany needs new tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, and self-propelled artillery. Poland is on the largest armored vehicle buying spree in NATO. The Baltics, Scandinavia, and Central Europe are all building up ground forces capability. Rheinmetall's Lynx and Boxer platforms are winning competitions across the continent. This is a 10–15 year production cycle per vehicle type, creating extremely long-duration revenue streams.

Naval — The Long Cycle

Naval shipbuilding is the longest-cycle category in defense. A frigate takes 5–7 years to build; a submarine takes 7–10 years. But the orders are being placed now. The AUKUS submarine program, the US Navy's Columbia and Virginia class programs (General Dynamics), the UK's Type 26 and Type 31 frigates (BAE Systems), and various European frigate programs provide decades of contracted revenue. Naval is where you get the most backlog visibility, but the slowest revenue conversion.

The Earnings Story: 29% EPS Growth and Rising

The defense sector's financial performance has been exceptional. Aggregate EPS growth for the major defense primes hit 29% year-over-year in Q3 2025 — a number more commonly associated with tech than with industrial companies. And unlike tech, this growth is backed by government contracts with defined payment schedules, not advertising revenue or consumer sentiment.

Margins are expanding too. As production scales up and fixed-price development contracts roll off (these tend to be margin-dilutive), the mix shifts toward higher-margin production and sustainment work. Lockheed's operating margins have ticked up from 10.5% to roughly 11.5% over the past two years. Rheinmetall's EBIT margins have expanded from 11% to over 15%. This margin expansion, combined with top-line growth, creates a powerful earnings compounding effect.

Risks: What Could Derail the Thesis

We're bullish on defense, but intellectual honesty requires us to lay out the risks clearly. There are several, and they're not trivial.

Budget Sequestration and Fiscal Austerity

Political commitments are not legally binding spending obligations. The US experienced this in 2011 with the Budget Control Act, which imposed automatic defense spending cuts (sequestration) that caught the entire sector off guard. European commitments are even less binding — they are alliance pledges, not domestic legislation. A recession, a fiscal crisis, or a shift in political priorities could slow or reverse spending trajectories. The 5% target is aspirational. Actual budgets will be set annually by individual governments.

Procurement Delays

Defense procurement is notoriously slow. The gap between a budget authorization and an actual signed contract can stretch 2–4 years, particularly in Europe where multi-national programs require consensus among partner nations. Germany's 100 billion euro special fund was approved in mid-2022, and significant portions remained uncommitted 18 months later. Investors expecting defense revenue to accelerate immediately after a budget announcement will be disappointed. The spending is coming, but the timeline is measured in years, not quarters.

Peace Dividend Risk

If conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East were to resolve swiftly and durably, the political urgency behind the 5% GDP target could evaporate. History is instructive: NATO defense spending collapsed after the Cold War ended, falling from an average of 3.5% of GDP in the 1980s to under 1.5% by the 2010s. A new peace dividend is arguably low probability — the structural shift in threat perception (from Russia, from an increasingly assertive China) appears durable. But markets price probabilities, not certainties, and a credible de-escalation would likely trigger a sharp sector correction.

Supply Chain and Labor Constraints

The defense industrial base atrophied during the post-Cold War drawdown. Supplier networks thinned out, skilled workers retired, and manufacturing capacity was rationalized. Ramping back up is not instant. Labor shortages in specialized defense manufacturing (welding, machining, electronics assembly) are real. Supply chain bottlenecks in components like ball bearings, specialty alloys, and microelectronics are creating production delays across multiple programs. This constrains how quickly revenue can grow, even when orders are abundant.

Portfolio Construction: How We'd Play It

Our recommended approach is a barbell between US stability and European growth. The US primes provide steady backlog conversion, reliable margins, and defensive characteristics (no pun intended) if the macro environment deteriorates. European names provide higher growth exposure to the spending acceleration.

For a diversified equity portfolio, we think a 5–10% total defense allocation is appropriate in the current environment. Within that, a rough split of 50% US primes (diversified across LMT, RTX, NOC, LHX, and GD), 40% European names (overweight Rheinmetall and BAE, with smaller positions in Leonardo, Thales, and Saab), and 10% held in cash to deploy on pullbacks.

Entry points matter. The sector has run hard. We'd be adding on 10–15% pullbacks rather than chasing at highs, and we'd be using trailing stops to protect gains on the European names given their higher volatility. The long-term thesis is intact, but short-term drawdowns in a hot sector are inevitable and should be treated as buying opportunities rather than reasons to panic.

The 2030 Outlook: A Decade of Rearmament

Here is what we think the world looks like in 2030, from a defense investment perspective. NATO aggregate spending will have roughly doubled from 2022 levels, driven primarily by European catch-up. The US will remain the largest single spender but will account for a shrinking share of total NATO procurement as European budgets scale. Defense sector revenues will have grown at a 10–15% CAGR globally — well above the 3–5% growth rate of the 2015–2022 period.

Rheinmetall will likely be a fundamentally different company: 3–4x its 2023 revenue, with a portfolio spanning ground systems, ammunition, and potentially air defense. BAE Systems will be deeper into the AUKUS submarine program and the GCAP fighter, with revenue visibility stretching into the 2040s. US primes will have converted their record backlogs into record earnings and (assuming capital allocation discipline holds) meaningful share buybacks and dividend growth.

The biggest unknown is whether 5% of GDP actually materializes. Our base case assumes most NATO members reach 3–4% by 2030 and continue climbing toward 5% through 2035. Even in that more conservative scenario, the defense spending trajectory is the steepest since the Reagan buildup of the 1980s. And that's enough to sustain above-trend earnings growth for the defense sector through the end of the decade.

We don't say this lightly: this is one of the most visible, multi-year spending commitments we've ever seen in any sector. Governments don't often hand investors a 10-year demand curve. When they do, it pays to be positioned.

Frequently Asked Questions