Breaking News
AUSA Brings 119 U.S. Defense Companies to Eurosatory 2026 to Support NATO Modernization.
The U.S. defense industry is using Eurosatory 2026 in Paris to bring battlefield-tested capabilities closer to allied armies and international buyers, with AUSA confirming in a video interview that 119 American companies are present in its U.S. Security and Defense Pavilion. The display matters as NATO forces seek faster access to equipment, systems, and industrial partners able to answer urgent combat requirements shaped by Ukraine.
Held from June 15 to 19 at the Nord Villepinte Exhibition Center, the pavilion gives military users a direct view of U.S. solutions for modernization, interoperability, and wartime sustainment. Its scale also reflects a wider shift in allied procurement as NATO moves toward higher defense spending and a stronger industrial base by 2035.
Related topic: U.S. Army Reveals First Designs of Two XM30 AI Infantry Fighting Vehicle Candidates Replacing Bradley.
AUSA brings 119 U.S. defense companies to the U.S. Security and Defense Pavilion at Eurosatory 2026 in Paris, linking American industry with the U.S. Army, NATO armies, and international military buyers as allied procurement priorities shift under the pressure of the war in Ukraine and rising defense spending commitments (Picture source: Army Recognition Edit from AUSA Picture).
Brigadier General Jack Haley said AUSA has supported the U.S. Security and Defense Pavilion at Eurosatory for almost 30 years. That continuity is important because Eurosatory is not only a sales exhibition; it is also a policy and requirements environment where armies, procurement officials, and manufacturers compare national modernization needs against available industrial capacity. The U.S. pavilion includes a broad mix of exhibitors, including AeroVironment, AM General, Allison Transmission, Bell, Caterpillar, Dillon Aero, Echodyne, General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems, Gentex Corporation/Ops-Core, Govini, Inertial Labs, L3Harris Technologies, Leonardo DRS, Northrop Grumman, Oshkosh Defense, Persistent Systems, Red Cat Holdings, RTX, Shield AI, Skydio, Textron Systems, TrellisWare Technologies, and others. This composition reflects demand across several capability areas: tactical vehicles, unmanned aerial vehicles, soldier protection, communications, munitions, targeting, data, electronic systems, sustainment, and industrial components.
AUSA’s role is not equivalent to that of a procurement agency or a government acquisition office. It functions as a professional association that creates a structured meeting space between industry, soldiers, Army civilians, senior leaders, and foreign military representatives. AUSA’s own mission is built around three functions: educate, inform, and connect. Haley used the same formulation in the interview, but placed emphasis on the “connect” function at Eurosatory because the exhibition allows military users to see new technologies, question vendors, and relate equipment claims to operational problems rather than evaluate them only through brochures or remote briefings.
The operational context gives that connecting function more weight than it had before 2022. Ukraine has demonstrated the high attrition rate of ammunition, vehicles, sensors, drones, air defense interceptors, and electronic warfare systems in a prolonged conventional war. It has also shown that relatively low-cost systems, including small unmanned aerial vehicles, loitering munitions, tactical radios, counter-drone sensors, and commercial-derived software, can affect battlefield outcomes when they are integrated into units quickly. For NATO armies, the challenge is not simply to buy more equipment, but to identify which technologies can survive electronic warfare, scale under wartime production conditions, integrate with existing command-and-control networks, and be maintained by soldiers in field conditions.
That explains why the U.S. pavilion’s mixture of large prime contractors, mid-sized manufacturers, and specialized technology firms is relevant. Companies such as Oshkosh Defense, AM General, Mack Defense, Allison Transmission, and Caterpillar relate to mobility, logistics, powertrains, and heavy equipment support. Firms such as AeroVironment, Shield AI, Skydio, Red Cat Holdings, IMSAR, Echodyne, and Reveal Technology point to the expanding role of autonomous systems, small drones, radar, mapping, and reconnaissance. Persistent Systems, TrellisWare Technologies, Doodle Labs, L3Harris Technologies, Northrop Grumman, RTX, and Govini indicate demand for tactical networking, data integration, command systems, and decision-support tools. General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems, Olin-Winchester, Dillon Aero, U.S. Ordnance, and Barrett Firearms Manufacturing represent the continuing requirement for munitions, small arms, and weapons support in land warfare.
Haley’s comments also highlight a recurring acquisition problem: the gap between technological availability and fielded military capability. Many companies can demonstrate sensors, software, unmanned systems, communications equipment, or soldier gear at an exhibition, but operational adoption depends on testing, interoperability, cyber resilience, training burden, sustainment cost, export controls, and contracting timelines. For NATO forces, these issues are more complex because equipment must often operate across national formations, different radio architectures, different ammunition stocks, and separate procurement rules. A venue such as Eurosatory does not solve those problems, but it can expose them earlier by putting vendors, soldiers, requirements officers, and foreign delegations in the same room.
The spending environment increases the practical significance of these meetings. NATO’s current investment commitment requires Allies to move by 2035 toward 5 percent of GDP, including at least 3.5 percent for core defense requirements and up to 1.5 percent for security-related areas such as infrastructure, cyber defense, civil preparedness, resilience, innovation, and industrial capacity. NATO also reported that European Allies and Canada increased defense spending by 20 percent in 2025 compared with 2024, while their combined defense investment reached more than $574 billion in 2021-adjusted dollars. For U.S. industry, that creates an expanded export and partnership environment; for European governments, it creates a need to convert higher budgets into usable formations, stocks, and support systems rather than dispersed purchases.
European figures point in the same direction. European Defence Agency data show that EU member-state defense expenditure reached €343 billion in 2024 and was estimated at €381 billion in 2025, equal to about 2.1 percent of GDP. Defense investment was projected at nearly €130 billion in 2025. Those numbers matter because investment spending is the budget category most directly linked to equipment procurement, research and development, ammunition production, and modernization programs. A larger U.S. presence at Eurosatory therefore corresponds to a market in which European states are not only increasing budgets but also looking for near-term capabilities in air defense, long-range fires, drones, counter-drone systems, armored mobility, battlefield communications, and industrial surge capacity.
Haley was careful to describe AUSA as nonpartisan and not engaged in geopolitical advocacy. That distinction is relevant because a national pavilion at a defense exhibition can easily be read as an extension of state policy. AUSA describes itself as nonpartisan and apolitical, while its practical role at Eurosatory is to facilitate contact among the U.S. Army community, industry, and allied military representatives. In this case, the interview suggests that AUSA views the pavilion less as a political instrument and more as a mechanism for reducing friction between technical innovation and soldier requirements.
From an operational standpoint, the central issue is whether exhibitions can help move useful technology into units faster without bypassing validation. The answer is conditional. Direct exposure to soldiers and commanders can improve requirements definition, especially for systems influenced by recent combat experience, such as unmanned aerial vehicles, counter-drone sensors, electronic warfare tools, tactical communications, and mobile sustainment equipment. But the more decisive test comes after the exhibition: whether these systems can be evaluated in field trials, funded through procurement lines, produced at scale, integrated into allied command structures, and supported over years of service.
For the U.S. defense industrial base, the 119-company pavilion provides visibility at a time when NATO demand is expanding but competition is also increasing from European manufacturers, joint EU procurement initiatives, and national industrial policies. For NATO armies, the value lies in comparing U.S. equipment and technology against urgent capability gaps created by the war in Ukraine and by renewed emphasis on collective defense. The interview with Brigadier General Jack Haley offers a concrete view of how AUSA is positioning the U.S. pavilion as a meeting point between industry offerings and operational demand, rather than as a simple exhibition showcase.
Explore More Defense News: