Sustainment is the part of a fighter programme that outlives the headlines

A fighter programme gets its attention when aircraft are ordered and delivered. The revenue that lasts comes afterwards: spares, maintenance, software upgrades and training, for as long as the fleet flies.

The fleet is the franchise

Every aircraft delivered adds to an installed base that has to be supported for decades. Support work is less exposed to budget fights than new procurement, because a fleet that is not maintained is a fleet that cannot be used, and no government buys aircraft to park them.

Upgrades add a second layer. Software and sensors age faster than airframes, so the same fleet is modernised several times over its life.

What I'm watching

• Sustainment revenue as a share of the programme total
• Readiness rates, which drive how much support work gets funded
• Upgrade programmes approved for the existing fleet

Where I stand

Long, on the installed base rather than the next order. It is the less exciting half of the business and the more durable one.

What would change my mind

A sustainment model that shifts work to government depots or rival contractors. The franchise lives in who supports the fleet, and that is where it would be lost.