Cross-Border M&A in Aerospace Engineering & Components: An Investment Committee View on Precision, Control, and National Interest in 2025

Cross-border M&A activity in aerospace engineering and components remains highly selective in 2025, despite strong underlying demand across commercial aviation recovery, defense modernization, and space-adjacent programs. Order books are visible, technical barriers to entry are high, and many assets continue to exhibit attractive long-cycle revenue characteristics. At the same time, execution risk has increased materially. Regulatory approvals are harder to secure, transaction timelines are longer, and questions of control and national interest increasingly determine outcomes. For investment committees, the central question has shifted away from asset quality alone toward whether an aerospace business can be owned, governed, and operated across borders without impairing certification status, customer confidence, or regulatory standing. Cross-border advisory in this sector exists to ensure that technical excellence translates into transferable enterprise value under tightening geopolitical and regulatory constraints.

‍

The market backdrop reinforces this shift in emphasis. Aerospace supply chains remain under sustained pressure as OEMs increase production rates, defense procurement accelerates, and maintenance and overhaul demand remains elevated. These dynamics have strengthened backlog visibility across precision machining, avionics, composites, and subsystem suppliers. Simultaneously, governments have elevated scrutiny around foreign ownership of aerospace capabilities, extending review beyond traditional defense contractors to include suppliers viewed as strategically important to national security or industrial resilience. Transactions that would have cleared with limited friction a decade ago now require early regulator engagement, deliberate structuring, and conservative execution assumptions. Investment committees increasingly treat these frictions as baseline conditions rather than exceptional risks.

‍

From an investment perspective, cross-border value creation in aerospace engineering and components is typically anchored in a narrow set of attributes. Deep embedment in OEM platforms or defense programs creates long-cycle revenue that is difficult to displace. Process capability and certification depth form barriers that are costly and time-consuming to replicate. Customer trust, earned through consistent performance under demanding quality and delivery standards, sustains preferred supplier status over time. Buy-side and sell-side participants often emphasize growth potential while underestimating the fragility of these attributes under a change in ownership jurisdiction. Effective advisory forces investment committees to assess whether these sources of value survive new control dynamics rather than assuming continuity by default.

‍

Regulatory and national interest review has become the first substantive filter for cross-border aerospace transactions. Foreign investment authorities increasingly assess not only ownership percentages, but effective control over engineering decisions, intellectual property, and production prioritization. Even assets that are not formally classified as defense-related may trigger heightened scrutiny if they support sensitive programs or critical supply chains. These reviews are discretionary in nature, and outcomes depend as much on perceived intent and governance credibility as on legal structure. Investment committees that treat regulatory approval as a procedural hurdle rather than a value-defining variable often misprice risk.

‍

Customer consent represents a second critical consideration. OEMs and prime contractors frequently retain approval rights over changes in ownership, particularly for suppliers tied to long-term programs. Loss of preferred supplier status, temporary suspension from a program, or increased audit intensity can materially impair earnings and backlog conversion. In cross-border contexts, customers may react conservatively to changes in ownership jurisdiction, especially where export controls, data access, or continuity of engineering authority are implicated. These dynamics are difficult to reverse once confidence erodes, making early customer engagement and credible continuity planning central to execution.

‍

Certification continuity is equally consequential. Regulatory certifications issued by civil aviation authorities or defense bodies are tied to specific legal entities, facilities, governance structures, and quality systems. Ownership changes can prompt audits, revalidation requirements, or operational constraints if not managed proactively. In 2025, investment committees increasingly require clear evidence that certification status can be preserved without interruption and that any incremental compliance burden is reflected in valuation and timing assumptions. Treating certification risk as an operational afterthought has become a common source of post-close disruption.

‍

Intellectual property and export control exposure further complicate cross-border execution. Transactions involving controlled technical data, dual-use components, or programs subject to export restrictions require careful scoping and segmentation. In practice, this often constrains post-close integration, limits data sharing, and affects how value can be extracted across borders. Investment committees are increasingly incorporating export control exposure directly into valuation frameworks, recognizing that constrained monetization potential reduces effective enterprise value regardless of reported earnings.

‍

Process dynamics in cross-border aerospace transactions differ materially from those in other industrial sectors. Deals tend to narrow early and progress slowly, with regulatory and customer feedback shaping feasibility well before exclusivity. The most common failure point emerges when regulatory permissibility appears achievable in theory but conflicts with customer acceptance in practice. When either stakeholder expresses hesitation, momentum dissipates quickly. Experienced advisors recognize these inflection points early and recalibrate expectations before capital and reputation are unnecessarily committed.

‍

Valuation outcomes in 2025 reflect this heightened sensitivity to continuity risk. Investment committees place greater weight on normalized earnings tied to program mix, backlog quality and duration, customer concentration, and the capital required to maintain certification and compliance. Assets with similar reported EBITDA can command materially different multiples depending on jurisdictional exposure, approval risk, and the degree of control that can be exercised post-close. Aerospace premiums are increasingly reserved for assets where continuity under new ownership is demonstrably secure, rather than assumed.

‍

Transaction structure has therefore become the primary risk management tool in cross-border aerospace M&A. Minority investments with negative control rights, staged acquisitions contingent on regulatory or customer consent, joint ventures that isolate sensitive programs, and seller rollovers designed to preserve leadership and engineering continuity are now common features of investment committee-approved transactions. These structures are not viewed as compromises, but as mechanisms to align ownership economics with what regulators and customers will accept in practice. Transactions that ignore these realities rarely survive scrutiny, regardless of headline valuation.

‍

Post-close integration planning is similarly shaped by governance considerations rather than synergy ambition. Investment committees expect clarity around engineering authority, quality and compliance oversight, customer communication protocols, and segregation of sensitive data and programs. Over-integration or rapid changes to governance are among the leading causes of disruption in aerospace transactions, particularly where trust has been built over long periods with regulators and customers. Conservative integration assumptions are increasingly a prerequisite for investment approval.

‍

In 2025, successful cross-border outcomes in aerospace engineering and components are defined by realism. Buyers that respect regulatory discretion, preserve customer confidence, and design ownership structures aligned with operational reality consistently outperform those prioritizing speed or headline valuation. Sellers that understand these constraints and position assets accordingly achieve cleaner execution and more durable outcomes. Cross-border advisory remains essential not to globalize aerospace capabilities indiscriminately, but to ensure that precision, compliance, and strategic relevance endure well beyond the transaction itself.