European defence spending in 2024 reached approximately €420 billion across all NATO European member states, according to NATO's annual defence expenditure estimates. This represents the fourth consecutive year of real-terms growth and the first year in which the majority of European NATO members met or exceeded the 2% of GDP spending target. The trajectory is significant not just for the absolute numbers but for its structural character: this is not a one-time spending surge driven by a single procurement programme. It is a sustained strategic reorientation that will drive defence technology investment for at least a decade.
For software vendors, the relevant question is not the total defence spending figure but the share that flows to software, services, and technology — and specifically, which software segments are growing fastest and where procurement programmes with defined budgets are creating near-term opportunities.
NATO Defence Spending Trends: Beyond the 2% Target
The NATO 2% GDP spending target, long criticised as a benchmark that few European members met, has been substantially exceeded or met by a growing majority of allies. In 2024, NATO reported that 23 of 32 member nations met the 2% target, up from 11 in 2023 and 6 in 2020. More significantly, several nations have committed to targets substantially above 2%: Poland has committed to 4% of GDP (the highest in the Alliance), the Baltic states are investing at 3–3.5% of GDP, and Germany's special defence fund (Sondervermögen) of €100 billion — though not sufficient to address all capability gaps — has created a structural commitment to higher spending that will outlast the fund itself.
The spending increase is not distributed evenly across capability areas. The categories receiving the highest priority investment are: air defence (driven by lessons from the Ukraine conflict), munitions stockpiling, C2 modernisation, and, increasingly, digital and software capabilities. The EU's Defence Industrial Incentive Programme and European Defence Fund are directing additional funding specifically toward digital capabilities and software — creating a pool of dedicated software investment that did not exist in the previous decade.
Software vs Hardware Split: Where the Software Share Is Growing
Traditional defence procurement is dominated by hardware: platforms, vehicles, aircraft, ships, and munitions. Software has historically been treated as a component of hardware programmes rather than a procurement category in its own right. This is changing. Several structural forces are driving an increase in the software share of defence spending:
Platform lifetime extension programmes are replacing hardware upgrades with software upgrades. Rather than procuring new platforms, several European nations are extending the service life of existing platforms through software-defined capability upgrades — new mission systems, updated sensor processing software, upgraded communications management software. The F-16 capability upgrades being supplied to multiple European nations are the most visible example, but the pattern applies across multiple platform categories.
C2 and ISR modernisation is almost entirely software spending. The programmes driving European C2 investment — German Heer's D-LBO programme, UK's Project MORPHEUS, France's SCORPION initiative — are primarily about software architecture, not hardware. The sensors and communications hardware may be new or upgraded, but the dominant cost and value in these programmes is in the software that fuses, manages, and presents information to commanders.
Cybersecurity is a rapidly growing software category that did not have a significant budget line in most European defence ministries before 2020. National cybersecurity investment has accelerated markedly, with multiple nations establishing dedicated military cyber commands with associated procurement budgets for cyber tools, defensive security products, and training simulation systems.
Key insight: Industry analysts consistently estimate that software and services represent 25–35% of total defence programme costs and that this share has been growing at approximately 2–3 percentage points per year. In a €420 billion European defence market, that translates to a software and services market of €105–150 billion annually — a number that should calibrate vendor expectations for market size.
Key Segments: C2, Cybersecurity, Simulation, Logistics
Command and Control software is the largest single software segment in European defence, driven by the C2 modernisation programmes across multiple nations. The primary technical requirement across these programmes is the same: replacing legacy, proprietary C2 systems with modern, interoperable, software-defined architectures that can be updated without full hardware replacement cycles. Vendors with NATO FMN-compliant C2 architectures, modern user interface capabilities, and AI-enabled decision support are well positioned in this segment.
Cybersecurity is the fastest-growing software segment by percentage. European military cybersecurity spending is estimated to be growing at 12–15% annually from a relatively small base. The primary demand areas are: security information and event management (SIEM) systems tailored for military network environments, cyber training ranges for military cyber personnel, zero-trust architecture implementation tools, and automated vulnerability assessment systems.
Simulation and training software has been driven by the increase in active military training requirements following the reappraisal of European security. Live training capacity is limited by range availability, fuel costs, and safety constraints. Software-based simulation and training systems — constructive simulation for staff training, virtual simulation for individual and crew training, and mixed-reality systems for combined training — are seeing significant investment as nations seek to increase training throughput without proportional increases in live training costs.
Defence logistics software has received attention following the ammunition stockpile failures revealed by the Ukraine conflict. Multiple European nations have accelerated investment in supply chain visibility tools, munitions management systems, and maintenance management software. This is a segment where commercial supply chain software vendors can compete effectively — the technical requirements are less specialised than in C2 or intelligence software, and the operational urgency has relaxed some of the security requirements that would otherwise create barriers to commercial technology adoption.
Procurement Programmes with Known Budgets
Several European defence digital modernisation programmes have publicly stated budgets and known procurement timelines that create concrete near-term opportunities for software vendors:
Germany's D-LBO (Digitalisierung Landbasierter Operationen) is the Bundeswehr's land force digitalisation programme, with an estimated total investment of €2–3 billion over its programme life. It encompasses C2 software, soldier systems, and vehicle network systems for the German Army. Software subcontract opportunities are accessible through the programme primes (Rheinmetall, Thales Germany).
France's SCORPION programme is the French Army's combat digitalisation programme, which has been in execution since 2018 with a total budget of approximately €8 billion. The programme is in its main acquisition phase and is generating subcontract opportunities in C2 software, tactical communications management, and AI-enabled intelligence tools.
UK Project MORPHEUS is the British Army's tactical communications modernisation programme, replacing the BOWMAN system. The programme has an estimated value of £1.5–2 billion and is generating software opportunities in communications management, network monitoring, and integrated C2 applications.
For software vendors, these programmes create specific entry points: follow the prime contractor award announcements and reach out to supply chain development teams immediately following contract award, when subcontract planning is active. Waiting until programmes are in execution and specific subcontract tenders are issued is typically too late — the relationships that determine subcontract allocation are built in the pre-award period.