1. Mustafa Bilal-OA-Eur-Spa-Mer-Les-10 Dec-2025-Oped thumbnail-January-2026-APP

The announcement on 23 October that Airbus, Thales and Leonardo will merge their satellite operations was a historic development for the European space industry. The plan aims to establish a new combined entity by 2027. Historically, the European space industry has been a competent but fragmented market in the form of national champions and competing initiatives. However, Intra-European competition is no longer tenable in the face of strong American and Chinese competitors. Against this backdrop, the merger signals an implicit recognition by European states that scale, specialisation and consolidation have become preconditions for both survival and competitiveness in the global space sector. This could offer a case study for emerging space nations that are struggling to take off.

Europe’s long deliberations till the announcement of the merger have been driven by overarching techno-political pressures. The emergence of SpaceX and its constellation of Starlink satellites have altered the economic calculus of accessing space. This disrupted the complacent status quo that European space companies have become accustomed to. Consequently, the traditional European competence in building and launching large, high-tech and expensive geostationary (GEO) satellites has been undermined by the mass production of smaller and cheaper satellites in low Earth orbit (LEO).

Financial reports highlight the severity of the situation: the space division of Airbus has registered losses of close to USD 700 million last year. Similarly once-thriving Thales Alenia Space has faced a zero-profit year and had to make substantial job cuts. The broader European industry in general has struggled to keep up, with a contraction of its traditional GEO market. Catalysed by these developments, the merger, codenamed Project Bromo and modelled on the MBDA, (a multinational European defence company) aims to arrest the decline of European space prowess by pooling resources, setting aside rivalries and achieving the critical mass needed to win global contracts.

The underlying logic of the merger is deeply interconnected with an emphasis on achieving strategic autonomy. The conflict in Ukraine has highlighted the military utility of space-based assets for communications, imagery and navigation. European governments have thus grown more conscious of the vulnerabilities that stem from the dependence on foreign providers of these vital services. In this context, the new joint venture is the industrial pivot for sovereign European programmes, most notably the IRIS² secure satellite constellation. Hence, the merger intends to ensure that Europe remains in control of its own destiny in space.

Nonetheless, the way forward faces challenges that must be keenly observed. Antitrust approval from the European Commission is a major obstacle, as highlighted by a German space firm, which has expressed concern of a monopolistic landscape after the merger. Analysts also question whether the merger has come too late, assessing that Project Bromo is driven by a Fear of Missing Out (FOMO) on getting a slice of the shrinking pie of the global space economy.

The integration process is also expected to take two to three years; some venture capitalists have hinted that SpaceX may reinvent itself three times in the same time. There is also a legitimate concern that consolidation will undermine the very innovation Europe is trying to promote, leading to a lumbering entity incapable of having the agility of smaller NewSpace companies. Furthermore, negotiations between the three companies on the valuation and the governance have underlined the complexity of uniting different corporate cultures and interests.

For emerging space nations, the dilemma of the European space industry and its response offer an insightful blueprint. Many face similar, if not more acute technopolitical circumstances they are struggling to navigate. The way forward might lie in pragmatic multilateral space cooperation, inspired by the European Space Agency (ESA). For instance, the Asia-Pacific Space Cooperation Organisation (APSCO) has shown that it is possible to undertake joint projects, like shared data-service platforms. Multilateral space cooperation can empower emerging space faring nations to collectively negotiate globally from a position of strength, which is also a major objective of Project Bromo.

Under such a cooperative framework, specialisation would be a rational strategy considering that even states like France and Germany specialise in certain space technologies. Therefore, emerging space faring nations could try to find niches in which they can build competitive advantages. A state with a strong software industry could specialise in data analytics based on Earth observation imagery, while another, with a favourable geographic position, could specialise in hosting ground station services. A multilateral space bloc might even fund its own small satellite programmes that could be utilised collectively. It would allow the development of specialised expertise and integration of nascent space industries into worldwide supply chains. This approach would be like the one European states are adopting from the amalgamation of their collective strengths.

Drawing from the preceding discussion, it can be argued that the merger of European space giants seems to be catalysed by recent technological and geopolitical undercurrents. So, Project Bromo can be considered a space industry consolidation born out of necessity, but it does shed light on a viable way forward for emerging space nations. The merger underscores how multilateral space cooperation can bolster space autonomy, with specialisation being the key to maintaining relevance in the global space sector. Hence, through cooperation via existing multilateral frameworks and supply chain specialisation, emerging space nations can carve a niche in the global space economy. Scale wins contracts; specialisation wins markets, the challenge would be to combine both without stifling innovation.

Mustafa Bilal is a Research Assistant at the Centre for Aerospace & Security Studies (CASS), Islamabad. The article was first published in Space News. He can be reached at [email protected]


Share this article

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

Recent Publications

Browse through the list of recent publications.

The US-Israel War on Iran: Objectives, Strategy, and Escalation Management

Zahra Niazi
‘States tend to overestimate themselves or the benefits and swiftness of war, and to underestimate their opponents’ capabilities, intentions, or the costs and duration of war.’ If anything, the 2026 war initiated by the United States and Israel against Iran shall be remembered in the annals of warfare among the most visible manifestations of this dynamic.
The war, immediately preceded by the January mass protests in Iran, did not represent a sudden rupture but rather the continuation of a 47-year-long confrontation and a more intense phase of the June 2025 war.
The US Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, defined the war’s objectives as being laser-focused: to destroy Iran’s missile capabilities and its security infrastructure, while ensuring that it could never develop nuclear weapons. Beyond these stated objectives, among the priorities on the continuum also lay the objective of regime change, with both President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu explicitly calling on the Iranian population to take over the government at the outset of the war.

Read More »

Marka-e-Haq to the Peace Talks: Pakistan’s Middle Power Status

On 7th May 2025, Pakistan’s military forces took the international security community by surprise when it demonstrated operational superiority against its larger belligerent adversary India with its rapid and coordinated response. The Four-Day conflict proved to be a watershed moment for Pakistan, marking its rapid emergence as an important player in the region. In recent years, amidst the ongoing global competition between the United States and China, Islamabad has adopted a position of ’Strategic Balancing,’ where it maintains ties of cooperation with both Beijing and Washington. Deft diplomacy, emphasis on geo-economics, and credible conventional and strategic deterrence have remained the foundational pillars for Pakistan’s ambition as a rising middle power

Read More »

Debunking the S-400 Shield: Lessons from the India-Pakistan Conflict

Air defense has always been a central aspect of warfare. In South Asia, the phenomenon carries immense significance due to compressed reaction times. In this context, one of the most-hyped systems is the Russian-made S-400, touted by New Delhi as a one-stop solution to counter aerial threats from both Pakistan and China.
The 2025 conflict between India and Pakistan marked an important chapter in testing the S-400 technology. The conflict began on May 7, when India attacked what it alleged were terrorist targets in both Pakistani-held Kashmir and Pakistan proper, using drone and missile strikes. The conflict lasted for four days, culminating in a U.S-facilitated ceasefire. However, the brief conflict debunked a lot of the myths regarding the S-400 technology.
First, India claimed that the mobile S-400 would be able to control Pakistan’s airspace. In contrast, Pakistani aircraft continued to operate freely, according to official briefings by the Pakistani military. Although the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) aircraft were in their own airspace, they were still within the air defense range.

Read More »