The motto appears at the bottom of giant flags dangling from the rafters of the Paris Nord Villepinte Exhibition Center and in front of the ubiquitous hand sanitizers. The catchphrase comes from the Michigan Economic Development Corporation.

It’s a near-constant reminder that the U.S. state is open for business.

The thinking behind the state’s brightly lit booth and advertising is simple: Defense spending in the United States is expected to top $800 billion this year, but the worldwide military market is expected to exceed $2 trillion. Michigan’s economic development leaders want to increase export sales for the state’s companies.

They’re hardly the only ones. Economic development agencies representing Georgia, Washington, Oregon and Arizona are among the 1,700 exhibitors presenting at the conference. The overwhelming majority of presenters are from Europe, with about 200 from North America, according to show organizers.

Michigan’s economic development officials boast that the state is home to 126,000 defense jobs as well as U.S. Army Tank-automotive and Armaments Command and the service’s Tank Automotive Research Development and Engineering Center.

In marketing materials, the state claims it produces the most military vehicles in the United States, citing the U.S. Commerce Department.

Michigan is also home to GM Defense, a subsidiary of General Motors, which broke into the defense market in the U.S. when it landed a contract with the Army to build the service’s Infantry Squad Vehicle. General Dynamics and BAE Systems are among the other prime defense contractors with offices in the midwestern state.

But at a trade show like Eurosatory, lesser-known firms — like Great Lakes Sound and Vibration, which focuses on solving sound, vibration and shock problems, or Huron Industries, which is a sealant and lubricant supplier for the nuclear industry — are looking for new clients. State-themed pavilions help offer that chance.

Eurosatory is not a unique experience for Michigan representatives, who attended the last in-person iteration of the show in 2018 and have participated in other international defense conferences.

By working with officials from the U.S. Small Business Administration and traveling to such events, the offerings from Michigan companies can get more exposure, said Jake Schroeder, the international trade development manager for the Michigan Economic Development Corporation, a public-private organization. Otherwise, “they might not be able to dedicate the resources.”

Military leaders have tried for nearly a decade to build an exoskeleton, sometimes cheekily called an Iron Man suit, to lighten the load for dismounted infantrymen. Variations of the idea had attracted the attention of Gen. Mark Milley, when he was chief of staff of the Army, and of U.S. Special Operations Command, which tried to build a suit known as the Tactical Assault Light Operator Suit, or TALOS.

In 2013, U.S. Special Operations Command sought proposals for TALOS, looking for a range of technologies that would minimize traumatic brain injury, reduce electromagnetic and acoustic signature and protect against advanced rifle rounds.

After five years, that program was replaced by another effort, the Hyper Enabled Operator, which had nothing to do with making troops more physically adept and instead focused on feeding them data for making better decisions.

But now, Ted Maciuba, deputy director of robotics requirements for the Maneuver Capability Development Integration Directorate at Army Futures Command, said that technology has advanced enough for the Army to slowly begin piecing together a version of the suit.

Speaking Wednesday at the Eurosatory trade show here, Maciuba listed more than 30 objectives for his team at Fort Benning in Georgia on a slide labeled “Maneuver Robotics, Programs, Initiatives and Strategy.” The very last line read: “Develop and field a Warrior Suit.”

“We will build that Warrior Suit in baby steps,” he said. “The first thing is: how are you going to allow a soldier to carry that extra 50 pounds and not feel like they’re carrying it? And then we will work our way up to upper body and we will start to integrate it so that it will be a Warrior Suit by 2040-ish. We have to take it in small steps.”

Maciuba said the directorate has a draft requirements document as well as data that shows current technology can reduce a soldier’s perceived load by about 20 percent.

In an interview with Defense News following his speech, Maciuba said the Army would build the suit “joint-by-joint.”

“What we have to do is actually pull the trigger, put out a requirements document that will spur industry to innovate, and then give us a solution. And I would hope that we’d be able to do that within the next year to 18 months,” he said. “The problem is we don’t know what we don’t know. It has to go out there. Soldiers have to break it. Soldiers have to use it. Soldiers have to give free feedback. And then we see how we go to that next step.”

Maciuba has talked publicly about the possibilities of such a suit for at least four years. He said he was inspired by reading Robert Heinlein’s science fiction novel “Starship Troopers,” in which soldiers wear powered armor, more than 50 years ago.

In a 2018 piece entitled “Help on the Battlefield” for the National Infantry Association, Maciuba included an excerpt from Heinlein’s book, quoting the benefits of such a system. “The beauty of an (exoskeleton is that) you don’t have to think about it. You don’t have to drive it, fly it, conn it, operate it: you just wear it, and it takes orders directly from your muscles,” Heinlein wrote.

The move confirmed for European military leaders how they had long suspected that future conflicts with Russia could play out.

While the discussion of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine at Europe’s largest army tradeshow being held this week near Paris focused on how militaries fight on the ground, Maj. Gen. Michel Friedling, the head of France’s Space Command, said Russia’s use of cyber and space weapons sent a critical message.

“What Ukraine has shown us well is that things will begin in [the] cyber and space domain before beginning on the ground,” he said Wednesday. “The cyberattack against Viasat was done the day before the beginning of the ground invasions. This is very significant. And this is very interesting. This is a big lesson. I would say it’s something we were thinking but now it’s real.”

Last month, U.S. and European leaders blamed Russia for a Feb. 24 cyberattack that disrupted internet service for tens of thousands of people in the critical moments that preceded the invasion of Ukraine. The attack on Viasat, a California-based provider of high-speed satellite broadband services and secure networking systems covering military and commercial markets worldwide, was meant to cripple Ukrainian command and control as Russian forces advanced, U.S. and U.K. officials said May 10.

A few months earlier, on Nov. 15, Russia destroyed one of its own satellites in an anti-satellite weapon test, according to the U.S. State Department, creating more than 1,500 pieces of orbital debris that led astronauts on the International Space Station to take cover on several occasions. Space debris-tracking company LeoLabs identified the satellite in question as Cosmos 1408.

The anti-satellite test showed Russia was “ready to deny us space capabilities to other players, even if it creates some debris,” Friedling said. “And even if it denies, to [Russia, themselves] the use of space capabilities.”

Friedling also said as companies such as Viasat or Maxar Technologies, which provided satellite imagery of Russian equipment before and during the conflict, or Elon Musk’s SpaceX, which offered communications services within Ukraine, become more entwined in the day-to-day events and provide military-like offerings, their role becomes blurry to adversaries.

“This is a question of the future,” he said.

U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Matthew Van Wagenen, the deputy chief of staff for operations at NATO’s headquarters in Brussels, told attendees that Russia’s shelling and force thus far in Ukraine could lead to a greater focus on “hard power.”

“Many fell asleep believing that the kind of warfare that we’re seeing in the Ukraine right now would never [have] happened again in Europe,” he said. “And here we are in 2022, and attrition warfare is going on in Western Europe again. This is significantly different. And I think what it’s going to force many governments to go back and look at is: What are those investments in defense that have been made or need to be made?”

Van Wagenen said some governments have come to believe they could “substitute hard power” for investments in cyber operations, electronic warfare and robots. As a result, they believed they could spend less on items such as heavy artillery, armor and infantry, he added.

While cyber operations, for example, have played a significant role in a series of conflicts during the last decade, they have not appeared to be at the forefront of Russia’s strategy in Ukraine.

“The threat of [electronic warfare], cyber … was no substitute for” the collection of Russian troops and equipment in Ukraine, he said. “This is vital for offensive and defensive operations. So it is directly imperative. The number of soldiers you can put on a battlefield makes a difference. … Attrition is as old as warfare. It is here to stay probably for the next 50-100 years, as much as we want to wish it away.”

His comments were echoed by Gen. Pierre-Joseph Givre, director of the French Army’s doctrine command.

“What is decisive is when you take the initiative on the ground,” he said. “It’s not technology, but it’s partly technology. Particularly, it’s a combination, it’s the art of war.”

Givre said while technology can compensate for weaknesses, such as an undermanned force, as was the case at the beginning of the conflict in Ukraine on the front lines of the Donbas region, massive firepower can ultimately make the difference

The move quickly proved prescient.

In March, a deepfake of Ukrainian Volodymyr Zelenskyy surfaced on social media and one of the country’s hacked news sites. The altered video appeared to show Zelenskyy telling Ukrainian soldiers to surrender to Russia.

It was exactly the type of cognitive warfare that the group of writers known as the Red Team want to render meaningless.

After French military leaders watched the broadcast, they accelerated the program’s timeline, Emmanuel Chiva, the head of France’s defense innovation agency, said Monday. He declined to offer more details, citing the program’s classified nature. Myriade is expected to launch in three years with a methodology to counter such threats.

The program is an example of how Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is forcing nations around the world to reconsider how they invest in future technologies.

In the U.S., the conflict is driving a greater emphasis on commercial technologies, such as satellite imagery from companies including Planet and Maxar. French and U.S. military leaders said Tuesday at the conference that officials need to invest in war games and capabilities that challenge long-held assumptions. For France, the conflict means a focus on fast, low-cost and resilient systems without sacrificing technological advancements.

“Yes, we have a crisis right now,” Chiva said on the first day of the Eurosatory conference in Paris. “We should also prepare for the future.”

Chiva, whose agency works to bridge new technology to military applications, pointed to the need for continued investments in artificial intelligence, robotics, space, drones and directed energy. He also called out the need for funding in less frequently discussed areas such as hypervelocity and seabed warfare.

In an interview with Defense News, Chiva pointed to a pair of projects from recent months that the invasion in Ukraine helped shape. In May, his office announced programs known as Colibri and Larinae, French names for hummingbirds and seagulls. The office wants to find ways for drones, once used only for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, to carry payloads that can help take out armored vehicles.

“The idea is to have a low-cost solution to be able to target and neutralize an armored vehicle within 5 kilometers or within 50 kilometers,” he said. “What we say that is we want something that’s easy to use, not a lot of training, low cost compared with very sophisticated designs for example. We want it fast, and we want a demonstration by 2024 and we don’t tell the people exactly what we want in terms of systems. It could be a swarm of drones … I don’t know. I don’t care. It’s quite new.”

The answer appears to be that national security firms have fared well. Very well.

Consider that six of the 10 largest U.S. defense companies had revenues jump by 6 percent or more — a total of about $11 billion — from fiscal 2019. And all seven Chinese firms on the list grew during the last year as well.

See the 2021 Top 100 list here!

The pandemic has shown — or maybe exposed — a workforce in which everyone is always online, always connected and, during the last 16 months, always on the job. That’s also true of the national security community. During this era of gray zone conflict, information warfare and cyberattacks, it’s often felt like there has been no letting up, no pause, no time to catch a breath.

At the same time, this year’s list marks yet another significant shift in how the industry is changing. Last summer, I mentioned that the Top 100 is part art and part science but that every year we push it a bit closer to science. We succeeded in that vision for 2021.

This year’s list includes more than 20 new names. Part of that is due to mergers since last summer. For example, Raytheon Technologies — the result of a combined United Technologies Corporation and Raytheon Company — makes its debut at No. 2.

Some of those new additions are due to a more aggressive approach on our part to seek out information on defense revenues from companies around the world or from firms we either overlooked or for which we couldn’t previously find revenue figures.

As evidence, last year’s 100th company on the list had just less than $300 million in defense revenue. This year, the 100th firm has just less than $600 million.

And some of the change serves as proof of the shifting demands of modern warfare.

Among the companies that are new — or returning — to the Top 100 are the cyber firm ManTech, the space company Parsons Corporation, the satellite imagery company Maxar Technologies, sensor company FLIR Systems, and emerging technologies company Alion Science and Technology. For all the talk of a digital, net-centric battlespace, this year’s list may best reflect how industry is bending and evolving toward that future.

The primary story in the defense industry has been one of relentless growth. A decade ago, 15 companies had $5 billion in defense revenue. Today, we know of at least 24 companies that reach the same threshold.

By next year at this time, we will know if a coronavirus could slow the defense economy down or if even a once-in-a-generation pandemic is a mere hiccup.

More access: President-elect Joe Biden made daily briefings at the Pentagon and the State Department part of his formal platform. Such a move would improve transparency and strengthen relationships with allies about how national security leaders are thinking. Transparency also improves accountability. In 2018, Rep. Mike Gallagher, R-Wis., told Defense News: “I worry that by failing to discuss problems, we will only ensure there is no public pressure to fix them.” Still true. Also, more details about the U.S. Air Force’s F-35, or the Advanced Battle Management System, or the secret prototype of its next-generation fighter jet would be nice.

Less jargon: This is a wish list, so let me dream, OK? Elon Musk’s greatest contribution to national security may be the Falcon 9 rocket, and SpaceX’s Starlink constellation may eventually have greater consequences. But his work attempting to abolish unnecessary acronyms, particularly if adopted by more leaders in the military, would be a significant legacy. From a well-circulated 2010 letter Musk sent SpaceX employees:

“Individually, a few acronyms here and there may not seem so bad, but if a thousand people are making these up, over time the result will be a huge glossary that we have to issue to new employees. No one can actually remember all these acronyms and people don’t want to seem dumb in a meeting, so they just sit there in ignorance. This is particularly tough on new employees.”

CJADC2. Enough said.

A new effort at reform: Texas Rep. Mac Thornberry, the recently retired longtime Republican leader of the House Armed Services Committee, made defense reform one of the tenets of his time in office. Concurrently, the Pentagon’s efforts by its chief management officer found savings but did not involve the broad, sweeping measures envisioned by Congress and was shuttered. Finally, with a new administration, it’s unclear if former Defense Secretary Mark Esper’s “night court” efforts at finding savings will continue. A new serious, long-lasting effort at reform is needed.

A clearer vision for the Space Force: If there’s another pew-pew-pew joke about the Space Force, it’s too soon. But for decades the military has relied on space for an information advantage. A recent briefing from Morgan Stanley noted that the Pentagon doubled spending on space in the last five years, with at least $4 billion spent to mitigate risks. How the Space Force will work to protect or extend that advantage is a worthy discussion.

A shipbuilding plan for the Navy that sticks: Industry needs a plan, or at least a core of a plan, to be able to meet the service’s needs in the future. The back-and-forth “will they, won’t they” that has hampered shipbuilding plans in recent years — most notably a dead-on-arrival plan from the White House’s national security adviser — makes it more difficult for industry to prepare and raises questions about cost and capacity, neither of which are necessary.

A meaningful public conversation about cyber operations: The SolarWinds breach has revealed how little is known about how effectively the Defense Department protects its networks. The Pentagon’s supply chain cybersecurity program known as CMMC, or the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification, is admirable. But it is also looking like it is two years too late. The discussion around cyber in the federal government has centered on leaders taking greater responsibility for their agency’s cybersecurity. That approach is well-intentioned but has felt too punitive. In light of what SolarWinds has exposed, accelerating and funding protection measures, such as the adoption of zero trust, would be an easy first step.

Speedy delivery of a vaccine: I’m encouraged by the anecdotes of new ways for Defense Department employees to get work done during this time of coronavirus. I’m less optimistic the pandemic has presented opportunities for businesses or innovators trying to get in the door — the so-called lifeblood of innovation that we hear so much about. Instead, I worry that at a time of unprecedented change, leaders rely on what they already know.

The Outlook project features thoughtful ideas from some of the world’s most thoughtful minds in defense. It’s insightful. But also, do better than CJADC2.

The same could be said for the defense industry or Pentagon budgets and as such, the Defense News Top 100 list.

Changes are slow and can take time to appear on our list. For example, for the first time, this year’s list reflects the result of the L3-Harris merger. L3, ranked 18th on last year’s list, and Harris, ranked 26th a year ago, merged to form what everyone expected: one of the world’s largest defense corporations in L3Harris Technologies, ranked 9th on our list.

Click here to see the Defense News Top 100 list.

Next year, observers will see the results of the merger between Raytheon, ranked 5th on this year’s list, and United Technologies Corp., ranked 10th on this year’s list.

Thematically, the shifts that defense and military leaders have spent years discussing are becoming fully reflected in industry. China’s heavy investments in defense are becoming evident by the inclusion of Aviation Industry Corporation of China (6th), China North Industries Group Corporation Limited (8th), and China Aerospace Science and Industry Corporation (11th) on this year’s list. The role of integration and communication tools is becoming more important, as is evidenced by Leidos, Peraton and Perspecta’s inclusion. Medium-sized businesses are becoming increasingly critical players.

And, for years, U.S. military leaders have heard from Silicon Valley startups that it remains too difficult to break into the defense market in a meaningful way. Advocates will likely point by how few are in the list. Other companies have complained that the big primes have too much of a lock on Pentagon contracts, perhaps seen in how the top five bring in more than twice the revenue of the next five.

Each year, the Defense News Top 100 is part art, part science. Every year, the Defense News team tries to push it a bit closer to science. This year’s list, like years past, is a snapshot of what’s happening in defense markets and maybe, just maybe, a hint of what’s to come.

Consider this anecdote from General Dynamics.

Phebe Novakovic, the company’s chief executive, told analysts in late July that when COVID-19 struck, “our classified customers closed their sites to all but mission-essential employees. This impacted revenue and earnings and will continue to do so. Some of IT services’ highest-margin programs have come to a hard stop because of COVID-19.”

Click here to see the Defense News Top 100 list.

Novakovic described the pandemic as a time of “significant uncertainty.”

That story was not unusual.

David Calhoun, Boeing’s CEO, described this as “a historically dynamic and challenging time.” Greg Hayes, Raytheon Technologies’ top executive, opened his second-quarter call by stating: “As everyone knows, these last several months have been incredibly challenging.” And Bill Brown, the CEO of L3Harris, said: “The pandemic has challenged us all to find new ways of working effectively.”

To be clear, defense contractors have lost roughly 20 percent of their value in the last six months, by tracking exchange-traded funds. That’s the worst run for publicly traded companies in at least a decade.

So what to make of this?

James Taiclet, Lockheed Martin’s new leader, said his philosophy is that there may be “an opportunity for us if there is a downturn, we’re going to look at the silver linings that may be there.” He was talking about mergers and acquisitions.

But defense companies of all sizes should look for another opportunity: a reason to operate differently, not an excuse to get back to basics. Leaders should reexamine how to embrace new talent, how to effectively telework, and how to add new equipment or partnerships with unexpected sources.

Military leaders for years have said they value agility. Now they will get to watch firsthand who changes, who is prepared for the long term, who adapts and who merely talks about adapting. These “challenges” can give acquisition officials a reason to reward agility.

But back to the earnings calls. Officials hinted about what may happen next, before we — fingers crossed — enter a post-pandemic world. Lockheed’s Kenneth Possenriede, the company’s chief financial officer, said that while solicitations may be slower getting out the door, final deadlines have not changed.

Brown at L3Harris said: “We believe that the heightened threat environment will drive the trajectory of U.S military spending regardless of the election.”

Novakovic seconded that notion. “There’s a general consensus that the threat has not dissipated,” she said. “In fact, arguably some of our potential adversaries have raised additional questions. … We’ll see going forward, but [I’m] not hearing a lot at the grassroots level on … any pending defense cuts.”

The threat may not have changed. Nor may the business of defense. Yet.

But it’s impossible to ignore that almost everything else has.