PUBLISHER: 360iResearch | PRODUCT CODE: 1827492

PUBLISHER: 360iResearch | PRODUCT CODE: 1827492

Aircraft Strut Market by Material Type, Application, Aircraft Type - Global Forecast 2025-2032

PUBLISHED: September 30, 2025

PAGES: 186 Pages

DELIVERY TIME: 1-2 business days

ADD TO COMPARE

SELECT AN OPTION

List of Tables

The Aircraft Strut Market is projected to grow by USD 646.35 million at a CAGR of 7.98% by 2032.

KEY MARKET STATISTICS
Base Year [2024]	USD 349.56 million
Estimated Year [2025]	USD 377.28 million
Forecast Year [2032]	USD 646.35 million
CAGR (%)	7.98%

Strategic overview of aircraft strut significance emphasizing material innovation certification complexity and operational reliability imperatives for aviation leaders

Aircraft struts are fundamental structural elements that enable controlled transfer of loads, precise motion control, and resilient attachment points across a wide spectrum of airframe subsystems. Historically conceived as straightforward load-bearing components, modern aircraft struts have evolved into performance-critical assemblies where material selection, dynamic behavior under fatigue, manufacturing repeatability, and certification compliance converge to determine in-service reliability. As aircraft platforms diversify and mission profiles become more demanding, the design of struts must reconcile light-weighting imperatives with durability, maintainability, and compatibility with advanced control architectures.

In recent years, advances in composite materials, additive manufacturing, and digital simulation have permitted rethinking how struts are engineered and validated. These technological enablers have reduced the trade-offs between stiffness and mass while introducing new questions about repairability and manufacturing scalability. At the same time, supply chain fragmentation and geopolitical policy shifts have increased the premium on supplier resilience and materials sourcing transparency. Consequently, stakeholders across OEMs, tier suppliers, and defense primes are recalibrating procurement strategies to balance near-term operational readiness with longer-term strategic autonomy.

This executive summary synthesizes the structural, regulatory, and commercial forces shaping the aircraft strut domain. It highlights the levers that materially influence lifecycle performance and provides a lens for decision-makers to prioritize investments in materials innovation, process control, and supply chain redesign.

Emerging technological and supply chain disruptions redefining aircraft strut design manufacturing and lifecycle assurance priorities for strategic planners

The aircraft strut landscape is undergoing transformative shifts driven by a constellation of technological advances, regulatory pressures, and evolving mission requirements. Electrification and hybrid propulsion trends have altered mass distribution and introduced new vibratory environments, prompting a reassessment of strut stiffness, damping, and attachment configurations. Concurrently, the broader adoption of composite materials and advanced alloys has enabled substantive weight reductions, but these gains require parallel investment in non-destructive inspection, process control, and specialized joining techniques to ensure consistent in-service performance.

Supply chain digitization is accelerating, enabling tighter integration between design, manufacturing, and aftermarket functions. Digital twins and predictive analytics are moving from pilot projects to operational use, allowing engineers to validate designs virtually and to detect degradation earlier in the lifecycle. Additive manufacturing is expanding the design space, particularly for complex load-path geometries and part consolidation, however scaling these processes for critical structural parts demands rigorous qualification and repeatable quality assurance protocols.

Regulatory agencies and certification authorities are adapting standards to accommodate new materials and processes, which in turn influences time-to-market and cost structures. Finally, heightened focus on sustainability is shifting material selection and end-of-life planning, incentivizing reusable and repairable designs. These converging forces are redefining competitive advantage in the aircraft strut market, privileging firms that pair material innovation with robust digital engineering and resilient sourcing strategies.

Comprehensive assessment of how recent United States tariff measures have reshaped procurement risk mitigation supplier qualification and strategic sourcing within aerospace supply chains

Policy actions enacted in 2025 introduced tariff measures that have reverberated through materials supply chains, procurement behavior, and longer-term sourcing strategies for structural components. Tariff-induced cost pressure has prompted many buyers to reassess supplier portfolios and to accelerate qualification of alternative sources closer to end markets. This repositioning has heightened the importance of dual-sourcing strategies and of maintaining validated domestic and regional suppliers for critical alloys and composite feedstocks.

The cumulative effects extend beyond direct input price inflation. Lead-time variability has increased as suppliers adjust production flows to mitigate tariff exposure and to optimize inventories. Fabricators that relied on cross-border integrated supply chains have pursued vertical integration or strategic partnerships to regain control over key inputs. At the engineering level, material substitutions have been evaluated not simply on a unit-cost basis but through total lifecycle implications including inspection regimes, repair protocols, and certification pathways.

Procurement teams are now more likely to bake policy risk into contract terms, incorporating clauses that address duty changes, origin verification, and adaptable logistics plans. For programs with tight certification windows, the tariff environment has elevated the strategic value of supplier continuity and pre-qualified alternate material pathways. Ultimately, the tariff landscape has catalyzed a structural shift in how risk is priced, how supply chains are architected, and how engineering organizations allocate time and resources to material validation and qualification.

Segmentation-driven intelligence highlighting material application and aircraft-type specific opportunities constraints and validation imperatives for component strategy

Insights derived from segmentation analysis reveal differentiated drivers and constraints that vary by material, application, and aircraft type. Based on Material Type, market is studied across Aluminum Struts, Carbon Fiber Struts, Composite Struts, Steel Struts, and Titanium Struts. Materials with high specific strength such as carbon fiber and titanium are increasingly preferred where weight reduction yields operational benefits, while aluminum and steel continue to be selected for cost-efficiency and proven fabrication pathways. Each material category presents distinct challenges: composites demand stringent cure control and inspection regimes, titanium requires specialized machining and supply continuity, and steel necessitates corrosion management in certain environments. The decision calculus for material selection must therefore account for manufacturing maturity, repairability, and lifecycle inspection overheads.

Based on Application, market is studied across Control Surface Struts/Linkage Struts, Engine Mount Struts, Fuselage Struts, Landing Gear Struts, and Wing Struts/Bracing Struts. Application context defines the performance envelope and certification complexity: engine mount struts carry concentrated loads and thermal exposure that favor high-strength alloys and rigorous validation, whereas control surface linkage struts prioritize low friction, precise tolerances, and rapid actuation response. Landing gear struts operate in harsh mechanical shock regimes and demand robust fatigue performance, while wing bracing benefits most from mass-optimized, stiffness-critical designs. Understanding the interplay between operational load spectra and material behavior is essential to avoid over-specification or premature in-service issues.

Based on Aircraft Type, market is studied across Commercial Aircraft and Military Aircraft. Commercial platforms prioritize lifecycle cost, predictable maintenance cycles, and manufacturability at scale, driving preferences toward materials and processes that support high throughput and repeatable inspection. Military platforms often emphasize payload, survivability, and bespoke mission requirements, which can lead to adoption of exotic alloys or advanced composites with tailored properties. Segmentation insights underscore that a one-size-fits-all approach is untenable; instead, strategic product roadmaps should align material and application choices with the distinct operational and procurement drivers of the target aircraft class.

Regional strategic differentiators shaping demand sourcing and certification pathways across Americas Europe Middle East & Africa and Asia-Pacific aerospace ecosystems

Regional dynamics exert a powerful influence on supplier capabilities, certification timelines, and sourcing logic across the aircraft strut landscape. In the Americas, industrial scale and a concentrated concentration of OEMs and tier-one integrators create favorable conditions for domestically located suppliers to serve major airframers. This proximity supports tighter collaboration during design iterations and can shorten qualification cycles, but it also concentrates risk when policy or supply disruptions affect a limited set of domestic sources. Regional defense procurement priorities further shape demand in this geography, often favoring suppliers with proven security-of-supply credentials.

Europe, Middle East & Africa features a diverse industrial base with deep expertise in advanced materials, composites processing, and specialized machining. Certification authorities across the region maintain rigorous standards, and the presence of multiple OEM hubs fosters a competitive supplier ecosystem. Regulatory harmonization and strong aerospace clusters enable cross-border specialization, yet geopolitical considerations and regional trade frameworks influence supplier selection and long-term investment decisions.

Asia-Pacific is characterized by rapid capacity expansion and a growing base of composite and metal fabricators serving both domestic and export markets. Manufacturing scale, cost advantages, and targeted investments in automation have improved regional competitiveness, although variability in quality assurance capabilities and differing certification approaches can require additional qualification effort from buyers. Across all regions, companies that balance regional sourcing advantages with redundant supply arrangements are better positioned to manage uncertainty and sustain program timelines.

Competitive landscape and supplier capability patterns revealing how integrated materials expertise digital process control and certification proficiency create durable advantages

Competitive and supplier intelligence indicates that performance differentiation is increasingly driven by the ability to integrate advanced materials expertise with robust manufacturing controls and proven certification track records. Leading suppliers combine metallurgical and composite competencies with in-house testing laboratories, enabling closed-loop feedback between design and production. Strategic partnerships between materials producers, component fabricators, and systems integrators allow for earlier alignment on specification tolerances, inspection protocols, and reparability standards, which in turn reduces schedule risk during qualification phases.

Suppliers that have invested in digital process control, traceability systems, and automated non-destructive evaluation achieve stronger consistency in part quality and can offer transparent material provenance-an attribute that has become more valuable as buyers emphasize supply chain visibility. Firms that operate across multiple aircraft segments, servicing both commercial and military customers, demonstrate resilience by reallocating capacity in response to demand shifts. Conversely, sole-focus small-scale specialists can remain competitive by offering niche expertise, rapid iteration cycles, and lower overhead for bespoke applications.

Across the competitive set, companies that prioritize modularity in design, scalability in manufacturing, and collaborative validation with OEMs attain a sustainable advantage. Those that neglect investment in inspection infrastructure or that underappreciate the integration demands of advanced materials face elongated certification timelines and higher warranty exposure.

High-impact actions for industry leaders to strengthen supply chain resilience accelerate materials adoption and reduce certification and lifecycle risk exposure

Industry leaders should adopt a set of pragmatic actions that translate insights into measurable outcomes. First, diversify supplier portfolios by pre-qualifying regional and nearshore sources for critical materials to reduce single-point dependency and to shorten contingency response times. When evaluating alternatives, embed qualification scenarios into early program planning so material substitutions can be validated without derailing schedules. Second, invest in nondestructive evaluation and process-control capabilities; automated inspection and digital traceability materially reduce lifecycle uncertainty and expedite certification conversations. Third, accelerate adoption of digital engineering tools that connect design, manufacturing, and in-service data. Digital twins and model-based system engineering enable more accurate predictions of fatigue, facilitate virtual testing, and shorten physical test campaigns.

Fourth, adopt design-for-repair principles that anticipate maintenance workflows and reduce total ownership cost over the asset lifecycle. Fifth, pursue strategic collaborations with materials suppliers and testing labs to co-develop scalable processing methods for advanced alloys and composite layups. Sixth, incorporate tariff and policy risk into contract structures and supplier scorecards, including explicit mechanisms for cost-sharing of requalification or logistics adjustments. Finally, foster cross-functional teams that bring procurement, materials engineering, and certification experts together early in program definition to align on feasible, auditable pathways from prototype to sustainment. These actions will help organizations convert short-term operational resilience into long-term competitive differentiation.

Transparent research methodology combining primary interviews technical validation and cross-referenced secondary intelligence to deliver robust actionable insights

The research underpinning this executive briefing employed a mixed-methods approach to ensure analytical rigor and operational relevance. Primary inputs included structured interviews with materials scientists, component engineers, procurement leads at major airframers, and senior executives at tier suppliers. These conversations were supplemented by targeted discussions with certification authorities and maintenance organizations to capture practical constraints associated with qualification and in-service inspection. Secondary sources comprised peer-reviewed technical literature, patent filings, standards documentation, and supplier technical datasheets to validate material behavior and manufacturing process constraints.

Technical validation testing and case-study reviews were used to corroborate claims about fatigue performance, environmental durability, and repairability for different material classes. Where available, lifecycle maintenance records and aftermarket reliability reports informed assessments of long-term performance implications. Data triangulation was applied across qualitative and quantitative inputs to identify consistent patterns and to isolate outliers.

Limitations are acknowledged: given the proprietary nature of certain supplier processes and the variability in program-specific certification paths, some findings are presented at a strategic rather than prescriptive level. Nonetheless, the methodology emphasizes repeatable evidence, cross-functional validation, and traceable assumptions to support confident decision-making.

Concise synthesis of strategic implications emphasizing material choices certification alignment and supply chain resilience as determinants of competitive success

The analysis converges on several durable conclusions that should guide strategic decision-making. Material innovation is a primary lever for improving the performance-to-weight ratio of struts, but gains are meaningful only when accompanied by mature manufacturing controls and robust inspection regimes. Application context and aircraft type remain central to material and process decisions; what works for a high-cycle commercial airliner does not automatically translate to a military platform with different mission loads and sustainment expectations. Regional supply chain dynamics and tariff-related policy shifts have elevated the importance of sourcing agility and validated alternate suppliers.

Competitive advantage accrues to organizations that combine materials expertise with investment in digital engineering, inspection automation, and collaborative qualification pathways. Proactive risk management-especially around policy-driven tariffs and supplier concentration-reduces schedule disruption and protects program economics without compromising safety or certification integrity. In sum, the industry is at an inflection point where strategic alignment across procurement, engineering, and certification functions will determine which firms can capitalize on material and process innovations while maintaining robust operational readiness.

Product Code: MRR-43281349BA1D

1. Preface

1.1. Objectives of the Study
1.2. Market Segmentation & Coverage
1.3. Years Considered for the Study
1.4. Currency & Pricing
1.5. Language
1.6. Stakeholders

2. Research Methodology

3. Executive Summary

4. Market Overview

5. Market Insights

5.1. Increasing use of additive manufacturing techniques in aircraft strut production for lightweight designs
5.2. Development of smart sensor-enabled struts for real-time structural health monitoring and predictive maintenance
5.3. Shift toward hydraulic-free or electromechanical actuation systems integrated within aircraft strut assemblies
5.4. Adoption of eco-friendly hydraulic fluids and seal materials to comply with stringent environmental regulations
5.5. Collaboration between OEMs and material suppliers to develop next-generation high-strength lightweight alloys for struts

6. Cumulative Impact of United States Tariffs 2025

7. Cumulative Impact of Artificial Intelligence 2025

8. Aircraft Strut Market, by Material Type

8.1. Aluminum Struts
8.2. Carbon Fiber Struts
8.3. Composite Struts
8.4. Steel Struts
8.5. Titanium Struts

9. Aircraft Strut Market, by Application

9.1. Control Surface Struts/Linkage Struts
9.2. Engine Mount Struts
9.3. Fuselage Struts
9.4. Landing Gear Struts
9.5. Wing Struts/Bracing Struts

10. Aircraft Strut Market, by Aircraft Type

10.1. Commercial Aircraft
10.2. Military Aircraft

11. Aircraft Strut Market, by Region

11.1. Americas
- 11.1.1. North America
- 11.1.2. Latin America
11.2. Europe, Middle East & Africa
- 11.2.1. Europe
- 11.2.2. Middle East
- 11.2.3. Africa
11.3. Asia-Pacific

12. Aircraft Strut Market, by Group

12.1. ASEAN
12.2. GCC
12.3. European Union
12.4. BRICS
12.5. G7
12.6. NATO

13. Aircraft Strut Market, by Country

13.1. United States
13.2. Canada
13.3. Mexico
13.4. Brazil
13.5. United Kingdom
13.6. Germany
13.7. France
13.8. Russia
13.9. Italy
13.10. Spain
13.11. China
13.12. India
13.13. Japan
13.14. Australia
13.15. South Korea

14. Competitive Landscape

14.1. Market Share Analysis, 2024
14.2. FPNV Positioning Matrix, 2024
14.3. Competitive Analysis
- 14.3.1. Safran Landing Systems SAS
- 14.3.2. Collins Aerospace Inc.
- 14.3.3. Parker Hannifin Corporation
- 14.3.4. Eaton Corporation plc
- 14.3.5. Honeywell International Inc.
- 14.3.6. Moog Inc.
- 14.3.7. Triumph Group, Inc.
- 14.3.8. Liebherr-International Deutschland GmbH
- 14.3.9. RTX Corporation
- 14.3.10. Intrex Aerospace