Philip Finnegan, director of corporate analysis at Teal Group, an aerospace consulting firm based in Fairfax, Virginia, said he expected the 2014 U.S. budget to propose reductions in existing drone programs in favor of “next generation systems, stealthier, with more power, and capable of operating autonomously if jammed by opponents.” Among major competitors to the U.S. drone makers, Mr. Finnegan lists Israeli companies — in some cases working with Indian partners — and Brazilian programs aimed at that country’s need to patrol far-flung jungle borders and a long Atlantic coastline. Also emerging as future competitors, in Mr. Finnegan’s view, are Turkish Aerospace Industries; Denel, the South African state-owned aerospace and defense technology group; and some Chinese companies.

Yet while this is an industry waiting to take off, until the Federal Aviation Administration sorts out the rules of the air for unmanned vehicles it will remain idling on the runway, because for now commercial flights are banned. Congress has asked the FAA to write regulations governing civil operation of small unmanned aircraft systems in the national airspace by 2015. It’s not clear whether the agency will meet that deadline or not. “There’s just too much uncertainty,” said Phil Finnegan, director of corporate analysis at the Teal Group, which monitors the aerospace industry. “There will be applications when the FAA opens up the airspace. The first one will be law enforcement, then civilian. But for now, they cannot fly freely in airspace.”

Boeing had been slated to manage the construction and installation of 10 ground-based interceptors in Poland that were part of the Bush administration’s original plans. “The losers are clear,” said Phil Finnegan, of the defense and aerospace research firm Teal Group. “Boeing was going to develop that site, and obviously that’s not going to happen.”

“There’s a different wind blowing in Washington,” said Phil Finnegan, a defense industry analyst at the Teal Group. He noted that many programs in which defense companies served as both advisers and architects have run into cost overruns and other problems. “What you saw in the past was a close relationship between government and industry,” he said. “The idea was: Trust the contractor with the ability to come up with the overall architecture and implementation of systems because they have so much capability.” But now there have been problems, he said. “There is a new attitude. There is not the level of trust of contractors you saw a few years ago.”

That would mean big new opportunities and more funding for major projects for local defense and technology contractors, including Lockheed Martin of Bethesda, General Dynamics of Falls Church, SI International of Reston, CACI International of Arlington and Northrop Grumman, which is based in Los Angeles but has a large presence in the Washington area. “The expectation has been that it can’t continue to increase as it has,” Phil Finnegan, a defense analyst at the Teal Group in Fairfax, said of defense spending. “But it has surprised everyone to see how long this increase has continued. This budget was a great budget for all defense contractors. It includes continuing growth — not as fast as last year, but it enabled everyone’s programs to be funded.” Finnegan, other analysts and executives at contracting companies said they don’t expect the party to last indefinitely.