For Connecticut, a state whose economy has long relied heavily upon defense contracts, the military’s new look could be a disaster or a blessing, depending on how the state’s major contractors respond, experts say.

“The companies that emerge, that take root and flourish, are not going to be the industrial giants of the past,” said Fred Downey, longtime military adviser to Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman. “To the extent that Electric Boat and Pratt & Whitney are agile and well positioned, they’ll be the ones.”

A look at federal contract dollars going into Connecticut’s largest defense companies, United Technologies Corp. and General Dynamics’ Electric Boat Co., show revenues declining sharply in the early ‘90s, and continuing at low levels, before rising again at the end of the decade, though not up to 1980s levels.

The end of the Cold War meant a major restructuring for defense and related industries in America, said Steven Lanza, executive editor of The Connecticut Economy, and lecturer at the University of Connecticut. The fact that Connecticut’s defense behemoths survived, he said, is testament to their efficiency – and their political clout.

On Sept. 10, 2001, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld outlined a major plan to transform the military by streamling operations and taking advantage of technology. The success of the campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq bolstered the Bush administration’s commitment to change the military.

If the change means that the flow of dollars will move towards companies that produce high-tech communications systems, software, and robotics, rather than armor and explosives, Lanza said he believes Connecticut will be well positioned to take advantage of the situation.

“This is exactly the sort of thing Connecticut excels at,” he said, citing “high-tech, high value-added, high skilled kinds of activities” in which a competitive advantage depends on ingenuity rather than on low labor costs.

A transformed military, experts say, would be smaller, lighter and faster; able to move quickly to act in a variety of theatres, taking advantage of modern technology and communications equipment; and ready to mobilize against diffuse militant groups as well as against states with standing military forces.

But while one military expert may emphasize unmanned Predator drones and small craft as exemplifying the “smaller, lighter, faster” doctrine, another may cite efforts to develop bigger heavy-transport aircraft to move tanks and vehicles into battle.

Take the F/A-22 Raptor. Spokesmen for Pratt & Whitney, makers of the Raptor’s engines, describe the plane as a “transformational” weapon because of integrated navigations and communications systems which, they say, give the pilot an unprecedented view of the battlefield. But the plane has been in development since the ‘80’s and isn’t yet operational, while some experts peg the cost at around $60 billion. Critics cite it as antithetical to the vision of an efficient and streamlined military that Rumsfeld described in 2001.

Dan Koslofsky, of the arms control group Council for a Livable World, said he likes the idea of “transformation” because it’s cheaper: how many of the unmanned Predator aircraft that were so effective in Iraq could the government buy for the cost of one Raptor?

But he’s not optimistic that the transformation craze will make a difference in what the Pentagon buys. According to Koslofsky, well over 90 percent of the defense budget is still invested in “old school” systems.

“You couldn’t find a more ridiculous example of a cold war weapon than a submarine,” he said, discussing the Pentagon’s order for a new Virginia-class submarine from Groton-based Electric Boat. “These things have no purpose. … Al-Qaida doesn’t have a navy.”

Downey disagreed, calling the submarine the “premier example” of a transformed military system because of its ability to carry weapons, equipment, and special operations forces to distant theatres; to hide and strike out of nowhere.