They say “merge” but UT is about 4 times the size of Raytheon so I think merge may be misleading (at least to me).
At first blush it *looks* like a bad idea - as others have noted consolidation, less competition... But when you look into what the two companies actually provide there is virtually no overlap. So if you're the DoD looking to buy an X-widget, it might be in either Raytheon's or UT's wheelhouse, but not both. So merging the two means it doesn't take away options. It's not like Raytheon or UT are the only two providers of the X-widget, and after the merger the new company will have a monopoly. In many ways the merger might enhance competition - creating another company that can actually go toe-to-toe with Boeing, Lockheed, Northrop, etc. on more contracts.
On the other hand, I don't buy that it is as rosy as some people have been making out either. I've already read "...creating one stop shopping for customers..." Well, that seems a bit of a stretch. Even combined, the two companies don't really have complete solutions for many things. It's not likely a customer is going to need a jet engine and a radar. Now, they may need them as part of some program but... "One stop shopping" seems a bit like marketing hype. It will give them a bigger portfolio of products and services to offer - they can take on more of a program, or be a bigger/badder/better partner for a complete contract. It will also give the resulting company broader scope and deeper pockets - making it much more resilient against temporary slumps in one market segment or another.
I'm taking a wait and see attitude. If/when it eventually happens, which will probably take the better part of a year, then it'll take another year or two to see how well the company is working...