I'll give it a look.
It's amazing and refreshing when a company breaks this costly trend. Relative newcomer SpaceX is already up to at least 5 states plus DC.
Kind of like how the electoral college system vs. popular vote system influences where presidential candidates campaign, I believe Raytheon will have a greater incentive to target one or two communities with a lot of sway at different political levels as opposed to several districts with little. It's cheaper to do and more cost effective.
Maybe I don't see it the way you do, but I do not see this as a net positive for communities whose sole employer is Raytheon. The measures I'm using are wages, employment, and quality of life.
It's pretty rare for a single office to create, from start to finish, an entire product, like an engine or missile. The assembly line is distributed in the first place, with separate offices attaching, refitting, and validating different pieces of the entire weapon system.
So I do not believe this comment comes from a place of knowledge on this subject. My comment also asserts that factories are not static, just because they produce something now doesn't mean that they can't be assigned something later.
Entire Congressional Districts whose main employer is either Raytheon or UTC could see their plants consolidated. Or closed.
Lobbyists for both companies will be working with each other on projects and initiatives, which could result in pressure for other defense companies to merge.