This study analyzes the structural changes of the global defense exports and response strategies. First, we scrutinize the structural changes in exporting and importing behavior of the competing and targeting countries. Based on the results, we draw structural problems of Korean defense exports not properly dealing with those changes and delve into the reason why export-enhancing policies do not work in the filed. Finally, we suggest the concrete solution for the improvement in export-promoting policies fixing chronic problems of Korean defense exports. The cases of the competing countries suggest that global defense exports have increased in most countries despite the intensifying global competition. Especially, advanced countries show their compartive advantages in cutting-edge weapon in global exports market. It turns out that most competing countries take exports into consideration at the beginning of R&D stage, and frequently join international co-development. Moreover, they exploit various marketing measures such as GtoG transaction, export financing, localization, and defense exhibition. Based on these export policies, competing firms diversify the exporting weapon and targeting countries as well. They especially focus on the localization strategies to fulfill the local contents requirement by targeting countries. The analyses of targeting countries show that low-and middleincome countries in Middle East, Africa, and Asia account more for the increasing global exports. Since major destination of Korean defense exports are developing countries, Korean companies are to face harsher competition for their market share. It turns out that most targeting countries require offset, export financing, technology transfer, and establishing infrastructure especially among countries with low industrial maturity and small defense budget. On the other hand, countries with high industrial maturity and small budget tends to require offset, localization, and counter-purchase to strengthen their ability to produce parts and components. Finally, countries with high industrial maturity and huge budget spend their money on offset-related imports and military outsourcing. Recent stagnation of Korean defense exports results from not dealing well with these changing trends in global defense market. The reason for the poor response originates from the structural problems in Korean defense industries. At the R&D stage, for instance, export possibility and international co-development are not properly considered. Moreover, cost compensation system lacks incentives to reduce production costs, and giving rise to lowering price competitiveness. In the marketing perspective, implementing offset and export financing are insufficient due to the lack of control tower and intra-agency cooperation. In order to raise the Korean defense exports by coping with the structural changes in global defense market, it is necessary to establish the goal in terms of export scale, export item, and export market by preparing solution policies. Foremost, it is crucial to mandate companies to consider export possibilities at the beginning of the development, along with localizing parts and components. Second, by reforming cost compensation system, government needs to support firms to raise price competitiveness. Third, establishing intra-agency system is required to deal with localization in the low- and middle-income countries and to strengthen cooperation with advanced countries such as the U.S.. Especially, Biden administration now seeks the way to establish trusted supply chain, which is invaluable chance for Korean defense industries. Therefore, we must reinforce cooperation with the U.S. by exploiting offset and participating their supply chain.