The money is flowing into European defence at a pace few would have predicted even a year ago. According to the European Council, the EU’s SAFE instrument provides up to €150 billion in loans to accelerate common procurement and expand the bloc’s industrial base, while Euronews reported that member states began having their plans approved in early 2026. Against that backdrop, the deeper problem is no longer finding capital or ideas. It is turning promising collaborations into pr...
Continue Reading This Article
Enjoy this article as well as all of our content, including reports, news, tips and more.
By registering or signing into your SRM Today account, you agree to SRM Today's Terms of Use and consent to the processing of your personal information as described in our Privacy Policy.
oduction at scale.
That is where too many joint ventures falter. In principle, the model makes sense: bring together a nimble technology developer and a large defence contractor with factories, procurement ties and official credibility, and the result should be faster delivery than either could manage alone. In European defence, where ownership rules, security scrutiny and political sensitivities often make outright takeovers difficult, a JV can be the most practical structure. It is not a second-best solution; it is often the only workable one.
Some examples suggest what success can look like. Rheinmetall and ICEYE created a satellite-manufacturing venture in 2025, and Helsing and OHB later formed KIRK to combine battlefield AI with satellite expertise. Those deals matter because each party contributes something the other cannot easily build on its own. KIRK also emerged from an earlier alliance, underlining a broader point: the strongest partnerships usually deepen over time rather than appearing fully formed.
Yet many others lose momentum before they have a chance to matter.
Two obstacles are familiar. The first is tempo. Start-ups live or die by speed, but large groups often move through approval chains that can drain the innovator’s cash runway and blunt the rapid iteration that software-led warfare now demands. If the venture can only move at the pace of the slowest partner, much of its point is lost.
The second is control. When every technical change has to pass through the incumbent’s internal processes, software development becomes sluggish and decisions get stuck. A structure that looks balanced on paper can in practice become a brake on the very agility it was meant to create.
Two further issues are less obvious, but often more damaging.
One is valuation. Big defence firms naturally assess value through tangible assets, established revenue and long-lived industrial capacity. But much of a modern defence innovator’s worth sits in less visible places: software, algorithms, data and the ability to improve a product in weeks rather than years. That distinction matters. Helsing has been valued at more than €12 billion and ICEYE at more than €10 billion, figures that reflect expectations around technology and market traction rather than physical assets alone. Treating such companies as if their worth were limited to balance sheets can distort incentives from the outset.
The other is ownership. If intellectual property and the data generated by the venture are not clearly defined at the start, an innovator may end up locked into a single industrial partner and unable to sell elsewhere. That can limit its value and create tension later if commercial priorities shift. As a result, valuation and governance are not administrative details to be left until closing; they are central to whether the alliance will survive once the pressure of execution begins.
That is especially important now that Europe’s defence procurement model is changing. The Council of the EU adopted SAFE in May 2025, and the scheme is explicitly designed to support large-scale joint purchasing, strengthen production capacity and close capability gaps. The Council later authorised talks with the UK and Canada about possible participation, showing that the programme is already being used to shape broader industrial relationships. Reuters has reported that member states are increasingly treating the scheme as a mechanism for speeding up rearmament and locking in supply chains.
The strategic lesson is straightforward. Europe does not simply need more partnerships; it needs partnerships designed with enough clarity to endure. The parties must agree in advance who owns what, who controls what, how value is measured and what happens if the technology succeeds beyond expectations.
The market is already gravitating towards a few repeat industrial platforms, with groups such as Rheinmetall appearing again and again as JV partners across different capability areas. That concentration makes discipline more, not less, important. As these alliances move from exploratory arrangements to equity-backed ventures with real operational stakes, the questions of control, valuation and exit can no longer be deferred.
Europe’s defence build-up will be judged not by the number of deals announced, but by how many partnerships actually produce usable capability. The ones that endure will be those in which ownership, economics and decision-making were settled before the friction began, not after.
Source: Noah Wire Services
