Two government‑backed UK defence programmes face obsolescence as slow procurement, frozen venture capital and late payments squeeze small suppliers — prompting warnings that firms may shift activity to the US unless rapid funding and buyer behaviour reforms are implemented.
Two UK‑verified, government‑backed defence programmes — one billed as a next‑generation autonomous strike platform and the other an electronic‑warfare (EW) pulse capability — are now teetering on the edge of irrelevance. According to the sUAS News piece that first detailed their plight, both are programmes of record with public backing; yet both are stalled because capital cannot be moved at speed through the UK system and Europe’s venture community remains frozen. The article’s author warns bluntly of the human and strategic cost: “Silence is not neutral,” he wrote in sUAS News, “It is paralysis.” He also says he will fold the companies’ capital requirements into his next investment round and may relocate activity to the United States if UK funding does not materialise.
That diagnosis is not an isolated opinion. A string of independent reviews and economic indicators sketch the same structural problem: firms under severe financial strain, weak appetite for risk among investors and buyers, and procurement processes that slow or stop delivery of capability.
Financial distress and faltering investment
Industry data show acute pressure at the small‑business end of the market. Begbies Traynor’s Q2 Red Flag Alert records roughly two‑thirds of a million UK firms in “significant” financial distress as of mid‑2025, with tens of thousands in critical condition — an environment in which longer payment terms, rising costs and constrained credit rapidly drain the runway of innovative SMEs. The Federation of Small Businesses’ Small Business Index also records record‑low sentiment, reporting that more small firms now expect to shrink, sell or close than to grow. Those factors feed directly into defence: SMEs are the usual source of rapid prototypes, novel sensors, autonomy stacks and EW payloads, and they cannot sustain long onboarding cycles or extended payment tails.
At the macro level, the picture is mixed but worrying for capital formation. The Office for National Statistics’ preliminary Q2 2025 figure — reported by Reuters — recorded modest headline GDP growth of 0.3% quarter‑on‑quarter, while business investment fell notably. That divergence — services holding up while firms cut capital spending — means fewer resources available to scale early‑stage defence technologies into fielded systems.
Procurement dysfunction and reputational damage
Parliamentary and audit scrutiny has reinforced a theme familiar to industry leaders: UK acquisition is bureaucratic, slow and risk‑averse. The House of Commons Defence Committee’s report, bluntly titled “It is broke — and it’s time to fix it,” catalogues the ways that procurement culture and governance erode delivery: lengthy assurance, churned staff, and a failure to adopt spiral development and rapid user feedback at scale. The National Audit Office’s deep‑dive into the Ajax armoured vehicle programme furnishes a concrete example of the consequences — years of delay, unresolved safety and performance issues and material doubt about when, or if, promised capability will reach soldiers.
Those institutional problems combine with market behaviour. The sUAS News author describes repeated unanswered approaches to primes and MoD decision‑makers; the result is a jammed pipeline where credible offers go untriaged and engineers never see nascent solutions. The Defence Committee and NAO findings suggest this is not purely a cultural anecdote: it is baked into structures and incentives that reward caution over rapid prototyping and rapid buy‑in.
Where official intent meets execution
It is important to underline that government has created routes intended to accelerate innovation. The Defence and Security Accelerator (DASA) and the AUKUS Electronic Warfare Challenge are explicit examples: the AUKUS EW competition document published by government sets out tri‑national objectives for electromagnetic targeting and protection and establishes funding and selection mechanisms designed to speed prototypes towards tri‑service customers. Such programmes demonstrate official intent to back EW innovation and to partner internationally. But the presence of competition documents and prize funds does not, on its own, deliver serial production lines or working integration plans — and SMEs need predictable follow‑on funding and procurement commitments to survive beyond a successful demonstration.
The transatlantic contrast
The article’s author cites faster decision loops in the United States — direct engagement by large buyers, the Defence Innovation Unit’s established pathways, and programmes that aim to field thousands of low‑cost autonomous systems in compressed timescales. The US system is far from perfect, but its willingness to accept prototype risk and to create short‑term procurement vehicles is an attractive option for entrepreneurs burning runway in the UK. The author reports that when he engaged US C‑suites the replies came quickly and conversations progressed to technical evaluation; in the UK, he says, many firms simply did not answer.
That divergence helps explain migration pressure. If SMEs can obtain capital and orders more quickly in the US, the risk — and often the decision — is to relocate. For a defence ecosystem, the consequence is not merely business loss but erosion of sovereign industrial capacity.
A do‑list for industry and government
The problem is solvable — yet solutions require behavioural and structural change across companies, primes and government. The sUAS News author lays out practical steps that echo many recommendations in parliamentary and audit work:
- Primes should institute simple service‑levels for external engagement: an initial reply within two working days and a technical screening within two weeks, or a clear no. Measurable response discipline would stop offers from stagnating in inboxes.
- Create fast, funded trials with clear exit criteria: small pots of money to pay SMEs for trials that run in weeks, not quarters, with a direct route to a limited production call‑off if successful.
- Reduce duplication in assurance: make cleared security and quality checks portable across frameworks so that one clearance need not be re‑run for every prime or programme.
- Enforce prompt payment: tie late‑payment performance to eligibility for major contracts, and publish buyer performance so SMEs can judge the commercial risk of engagement.
- Rebalance spend from showroom to shipyard: shift budget away from exhibition gloss and towards integration sprints, cyber hardening and spares that matter in an operational context.
- Back equity for national security: expand matched‑fund schemes to underwrite equity rounds for defence‑relevant tech so promising firms do not sell or relocate to survive.
Why this matters now
The strategic window is narrowing. The author notes that delay in autonomy, EW, and integrated strike capability creates deterrence gaps and hands initiative to competitors who do not wait for committees. Parliamentary, audit and market data all show that long lead times and a thin SME finance market produce the exact outcome those reports warn against: capability postponed or lost and talent emigrating to markets that reward speed.
The government’s competition documents and the MoD’s reform rhetoric demonstrate recognition of the problem. But recognition must be followed by string‑pulling: faster allocation of near‑term buys, enforceable buyer behaviour standards, and co‑ordinated equity and procurement instruments to turn prototype success into production.
A closing caution
Policy fixes are necessary but insufficient if cultural behaviours inside contracting organisations remain unchanged. The author’s experience — seeking engagement and being ignored while transatlantic doors opened — is a practical test of whether words translate into action. If the UK and wider Europe value sovereign capability, they will need to stop treating SMEs as optional extras and start treating them as mission‑critical suppliers: reply, assess, decide, buy, integrate, deliver. Failure to do so will not only dim the prospects of individual programmes but will cede critical advantage to those prepared to move faster.
Source: Noah Wire Services
Subscribe to Industry Updates
