The return of geopolitical competition has seen rapid advancements in technological innovation related to defence, most notably in the evolution of drone warfare since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine began in February 2022. Additionally, a number of initiatives worldwide – such as the United States’ (US) Golden Dome, the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) hypersonic missile programme and the integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) into defence strategies – emphasise the changing character of conflict.
In 2023-2024, the Ministry of Defence (MOD) spent £2.6 billion on Research and Development (R&D), highlighting the recognition of innovation as a crucial component of defence. As the world becomes more volatile, and technological advancements force military planners to rethink strategies, it will be necessary for the MOD to decide which emerging fields it will focus on for national defence. One of the main criticisms of the United Kingdom’s (UK) defence R&D is that funding pots are too small and too short, as the budget is stretched across multiple areas. As such, for this week’s Big Ask, we asked four experts: Which areas of defence innovation should Britain prioritise?
Research Fellow (National Security), Council on Geostrategy
The answer to this question is split down two related lines. One is how the UK approaches defence innovation with questions over who owns the problem, how it is funded and how processes are expedited to ensure that the British military stays ahead of its adversaries. The second is which specific areas the UK should focus on. Despite having one of the largest defence R&D budgets globally, it is still relatively modest (especially compared to the investments in innovation made by the US and PRC). Answering the second question cannot be done without answering the first.
One of the main problems facing the current MOD approach to defence innovation is that funding tends to come in small amounts and over short time periods. Previously, there were issues with lack of integrated oversight, but planned defence reforms (including the establishment of the UK Defence Innovation Organisation) should resolve many of these problems. It is crucial that these reforms are followed by a smaller number of long-term and better-funded innovation projects.
However, this of course means that the MOD will need to be pickier about what it wants to develop. A combination of what Britain needs, alongside export considerations, should be the driving factors. Given these factors, examples of key areas for the UK would be the underwater battle space, digital integration, and the use of AI, directed energy weapons and missile technology.
Associate Professor in International Security and Conflict Resolution, University College London, and Adjunct Fellow, Council on Geostrategy
Britain should look holistically at the defence innovation ecosystem and prioritise – not what is catching attention now, but what the enablers of next-generation fighting capabilities are. How does the UK use areas in which it already excels, and king-make them to become the indispensable trusted provider in current and future defence supply chains? How does it find its inner Taiwan, creating the element within future defence technologies that will be critical for battlefield advantage, so its allies and partners will also defend the source of the supply?
As electromagnetic warfare evolves faster than the systems it is integrated into, getting ahead of the curve in sensor technologies will be pivotal. From precision farming to uncrewed systems, countering Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) interference is increasingly crucial to both economic security and battlefield supremacy.
While the narratives around the speed of quantum technology innovation are mixed, quantum sensors may provide the answer –and the race is already on. The US’ recent 2025 Worldwide Threat Assessment identified growth in adversaries’ quantum sensing capabilities as an increasing threat, and last week’s presentation of an open-source, state-of-the-art quantum sensor at DEF CON 33 could significantly disrupt the market.
Britain has already made headlines with GNSS-independent quantum inertial navigation at sea and in aviation, and has invested significantly into the National Quantum Technologies Programme. Prioritising areas like these would play to the UK’s advantage.
Doubling down on investments into building an ecosystem for trusted and secure next-generation sensors, securing future supply chain needs so they can scale, and becoming the vital component across the spectrum of future systems may reap more long-term rewards than seeking to play catch-up on larger, more exquisite capabilities would.
Ben Goodwin
Typhoon Pilot, Royal Air Force, and Adjunct Fellow, Council on Geostrategy
Hard and immediate military applications lie in hypersonics, autonomy, AI, materials and energetics. But one innovation with disproportionate power is policy: transfer part of the innovation budget to the operators.
The US’ Defence Innovation Unit models this: a nimble entity with expanded permissions. Properly funded, and equipped with contracting experts, it sits between operators and industry, scrutinises lightly and iterates rapidly.
Defence’s innovation would be to house this inside policies which expand its risk envelope – on financial probity, risk to platform and risk to life. UK defence has relevant experience, via urgent requirements processes. These policies apply wartime risk appetite, although never for training and development in Britain. The UK is, albeit by non-obvious measures, at war. It must ‘fail fast’.
This is iterative feedback – not failing, but evolving. This approach needs defence, and the public, to understand that the inevitable mistakes are not only acceptable, but are beneficial.
Financial probity and safety regulations are the most onerous; the MOD should reset them to zero and build a minimum for this entity. It should also fund it properly, perhaps also drawing from other departments which stand to benefit.
Ultimately, delayed technology transfers risk to the warfighters, who will be trained inadequately on substandard equipment. It remains truly innovative to connect operators to the money.
Associate Director, Flint Global Ltd.
For the MOD to ensure Britain makes the most of its defence innovation, spending should focus on later-stage scaling companies, and with a view to provide certainty over funding – especially for private investors. Through the Defence and Security Accelerator (DASA), Defence Innovation Unit (DIU), jHub, Commercial X and others, funding for experimentation and projects is reasonably well signposted and supported.
Breaking into more serious, longer-term programmes is much more opaque and restricted. Companies in the scale-up phase struggle to gain traction or get noticed. For example, a recent client in Flint’s defence practice faced problems getting the MOD’s attention, despite physically expanding their manufacturing and testing sites across the UK.
Technological sovereignty and innovation require not only large public R&D budgets to be spent, but to be spent well. Unlike other sectors, the state is essentially the only significant client for defence companies which aren’t dual use. This means that the sector needs to have a clear view into the timelines and conditions for reaching procurement or follow-on investment milestones. This is vital to convincing private money to crowd in behind successful and inventive firms.
For instance, the MOD/British Business Bank’s National Security Strategic Investment Fund programme (which provides public funding for equity investments in early-stage defence firms) requires that any firms receiving public investment have received no more than £20 million total in previous funding rounds. This limit should be removed – instead of just focusing on promising young startups, the MOD’s R&D budget should turn itself towards creating real British defence champions. The next military unicorn should be on the horizon.
If you enjoyed this Big Ask, please subscribe or pledge your support!
What do you think about the perspectives put forward in this Big Ask? Why not leave a comment below?