Janus Pathfinder Series

What it takes to sell into defence: lessons from founders

What it takes to sell into defence Pathfinder series 27 August 2026 Selling into defence doesn’t work like selling anywhere else. At a recent Janus Pathfinder session, Ross Exley, VP Defence Strategy at Hadean, and Rodney Day, Chair of the London Regional Defence and Security Cluster, sat down with our Accelerator Manager, James Murray. They talked through what breaking in really looks like, from two people who’ve done it. The market has shifted Investors are noticeably more willing to put capital into defence technology than they were five or six years ago. Heightened geopolitical tension and clearer threat vectors mean European nations are increasing defence spending. Defence innovation is now part of national growth, not separate from it. Strategic defence reviews position industry as a core part of the integrated force, pushing government and startups toward something closer to a genuine partnership. Eighteen months versus two years That’s the gap founders are working with. Eighteen months is roughly how long most startups have before their funding runway runs out. The MOD, their biggest potential customer, can take up to two years to close a deal, though this is something the MOD is actively working to improve through its own programmes, such as Office for Small Business Growth and UK Defence Innovation (UKDI). One of the fastest ways to close that gap is to partner with a company already established in the space. Startups typically have deep technical expertise but limited routes into MOD. For Hadean, partnering with a company like Palantir, which already has established channels, complementary data platforms and experience navigating procurement, opened doors that would otherwise take years to reach alone. Hardware, software, and why they sell differently Physical equipment costs more upfront and takes longer to test, particularly for things like autonomous surface vessels. But MOD buyers tend to understand what they’re looking at. Software is quicker to build and iterate. It’s historically harder to sell, since decision makers are more used to buying something tangible than an intangible capability. Procurement is its own skill MOD contracting is uniquely burdensome, largely down to compliance and security requirements. The advice from the room was direct: bring in a dedicated contracting or capture specialist who has navigated MOD procurement at your specific growth stage before. It’s a distinct skill, not an extension of general commercial sales experience. Grants get you started. They don’t get you far. Small government grants are useful early on. They help prove your technology works, reaching what’s often called a specific technology readiness level and buy some credibility with early customers and partners. But they’re one off, policy-driven and come with a fair amount of bureaucracy attached. Venture capital tends to do more over the long run, not just through the money itself but through the relationships, sector expertise and strategic connections investors bring with them. One pattern worth watching for: companies that have just closed their first proper funding round often spend too much on sales and marketing at the expense of continued product development. In a market where buyers are technically demanding that trade off can cost more than it saves. Don’t put all your eggs in one MOD Sales cycles here can stretch well beyond two years, compared to a matter of weeks in commercial tech. Looking to other allied markets, such as the US, NATO members and wider Europe, or even non-defence customers like healthcare and emergency simulation, can help keep cash flowing while bigger contracts move through their own pipeline. What makes an advisor useful A senior name with a big network sounds valuable. It isn’t always what moves a company forward. What tends to help more is an advisor who has directly built a company at your specific stage, understands the operational gap you’re trying to solve and can speak the language of the sector you’re selling into. Resilience matters just as much as strategy here. Managing cash flow while waiting on delayed contracts takes a real toll, and keeping a team aligned is harder still when some of them didn’t originally sign up to work in defence. A few mistakes came up repeatedly: underestimating how long procurement, security clearances and testing take, presenting broad technology capability rather than the one specific problem being solved and underestimating how fragmented the market really is. It’s worth working out the total addressable market for each individual contract, rather than assuming the sector is your market. Getting started Founders were encouraged to use established access points such as the Office for Small Business and Growth, UKDI and regional defence clusters, rather than trying to find a way in cold. Appointing advisors who’ve directly walked the path at your specific company stage matters more than a senior name. So does knowing your own strengths and weaknesses clearly enough to identify where you need domain expertise around you. The last piece of advice was simple: read widely, talk to people who’ve worked in and around defence and the military and keep learning from founders who’ve already scaled through the stage you’re at. When asked about the most effective route from an interesting piece of technology to a properly funded defence pilot, the advice was to start with online innovation grant programmes and small technology readiness level grants, for example through UKDI, NATO DIANA or Innovate UK, to establish proof of concept. From there, connect directly with regional defence clusters to find strategic partners, primes or university networks tackling specific, pre-funded problem statements. For founders just starting out, the easiest routes to early concept funding are usually partnering with a university or an already accredited organisation, or applying for small proof of concept grants, such as targeted £60K challenge grants, aimed at one specific technical problem. Small steps like these add up to something bigger. Defence has its own timelines, its own buyers and its own rules, and most founders only learn that once they’re already in it. Ross and Rodney’s advice, more than anything, was to learn

The anatomy of a defence tech funding round

Making a strong NATO DIANA 2027 application Pathfinder series 1 July 2026 This Pathfinder session brought together founders from across our ecosystem for a conversation with Phil Robinson from Mishcon de Reya, who leads the firm’s corporate team on financing rounds, corporate structuring and business exits within the defence sector. The focus was on what happens inside a funding round, where founders lose leverage without realising it and what the legal mechanics look like once term sheets, the documents that set out the headline terms of an investment, are on the table. What is venture capital, and how does it work? Venture capital (VC) is a broad term covering a range of investors, from angels and high-net-worth individuals to dedicated VC funds and corporate venture arms, all providing equity funding to early and growth-stage companies. Most VC funds operate on a ten-year lifespan, spending the first three to five years making new investments before shifting into managing and growing that portfolio towards an exit. The economics behind VC decision-making matter for founders to understand. Funds work on a power law: the majority of a fund’s returns come from a small fraction of its investments. VCs assume that 70 to 80% of their portfolio will be written off or return nothing. A portion will return a modest 1-5x and one or two runaway successes will offset everything else. That’s why VCs are looking for exponential growth rather than steady, modest returns and it shapes how they assess every company that comes through the door. Timing is leverage, and most founders spend it too late One of the clearest points of the session was how directly timing determines negotiating power. Funding rounds routinely take three to six months when the transaction is complicated and founders who approach investors only once cash is running low have already lost ground. Investors notice desperation and it shows up in the terms they offer. The takeaway was straightforward: companies should think about structuring their fundraising to secure twelve to eighteen months of runway before they need to be back in the market. Remembering that leverage is built early, not negotiated late. Not every path is a priced VC round VC is often treated as the default route, but Phil was clear that it isn’t always the right one. Founders have a genuine range of structures available, from convertible instruments that let a company secure capital quickly while deferring valuation questions, to bridge rounds that cover the gap between main raises, to venture debt that supplements a priced round through a corporate lender. Grant funding and debt deserve a proper look before founders default to chasing a VC term sheet. A cap table full of impressive-looking structures counts for little if it doesn’t match what the company needs. The “best” funding structure is the one which helps a company reach its next objectives while preserving as much flexibility, ownership and long-term value as possible. Founders should ask: How much capital do we need? What milestone will this funding help us reach? How much ownership are we willing to give up? Do we need patient capital, strategic investors, or simply more time? Due diligence starts long before the raise, not during it Investors are responsible for finding problems themselves rather than relying on founders to flag them upfront, a default sometimes referred to as buyer beware. That makes early preparation a genuine advantage rather than a formality: the more a founder can spot and fix before an investor goes looking, the fewer surprises there are to derail the deal later. Founders are encouraged to build a structured document file well ahead of any raise, covering contracts, IP filings, property records, and to look at their own company through an investor’s eyes before an investor ever does. An NDA should be standard before sharing sensitive material, particularly with smaller funds or individual angels and information can be released in stages, holding back the most sensitive technical detail until it’s genuinely needed. Rounds stall for a reason founders don’t expect Phil pointed to something he called the lead investor problem, that it’s rarely a lack of interest that stalls a round. Several VCs might circle a company, ask good questions and clearly like what they see, yet nobody puts a number on the table and agrees to lead. Without that, the round simply doesn’t move. Understanding this dynamic changes how founders should run their process. Interest is not commitment and a room full of interested investors can still leave a company without a term sheet. What’s negotiable, and what isn’t Signing a term sheet doesn’t lock a company into the deal as it stands. Most of what’s on the page is a statement of intent rather than a binding agreement, sometimes described as non-binding. Only a handful of clauses become legally binding the moment it’s signed: confidentiality, exclusivity, costs and fees and governing law and jurisdiction. Everything else, including valuation, is still a starting point rather than a fixed figure. Valuation is more negotiable than founders often assume, sometimes described as elastic. VCs will propose an opening number, but founders with strong commercial reasoning, solid data or competing investor interest have real room to push back. Raising internationally brings its own structure Companies raising from US investors are often asked to set up a US parent company above their existing UK company, so the investor is legally putting money into a US entity rather than a UK one. This is sometimes called a Delaware flip, named after the US state, most chosen for these holding companies, largely because of its established corporate law and familiarity to US investors. It’s not the only option though. Companies that want to keep their UK ownership structure intact, whether to preserve sovereignty or manage export control exposure, can instead set up a separate US trading subsidiary underneath the UK parent rather than restructuring the whole company. Non-NATO capital comes with its own scrutiny. Investors will vet both the individual and the source of

Making a strong NATO DIANA 2027 Challenge Call application

Making a strong NATO DIANA 2027 application Pathfinder series 1 July 2026 The NATO DIANA 2027 Challenge Call is open, and if you’re reading this, you’re probably already asking the right questions. What does a strong application look like? Which challenge area do you fit? What do evaluators care about, and what trips people up? During the month of June, we got together with over 520 founders and innovators from around the world to hear about the NATO DIANA 2027 Challenge Call. Michal Nietopiel, Challenge Manager at NATO DIANA, walked through exactly what the NATO DIANA programme is looking for and where most applications fall short. Nicolas Calvelo of JET Connectivity, now set to begin Phase 2 of NATO DIANA, Mission Track, and Sarah Gregory of Slipstream Design, who applied to the Contested Electromagnetic Environments challenge, shared what the experience looks like beyond the application selection. What is NATO DIANA, and why does it matter? DIANA, the Defence Innovation Accelerator for the North Atlantic, exists because innovation is now a strategic imperative for the Alliance. Its mandate is to identify and scale dual-use technologies that address real defence and security challenges, and to do that at pace. For innovators, what that translates to is €100,000 in non-dilutive Phase 1 funding, access to over 200 test centres across Allied nations, expert mentorship, defence market connections and a six-month accelerator beginning in January 2027. For companies that demonstrate the strongest defence alignment and operational relevance, there is Phase 2, known as Mission Track, a follow-on programme offering an additional €300,000 and six months of tailored support designed to move solutions from promising technology to operational adoption at scale. The six 2027 challenge areas NATO DIANA is seeking dual-use solutions across six priority areas, each reflecting a specific operational problem the Alliance is trying to address. Human Survivability. NATO operations increasingly place personnel in austere, contested environments where injury, physiological strain and cognitive degradation accumulate over time, while specialist care and evacuation are delayed or denied entirely. DIANA is looking for integrated, scalable solutions that protect individuals, detect degradation early and sustain human performance under those conditions. Multidomain Autonomy of Uncrewed Systems. Today’s uncrewed systems too often operate as isolated platforms with limited autonomy and unreliable communications. What DIANA wants to see is trusted, scalable multidomain autonomy that enables uncrewed and crewed platforms to work together seamlessly across air, land, maritime and space domains. Multidomain Sensing and Advanced Data Processing for Intelligence and Surveillance. Fragmented sensor networks, degraded communications and environments defined by congestion, interference and concealment constrain what NATO can see and know. Solutions that improve how data is sensed, transferred, integrated and exploited are central to this challenge. Operational Resilience in Contested Environments. Adversaries are actively disrupting sensing, communications and navigation through cyber attacks, electromagnetic spectrum interference and GNSS denial. DIANA is seeking practical, interoperable solutions that keep forces mobile and situationally aware even when connectivity and assured navigation cannot be assumed. Responsive Logistics. Long, linear supply chains are fragile, and the disruptions that expose that fragility including extreme weather, infrastructure degradation, cyber interference and contested access are becoming more frequent and more severe. DIANA wants smart, interoperable logistic mobility solutions that sustain endurance and freedom of action in dynamic environments. Scalable and Adaptable Countermeasures for Air Defence. Massed combinations of low-cost unmanned systems, missiles and loitering munitions are stretching current countermeasures to their limits. DIANA is looking for modular, scalable, data-integrated solutions that protect forces, command posts, logistics hubs and key infrastructure. Noting that the technology examples listed under each challenge are illustrative, not exhaustive. They exist to show the kinds of operational capability DIANA is seeking, not to define the boundaries of what qualifies. What evaluators are looking for Every application is scored independently by a panel of reviewers before a moderation session where scores are aligned and differences resolved. Shortlisted applicants are then invited to pitch or interview, with final selections approved by the DIANA Board of Directors. Evaluators assess across five areas: Technology Readiness and Innovation, Alignment to Challenge Requirements, Dual-Use Potential, Organisation and Team and Scalability and Interoperability. Criteria is only part of it. What Michal was clear about is that the applications which stand out go beyond describing a technology and instead explain the operational problem it solves, the gap it addresses and the pathway to the end user. Evaluators are not just looking for impressive technology. They are looking for companies that understand the defence context they are entering and can articulate why their solution matters within it. The mistakes that hold applications back The most common mistake that holds applications back is having a vague challenge alignment. Applying across multiple challenge areas without depth in any or describing a broad technology without anchoring it to a specific operational contribution. Pick one challenge area, understand it deeply and make a clear, specific case for why your solution fits. Overclaiming technology maturity is another recurring problem. Inflating your TRL, Technology Readiness Level, without supporting evidence or prior test data raises immediate questions about credibility. If your solution brings together components at different readiness levels, be transparent and specific about each one rather than presenting a single number that does not hold up to scrutiny. A weak defence case is equally damaging as dual-use is an eligibility requirement. Your application needs to make a clear, credible case for how your technology addresses a specific defence problem with a novel capability. If that case is vague or underdeveloped, it will not progress. Finally, the basics matter more than people think. Missing your DUNS number, leaving mandatory fields unanswered or submitting unclear financial information are avoidable mistakes that create unnecessary risk. NATO DIANA no longer accepts UEI numbers, so applicants must ensure their DUNS registration is in order before they submit. What the NATO DIANA programme feels like Nicolas Calvelo from JET Connectivity and Sarah Gregory from Slipstream Design joined the sessions to give a different kind of insight, not what the application requires but what happens

Engaging the Allied defence market with UK NIAG

Engaging the Allied defencemarket with UK NIAG Pathfinder series 18 May 2026 The latest session brought together UK companies who are actively participating or have participated on the NATO Defence Innovation Accelerator for the North Atlantic (NATO DIANA) programme for an exclusive session with Sir Stuart Atha, former RAF Air Marshal, senior director at BAE Systems and Head of the UK NATO Industrial Advisory Group (NIAG). The focus was practical and strategic: how to engage more effectively with the wider Allied defence market, navigate its complexity and understand the pathways that are now opening for innovative companies operating in this space. For companies building dual-use and defence technologies, the defence market can appear opaque. This session reframed it. Not as an impenetrable system, but as an ecosystem with identifiable entry points, evolving mechanisms and a genuine appetite for the kind of innovation that DIANA-backed companies are developing. The relationship between primes and SMEs is more nuanced than the narrative suggests One of the sharpest points of the session was a direct challenge to the common framing that primes are the problem and SMEs are the solution. Sir Stuart Atha was clear that this is a trap. The reality is more nuanced and the current moment presents a genuine opportunity to build collaboration between innovators and established defence industry players rather than positioning them in opposition. NIAG’s role is central to this. The group represents and coordinates the interests of UK industry within NATO’s armaments and capability-planning ecosystem and is actively working to create dynamics within industry that encourage the sharing of information and the building of productive relationships between companies of different scales. NATO DIANA cohort areas align directly with Allied capability gaps The alignment between NATO DIANA’s focus areas and the capability gaps identified across the Alliance is not coincidental. The programme has been designed to connect innovation to real operational need, and companies within it are closer to the demand signal than they may realise. DIANA-backed companies are not speculative innovators looking for a market. They are developing technologies that respond to identified requirements and the institutional mechanisms to connect them with end users are improving. Technology has overtaken doctrine A recurring theme was the inversion of a long-standing dynamic. In 2003, during operations in Afghanistan, the challenge was that technology lagged the concepts and doctrines that demanded it. Today, the opposite is true. Innovation has outpaced the institutional frameworks, procurement processes and operational concepts designed to adopt it. This creates a structural challenge. The gap is no longer about whether the technology exists, but about whether the systems, processes and cultures within defence can move quickly enough to integrate it. Sir Stuart framed this as an inflection point, one that requires institutional answers, not just technological ones. The route to adoption remains fundamentally human While institutional pathways, procurement mechanisms and formal processes are all important, Sir Stuart emphasised that the breakthrough moment in defence adoption is still person-to-person. Getting in front of the individual who owns the operational problem and demonstrating relevance to their specific need, is what moves things forward. Communications across NATO have improved dramatically, and mechanisms like the DIANA adoption team and cross-government innovation channels through UK Defence Innovation (UKDI) are creating structured routes for this to happen. But the onus remains on companies to be visible, credible and easy to engage with. NATO is building a single front door for business One of the most significant developments discussed was NATO’s ambition to create a single front door for doing business with the Alliance. This includes a mechanism by which companies that have already won a competition in one nation could engage with others without repeating the full procurement process, reducing duplication and accelerating adoption. The UK has not yet adopted this universal competition framework, but the direction of travel across the Alliance is clear. For companies operating in or entering the defence market, understanding and tracking these structural shifts is essential. Practical pathways explored Alongside the strategic discussion, the session explored practical engagement pathways for attendees at different stages of their defence market journey: Defence market entry and navigation support: for companies earlier in their engagement with defence, understanding how to position themselves, where the entry points are and what credibility looks like in this context. Advanced pathways for experienced defence players: for companies already operating in the sector, deepening their engagement across NATO and Allied markets. Post-accelerator pathways: for DIANA alumni, understanding the routes available after the programme ends and how to sustain momentum. Four areas that define NATO’s approach Sir Stuart outlined the four areas of interest that structure NATO’s engagement with industry and innovation: Research and Technology Capability Development Acquisition Operations Critically, the ability to link these areas together has improved significantly. The Conference of National Armaments Directors now has a four-star general embedded in Whitehall to address the challenges industry faces, and the relationship between NIAG, DIANA and the wider industrial ecosystem is increasingly integrated. The NSPA (NATO Support and Procurement Agency) was highlighted as an important but often overlooked element. Understanding how to do business with NSPA, not just what to sell, is a practical gap that companies should address. Looking ahead Sir Stuart closed by being direct about the challenge: encouraging collaboration between innovators and defence forces is inherently complex. But the appetite, the architecture and the institutional will to solve it are building. NIAG is actively working to set up dynamics within industry that enable the sharing of information and the building of productive relationships. Organisations like NATO DIANA, UKDI and Janus sit at the heart of that industrial ecosystem. We extend our thanks to Sir Stuart and the UK NIAG for such a valuable and practical session. Share on social media LinkedIn Email WhatsApp Read more NATO DIANA alumni, RVmagnetics, develop new tech with Airbus Navigating cyber security for defence Dual-use forum: future comms, space & autonomous vehicles

Navigating cyber security for defence

Navigating cyber security for defence Pathfinder series 10 April 2026 The March 2026 Janus Pathfinder event brought together attendees from across the defence and dual-use ecosystem. Led by David Collins OBE of Nova Blue Technologies, the session cut through the noise around cybersecurity – moving beyond generic advice to address the specific threats, compliance obligations and practical controls that matter most for startups and scaleups operating in the defence sector. Cybersecurity is often treated as a cost to manage or a compliance box to tick. This session reframed it as something more fundamental: a business risk that, understood properly, can become a genuine competitive advantage for companies operating in this space. Understanding who is coming for you and why The starting point for any credible cybersecurity strategy is understanding intent. Different threat actors have different motivations – financial gain, intellectual property theft, reputational damage, or pure disruption – and those motivations shape how they operate and what they target. For defence-focused companies, the threat profile is elevated. Operating at the cutting edge of technology makes you a more attractive target, and the line between nation-state actors and organised cybercriminals is increasingly blurred. The tools and techniques used by state-sponsored groups and criminal networks have converged, making attribution harder and the threat landscape more complex to navigate. What has changed most sharply is pace. The gap between a threat actor gaining access to a system or network and exploiting it has collapsed from hours to seconds. The chain of actions that follows an initial breach is now largely automated. Understanding your specific risk – who is likely to target your organisation, what they want and how they are likely to go about it – is the foundation everything else is built on. People are still the most exploited vulnerability Technical controls matter, but the session was unambiguous that people remain the most significant and most underestimated attack surface. Some of the largest and most damaging cyberattacks in recent years were not executed through sophisticated technical breaches. They began with a phone call to an IT help desk and someone sharing information they shouldn’t have. Social engineering – manipulating people rather than systems – is the entry point for a significant proportion of serious incidents. AI has made this harder to defend against. Phishing attacks are more convincing and harder to identify. Spoofing tools allow threat actors to impersonate individuals and organisations with increasing credibility. Deepfake technology has been used to pass job interviews and gain access to sensitive systems from the inside. The insider threat, whether deliberate or the result of poor judgement, compounds this further. The response is not purely technical. Training that builds genuine awareness rather than just satisfying a compliance requirement, clear processes for verifying requests and well-designed access controls that limit exposure when something does go wrong are all essential components of a credible people and process strategy. Navigating the compliance landscape For companies operating in or moving towards the defence sector, the compliance landscape is both a requirement and an opportunity. Understanding it properly, and sequencing it intelligently, can open doors rather than simply create overhead. Cyber Essentials remains the UK government’s minimum cybersecurity standard and a sensible baseline for any organisation. Built around five core technical controls and assessed through a self-populated questionnaire, it is achievable without significant cost. Cyber Essentials Plus adds independent technical verification and is increasingly expected for those working with or towards government contracts. For companies with UK Ministry of Defence (MOD) ambitions, the newly released Cyber Security Model V4 is worth engaging with now rather than when a contract tender arrives. The model introduces four Cyber Risk Profile levels, with Level 3 carrying over 140 individual controls. Critically, these requirements flow down from prime contractors through to subcontractors – meaning that even companies not directly contracting with the MOD may find themselves subject to these standards through the supply chain. DEFCON 660 sets out requirements for handling official and official-sensitive information, and for those operating in NATO environments, STANAG requirements add a further layer of obligation. David was clear throughout that compliance frameworks are a floor, not a ceiling. Ticking boxes without genuine readiness is compliance theatre – and in a sector where trust and credibility are fundamental to doing business, it carries real consequences. Done properly, compliance is not a burden but a signal of organisational maturity. Controls and mitigations: understanding the difference One of the sharpest and most practically useful distinctions of the session was between controls and mitigations. Controls reduce the probability of an attack happening in the first place. Mitigations reduce the impact when one does. Both are necessary and they require fundamentally different thinking. On the controls side, the session highlighted phishing-resistant MFA, robust endpoint security, cloud hardening, zero trust architecture, network segmentation and strong secrets management as priorities. Particular attention was given to application and code security – the risks introduced by insecure tools, poor access management and the growing use of AI-assisted development where the security implications of what is being built are not fully understood. On the mitigation side, the focus was on readiness before an incident rather than improvisation during one. Having tested incident response plans, clearly defined roles, reliable and regularly tested backups and a disaster recovery plan that identifies the minimum viable business are all essential. So is knowing your GDPR notification obligations and the timeline for contacting relevant bodies, understanding how you will communicate externally during an incident and having your cyber insurance provider’s contact details to hand before you need them. Five principles to carry forward David closed the session with five principles that apply regardless of where a company currently sits on its cybersecurity journey: Start secure, stay secure – integrating cybersecurity early is always cheaper and more effective than retrofitting it later Understand your specific risk – threat profiles vary significantly by business, sector and ambition Avoid compliance theatre – genuine readiness matters more than the certificate on the wall

Dual-use forum: future comms, space & autonomous vehicles

Dual-use forum: future comms, space and autonomous vehicles Pathfinder series 17 February 2026 At the end of January, we hosted our first dual-use forum of 2026, focused on future communications, space technologies and autonomous vehicles. The session brought together innovators, academics, engineers and operators who are working on the technologies that will shape both defence and commercial markets in the coming years. The aim of this forum was to create an open space for people to speak frankly about the opportunities ahead and the barriers that still slow progress. UK Defence Innovation (UKDI) – making defence innovation easier to navigate Dr Mark Helliker from UKDI set the tone by outlining how the defence innovation landscape is shifting. A clear message throughout was the emphasis on speed to market, with a funding model built around 100% milestone-based contracts where innovators retain their IP. Early engagement is now encouraged through short Innovation Outlines, allowing teams to explore fit and shape proposals before investing significant time in full submissions. UKDI also highlighted the role of technical and regional Innovation Partners who help innovators refine their ideas, understand user needs and identify realistic paths to demonstration and procurement. Priority areas continue to include sovereignty and supply-chain resilience, cyber and data, drones and counter-drone capabilities and technologies that address rapidly emerging threats. The overall direction is toward providing clearer front doors, faster support and more coherent routes to adoption. Frequent themes of the event Early engagement really matters A strong theme throughout the room was the importance of engaging early rather than waiting until a project feels “ready”. Speaking with UKDI at outline stage helps innovators test assumptions, understand the real-world need and avoid heading down development paths that don’t align with user demand. Early conversations also help identify where a solution could be demonstrated and which buyers or units may be the most interested. The system is changing but still hard to navigate Participants recognised ongoing efforts to simplify the ecosystem but also pointed to the friction that remains. Procurement timelines are still slow; security requirements can create unexpected hurdles and contract structures often feel better suited to large primes than SMEs or university teams. While things are improving – through clearer challenges, expanded regional support and more consistent processes – innovators still need help mapping routes from concept to an actual purchase. Commercialisation is still the toughest stage The UK has no shortage of strong early-stage research, but many projects struggle in the transition between prototype and first customer. Defence timelines can be longer than investors expect and SMEs often face a cliff-edge between interest and adoption. IP concerns and supply-chain dynamics add complexity, and without a clear buyer, promising technologies can stall. There is growing recognition that bridging this gap – the “first customer” moment – is key to unlocking more innovation. Technology priorities are shifting fast Across discussions, several technical needs surfaced repeatedly. These included navigation systems that don’t rely on GNSS, on-board AI to allow autonomous platforms to complete missions without continuous operator input and growing demand for post-quantum resilience. Cost realism also came through strongly: technologies must match the price point and attrition rate of the platforms they sit on. For example, high-cost subsystems simply won’t be adopted on low-cost airframes. Fast-turnaround materials and manufacturing approaches were also highlighted as essential to accelerating iteration cycles. Smaller teams are doing much of the innovation Many of the most interesting solutions are coming from SMEs and spinouts building compact, adaptable technologies that challenge legacy approaches. These teams are quick to innovate but can struggle with later-stage hurdles such as security integration, export considerations and navigating the supply chain. Helping them connect earlier with end users and understand the requirements around data, security and operational fit is becoming increasingly important. Thank you to our partners and speakers We’re grateful to the University of Surrey for partnering with us on this dual-use forum, our speakers Dr Mark Helliker, UKDI’s innovation partner for the Southeast, and Michael Kohn, University of Surrey and Research Park’s innovation advisor, and our roundtable facilitator Alan Scrase, SETsquared Partnership’s defence expert. A big thank you as well to everyone who contributed to the conversations throughout the day. Share on social media LinkedIn Email WhatsApp Read more Identifying funding fit and R&D applications NATO DIANA debuts second dual-use cohort to UK ecosystem at London launch event Workbench to warfighter: building tech that matters

Identifying funding fit and R&D applications

Identifying funding fit and drafting strong R&D applications Pathfinder series 11 February 2026 The first pathfinder event of 2026 brought together more than 250 attendees operating across the defence and dual use ecosystem. Led by Kevin Brooks, the session examined the realities of public R&D funding and the judgement required to navigate it with confidence. The conversation focused not on individual competitions but on the system that shapes them and the capabilities that organisations need to operate effectively within that system. Public R&D funding is often discussed through the lens of opportunity. This workshop reframed it through the lens of intent. Funding programmes are created to address capability needs, influence innovation behaviour and manage long horizon risk. They are instruments of strategic policy and their structure reflects this purpose. Understanding that reality is the starting point for credible engagement. Interpreting funding through strategic intent Throughout the session Kevin emphasised that funding programmes are designed to achieve specific outcomes. Early-stage initiatives support exploration and evidence generation. Mid stage programmes are structured to reduce uncertainty and refine solutions. Later stage opportunities expect maturity, performance data and realistic paths to adoption. These patterns repeat across defence, dual use and broader mission driven schemes. Recognising them allows organisations to interpret calls through the intentions that sit behind them. Strong performers develop judgement not by memorising programme details but by understanding why schemes are structured in certain ways and how those structures signal expectations. Understanding scheme design and variability Attendees were taken through the different types of funding schemes that operate across defence, dual use and civil contexts. The workshop emphasised that schemes vary deliberately in purpose, scale and expectations. Early-stage programmes support exploration and feasibility. Mid-stage schemes focus on refinement, testing and reduction of uncertainty. Later stage programmes expect clearer evidence and the ability to demonstrate performance in relevant environments. Recognising these distinctions is essential when judging which opportunities are appropriate for a given technology or organisational position. The Importance of Assessing Funding Fit Kevin highlighted that a sizeable proportion of unsuccessful applications fail not because of weak ideas but because the opportunity itself is misaligned. Participants were encouraged to begin with a structured review of scheme intent, organisational capability, technology readiness and resourcing. This initial assessment forms the basis of an evidence led bid or no bid decision. The session presented frameworks for interpreting competition documentation, identifying explicit and implicit requirements and assessing whether proposed work can be delivered credibly within given constraints. How Applications Are Assessed in Practice Kevin then provided a clear overview of how applications are reviewed within public funding systems. Assessors score directly against published criteria and must work within defined procedural constraints. They are not permitted to infer intent or fill gaps where evidence is missing. As a result, the strength of an application is determined by the clarity and relevance of what is written rather than the potential of what was intended. Understanding this process helps applicants design responses that can be scored consistently and fairly. Principles of Effective Drafting The workshop concluded with a set of drafting principles that support stronger application development. Kevin outlined several recurring characteristics of well constructed submissions: Clear alignment with assessment criteria A problem or need that is defined precisely and supported by evidence Accurate representation of technology readiness and uncertainty A structured workplan that sets out activities, milestones and responsibilities A team whose capability is relevant and proportionate to the work proposed These principles allow organisations to present information in a way that supports transparent scoring and gives assessors confidence in both approach and delivery. Closing Reflections The session closed by reinforcing the idea that effective engagement with public R&D funding is a capability that develops over time. It requires structured decision making, disciplined interpretation of documentation and clear alignment between proposed work and scheme intent. By applying these principles consistently organisations can improve their likelihood of success and strengthen their overall approach to innovation funding. We extend our thanks to Kevin Brooks for leading the session and for providing a clear and authoritative exploration of a complex topic. His contribution to the workshop was central to its clarity and effectiveness. Download the presentation Please note that to access the presentation you must have the password Share on social media LinkedIn Email WhatsApp Read more Dual-use forum: future comms, space & autonomous vehicles Identifying funding fit and R&D applications NATO DIANA debuts second dual-use cohort to UK ecosystem at London launch event

Workbench to warfighter: building tech that matters

Workbench to warfighters – building tech that matters Pathfinder series 12 January 2026 Innovation alone doesn’t win wars but the deployment of those innovations do. That was the hard-earned truth shared by Chris Manuel, former US Army Special Forces operator, aerospace VP and founder of defence tech ventures including ROVER, Simple Key Loader (SKL) and Tactinet. In a candid conversation hosted by Tanya Suárez, Chris unpacked what it really takes for startups to cross the last mile of innovation – moving from promising prototypes to battlefield-proven systems. Chris’s unique perspective comes from decades of operational experience combined with entrepreneurial grit. His mantra is simple: “Common sense and battlefield realities often trump specifications.” Startups often design for perfection in the lab, but in defence, success means overlaying technology onto operational concepts, solving real problems under real conditions, not just in theory. He illustrated this through three powerful case studies. The first was Remotely Operated Video Enhanced Receiver (ROVER), born from a critical need in Afghanistan and Iraq where troops were flying blind into surveillance missions. Commanders needed real-time visuals from 100 miles away, but the official programme was 15 years out. Chris’s team built a Minimum Viable Product (MVP) with millisecond latency and proved it in the field. This taught him the massive value of using animations and demos to help leaders visualise unfamiliar tech, and ship a threshold capability early, even if it’s clunky, to get feedback from warfighters fast and with accuracy. The second example is the Simple Key Loader (SKL), which evolved from a small team of “13 people in a loft” into a full Program of Record (PoR) delivering over a million devices. A PoR represents a major acquisition initiative that is officially approved, funded and included in the Future Years Defence Program (FYDP). It signals a long-term, stable commitment to develop, procure, or sustain a specific system. For defence contractors, achieving PoR status means predictable, recurring revenue and a structured role within national defence programs. This transition required a shift in mindset, emphasizing reliability, repeatability and leveraging off-the-shelf components wherever possible. Industrialization may lack glamour, but it is critical for credibility and profitability. Finally, there was Tactinet, a PDA-sized (palm-sized device) tactical network that initially failed. Early adopters wanted to kill it. Chris took engineers to Iraq, went on patrol and fixed code in the field. This quick thinking and innovation led to a $150M contract and a converted critic who became a champion. The major lesson here is clear: walk the walk – meaning get engineers and operators in the same environment to work together on solving the problem quicker and more efficiently. Adapting your culture with engineers and owning your core strategy Beyond technology, Chris emphasised culture. Silicon Valley norms don’t translate to the battlefield. You don’t always need engineers in the line of fire, but you need a culture that listens to ground truth, not just documents. You need to stand behind your product – anywhere it goes. On strategy, his advice for founders is to own the “secret sauce.” Fund your core IP yourself to retain ownership, use government money for integration rather than invention, and position yourself as a systems integrator to add value without giving away your crown jewels. When working with primes, don’t fear them but leverage their scale while protecting your IP. Demonstrate capability without exposing schematics and let them handle bureaucracy while you deliver innovation. Perfection is the enemy of deployment Innovators need to remember, that good enough beats perfect, a 70% solution today saves lives. And think like a prime: focus relentlessly on end-user capability. Chris closed with a challenge: build a threshold capability. It doesn’t need to be perfect – just tangible enough for a warfighter to say, “I can use this.” From there, iteration becomes collaboration. Looking ahead, he sees AI and cyber as the next frontiers for integration – domains where speed to deploy will again be decisive. Share on social media LinkedIn Email WhatsApp Read more Pathfinder series: Workbench to warfighter – building tech that matters Janus welcomes NATO DIANA 2026 Programme innovators Anita Friend: Bolstering innovation into defence