Image credit: Brave1
Reacting to the UK’s announcement of a rise in defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2027, Sky News declared: “Starmer has put Britain on a war footing”.
If only that were the case. The massive gulf between the Brave1 defence tech conference in Kyiv last week, and an AI in defence conference in London yesterday, should worry anyone thinking about the UK’s position in a world undergoing huge geopolitical and technological change.
Of course, neither conference can be wholly representative of each country’s embrace of defence tech - but equally it would be a mistake to complacently ignore the differences.
Brave1 showed what it means to actually be “on a war footing”. And this was not just because of the occasional air raid siren, or the groups of people huddled over phones showing recent action on the frontline.
Walking into Brave1 you were instantly struck by the intensity of the event. It was packed. Everyone was in a rush. We faced a similar barrage of questions from everyone we spoke to: What are you building? How cheap is it? Where’s it deployed? When can we test it? How many can you make?
Cost. Scalability. Availability. Urgency. That’s all anyone cared about.
They also peppered conversations with references to how various systems were performing at the front. Sharing important product insights based on ever evolving countermeasures and tactics as each side iterates to get an edge.
When new draftees are sent to the front after just weeks of training, and face a similar life expectancy once there, nobody has time for decks, proposals, or waiting 6 months for the next “industry briefing day” that results in another 6-12 months of drafting requirements.
Contrast this with the London military AI conference. Some of the basic scenery was the same - bad coffee, people adding each other on LinkedIn, roll up banners with questionable aesthetic choices - but whereas Brave1 was marked by action, London can only be characterised by its opposite.
In London there was a keen sense that this time next year you could have the same people discussing the same points on the same panels. The “Synergy breakout room" would still be there. Still full of “disruptors”. There would be no clarity on how AI would magically infuse UK defence (despite the Prime Minister calling AI our “defining opportunity”), but maybe nobody would even mind, or notice. A sense that we can keep going at a glacial pace because surely, if things do kick off, it will be alright on the night.
There was also a wide gap in how AI is being applied. At Brave1, the emphasis was on AI’s potential to transform low cost, highly scalable platforms into effective weapon systems. An example of this was a computer vision enabled strike drone that was literally held together by duct tape.
In London, AI’s role in conflict was almost an after thought. It was instead more of a back office efficiency tool, or simply a convenient trend for consultancies to now sell to MoD. AI for streamlining large organisations has its place, but it’s not super helpful for allies defending their countries from invading autocrats.
From a startup perspective, Brave1 shows what it means to have a genuine industry - military partnership centred on adopting new technology as quickly as possible. Short procurement cycles. Access to rigorous testing with a clear pathway to adoption if successful. Contracts. Rapid end user feedback.
This is not to say Ukraine is perfect. We are not naive about corruption, or what can happen to your IP after you give your product to a ‘partner’, but it is lightyears ahead of where we are today in the UK.
The UK remains wedded to the traditional model of hoping small companies can somehow invest in R&D while bouncing from innovation grant to innovation grant. With a startup’s prospects determined more by its proposal writing ability than the quality of its product.
None of this matters if you believe the UK does not face a dangerous world. Or if you think the defence Primes are best placed to harness emerging technologies and build low cost, intelligent, unmanned systems.
But if, like us, you believe differently, we must learn lessons from Brave1 and Ukraine. Our first step should be a shift in mindset.
We don’t have the luxury of hoping that a small rise in spending in any way reflects our preparedness for the wars of the future.