Civilian Technology is Key to European Defense

Europe must harness dual-use technology to more swiftly deliver battlefield innovation.

Kraken Technology Group picture

Dual-use is not new, and Europe has a proud history of commercial-military innovation. In World War I, Renault adapted industrial expertise to create the pioneering FT tank, while in World War II, Ford’s UK plants pivoted to produce tanks, shipyards retooled and Bletchley Park fused government, industry and academia to crack codes and pioneer early computing.  

Just as dual-use innovation shaped those wars, Europe must now fuse defense needs with industrial ingenuity to take the lead in developing autonomous systems. 

Traditional models of procurement and defense planning have struggled to keep pace with a war in Ukraine defined by speed, improvisation and technological ingenuity. The continent’s governments need to learn from the experience and fundamentally change how they equip and sustain their armed forces.  

Industrial capacity for hardware is only one part of the solution. As the AI revolution moves from the screen to the physical world, Europe’s long-term security will hinge on its ability to ensure commercial technologies can be rapidly adapted for military use, particularly in autonomy and software.  

Ukraine shows this clearly. From autonomous drones to AI-enabled logistics and real-time battlefield intelligence, decisive technologies have come from innovators operating on dual-use models.  

Civilian drones are repurposed for combat, private sector AI and cloud-based systems are powering battlefield situational awareness, and digital applications built by local coders are helping improve operations.  

Modern warfare demands speed, software and rapid iteration – all capabilities that exist in the commercial market (and that are provided by companies like our own.) Europe must now build a system that reflects and embraces this reality.  

Traditional procurement cycles, with decades-long timelines and bespoke legacy platforms, won’t solve the demands of modern warfare. Europe’s long-term security depends, quite simply, on becoming much faster and more imaginative in using available technology.  

Europe’s automotive and trucking industry already leads in AI and advanced driver assistance, for example. In Germany, Mercedes is pioneering a Level 3 autonomous driving system, allowing cars to take full control under specific conditions, while Scania is deploying autonomy software into trucking and logistics.   

Such commercial advances in modular, software-defined systems can and should be applied to defense, as they have been by British companies like Kraken, which has accelerated the autonomy of its maritime drones, and Perfect Bore, which has harnessed cutting-edge technology in the production of mortar barrels.  

Software-defined hardware development enables faster iteration, easier maintenance, and interoperability between allies. Militaries can integrate new technologies more easily, foster competition and avoid dependence on single vendors.  

As Europe looks to rebuild its military capability, lessons from Silicon Valley are instructive. It thrived through close cooperation between academia, industry and the US government. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency’s Grand Challenge sparked the autonomous vehicle industry, which has matured and now supplies back to the military. 

Europe should encourage commercialization of defense technologies and then create a regulatory framework which allows commercial technology companies to flourish. A robust technological foundation will enable Europe’s commercial and defense industries to build on each other, driving innovation.  

Procurement reform is therefore essential, in both the domestic and international interest. Defense ministries should prioritize agility, iteration and experimentation, and open opportunities to start-ups. The US’s Defense Innovation Unit and the Adaptive Acquisition Framework, including its Software Pathway, offer a model Europe can adapt. 

Some progress is being made. NATO is trialing more agile mechanisms through DIANA, its defense innovation accelerator, and the European Union’s Strategic Compass has recognized the importance of technological sovereignty. Individual countries, from Estonia to France, have also made moves toward smaller, more flexible defense concepts.  

In the UK, partnerships are forming around shared capabilities to meet military demands. Project ATILLA, for example, will accelerate the development of an optionally crewed minefield breaching system based on the Warrior platform, paving the way for dual-use applications. It also opens the door for British SMEs to use their expertise to meet the evolving demands of the field. 

Yet across Europe acquisition is still constrained by fragmented demand, risk aversion and unclear engagement channels for non-traditional suppliers.  

The case for dual-use defense is urgent. Embracing commercial innovation means building flexible, software-driven systems around open standards and interoperable architectures. This will enable transparent procurement and real-world testing, recognizing that software is not an add-on, but a core capability.  

And we speak from experience. Tristam served in the British Army and saw first-hand the impact of slow, unresponsive systems in the field, while Nicholas was a Congressional national security staffer focused on restoring the US industrial base as well as staff lead for the bipartisan Congressional Ukraine Caucus. 

Europe has the talent and the robust industrial base. It must now muster the political will to embed dual-use thinking into its defense strategy.  

---

By Tristam Constant and Nicholas Kazvini-Gore. Tristam Constant is Head of European Government and Defense at Applied Intuition UK and former a British Army Officer. Nicholas Kazvini-Gore is Head of Government Affairs at Applied Intuition and a former national security advisor in the US Congress. Article first time published on CEPA web page. Prepared for publication by volunteers from the Res Publica - The Center for Civil Resistance.