Generated by Codex with GPT-5

This summary covers The Economist’s April 25th, 2026 International article listed in the contents as European defence tech and published under the headline Slow and unsteady.

The article argues that Europe has begun to understand the military importance of cheap, software-driven unmanned systems, but has not yet built the industrial machinery needed to produce them at wartime scale. Drones, autonomous submarines, unmanned ground vehicles and battlefield software are no longer speculative extras. They are becoming central to how modern armies detect, strike, supply and survive.

Europe’s problem is not an absence of capable startups. It has several. The harder issue is that these companies must sell into a fragmented defence market, navigate slow procurement rules and persuade armed forces that rapidly changing systems are worth buying before the next war proves the point.

The Drone Lesson Arrives

The article opens with a blunt claim from Sven Kruck, co-chief executive of Quantum Systems, a German military-drone maker: the moment for unmanned systems has arrived. The point is hard to dismiss. Iranian drones are straining Middle Eastern air defences, while Russian and Ukrainian drones have helped turn parts of the Ukrainian front into a lethal, closely watched zone where movement is exposed and costly.

Europe’s leading defence-tech firms are trying to build for that world. Quantum Systems makes aerial drones and has introduced an unmanned ground vehicle. Helsing, another German firm, has moved into autonomous submarines by buying Blue Ocean. Stark Defence sells drones, battlefield software and maritime systems. These firms are not merely making flying cameras. Their edge comes from software, battlefield data and constant upgrades, which allow relatively cheap weapons to improve quickly.

That model fits the new rhythm of war. A conventional weapons programme may take years to define, approve and field. A drone or software system may need to change every few months as jamming, counter-drone tactics and battlefield conditions evolve. The article’s central worry is that European governments still buy weapons as if the old tempo dominates.

Fragmented Buyers, Slower Scale

American defence-tech firms have one enormous advantage: the Pentagon. A company that wins a large American contract can secure scale, funding and credibility from a single customer. European firms face something messier. They must sell to roughly 30 potential national buyers, each with its own requirements, security rules, procurement habits and industrial politics.

NATO standards exist in theory, but the article shows why they are not enough. Ricardo Mendes, the boss of Tekever, a Portuguese dronemaker, says companies need engineering and product-development teams in the countries where they hope to do serious business. Local sales offices will not suffice, because the firm must understand each military’s specific needs and handle sensitive work securely.

That makes European expansion expensive and awkward. A startup cannot simply build one product, certify it once and sell it across the continent. It may need to duplicate technical capacity country by country. This is a structural disadvantage at precisely the moment when scale matters most.

Procurement creates a second constraint. AI-enabled drones and other software-heavy weapons become obsolete quickly, so defence planners may hesitate to stockpile them. Christoph Petroll, who runs the drones programme at a German armed-forces innovation centre, suggests a different kind of contract: governments could pay companies not just for a fixed number of units, but also for proven production capacity that can be expanded quickly in a crisis.

That approach would keep suppliers alive, give soldiers equipment for training and avoid warehouses full of ageing systems. But it would also require procurement laws to adapt. The article’s implied point is that Europe needs not only new weapons, but new buying habits.

The Old Arsenal Still Matters

The article does not present drones as a magic replacement for traditional arms. European militaries are still debating how much to spend on tanks, artillery and fighter jets compared with cheaper unmanned systems. That debate matters because the lesson of Ukraine may be more limited than some drone evangelists suggest.

Sir Nick Carter, a former head of Britain’s armed forces, warns that Ukraine’s innovations may partly reflect necessity. Ukraine has used drones brilliantly, but often because it lacks other capabilities. In his view, these systems have helped produce stalemate more than decisive manoeuvre. Better-equipped European armies may still need conventional platforms for missions that small drones cannot perform.

That caution is useful. It prevents the article from becoming a simple argument that every euro should flow into startups. But it also raises the stakes for procurement reform. If governments decide drones are a supplement rather than a substitute, they will need to add the new industrial base without starving the old one. That is harder than shifting money from one category to another.

Encouraging Signs, But A Long Road

European defence-tech firms remain small compared with their American peers. Helsing is valued at about \$14bn, while Quantum Systems and Stark are both worth less than \$5bn. Yet the article notes signs of momentum. Germany has begun buying for itself, not only financing deliveries to Ukraine. Quantum Systems is expected to deliver EUR210m, or about \$246m, of equipment to Germany’s armed forces this year. Germany has also agreed to buy attack drones from Helsing and Stark.

The European Union’s SAFE scheme may help, too. It will lend EUR150bn to member states for defence procurement and favours European suppliers. Governments are spending more on defence and are increasingly wary of depending too heavily on American technology. In a world where America can become politically unpredictable, autonomy in defence technology is no longer just an industrial-policy slogan. It is a strategic need.

The takeaway is that Europe has the ingredients for a serious defence-tech sector but not yet the recipe for scaling it. The continent has capable companies, clear battlefield evidence and growing political demand. What it lacks is a procurement system that can treat software-heavy weapons as living products rather than one-off acquisitions.

If European governments want unmanned systems ready before the next crisis, they need to buy differently now. Waiting until war forces improvisation would mean learning Ukraine’s lessons the most expensive way.