The British newspaper “The Telegraph” has investigated the standards and loopholes in the United Kingdom that prevent defense startups from developing.
The return of international tensions, war on European soil, and the presence of three predatory powers (United States, Russia, China) have forced European countries to redefine their priorities and ramp up defense investments. Like France, the United Kingdom has focused on drones. But could bureaucracy be the enemy of innovation? This is the thesis of “The Telegraph,” which highlights the difficulty for startups not in producing in the UK, but in testing their technologies. With a slogan: “These drones can beat Putin, not bureaucracy.”
“Exceptional British companies have emerged in recent years,” explains Toby McCrindle, a lawyer who advises many of them. “They have recruited some of the best engineers from our universities, raised funds, and developed world-class capabilities. But we find ourselves in an absurd situation where they have to send their equipment out of the UK for testing.” The root causes are cramped spaces for meaningful experiments and a sprawling bureaucracy. Obtaining testing authorization in the UK is often formidable and involves navigating a maze of administrative formalities.
“The Telegraph” uses the example of ZeroUSV, which builds autonomous boats. The company is only authorized to navigate less than 4 square kilometers in open sea in the Plymouth Bay — whereas during a NATO exercise in September 2025, the startup had freely operated over about 860 square kilometers of ocean. “It’s like having a new car but not being able to get out of the driveway,” says company CEO Matthew Ratsey. They learn almost nothing about their fully autonomous boat because they are only allowed to do a few laps in the bay. To obtain this meager authorization, he had to spend six months drafting over 400 pages of documentation to comply with the Maritime and Coastguard Agency’s work boat code.
The result of this “absurdistan”? Many startups turn to countries like Ukraine, the United States, Spain, Norway, Estonia, or Lithuania to fly their drones, sail, and conduct tests. “We are not against regulation,” says Ratsey. “But we believe it should be tailored to its purpose and support innovative companies like ours.”
“We do not have adequate test facilities; we do not have the necessary firing ranges to evaluate anything other than drones or relatively limited systems,” regrets McCrindle. “If you want to test an anti-drone interceptor system flying at a particular speed and altitude critically, you simply cannot do that in the UK.” When asked about this, a spokesperson for the Maritime and Coastguard Agency stated that the agency is “committed to supporting innovators and unlocking growth in the maritime sector,” while the government asserts a desire for the UK to be a global leader in drone technologies by “working with the industry and regulators to develop this sector while preserving airspace security.”
These statements do not reassure Ratsey much: “We have a real advantage in Britain right now. But we will lose it if we are not allowed to continue to progress. Right now, we are shooting ourselves in the foot.”
