These drones can beat Putin, not the bureaucracy: when defense innovations are hindered

The British newspaper “The Telegraph” conducted an investigation into the standards and flaws in the United Kingdom that hinder 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 reinvigorate their investments in defense. Like France, the United Kingdom has focused on drones. But could the enemy of innovation be bureaucracy? That is the thesis of “The Telegraph,” which highlights the difficulty for startups not in producing in the UK, but in testing their technologies there. 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 to test it.” The challenge lies in cramped spaces for conducting truly useful experiments and a sprawling bureaucracy. Obtaining testing authorization in Great Britain is often extremely difficult and involves navigating a maze of administrative formalities.

“The Telegraph” cites 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 Bay of Plymouth – whereas during a NATO exercise in September 2025, the startup had been able to operate freely on some 860 square kilometers of ocean. “It’s like having a new car and not being able to leave the driveway,” says the company’s CEO Matthew Ratsey. To obtain this meager authorization, he had to devote six months to writing over 400 pages of documentation to comply with the Maritime and Coastguard Agency’s workboat code.

As a result of this “absurdistan,” many startups go to countries like Ukraine, the United States, Spain, Norway, Estonia, or Lithuania to fly their drones, sail, and carry out tests. “We are not opposed to regulation,” says Ratsey. “But we believe it should be adapted to support innovative companies like ours.”

“There are no adequate testing facilities; we do not have the necessary firing ranges to evaluate anything other than drones or relatively limited systems,” laments McCrindle. “If you want to test an anti-drone interceptor system that must fly at a particular speed and altitude in a critical manner, you simply cannot do it in the UK.”

Statements from the Maritime and Coastguard Agency spokesperson indicate determination to support innovators and unleash growth in the maritime sector, while the government aims for the UK to be a global leader in drone technology by collaborating with the industry and regulators to develop the sector while ensuring airspace security.

Ratsey is not reassured by these statements: “We have a real advantage in Britain right now. But we will lose it if we are not allowed to continue progressing. At the moment, we are shooting ourselves in the foot.”