I was recently asked to comment on the reported limitations of the Stark Virtus drone during a exercise in Kenya.
My first point is critical, and drawn from my time in the military and from training professional athletes in combat sports: “It’s significantly better to fail in training, instead of failing in the theatre of war where the stakes are significantly higher.”
Training is where boundaries are pushed. It’s where we explore, test, learn, and adapt. I’ve been on exercises where entire companies were wiped out due to poor tactics. My immediate thoughts were always: “How did that happen? How do we make sure it never happens again? And thank goodness this wasn’t real combat.”
We’re living in a period of rapid evolution in warfare. Technology is advancing at pace, and if we want to see true innovation, we must accept that perfection is rarely achieved at the first attempt.
Equipment needs to be stress-tested, sometimes to the point of breaking, so that weaknesses can be exposed in a controlled environment. That’s how we identify cracks, recalibrate, and refine. When we learn and improve, the end product becomes stronger and more reliable.
So, what is the real cost of perceived failure? When a system achieves 80% success in testing, yet is publicly criticised for the 20% that didn’t go to plan, what message does that send to innovators?
To encourage progress, we need trust. If companies fear reputational damage every time they trial a product, they’ll hesitate to experiment. That hesitation stifles growth and slows down the delivery of cutting-edge kit to our troops.
Setbacks in training are acceptable, provided they lead to evaluation, adjustment, and improvement. The true danger lies not in the missteps themselves, but in the barriers they may subsequently create to thinking outside the box.
My hope and expectation? That the team at Stark is back at the drawing board, using lessons learned to make Virtus even better. That’s the path of progress.
Final thoughts slightly deviating from the original question, but important nevertheless. How did the information about an exercise that I imagine the Ministry of Defence would have undoubtedly wanted kept under wraps end up in the public domain?
Do these leaks of confidential information run the risk of hindering future collaborations and joint exercises between the MoD and the private sector?
These exercises where cutting edge technologies like those Stark and others offer are meant to test and refine tactics and techniques which our adversary would benefit from knowing about, hence having security and trust around them is key. Building relationships between the end user and the industry mission partners is crucial for crafting products fit for future warfare. Suppliers leaking information from these exercises to undermine competitors undermines both national security and partnerships between industry and the military users.
I want to see us push forward as a nation, advance in technology, and give our troops cutting-edge equipment. We don’t need to add fuel to the old low-risk isolationist mentality at the MoD. We are at a pivotal point where we need to embrace defence technology and business to grow our defence capabilities, and for this to work, we need trust.
What is the real cost of perceived failure? The cost outlined above could be significant: erosion of trust, slowing innovation, and reduced collaboration.
However, I am an optimist and I am hopeful that the industry can use this as a learning exercise and grow from it. Setbacks are natural. Let’s reshape mindsets so we can all grow.
Will Stone is the Member of Parliament for Swindon North, Labour Business Champion for Defence, and a former soldier with the 1st Battalion, The Rifles. Since being elected, Will has been advocating for his constituency to become the UK’s hub for drone manufacturing. He is passionate about reindustrialisation, ensuring our troops have the best kit and equipment, and using the defence industry as a lever for economic growth.
