Part 2 - While Whitehall reorganises, what should defence companies actually do? 

Waiting is expensive. Every month spent preparing for multiple scenarios, building relationships with officials whose roles might change, and explaining capabilities to stakeholders who may lack authority post-restructure represents capital that could be deployed elsewhere. European competitors are not waiting. They are accessing €1 billion in European Defence Fund grants for 2026. Nordic firms are signing bilateral agreements creating established partnerships. American companies benefit from innovation restructuring declared "effective today". British industry, by contrast, contemplates twelve-month transitions and uncommitted timelines. 

I see the temptation to focus entirely on domestic restructuring, positioning for UKDI's eventual operation and the DIP's eventual publication. It is understandable yet limiting. Those likely to come out of this more successful pursue three strategies simultaneously rather than waiting for one to clarify. 

Strategy one: dual-track UK relationships 

The Defence Office for Small Business Growth launches this month, UKDI transitions through 2026, the DIP will eventually publish. Companies cannot ignore domestic structures. Nor should they invest exclusively in them whilst they remain incomplete. 

The approach is building current and future relationships simultaneously. Maintain connections with DASA, DIU, and Command Innovation Hubs as they operate today. Simultaneously cultivate relationships with UKDI leadership ahead of July 2026 operational capability. Understand both current decision-making structures and future consolidated architecture. 

From a communications perspective, this demands maintaining presence across the full UK defence calendar. SDSC-UK in February offers early-year access to MOD decision-makers whilst UKDI transitions. DPRTE in March and Security & Policing target specific capability areas (likely) before DIP publication. DVD in September and Farnborough Airshow in July will require messaging that works for current structures without becoming obsolete when once the DIP is published and UKDI achieves operational capability. 

The marketing challenge is explaining capabilities to audiences whose organisational context is changing. Case studies developed for DASA procurement routes may need reframing for consolidated UKDI structures. Relationship-building at February's SDSC-UK should account for whether contacts will occupy similar roles post-July. Thought leadership positioning companies as innovation partners must work whether engaging with fragmented current structures or unified future architecture. 

This proves resource-intensive but less wasteful than choosing unwisely. Companies betting entirely on current structures risk obsolescence when UKDI becomes operational. Those focusing solely on future architecture miss opportunities available today. The pragmatic approach is hedging intelligently rather than gambling on timing. 

Strategy two: European diversification 

Whilst Britain reorganises, Europe funds. The European Defence Fund allocated €1 billion for 2026 across 224 collaborative projects. The EU Defence Innovation Scheme provides startups with €120,000 seed funding, testing facilities, professional coaching, and five European bootcamps connecting them with end-users and investors. Defence Hackathons run simultaneously across eight locations building networks before contracts exist. 

British companies can access these opportunities. EDF funding requires multi-nation consortia, not exclusively European ownership. Nordic bilateral agreements increasingly include British participation—Finland's Common Armoured Vehicle System programme now includes Denmark, Norway and Britain. 

The communications imperative is establishing European presence and credentials now, not when UK structures clarify. EuroSatory 2026 represents critical European defence market access. The marketing challenge is positioning British innovation within European collaborative frameworks: emphasising NATO interoperability, willingness to participate in multi-nation consortia, and understanding of European procurement processes. 

This demands different messaging than UK domestic marketing. European audiences prioritise collaborative capability development over sovereign solutions. Case studies must demonstrate partnership experience, not merely technical excellence. Thought leadership should address European strategic autonomy concerns whilst positioning British innovation as complementary rather than competitive. 

The event calendar makes this urgent. EuroSatory preparations begin now. EUDIS Defence Hackathons in March require advance registration. European Defence Fund calls publish with specific deadlines. Companies waiting for UK clarity before establishing European presence will find themselves perpetually behind competitors who invested earlier. 

Yet here lies uncomfortable irony. Whilst British companies wait for domestic clarity, Non-UK competitors are not merely securing collaborative funding, they are positioning to acquire British innovation outright. March 2025 saw US firm ESCO acquire UK naval defence supplier Ultra PMES and Australian company Pen10 acquire cyber defence business Amiosec; foreign capital securing British defence technology whilst Whitehall debated structures and delayed investment plans. 

However, the Defence Industrial Strategy's shift from prioritising "UK-owned" to "UK-based" companies seems to acknowledge this reality whilst raising questions about long-term sovereign capability. Yet, still seems to contradict itself in emphasising strengthening sovereign industrial base and "UK-owned" innovation. Sadly, seven months without published DIP creates precisely the conditions encouraging foreign acquisition. British defence firms requiring investment to scale cannot wait indefinitely for domestic funding clarity. European and American buyers can act today. The delay between strategic intent and funded programmes creates windows where sovereign capability goals erode through commercial necessity. 

Does this matter? Advocates argue foreign ownership with UK-based operations delivers jobs, capability, and tax revenue regardless of headquarters location. Sceptics note that strategic decisions (what technologies to develop, which markets to prioritise, where to conduct sensitive R&D) ultimately reside with ownership, not operational location. The question facing British companies is whether waiting for domestic clarity risks losing not merely commercial opportunities but industrial sovereignty itself. 

Some argue European diversification represents disloyalty. Nonsense. It represents commercial pragmatism. European defence spending is rising. Collaborative programmes are funded today. British companies participating in European innovation infrastructure strengthen rather than weaken UK capabilities by maintaining technical competitiveness. Waiting for perfect domestic conditions whilst competitors advance is strategy for irrelevance, not patriotism. 

Strategy three: robust positioning regardless of DIP 

The Defence Investment Plan will clarify priorities when published. Until then, companies face uncertainty about which capabilities merit investment. Some develop multiple propositions for different scenarios. Others freeze development pending clarity. Neither proves optimal. 

The alternative is robust positioning: capabilities and messaging that remain relevant regardless of specific DIP priorities. Rather than gambling on particular platforms, companies can position around themes certain to feature: rapid deployment, cost-effectiveness, integration capability, proven operational utility, and scalability for production. 

From a marketing perspective, this means developing content demonstrating these enduring themes rather than betting on specific capability areas. AUSA in October offers transatlantic positioning around NATO interoperability; messages that remain relevant regardless of DIP specifics. DVD in September and Farnborough in July demand stand presence and messaging that works whether DIP prioritises land, maritime, air, cyber, or space domains. 

The communications challenge is maintaining compelling specificity whilst avoiding dependence on uncertain priorities. Case studies should demonstrate rapid integration and proven utility rather than narrow technical specifications. Thought leadership must address strategic themes (warfighting readiness, NATO burden-sharing, industrial partnership) without appearing vague. Website messaging requires clarity about what companies deliver without assuming specific procurement pathways that may shift when DIP publishes. 

This proves particularly challenging for marketing teams accustomed to targeting precise requirements. Current uncertainty rewards different approach: demonstrating adaptability and alignment with strategic themes whilst maintaining technical credibility. Companies appearing opportunistically vague lose credibility; those overly specific to uncertain priorities risk irrelevance. 

What this requires 

These strategies demand communication infrastructure many companies lack. Dual-track relationships require understanding both current decision-makers and future structures. European diversification demands navigating unfamiliar procurement processes and communicating across institutional differences. Robust positioning requires messaging that remains compelling regardless of funding priorities. 

Practically, this means treating every major defence event as opportunity for multiple strategic objectives simultaneously. SDSC-UK in February should generate UK domestic relationships whilst identifying US opportunities. DPRTE and Security & Policing in March require positioning for current UK structures whilst building foundation for post-UKDI engagement. EuroSatory 2026 and AUSA in October demand multi-market positioning. DVD in September and Farnborough in July require messaging working across uncertain DIP outcomes. 

This differs markedly from traditional event strategy where companies target specific procurement opportunities through focused capability demonstrations. Current uncertainty rewards broader relationship-building and messaging resilient to organisational shifts. The marketing calendar becomes infrastructure investment rather than opportunity targeting. 

Most critically, all strategies demand managing uncertainty without appearing uncertain. Companies projecting confusion lose commercial advantage regardless of technical capability. The challenge is confidently navigating ambiguity whilst competitors remain paralysed. Event presence must convey clarity of purpose whilst avoiding dependence on uncertain structures. 

This proves particularly acute for small and medium enterprises. Large primes possess resources to pursue multiple strategies simultaneously. SMEs lack this luxury. Yet survey evidence suggests SMEs face greater communication challenges: In our recent survey on defence communications, 77 per cent or respondents struggle reaching the right decision-makers, 89 per cent report difficulty managing stakeholder expectations, and specific citations of "invisible soft politics" suggest smaller companies find navigation disproportionately difficult. 

The uncomfortable truth 

Defence transformation creates winners and losers not primarily through technical capability but through navigation during transition. Companies possessing adequate technology but poor communication infrastructure will lose ground to competitors with robust positioning and European diversification. Technical excellence matters enormously but proves insufficient when companies cannot identify decision-makers or position capabilities across restructuring. 

Britain's defence industry cannot afford waiting for perfect clarity. The question facing it is not whether to engage with restructuring; engagement is mandatory. The question is how to achieve messaging that allows you to win, whatever the outcomes.   

Lindsay Compton is founder and chief executive of Canny Comms, a specialist communications consultancy working in defence, security and emerging technology. She sits on the Make UK Defence Advisory Board and the ADS Defence SME Committee. 

Missed part 1? Read on here.

Part 1 - When rebranding could cost £100 million: What America's "Department of War" teaches us about defence communication 

https://canny-comms.co.uk/news/rebranding-could-cost-100-million