Procurement rewards tailored defense products
Ross Fubini, Managing Partner at XYZ Capital, on the defense tech opportunity
This procurement structure rewards companies that shape products around government programs, not companies that try to sell an off the shelf tool. In practice, the buyer often defines a narrow requirement, funds trials in small steps, and expects integration into existing systems, so startups without custom hardware, software, and capture talent get pushed into subcontracting, services work, or long pilots instead of repeatable product sales.
-
Anduril broke through by treating defense like a sequence of micro markets, starting with smaller paid deployments, then turning proven products like towers and counter drone systems into larger programs. That is very different from classic SaaS, where one product can spread account by account with a standard price sheet.
-
The real bottleneck is not corruption, it is requirement writing, budgeting, and trust. A product that is only modestly better usually is not worth the acquisition pain, so the winners tend to be either step change better, half the cost, or already tailored to the exact mission and paperwork path the buyer can approve.
-
This is why dual use and multi product strategies matter so much. A company that can sell a version of its product to airlines, logistics operators, or enterprises can fund development while waiting for defense budgets to unlock, instead of depending on one military program and one two year funding cycle.
The next wave of defense winners will look less like pure software vendors and more like product companies that pair engineers with procurement operators, build around real budget lines, and use commercial revenue or adjacent products to survive the slow climb into programs of record. The market is moving toward repeatable product businesses, but only for teams built to handle bespoke demand at the start.