Advanced weapons and affordable equipment are both necessary
Some missions justify expensive aircraft, sensors and weapons. Other tasks require large quantities of equipment that can be replaced quickly. Preparing for a long conflict means paying attention to both performance and the ability to keep supplying the force.
Writing about the choice between high-volume, low-cost equipment and exquisite programmes, Dan Driscoll concludes:
“Unfortunately, the answer is both.”
Dan Driscoll, Rewiring the Arsenal of Democracy
Foreign Affairs · 28 September 2026
Driscoll also argues for compatible systems and an allied industrial base that can scale together. That is relevant to a small lab: the value of a new device depends partly on whether it can work with equipment already in service and whether someone can manufacture enough of it.
For Weirding, affordability means considering the complete deployment. Hardware, installation, communications, operators, maintenance and replacement all contribute to the cost. A cheap component is useful only if it helps deliver the required result.
Updates need to be part of the original design
Drone links and detection methods change as each side responds to the other. A design that works in one set of conditions may need a different radio, sensor or software update to remain useful.
RUSI’s assessment of uncrewed aerial vehicle (UAV) systems describes the pace of that work:
“requires updates to software, behavioural logic, sensors and radios, every six to 12 weeks.”
Justin Bronk and Jack Watling, Mass Precision Strike: Designing UAV Complexes for Land Forces
RUSI · 11 April 2024
This finding concerns UAV systems facing evolving countermeasures. It makes a practical point about procurement: buying equipment also means arranging for the changes it will need after delivery.
We therefore want to develop power, communications, sensing and software as parts that can be changed separately. If one sensor needs replacing, we should be able to retain the other useful parts, test the revised configuration and update its assembly instructions. This is the reason for our modular approach.
Manufacturing belongs in the development work
A prototype made from a few available components may be difficult to reproduce in hundreds or thousands. Parts go out of stock, assembly takes longer than expected and inconsistent builds create extra maintenance work.
We want sourcing, assembly and quality checks to develop alongside the equipment. Over time, that could support production in several workshops and, for suitable tasks, in deployable fabrication units near the people using it. That manufacturing approach is a proposed direction for the lab, described separately in Future Directions.
Why we want to remain a lab
We want to test alternative technical approaches within a project and stop using those that do not meet the requirement. If a sensing method becomes ineffective, the work on power, communications and software should still be useful. For deployed equipment, an update would also need to address compatibility and support.
Our current development effort is the Drone Wall. It needs to demonstrate useful detection, manageable operating costs and a design that can be updated and reproduced. Further projects should follow a defined need and make useful use of the engineering we have already done.
“I am peace at war.”
Ivan the Terrible · Correspondence
Source collection, Éditions Allia · English rendering
For us, the phrase expresses a reason to do this work in peacetime: preparation gives us a better chance of responding effectively if deterrence fails.