A $20,000 Drone vs. a $2 Million Missile – Should We Really “Open Up” the Defense Market?

A $20,000 Drone vs. a $2 Million Missile – Should We Really “Open Up” the Defense Market? The recent incident of Russian drones violating Polish airspace has sparked a heated debate. A cheap flying provocation versus an expensive defensive missile – the contrast is striking. Experts point out that a styrofoam drone can cost as little as $10-20,000, while the AIM-120 AMRAAM missile used to shoot it down may cost $2-2.5 million. Few comparisons illustrate better the dilemma of “firing gold at plastic”. No wonder voices have emerged calling to “open the defense market” and let more companies in – supposedly to lower costs and accelerate cheaper defense technologies. Sounds tempting? At first glance, maybe. But defense is not a playground you can just walk into. Why is the idea of throwing the doors open to new players deeply problematic? Here are the key reasons. 1. National security is not an experiment The first and most important reason is national security. Military systems handle critical data and infrastructure that determine lives and sovereignty. A leak, sabotage, or hidden vulnerability could have catastrophic consequences – which is why access to defense projects is tightly regulated. Polish law requires every company producing or trading military technologies to hold a special license. This is not bureaucratic red tape, but a security filter: the state must know who has access to sensitive solutions. The same goes for classified data – security clearances are mandatory for both the company and key employees. In practice, this creates a high entry barrier. Very few IT firms in Poland even hold such authorizations – Transition Technologies MS (TTMS), for example, highlights that it belongs to a select group of companies with the full set of licenses, NATO Secret certificates, and vetted specialists able to work on defense projects. In short: not every smart startup coder with a laptop can just start writing code for the army. Earning trust requires formal certifications. 2. Military technology must never fail The second reason is reliability and quality. In defense, there’s no room for the startup mantra “move fast and break things.” Software for the military must work flawlessly under combat conditions, interference, and cyberattacks. A bug, crash, or hacker exploit – things tolerated in civilian apps – on the battlefield can cost lives. That’s why suppliers must meet stringent NATO quality standards (AQAP) and information security norms (ISO 27001) from day one. Building command or communication systems requires domain expertise, hardware integration skills, and familiarity with NATO STANAG standards. Such capabilities are not built overnight – firms acquire them through years of collaboration with the military. “We’ll build you an anti-drone app cheap and fast” is not a serious pitch, unless you can prove it will hold up in the harshest scenarios. The per-unit cost of a drone is not the whole story – what really matters is the guarantee that defensive systems will work when lives depend on it. 3. Control over technology and supply chains Another factor is state control over military technology. Defense systems cannot end up in the wrong hands – neither during development nor deployment. That’s why licenses and approvals act as safety sieves, filtering out players linked to hostile interests. Governments must also have visibility across the supply chain: what goes into a system, where components come from, whether chips or code are free of backdoors. Major defense contractors provide this assurance, with vetted subcontractors and strict audits. Opening the market indiscriminately would be playing with fire. In today’s hybrid warfare environment, adversaries would happily exploit any loophole, inserting compromised technologies under the guise of “cheap innovation.” This is not about protecting incumbents – it’s about ensuring that any new entrant undergoes rigorous vetting before touching sensitive projects. 4. Responsibility and continuity matter more than short-term savings Calls to open the defense market often emphasize price competition (“it will be cheaper”) and fresh ideas (“startups will save us”). What gets overlooked are the business risks. Defense contracts last for decades, requiring ongoing support, updates, and servicing. That’s why ministries demand financial stability and long-term reliability. A company that appears one day and disappears the next is the last thing the military can afford in the middle of a weapons program. References, proven track records, and the ability to sustain projects through long procurement cycles are essential. A new player may offer a lower price, but can they shoulder the responsibility when problems arise? Defense projects are not about one-off deliveries – they’re about lifecycle support. Large, established integrators dominate not by chance, but because they take on the long-term risk and responsibility. For smaller IT firms, there’s a safer route: joining as subcontractors under licensed contractors. TTMS, for instance, has entered defense projects in partnership with larger entities, combining expertise under controlled frameworks. This allows innovation to flow from smaller players without compromising security or accountability. 5. Allied commitments and international standards Finally, Poland operates within NATO and the EU. That means uniform standards and procedures for military hardware and software – certifications like AQAP, NCAGE codes, interoperability requirements. “Opening the market” cannot mean lowering these standards, as it would undermine Poland’s credibility as a NATO ally. Instead, what is actually happening is streamlining – faster procurement processes, less red tape, but without dropping the bar. A recent defense “special act,” for instance, allows for faster drone procurement outside normal public procurement law – provided the drones pass army testing and receive Ministry of Defense approval. This is the model: speed where possible, but with strict oversight. Similarly, Polish authorities stress partnerships: simplifying procedures so SMEs and startups can join consortia with larger defense contractors – rather than bypassing safeguards altogether. 6. Conclusion: security is costly – but insecurity costs more The clash of cheap drones and expensive missiles highlights a real challenge. Of course, we must pursue smarter, cheaper defense tools – intercepting drones with other drones, electronic jamming, lasers. And Poland is working on these, often through public-private partnerships. But throwing open the gates to any company with a “cheap idea” is a dangerous shortcut. Defense requirements are expensive and demanding for a reason: they protect us from failure, espionage, and chaos. Removing them may save money on paper but would risk far greater losses in reality. The better path is to streamline procedures, speed up certifications, and bring smaller innovators in through controlled cooperation with licensed partners. In defense, the old maxim applies: “make haste slowly.” Move fast, yes – but never at the cost of security. Because in the end, cheap enemy drones could cost us far more than expensive missiles if we get this wrong. For a deeper dive into the specific challenges and barriers IT companies face when entering the defense sector, read our full analysis here.