Leonardo’s ‘Prototype Warfare’: From Promising Technology to Defence Capability

Leonardo’s approach to “prototype warfare” is less about building a prototype quickly than about learning whether a new technology can become a useful, supportable defence system. Dr Simon Harwood has applied the term to Leonardo’s work with smaller technology companies; the company describes itself as a systems integrator that can bring autonomy and sensors together for military use.1619

Why Leonardo’s scale matters

Leonardo reported €19.5 billion in group revenue, €23.8 billion in new orders and €1.75 billion in EBITA for 2025. It also reported €3.0 billion in total R&D expenses, up 20% from 2024. That R&D figure should not be read as a budget devoted entirely to speculative research or funded entirely by the company.4241

In the UK, Leonardo UK Ltd reported 2025 order intake up 36%, turnover up 15% and operating profit up 7% from 2024. Its accounts attribute much of the order-intake increase to large Typhoon orders; they also report lower cash generated from operations because of higher supplier payments.44 The figures establish substantial industrial capacity, not that any particular prototype has reached service.

Harwood’s background helps explain the emphasis on connecting institutions. His public biography describes more than 30 years of experience across government, industry and academia, as well as responsibility for Leonardo’s UK strategy, research, development and innovation portfolio.5 In evidence to a parliamentary committee, he also stressed the importance of suitably qualified people alongside technology.4

From a technology idea to an operational effect

The first question is what a technology helps forces do: detect a threat, combine sensor data, make a decision or operate autonomous platforms. Harwood told Parliament that Leonardo builds sensors and systems that collect data, which can then be fused and used to inform decisions.23 The difficult step is integrating those elements into a dependable capability, rather than showing that one component works in isolation.

Leonardo’s SME Collaboration Partner Programme is designed around longer-term partnerships rather than one-off innovation exercises.33 Its first announced partnership, with Faculty AI, aims to combine the companies’ expertise in AI-enabled capabilities including Cognitive Intelligent Sensing and electronic warfare.30 Such arrangements can give a specialist company a route into a larger defence system. The available announcements do not establish that every partner receives multiyear funding, security access, testing facilities or investor introductions.

Trials provide a feedback loop. Harwood has described a UK SME-led autonomy trial, while a later account of Sovereign Hunter says Leonardo worked with Faculty, VOLANDER and Applied AGI on a multi-drone demonstration.1936 These are useful examples of testing an integrated concept, but the public accounts do not independently establish its battlefield effectiveness, procurement status or performance at scale. A credible route from trial to deployment still requires evidence of safety, assurance, repeatability, production and support.

Partnerships can move technology in both directions

Leonardo’s agreement with Ploughshare addresses a different problem: finding civilian applications for intellectual property developed in defence. The partners announced an IP-commercialisation effort for Leonardo UK technology with potential beyond its original market.1 Licensing and spin-outs are possible routes for that work, but the provided evidence does not quantify completed deals or returns.

Nor does an alliance-led approach mean abandoning acquisitions. Leonardo’s chief executive has described its new Ukraine operation as a way to explore partnerships, investments and possible acquisitions among Ukrainian military-technology companies.17 External innovation can enter a prime contractor through several routes; the relevant test is whether it can be integrated and supplied for a real customer need.

The constraints that a fast prototype cannot remove

Ukraine’s wartime technology market sharpens the question of how to combine advanced, relatively scarce systems with lower-cost autonomous equipment. That is a strategic choice, not a claim that one can replace the other. Customers must consider survivability, replacement, logistics and sustained effect—not unit price alone. Ukrainian startups’ postwar prospects will likewise depend on continuing demand and viable routes to production; Leonardo’s interest does not guarantee their survival.17

Industrial readiness poses a related trade-off. Stockpiles make equipment available immediately, while spare manufacturing capacity offers a way to replenish it. Both cost money, and keeping capacity available requires customers willing to pay for readiness before a crisis. For UK research in areas such as quantum, photonics and biotechnology, the same commercial question applies: who will place repeat orders, and can suppliers scale to meet them?

Leonardo says Sovereign Hunter has received technology awards, but awards and company descriptions of assurance are not substitutes for independently verifiable deployment outcomes.38 Some defence performance will necessarily remain out of public view. The strongest public measure of “prototype warfare” is therefore not the speed of a demonstration alone, but whether repeated testing leads to an assured capability that customers can buy, operate and sustain.