In peacetime, defence technology development is deliberate, structured and hierarchical. In wartime, it becomes immediate, iterative and brutally pragmatic. The difference is not marginal — it reshapes planning logic, testing philosophy, certification timelines and even industrial design itself.
According to Mažvydas Samuolis, Head of Engineering at RSI Europe, the contrast is fundamental.
From Top-Down Planning to Bottom-Up Urgency
“In peacetime, development follows a top-down model,” Samuolis explains. “Planning cycles are long. Decisions are made at higher levels. Concepts are refined before approval. Certification and laboratory testing are embedded into the timeline. Everything is structured and it takes time.”
War reverses that logic.
“In wartime conditions, planning becomes bottom-up. The primary task is to deliver combat value as quickly as possible. Pilot products go directly to the front line. If a specific solution works, we iterate on that basis and evolve it into a fully developed system.”
Testing philosophy shifts just as dramatically. In peacetime, products are validated in controlled laboratory environments before field trials begin. Only after acceptable safety thresholds are reached does equipment move to operational environments.
“In war, you cannot wait,” Samuolis says. “You bring a functional solution to soldiers as quickly as possible, evaluate its combat value, and within a month you may complete two or three iterations. In peacetime, a single iteration might take a year or even two.”
Feedback as the Engine of Acceleration
What enables such speed?
“Everything is built on feedback,” Samuolis emphasises. “Soldiers want a working combat solution as fast as possible. They are motivated to communicate with the manufacturer — what works, what fails, what needs adjustment. Iterations are built on that feedback, not on abstract plans.”
In this environment, innovation becomes a continuous loop between battlefield and production floor. The distance between user and engineer collapses.
A Partial Shift Across the Defence Industry
Is the global defence sector transitioning to this wartime development model?
“A partial transition is happening,” Samuolis says. “And it is happening in multiple directions.”
RSI Europe itself emerged in the context of war — building solutions needed immediately, under battlefield pressure. However, as the company expands into NATO markets beyond Ukraine, the tempo must adapt.
“As we grow and enter other markets, we need to slow down and align with their standards and requirements,” he notes.
At the same time, traditionally slower Western defence manufacturers are being pushed to accelerate.
“NATO countries have a strong tradition of prioritising safety, standards and certification. That naturally slows innovation. But today, when war is happening next door, competitiveness requires speed. You cannot spend two years on certification alone. But you cannot sacrifice safety either.”
The answer, he stresses, is not to cut corners.
“Processes are accelerated not by bypassing them — that would be dangerous — but by standardising and modularising. Systems are designed with modules that can be tested and certified separately. When a module changes, you can re-test and re-certify the overall system faster. That is how you maintain both speed and safety.”
The Adversary’s Tempo
On the opposing side, development may be even faster.
“I cannot quantify it precisely,” Samuolis says. “But the impression is that innovation tempo on the russian side may be equally fast or faster, because certification, standardisation and safety receive less attention.”
He points to a commonly referenced principle in innovation dynamics — often described as the 80/20 rule.
“It is generally assumed that you can achieve 80 percent of the result in 20 percent of the time,” Samuolis explains. “The remaining 20 percent of performance requires disproportionately more effort, testing, optimisation and validation.”
In defence technology, that final stretch is where safety protocols, redundancy mechanisms, reliability assurance and certification processes are embedded. For NATO-aligned industries, that stage is non-negotiable.
“At RSI Europe we typically aim for 85–90 percent effectiveness, while still allocating time to safety and at least minimal structured testing,” he says. “That additional margin requires time.”
An adversary operating under different constraints may make a different calculation.
“If the objective is to reach 75–80 percent effectiveness — simply to ensure that the system functions — development can move much faster. Questions of long-term durability, operator safety or standardisation may become secondary.”
The result is a structural asymmetry.
“The advantage of accepting lower refinement is speed,” Samuolis notes. “But that advantage often comes at a cost — frequently at the expense of their own soldiers.”
In other words, tempo is not only a function of engineering capability. It is also a reflection of strategic culture, tolerance for risk and the value assigned to human life.
Supply Chains and Strategic Flexibility
Another structural factor influencing defence innovation is industrial supply.
“Many electronic components used in drone systems are manufactured in China,” Samuolis says. “The ecosystem is extremely diverse and capable of supplying large volumes quickly.”
At the same time, supply chain security has become an explicit consideration in NATO defence procurement, and U.S.-linked procurement environments include restrictions under compliance regimes such as the NDAA.
“For certain programmes and customers, the origin of components and compliance with sourcing regulations are critical,” he explains. “Systems must meet specific procurement and certification requirements.”
To operate across these different environments, RSI Europe has developed a dual sourcing model.
“We design our systems so they can be produced using two different component ecosystems,” Samuolis says. “For markets where production speed, delivery timelines and cost efficiency are decisive, we can use globally available components. For NATO and allied countries, we produce NDAA-compliant systems built with components that meet strict sourcing requirements.”
This approach allows RSI Europe to maintain flexibility without redesigning entire platforms for different markets.
“The key is modular architecture,” he explains. “If components need to change because of sourcing requirements or supply availability, the system can adapt without rebuilding everything from scratch.”
At the same time, Samuolis stresses that strengthening independent production capacity remains a long-term strategic issue.
“Europe has strong development capabilities,” he says. “The real challenge is scaling manufacturing and making the strategic investments needed to support it.”
Another structural factor influencing defence innovation is industrial supply.
Two Parallel Development Tracks
Within RSI Europe, these realities have led to a dual-speed model.
“We operate two primary tracks,” Samuolis explains. “A fast track focused on Ukraine — that is where the business began. The essence is rapid idea development and iteration. We deliver functional updates quickly: new configurations, increased speed, resilience, payload capacity, range. We test in the field, gather feedback and refine again.”
Alongside it runs a slower track aligned with NATO standards.
“In that track, we plan for certification, required testing and compliance. We know development may take one, two or even more years. Some solutions transfer from the fast track. Some can be developed within months. Others require a full certification cycle.”
This structure enables both immediate battlefield responsiveness and long-term institutional integration.
From Startup Mindset to Structured Processes
What makes this model sustainable?
“It started with a startup mindset,” Samuolis acknowledges. “But ultimately it comes down to well-structured processes and clear priorities.”
Mission alignment also plays a central role.
“When people care about the mission, they feel responsibility. They want to deliver quality and speed. They understand the higher purpose — to support Ukraine, to deliver on time. That motivation matters.”
Over time, speed has become embedded in operational design.
“We standardise testing where possible. We design products modularly. We structure internal processes around rapid value delivery.”
Building Capability Through Integrated Engineering
At RSI Europe, mechanical engineering and software development evolve together as parts of a single system architecture.
Drone systems operating in combat environments require continuous development in mechanical architecture and digital capability alike. Software enables control, optimisation, autonomy, and adaptability. Mechanical design determines survivability, resilience, payload integration, and battlefield practicality. Operational advantage emerges only when both evolve together.
Several factors drive this dual-track innovation. The transition away from Chinese components forces hardware redesign and compatibility adjustments. Market shortages of non-Chinese components require ongoing adaptation.
Another driver is the nature of combat innovation itself.
“Purely software solutions rarely deliver sufficient battlefield value alone. Tangible mechanical elements — fibre optic systems, release mechanisms, new camera configurations — often provide the most direct operational advantage.”
In tightly integrated drone systems, even a small hardware change can require broader design adjustments.
“That is where modularity becomes critical,” he notes. “When you design a system modularly, replacing one component has less impact on the rest. But at the initial design stage, you cannot always predict how components will evolve under battlefield or supply chain pressures.”
The transformation of defence innovation cycles is not theoretical. It is being tested daily under operational pressure.
Wartime compresses timeframes. It forces modularity. It demands industrial agility.
And as RSI Europe’s engineering leadership makes clear, the balance between speed, safety and scale is now one of the defining strategic questions for NATO-aligned defence industries.