In a volatile world, governments are striving to reduce defense reliance on imports while boosting high-value exports. Although resources, time, and technological development levels remain indispensable foundations, success ultimately goes beyond investment and licensed assembly programs. By analyzing the experience of emerging players, this Viewpoint identifies two enabling pillars: sophisticated program management and collaborative ecosystems. These help developing nations achieve sustainable defense autonomy and global competitiveness.
The global defense industry is undergoing rapid transformation. Governments face mounting pressure to reduce import dependencies, expand high-value exports, and retain domestic manufacturing autonomy. This pressure is amplified by geopolitical restrictions, such as reliance on foreign-controlled technologies and export limitations like ITAR (International Traffic in Arms Regulations). Examples include Türkiye’s expulsion from the F-35 program after purchasing the Russian S-400 system and South Korea operating under US-imposed missile-range limits until 2021.
Furthermore, military technologies, from unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) to next-generation artillery, are advancing at an unprecedented speed, creating fierce competition. Traditional players such as the US, European nations, Russia, and fast-rising China dominate the market. Others, including Türkiye and South Korea, are striving to develop critical capabilities and achieve sovereignty in strategically targeted equipment classes.
Success rates in developing sovereign defense industries vary considerably. Some countries remain licensed assemblers of equipment with minimal local intellectual property (IP) ownership; others achieve global export footprints and design autonomy within decades. South Korea and Türkiye are examples of the latter, becoming top 20 global defense exporters in a relatively short period (see Figure 1).
This Viewpoint provides a strategic lens for:
In the late 1990s, the South Korean Air Force reliedon older training jets that did not adequately prepare pilots for fourth-generation fighters. The government and Korea Aerospace Industries (KAI) looked to develop a native supersonic trainer to reduce reliance on imports and grow local research, development, and innovation (RDI). KAI partnered with Lockheed Martin, leveraging its expertise in flight controls and avionics to develop the T-50 jet, which incorporated advanced avionics, a US-made General Electric F404 engine, and Korean design. By positioning the T-50 as a hero platform, KAI catalyzed local advancements in composites, avionics, and flight control systems and created a family of aircraft based on it. A multiyear commitment from the Air Force encouraged supply chain investments in advanced systems like radars and mission computers, helping grow the industry and transition KAI from an assembler of components to a global trainer/light-fighter manufacturer.
In the 1990s, the Turkish Navy relied heavily on foreign-built frigates and corvettes, causing maintenance and upgrade issues. This led to the launch of the MILGEM ship program in 2000 by the Turkish Naval Forces and defense authorities. The program aimed to reduce import reliance and develop a domestic naval industry. The Istanbul Naval Shipyard led the design, but the project mandated a broad local supplier network for sensors, combat systems, steel materials, and more. Electronics SMEs (small and medium-sized enterprises) delivered subassemblies for the corvette’s command-and-control system, and private shipyards assisted in modular sections of hull construction. Altogether, more than 50 local SMEs contributed to the program, building a network of Tier 2 and 3 domestic suppliers. The first MILGEM corvette was built with more than 50% local content. As the second and third ships entered production, new suppliers for advanced materials, propulsion modules, and stealth features joined the chain. Today, multiple SMEs produce critical corvette subsystems rather than the navy relying on a single OEM. Demonstrating the export impact, Pakistan’s navy ordered four MILGEM-based corvettes from Türkiye in 2018.
The success achieved by Türkiye and South Korea offers lessons for developing nations. Although adequate defense budget spending and technological maturity are essential, they do not automatically guarantee deep localization or export competitiveness. Arthur D. Little (ADL) analysis found that success revolves around investing in (1) well-structured program management systems spanning public and private domains and (2) supportive, collaborative industrial ecosystems.
Successful defense industry program management involves holistic, systematic planning and execution of complex technological, industrial, and managerial efforts. This includes setting capability goals, aligning with market realities, and coordinating with diverse stakeholders (e.g., government bodies, military end users, prime contractors, and SMEs). Success requires a program approach:
Effective program management turns a nation’s strategic defense aspirations into reliable, export‐ready solutions produced and prepared for operations by its industrial sector, then integrated into broader defense ecosystems. Rather than treating defense sector investment as a collection of products or individual opportunities; this approach concentrates on the continuous, coordinated development of multifaceted aspects of defense solutions and their lifecycle. Program management methodologies and practices include institutional culture, political continuity, human capital, and many others. For the purpose of this Viewpoint, we concentrate on how successful countries approached the following:
An effective defense ecosystem is more than a collection of suppliers or government entities. It is a collaborative network of large prime contractors, dual-use businesses, specialized SMEs, research institutes, governments and policymakers, and strategic foreign partners — all working in sync to enable sustainable defense production and innovation.
Coordination and focus are key to achieving maturity and must be strategically steered by the governments through setting directions; securing long-term orders and providing clear market signals; enabling and providing infrastructure support; creating collaboration platforms; and maintaining competition, diversity, and strong private sector participation.
Such a critical national sector, especially during formative stages, can’t be left purely to free market forces — but it should effectively leverage them. Success increasingly relies on dual‐use manufacturing, in which civilian industries and off‐the‐shelf solutions are adapted for defense needs. When nurtured effectively, a robust defense industrial ecosystem provides:
In essence, defense industrial ecosystem development transforms raw investment into tangible, sustainable capabilities, based on:
ADL analysis revealed nine best practices for countries looking to develop their defense industry and move beyond basic assembly. Five support sophisticated program management; four support industry ecosystem development (see Figure 2).
cloud technology axon
Headquartered in France with an established footprint across the Unite...
