The 'blurry' world of defence tech revenue

The Great Recurring Revenue Mirage

If you have been watching the venture capital landscape lately, you have noticed a pivot. The capital that used to flow into food delivery apps and obscure SaaS tools is now rushing into defense technology. It is the new gold rush. But as someone who looks at the plumbing of these companies, I am seeing a familiar and frustrating pattern: the math does not quite add up.

We are currently living through a period where defense tech startups are reporting eye-popping Annual Recurring Revenue (ARR) figures. On paper, they look like high-margin software businesses. In reality, they are often just traditional government contractors wearing a Silicon Valley costume. For builders and founders, this distinction is not just academic—it is the difference between a sustainable company and a valuation bubble that is waiting to pop.

Defining Recurring vs. Occurring

In the world of standard software, ARR is the holy grail. You build a product once, sell it a thousand times, and the money hits the bank every month like clockwork. VCs love this because it is predictable. Defense, however, does not work like that. The military does not usually subscribe to a drone the way you subscribe to Netflix.

What is happening now is a creative redefinition of what 'recurring' means. Startups are taking one-off Research and Development (R&D) grants or pilot programs—things known as Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) contracts—and annualizing them as if they are guaranteed to repeat forever. If you get a $500,000 grant for a six-month study, calling that $1 million in ARR is not just optimistic; it is arguably dishonest.

The defense sector is notoriously 'lumpy.' You might spend three years working on a prototype with zero revenue, followed by a $50 million contract, followed by two years of silence while the bureaucracy processes the next phase. Trying to force that timeline into a SaaS-style growth chart creates a distorted view of the company's health.

The Founder Perspective: The Danger of High Multiples

If you are building in this space, it is tempting to play the game. When a VC offers you a 50x multiple based on your 'ARR,' it feels like a win. But you are setting a trap for yourself. When the next funding round comes and those pilot contracts haven't converted into a Program of Record—the military's version of a long-term purchase—your valuation will crater.

We saw this in the early days of AI, and we are seeing it again here. Founders are being pressured to act like software companies because software companies get higher valuations. But defense tech is often hardware-heavy, service-intensive, and politically sensitive. It is a different beast entirely. When you mislabel your revenue, you are lying to your investors, but more importantly, you are lying to yourself about your product-market fit.

The 'Blurry' Reality of Government Contracts

The procurement process is the ultimate bottleneck. A startup can have the best tactical AI in the world, but if they cannot navigate the 'Valley of Death'—the gap between a successful pilot and a full-scale deployment—the revenue stops. In the private sector, if a customer likes your product, they buy more. In defense, if a general likes your product, you might still have to wait eighteen months for a budget cycle to align.

This is where the 'blurry' revenue comes in. Some companies are including 'expected' renewals in their figures. Others are counting services and consulting as software revenue. For a builder, this creates a culture of chasing the next grant rather than building the best product. You become a professional hunter of government checks rather than a technology leader.

Building for the Long Haul

If we want to build a real defense tech ecosystem, we need to stop pretending it is just another branch of SaaS. Real defense tech is hard. It involves supply chains, testing in harsh environments, and long-term regulatory hurdles. Honesty about revenue is the first step toward building something that actually lasts.

Investors are starting to catch on. The sophisticated ones are digging into the quality of the contracts. They are asking: Is this a Program of Record? Is this money coming from a discretionary innovation fund or a permanent budget line? If the answer is the former, that revenue is not recurring; it is a gift.

The Takeaway for Builders

• Be transparent about contract types: Distinguish between R&D grants and actual production contracts. It builds trust with long-term partners.
• Avoid the SaaS trap: Do not let VCs force you into a business model that does not fit the reality of military procurement.
• Focus on the Program of Record: That is the only real 'recurring' revenue in defense. Everything else is just a bridge to get there.

The defense sector needs innovation, and it needs the speed of the startup world. But we cannot build a secure future on a foundation of fuzzy math. Let us call a grant a grant and a contract a contract. The mission is too important for accounting tricks.

Read the original at Sifted →