Authors: Bojan Stojkovski and Bogdan Iordache

Is defense tech becoming the next big thing for investors, just like AI? Samuel Burrell certainly thinks so. As Partner and Investment Lead for the UK/AU/US at Expeditions Fund, Samuel combines his background as a former Royal Marine with his venture investment experience to support the growth of mission-driven, early-stage defense tech companies.

Expeditions Fund focuses on defence, intelligence, autonomy & AI, advanced/edge computing, and cybersecurity. Founded in 2021, the fund is particularly interested in dual-use technologies that can serve both commercial and defense sectors. Its investments range from €250K to €2.5M and span Europe, Australia, and the US.

With a growing portfolio, the fund has already backed several innovative startups in defense tech. Qomodo offers AI-driven threat management for IoT devices, while Labrys Technologies enables the remote management of global networks in the Govtech sector. Calypso AI secures AI models against data risks, and Disruptive Industries provides advanced OSINT solutions, helping organizations identify hidden patterns in critical defense applications.

In this interview with Underline Ventures, Samuel discusses the growing importance of defense tech investments, particularly in the wake of shifting geopolitical landscapes, the unique challenges of navigating defense procurement, and the fund’s commitment to long-term investments in emerging technologies that reshape Europe’s defense capabilities.

UV: You served as a Captain of the Royal Marines. How has your military background shaped your current work, investing in defense tech?

Samuel Burrell: This is something that I’m proud of, as my Royal Marines experience has been incredibly valuable. I’d say the most useful thing is that it gives me the perspective of the end user. So, when I meet entrepreneurs developing new technologies in defense, I imagine those technologies through the lens of my own experiences. I haven’t been on the battlefield in Ukraine, but I have been on the front line in Afghanistan, and that’s a really useful lens to analyze technologies. I think about how they’d perform or be used in scenarios I’ve personally experienced.

Secondly, there’s the network—something I hadn’t expected to be so impactful. It wasn’t advertised when we joined the Royal Marines, but in the end, it’s turned out to be incredibly helpful. The people I met during training and throughout my service—many of them have gone on to senior positions in the military. Some of the guys I trained with are now commanding specialist units in the British military.

Others have transitioned out and are either founding or joining defense tech companies. So that network has become a real asset in this job. And, of course, as you know, one of the key parts of being a VC is sourcing new companies to invest in—and for that, this network is invaluable.

UV: You were an investor at the National Security Strategic Investment Fund (NSSIF), which is the UK government’s corporate venture capital arm focused on dual-use technologies. How did it shape your view on defense investing? 

SB: NSSIF excels in getting technology into the hands of users. It doesn’t just invest in companies; it also has an adoption team with its budget, responsible for creating contracts and funding pilot programs. This team, alongside a commercial team that facilitates contracts between government entities and startups, sets NSSIF apart from other venture or state-backed funds.

What makes it unique is the direct connection to national security organizations. When you’re part of the NSSIF team, you’re working alongside people from those departments, ensuring the technology you’re investing in can immediately benefit them. This is a key reason why startups seek NSSIF funding—they know it comes with a clear path to national security applications.

At Expeditions, we adopt a similar approach: we partner with companies to connect them with the right people—whether in the UK, Poland, or Estonia—helping expedite their success. One major takeaway from NSSIF is understanding the complexities of defense procurement, and at Expeditions, we aim to help companies navigate that process effectively.

UV: What makes the go-to-market process in defense tech unique, and how does Expeditions specialize in it? Beyond the go-to-market approach, what other areas does the fund focus on to be a better defense tech fund and partner for startups?

SB: What sets us apart at Expeditions is our team’s deep expertise. Mikolaj (Firlej, co-founder and General Partner) has a PhD from Oxford in AI, with a focus on autonomy and weapon systems—topics few were thinking about eight years ago. I bring a background in defense and a strong network across these sectors. 

Our industry knowledge is a key differentiator. Additionally, our presence in both London and Warsaw is compelling for top founders, especially those with ties to Eastern and Central Europe. There is only one European national security and defense fund with offices in both cities, which strengthens our network and influence.

UV: How do defense tech startups stay afloat during 18-month sales cycles with limited access to buyers?

SB: What’s unique here is that when selling to the government, you’re typically engaging with just one team. For instance, if you’re selling a product like our portfolio company Alpine Eagle’s counter-UAS technology, you’re speaking to a specific team within a European government. This team usually includes a commercial officer and someone in decision-making, but that’s it. These teams have limited capacity to meet new companies and process technologies, unlike enterprise markets with hundreds of potential customers.

The second challenge is the sales process itself. Even if you have strong conversations with the right people, the fastest you can expect to land a long-term contract is usually 18 months. This requires substantial capital to bridge the gap and the tenacity to hold on until the revenues start coming in. Even if your product is ready and being tested, the contract can take a long time to finalize.

UV: How does Expeditions Fund balance the long-term nature of investing with the immediate demands of defense innovation?

SB: The short answer is—we do both. We’ve just launched Fund II, an 8–10-year fund, so we’re committed to long-term capital. At the same time, we move quickly. I think everyone on this call would agree that now is a pivotal moment for European defense. We’re seeing more companies being founded, and the best talent in Europe is moving into defense tech.

So we’re working hard to meet those founders, move them through our investment process quickly, and write cheques fast. At Expeditions, we pride ourselves on being high-conviction investors—but also on getting to conviction quickly. We go deep, but we go fast, and that approach has served us well.

UV: What are the key challenges early-stage defense startups are facing today?

SB: Getting funding isn’t a problem anymore—defense tech is the new AI. Everyone wants to invest in it. We’re seeing Accel, Index, and Sequoia coming into our rounds, so there’s real excitement in the space.

But explaining what you do is still hard. While generalist investors understand they need to be in this space, they often don’t fully grasp the technologies like those of us native to defense do. Founders still struggle to communicate their value clearly, especially when it comes to the complexity of defense procurement.

That’s something we think a lot about at Expeditions. As a European defense investor, you quickly realize every country has a different procurement system. There’s no copy-paste playbook—you need someone with firsthand experience navigating that system. That’s why we encourage even the strongest founders to bring in defense experts to help them. You might be a brilliant founder with a billion-dollar exit behind you, but if you’ve never dealt with defense procurement, it’s going to be challenging. That’s one of the most specific hurdles early-stage defense startups face today.

UV: If you could advise governments or defense agencies on improving the go-to-market and procurement process for startups, what changes would you suggest?

SB: Innovation agencies are helpful, but the issue is that each branch—Army, Navy, Air Force—often has at least one, sometimes multiple innovation units, and they usually operate somewhat separately from the main decision-making process. That means they often lack the internal political capital or authority they need.

Also, the fact that a government even needs a separate innovation agency suggests that innovation isn’t embedded in its core. Think about companies like Google or NVIDIA—they likely don’t have standalone innovation divisions because innovation is baked into everything they do.

Look at the Ukrainian army over the past two or three years—every soldier has effectively become an innovator. If something doesn’t work, they adapt it on the fly with whatever resources they have. That kind of mindset needs to be embedded throughout government and military structures, encouraging innovation at all levels.

One practical step I’d recommend: set up a separate procurement organization that has its evaluation authority and a budget to procure defense technology within six months. It should sit outside the traditional systems of the Army, Navy, Air Force, etc. That would be the fastest way to drive meaningful change.

UV: Given your investment focus on cybersecurity, AI, and edge computing, which areas do you see as being the most critical for European defense tech right now?

SB: For me, if I had to highlight just one area, it would be autonomy. There are many important technologies, but autonomy stands out. We’re already seeing glimpses of this in Ukraine—some UAS systems now have AI-enabled terminal guidance. It feels like we’re at the very beginning of a massive shift in how the battlefield will look in the future.

We’re moving away from human-piloted, high-cost, often exquisite systems toward mass-manufactured, low-cost autonomous ones. It reminds me—apologies for the overused analogy—of when the Wright brothers invented the airplane. Their first plane was slow, had no maneuverability, and barely flew a few hundred meters. That’s where we are now with autonomy. This is the worst it will ever be—and it will only improve from here.

We’re already seeing it in aerial systems and also in autonomous surface vessels. Eventually, the same principles will apply to subsurface vessels and ground systems. Anything that moves on the battlefield will likely become autonomous.

As VCs, part of our role is to look five to eight years into the future and try to spot what’s coming. And I believe autonomy will be one of the defining technologies in that future. 

UV: Do you see European investors, defense startups, and governments stepping up as the U.S. gradually disengages from European security?

SB: Yes, we’re already seeing this happen. The European Commission recently announced an €800bn defense innovation funding for EU countries, and the EIB is expanding its definition of dual-use technologies—broadening the scope for its backed funds to invest. More still needs to be done, but the shift is underway.

One of the advantages we have at Expeditions is a strong investor base in Poland, where the European security threat feels more immediate than in the UK. Investors there recognized early—two or three years ago—that it was time to start backing European security. That momentum helped launch Expeditions in the first place. So yes, it’s already happening across Europe.

UV: How has the war in Ukraine impacted the investment landscape and the appetite for defense innovation among investors?

SB: I think it’s changed everything—it’s enormous. First, geopolitically, the reality of the threat has been crystallized. We now know where the threat is coming from. And with the US disengaging from European security, we have to address that threat ourselves. This shift has changed investor appetite.

Also, the war in Ukraine has accelerated the evolution of defense tech. We’re seeing new technologies emerging that are shaping the future of defense. As venture investors, we look ahead and try to understand which technologies are crucial to invest in. So, it’s changed everything: the nature of the threat and the types of technologies being developed.

When I left the military in the mid-2010s, I joined an on-demand dry cleaning and laundry company—basically, the Uber for laundry. It was the quintessential 2015 startup. Those were peaceful times, but now, those types of companies aren’t raising money anymore—defense tech is the future.