Faster, without cutting corners. How can the defence sector expand its production capabilities?

How can manufacturers expand production faster when technology decisions require a long-term perspective, yet future order volumes remain uncertain? How can they draw on experience from other industries without overlooking the specific requirements of the defence sector? And how can they determine which processes are genuinely worth automating? 

These questions emerged from the panel discussion “Defence Industry 4.0: Automation, Robotics and Investment Management in the Defence Sector”, held at MSPO 2026 in Kielce. Radosław Przysiecki, Business Development Manager at Nextomation, took part in the discussion. Topics included the conditions for investing in additional production capacity, the economic viability of automation and opportunities to apply automotive expertise in the defence sector. 

From Nextomation’s perspective, these topics share one fundamental question: how can technological potential be translated into manufacturing operations that meet real needs – not only at start-up, but also throughout subsequent stages of development? 

Automotive Experience: A Starting Point, Not a Ready-Made Model 

Radosław Przysiecki highlighted that automotive sector capabilities cannot be transferred wholesale to the defence industry. He pointed to military certification requirements and the lack of a stable order book over a multi-year horizon. 

This does not mean that experience from other industries has limited value. It means that transferring expertise must be distinguished from replicating a specific production model. 

In automotive and electronics projects, Nextomation combines precision assembly, process parameter control, functional testing, machine vision inspection and production traceability. These capabilities enable the design of repeatable, documented processes. Applying them in a new field, however, requires a fresh assessment of product requirements and the methods used to verify conformity. 

The right question is therefore not “Which production line can we transfer to another industry?”, but “Which experience will help us design the right process?”. The starting point should be the requirements of the individual manufacturer – not the assumption that a solution proven in one facility will work unchanged in another. 

Order Predictability Is Part of the Technology Decision 

Long-term contracts and their importance to companies’ willingness to invest were another recurring theme during the debate. Access to capital alone was not presented as a sufficient condition for expanding production. 

From an investment planning perspective, it is therefore important to distinguish between two issues: the ability to finance a solution and whether its intended scale is justified. 

Consider two scenarios for the same product. In the first, orders are growing gradually, but their continuity is not confirmed. In the second, the manufacturer has a stable delivery schedule covering several years. Automation can be considered in both cases, but the scope of investment should not automatically be assumed to be identical. 

At Nextomation, these decisions start with a comparison of alternative concepts. Depending on the process, the right solution may be a fully automated line, a semi-automated station, an upgrade to existing equipment or the automation of a selected process stage. Analysis and modelling help evaluate these options before construction begins. 

We recommend a phased approach to production development: determine the capacity required today, the conditions that would justify further investment and the elements that need to be prepared in advance. Such conditions might include confirmation of additional volumes, the stabilisation of product design or reaching the capacity limit of the existing process. 

Not Every Process Needs Maximum Automation 

Robotisation does not replace a well-designed process. This leads to a question not only of whether to automate, but also to what extent and in what sequence. 

When evaluating a concept, it is important to distinguish the objective from the means of achieving it. The objective may be higher throughput, consistent quality, reduced operator workload or better process documentation. A robot is one possible tool – not a measure of a plant’s maturity. 

Quality control is a good example. A modernisation project may involve integrating machine vision inspection into existing operations, automatically recording results and implementing logic for handling detected non-conformities. This does not necessarily require an overhaul of the entire production system. Nextomation designs such solutions both as inspection stations and as elements of larger assembly systems. 

In investment discussions, we therefore recommend first identifying the specific constraint: where the process is losing efficiency, where repeatability is difficult to maintain and where reliable information is missing. Only then should the technology best suited to addressing that problem be selected. 

Greater Production Capacity Does Not Always Mean More Equipment 

Before scaling up, it is worth checking whether the proposed system architecture genuinely meets the needs of the process. Simulation allows material flow, interactions between stations, buffer sizes and expected throughput to be analysed before the system is built. This makes it possible to compare alternatives rather than treating the initial concept as the final solution. 

One example is a Nextomation simulation project for a defence manufacturer, covering CNC machine tending, component washing and end-of-line testing. Under the modelled conditions, the analysis showed that a 20-pallet storage system was sufficient, rather than the 40-pallet system initially planned. It also confirmed that a single robot on a linear track could handle the process, instead of the two robots envisaged in the initial concept. These were findings from pre-implementation design validation – not measurements from an operational production line. 

This example illustrates why more extensive equipment should not be equated with a better-planned investment. In this case, the analysis allowed the scope of the proposed solution to be reduced while still meeting the assumed operational requirements in the model. 

From an investor’s perspective, the question is therefore: are we investing in the capacity we need, or in additional capacity based on unverified assumptions? 

Integration Should Serve a Clear Operational Purpose 

The panel also highlighted the need to move away from disconnected, standalone systems and towards a better-integrated production environment. 

In engineering practice, we recommend starting with the questions the manufacturer needs to answer. Is it clear which operations a given product has been through? Is the inspection result linked to its identifier? Can the stage at which a non-conformity occurred be identified? 

Machine vision systems can combine checks on component presence, position or geometry with code reading and the transfer of results to control, production management and traceability systems. This makes quality information part of the process, rather than simply a separate record created once the process is complete. 

The aim is not to collect as much data as possible. Our approach starts by defining the decision the data should support, who is responsible for making it and how the system is expected to respond. Only then can the scope of integration be meaningfully defined. 

Automation Also Means Designing How Work Is Organised 

The discussion also addressed staffing challenges and the use of automation to extend production into nights and weekends. 

However, it is important to distinguish between automating an operation and preparing an entire process to run for longer periods without direct operator involvement. 

When evaluating such a concept, we recommend considering not only the equipment’s cycle time, but also component replenishment, finished-product removal, non-conformity handling and responses to stoppages. It is also necessary to define which situations require human intervention and what support will be available. 

We applied this approach in the defence-sector simulation project described above. Alongside robot utilisation, we analysed pallet circulation, storage capacities and assumptions about system autonomy. The assessment therefore focused on end-to-end process flow—not simply on the speed of an individual machine. 

Accelerate Decisions Without Skipping Preparation 

The development of defence manufacturing should be considered from two complementary perspectives: industrial and investment. The first concerns whether the process will operate in line with requirements. The second concerns whether its scale and approach to expansion reflect the conditions under which the company is making commitments. 

We therefore recommend measuring progress not by the number of robots purchased, but by readiness to fulfil specific production tasks. Do we understand the process constraints? Have we validated the concept? Can we document quality? Do we know when and how to move to the next stage of development? 

This is how we understand the role of a technology partner. At Nextomation, we support manufacturers from analysis and concept development, through engineering and the integration of automation, robotics, testing and data, to commissioning and ongoing production support. 

Faster development should not mean skipping difficult questions. It should mean getting the answers earlier, so that the right decisions can be made. 

Let’s Plan the Next Step for Your Manufacturing Operations 

Are you planning to increase production capacity, modernise an existing process or move into a new area of business? 

Let’s discuss your requirements, constraints and possible scenarios. 

← Back to the insights