Stark’s Uwe Horstmann and Johannes Schaback on European defense manufacturing

Stark co-founders Uwe Horstmann and Johannes Schaback join Sequoia’s Pat Grady and Luciana Lixandru to discuss European defense manufacturing. Horstmann argues that Europe must take more responsibility for its defense and that the ability to produce and innovate is part of deterrence.

Asked about the company’s rapid contract wins, a founder identifies four ingredients: feedback from people using the products, venture funding for development, attention to certification and practical deployment, and designing for industrial scale from the beginning. These are the company’s explanations for its progress, not an independent assessment of the contracts.

Stark says it works with personnel in Ukraine and with European forces to collect feedback. A buyer may be a senior official, but the end user is often a soldier. The founders say the user’s practical experience is an essential input when deciding what to build.

The company describes a portfolio of roughly 10 to 15 programs and points to a software-driven unmanned system as one example. Its team is learning about usability, including how the equipment and its interface affect the mental load of the person operating it.

One lesson came from packaging. Engineers proposed a lightweight plastic box, but soldiers asked for wood because it could also provide warmth in winter. The story illustrates the difference between an attractive design in a meeting room and what people need in the field.

The founders emphasize that the person purchasing a system and the person using it may have different priorities. They describe seeking direct criticism from enlisted personnel and returning with revised versions, rather than assuming a user’s difficulty is caused by inadequate training.

They also say basic interface questions matter: can equipment be used while wearing gloves, and how much information can one person manage at once? In their view, treating operational personnel as customers helps a young defense company learn faster.

Horstmann connects Stark’s opportunity to a changing European view of defense. He says governments increasingly recognize both a need for greater European responsibility and the emergence of smaller, software-driven systems. In his account, procurement processes must change along with the technology.

He believes procurement reform can last because it responds to structural circumstances rather than one leader’s preferences. Certification, he says, is not glamorous but is a substantial part of turning a prototype into something a military customer can use.

For Horstmann, the central lesson from the war in Ukraine is the importance of an innovation ecosystem, not a single celebrated weapon. Such an ecosystem needs user feedback, talent, capital and a way to keep improving as circumstances change.

The founders contrast startup methods with established defense companies. They say Stark builds prototypes with manufacturing scale in mind, while traditional primes have experience producing complex, expensive systems. Horstmann expects both kinds of organization to retain roles in the market.

Schaback describes Stark as an engineering organization with relatively autonomous, cross-functional programs—small teams inside the company that build for external customers. The structure resembles a venture portfolio in the sense that several programs pursue different goals at once.

A shared platform layer supplies capabilities that can be reused across those programs. Schaback says engineers can work on common capabilities for the whole family of systems or focus on an individual customer-facing product. The aim is to share work without preventing program teams from moving independently.

The hosts ask about a publicly discussed trial that did not meet expectations. Schaback describes it as a formative moment after an upgrade, saying the company entered the experiment without having completed all the testing it wanted and then faced considerable public attention.

He says the team responded by bringing engineers and test staff together near a range, working in shifts and using results from repeated tests to improve the system. The company treated the episode as a make-or-break test of its engineering organization.

According to Schaback, hardware, software and simulation teams worked in parallel, and within about two weeks the company achieved the result it sought. This is his account of the recovery; the interview does not independently verify its subsequent performance claims.

To recruit, Schaback says Stark looks across established industry, universities, startups and government. The company needs many disciplines and both experienced people and newcomers. Existing defense expertise and a startup mindset are, in his view, equally valuable.

Cross-functional program teams build products, while leaders within each discipline create communities of practice. Schaback says those groups share methods, tools and approaches across the company, helping preserve coherence as individual teams grow.

Horstmann observes a change in how European technology workers view defense. He says people who previously had no connection to the sector are considering it as a place to apply their skills, and he presents Stark as a bridge between defense and high-growth technology cultures.

The conversation turns to autonomous systems. Schaback describes the importance of logistics, reliability and operator intent across a mission, and says the degree of human participation depends on how customers deploy a system. His description reflects the company’s approach rather than an independent safety evaluation.

Asked about sourcing, Schaback says the company uses commercially available components and values flexibility as conditions and requirements change. Horstmann frames vertical integration as a balance: production must scale, but customers may also need to involve their own local suppliers.

On whether to remain focused on one product, Horstmann says the company starts with needs identified by militaries and asks whether Stark can contribute. That leads toward multiple programs, though he acknowledges the risk that a wider portfolio adds complexity and dilutes focus.

Schaback says every program has two goals: reach the market quickly and be ready for production. Optimizing only for a rapid demonstration can create a product that is hard to manufacture. He wants manufacturing considered early, before those decisions become expensive to reverse.

Supply-chain resilience also shapes component choices. The founders say they sometimes favor parts that are good and available in quantity over a more advanced part that cannot be sourced reliably. This is a trade-off between peak specifications and sustainable output.

Horstmann believes European sourcing can improve through diversification, although he acknowledges dependencies on suppliers outside Europe. Some raw-material and supply-chain questions, he says, require industry, governments and militaries to coordinate rather than leaving one company to solve them alone.

Asked about AI risks, Schaback says Stark follows NATO principles for responsible AI and uses audits and safeguards intended to keep its systems within an operator’s instructions. These are company claims; the hosts do not independently test the safeguards in the interview.

The founders describe autonomy as part of both planning and operations. They say the degree of automation and human involvement varies by application. The discussion raises the broader question of how safeguards should be evaluated when systems are used in consequential settings.

Horstmann says some traditional defense firms are entering this part of the market while others concentrate on different products. He welcomes competition as a way to improve offerings, while seeing the companies as contributing to a common defense effort.

The founders discuss planned investment in research, product development and production capacity. Horstmann estimates around €600 million over the coming years, potentially more, while saying the company wants to remain nimble. The amount is a stated intention, not completed spending.

Asked about growing to roughly 700 people in two years, Schaback says a clear organizational blueprint and allocation of people to programs are essential. He acknowledges that fast growth requires difficult decisions and says the company is still developing its approach.

The hosts ask what remains difficult. Schaback points to changing operational requirements and the need to improve capabilities safely. Horstmann focuses instead on procurement contracts that could make industrial capacity available quickly if demand surged.

Horstmann compares the idea to cloud capacity arrangements: governments and suppliers might agree in advance on how to expand production. He says the unresolved questions include supply chains, storage, maintenance and keeping software current. He presents this as a proposal, not an established model.

He says no one has a complete playbook and that governments, militaries and industry must learn together. The founders’ stated ambition is to become a major European defense supplier while helping build a broader ecosystem of both large and small companies.

Looking five or ten years ahead, Horstmann hopes for a stronger European role in transatlantic cooperation and a more peaceful environment. The conversation ends with the founders linking their company’s growth ambitions to that stated goal.