Ukrainian arms manufacturers warned of the risk of disruptions to supplies to the front and proposed solutions

The new defense procurement model could cause a pause in the supply of weapons to the front. The Ukrainian Council of Arms Manufacturers issued a statement about the insufficient level of contracting in the domestic arms market, all because of the almost complete halt in the procurement of Ukrainian weapons, UNN writes. 

What the Council of Arms Manufacturers says

The statement by the Ukrainian Council of Arms Manufacturers emphasizes the conflict between the pace of procurement reform and the pace of the war:

"The Council of Arms Manufacturers supports competitive and transparent procurement. But any model must operate at the pace of war. There is time between the decision to procure and the actual delivery for procedures, the procurement of components, production, testing, and acceptance. Therefore, a delay in contracting today means the risk of a supply gap in several months."

The reason for the statement was the new defense procurement model, which envisages a transition from direct contracts to competitive tender procedures. 

How the new competitive procurement model is supposed to work 

The model that the Ministry of Defense officially began implementing at the beginning of this year is based on competence centers established under the Ministry of Defense. One of the tasks of these centers is to formulate the relevant tactical and technical specifications (TTS) for products. These TTS are the basis for conducting procurements of specific weapons systems, and without them the Defense Procurement Agency cannot announce a tender. 

And this is where a failure occurred — in the five months since the process of transitioning to competitive procurement began, the competence centers have managed to develop TTS for an extremely small number of items. 

"More than five months have passed since then, yet a critically insufficient number of TTS have still been developed for the existing nomenclature," explained Ihor Fedirko, executive director of the Ukrainian Council of Arms Manufacturers.

In July, the Defense Procurement Agency reported the announcement of the first tenders for the procurement of FPV drones according to TTS worth more than UAH 3.3 billion. The Agency reported that since then it has announced and conducted procedures in all categories for which TTS had been received. 

At the same time, funding for the old direct procurement procedures is extremely limited — the main funds have already been allocated to procurement through competitive tender procedures, the implementation of which arms manufacturers generally support. 

"This is a transparent approach that corresponds to European practice and one toward which we genuinely need to move," Fedirko emphasized. 

What risks this poses for the front

As stated by the association of arms manufacturers Technological Forces of Ukraine: 

"The potential shortage of contracting for weapons and military equipment for the Defense Forces of Ukraine, which key stakeholders are currently discussing, could call into question both the army's ability to conduct active combat on the front and the capacity of enterprises in the national defense industry to operate systematically." 

In simple terms, the procurement of weapons has stopped, and the military will not be able to receive what it needs on time. Even if the TTS are transferred to the Defense Procurement Agency in the near future and the Agency launches tender procedures within a short timeframe, a pause in supplies is almost inevitable. 

"The price of this pause is weapons that the front may not receive," Fedirko believes. 

According to him, in six months there is a real threat of a disruption in supplies to the front: "This is already a question of what the Ukrainian army will fight with six months from now." 

Even if all processes can be launched tomorrow, apart from the tender procedure itself, there is a certain production cycle: after contracting, the manufacturer must receive advance funding, then purchase components (the delivery of which for some items may take up to three months), and only then manufacture the product.

"Several more months are needed for production, testing, and the transfer of finished products. Therefore, a pause in contracting today means the risk of an actual disruption in supplies in six months," Fedirko says. 

Most manufacturers today have contracts covering only 15–25% of their capacity. The market forecasts that supplies of the volumes of weapons that should have been contracted through procurements that have not yet been announced will begin no earlier than December 2026, and possibly as late as March 2027.

Other complications 

Against the backdrop of the pause in tenders, the situation has also become more complicated with the alternative supply channel — the digital DOT-Chain Defence platform, through which military units directly ordered drones, ammunition, electronic warfare equipment, and robotic systems from manufacturers’ warehouses in a matter of weeks rather than quarters. Funding for procurement through this platform is currently limited. 

The fact that the Defense Ministry’s pilot project, launched in parallel under the name “Basic Level,” is also adding to the problems. Under the project, units were supposed to be supplied continuously with a minimum predictable level of UAVs, unmanned ground systems, and other systems, but it has not yet demonstrated its effectiveness. 

Manufacturers emphasize that the coincidence of the pause in tenders and disruptions in funding for DOT-Chain Defence is particularly dangerous because Ukrainian weapons have only now begun to give the front a tangible advantage for the first time — long-range systems are striking the enemy’s logistics, while drone units are holding back infantry assaults. In the industry’s view, halting production at this particular moment threatens not only the loss of this advantage but also far broader consequences for the country’s defense capability.

Long-term consequences for the industry

Manufacturers have other concerns as well. Companies that expanded production, hired people, relocated enterprises, and ordered components at their own expense during the full-scale invasion risk being left without domestic orders for months.

“No exports are currently capable of replacing state defense orders for Ukrainian manufacturers. Foreign contracts can support the development of the industry, but they will not utilize all the capacity that has been created or ensure the production volumes required by the Defense Forces,” Fedirko says.

In addition to the reduction in production capacity, modernization is also at risk: manufacturers will be unable to upgrade existing weapons systems and develop new ones. This is critical because certain types of weapons become obsolete within a few weeks and require continuous improvement.

What manufacturers propose

One option for mitigating the crisis mentioned in the market is to restore broad funding for direct procurement through the DOT Chain Defence mechanism. Only verified manufacturers are connected to this platform, while units can choose weapons according to their own needs. The mechanism has already proven effective and, in the industry’s view, is capable of mitigating the shortcomings of the transition period.

Other proposals include:

• promptly reallocating funds to finance critical needs;
• reformatting and strengthening centers of expertise where necessary;
• establishing clear deadlines and assigning responsibility for developing technical and tactical characteristics;
• accelerating the announcement of procurements based on specifications that are already prepared;
• introducing a transitional mechanism until the new model is fully launched.

The industry emphasizes that, regardless of which procurement mechanism the state ultimately uses, it must meet two basic criteria — supplying the front with weapons on time and guaranteeing uninterrupted production at Ukrainian enterprises. Market participants call everything else merely a form that can be improved without limitation, whereas, in their view, these two criteria cannot be sacrificed.

Manufacturers separately draw attention to the personnel aspect of the problem. In their view, the defense procurement system cannot depend on personnel decisions: a change of minister should not halt contracts that have already been concluded, and discussions about a possible replacement of the head of the Defense Procurement Agency should not slow down the conduct of tenders. If every personnel rotation leads to a pause in supplies, this, the industry believes, indicates not the existence of a system but manual management of the process.

Against this backdrop, market participants do not rule out that some of the public pressure on the head of the Defense Procurement Agency, Arsen Zhumadilov, is an attempt to shift responsibility onto the executor — whereas the DPA objectively cannot announce tenders without the technical and tactical characteristics that were not provided to it, or contract resources that were not allocated to it. Therefore, market participants urge that the problem not be politicized and that the chair under the head of the DPA not be destabilized; instead, they call for procedural decisions that would enable the agency to conduct procurements as quickly as possible and contract the maximum number of manufacturers.