By Morten Suhr Hansen
There are business ideas that can make even the most seasoned subscription experts raise an eyebrow. That’s exactly how I felt earlier this week when I nearly spilled my morning coffee reading a front-page story in Børsen with the headline:
“CEO of Swedish giant wants to sell weapons on subscription.”
The CEO in question is Michael Johansson, and the company is Saab, once known for cars and fighter jets, and today is Scandinavia’s largest weapons manufacturer. Michael Johansson explained that Saab wants to introduce a subscription model similar to that used by Spotify, for example, only this time, the subscription would involve advanced weapons systems.
Saab plans to offer a subscription service aimed at European defense forces, who would pay Saab on an ongoing basis for the development of advanced technologies such as drones, while Saab maintains production capacity ready for when the need arises. According to Johansson, this model has major benefits for both Saab and the respective defense forces, and he continues: “You could also call it ‘Drones-as-a-Service.’ We secure a long-term agreement that allows us to invest in both ongoing development and in building up massive production capacity that our customers can draw on if necessary”.
In many ways, this logic makes sense. I will elaborate on this further in this article. But at the same time, I am somewhat concerned about Saab’s business rhetoric. I will return to this later.
Subscription can drive development and innovation in the defense industry
At first glance, weapons and subscriptions seem like an odd pairing. But let’s take a closer look at why the subscription mindset actually makes sense for Saab and for the defense industry more broadly.
- Stability in an unstable market. The arms industry is traditionally characterized by large, unpredictable orders. A subscription model can secure steady revenue streams and predictable cash flow, just as we see in software and SaaS businesses.
- Lower entry barriers for customers. Smaller nations or alliances could gain access to cutting-edge drone technology without paying billions upfront. Subscription makes it possible to “rent capacity”, making Saab attractive to a broader customer base.
- Continuous innovation. With a subscription model, software updates, maintenance, and training become an integral part of the agreement. This means that customers always have access to the latest version – while Saab maintains an ongoing relationship.
- Stronger lock-in. Once a nation chooses Saab as a subscription partner, switching becomes almost impossible. The entire ecosystem – technology, data, training – becomes deeply intertwined in the partnership.
But could a subscription model mean losing access to weapons?
At first glance, one would think that the subscription model logic seems to make sense in the defense industry as well. But perhaps there are some very specific risks and reservations that need to be considered.
What happens if a nation loses access to its weapon systems or or otherwise becomes cut off from critical defense infrastructure in the middle of a war or conflict? The arms trade is already heavily regulated, and the subscription model could make it even more difficult to control who uses the systems – and how.
Would we, as Danes, be comfortable subscribing to our national defense solutions from a Swedish company? Probably not. But what if it is an American supplier? Or an Israeli one? Or a Chinese one? I think you get my point here. There are places where ownership is more important than subscribing to access.
Is the subscription rhetoric a little too clever?
At the same time, I am a little concerned that the communication used here comes across as a little too quick and a little too clever. “Spotify for weapons” sounds more like satire than strategy. In my view, Saab risks being accused of ‘trivializing’ war through overly commercial subscription metaphors.
Perhaps instead of talking about weapons on subscription, Saab should frame it as ‘flexible capacity building’, ‘modular defense solutions’, or ‘mission readiness-as-a-service’.
That said, it is fascinating that subscription has now become such a universal logic that even the defence industry is adopting it. If one of the most conservative sectors, where ownership is traditionally everything, can embrace a service-based, relationship-driven mindset, then there are truly no limits to how far the model can spread.
The takeaway is clear: Subscription is no longer just a smart pricing model. It’s a global business logic capable of redefining even the industry of war. And that should inspire us all – but also make us pause to ask where the line should be drawn.
