RE: UK defence agency29 May 2026 07:30
interesting thoughts and i actually think there’s some logic behind the bab**** angle.
the wording in the march 18th rns sounded far more serious than a generic “technology review” statement. the key part for me was the reference to evaluating goliath alongside multiple battery technologies specifically for defence electrification and safety-critical environments.
bab**** would make sense for several reasons:
• they are deeply involved in defence platform integration and electrification programmes.
• they rely heavily on specialist partners rather than owning advanced battery chemistry themselves.
• ilika fits perfectly as a uk-based high-tech sme with differentiated ip.
• safety is a major advantage of solid-state in defence applications where thermal runaway risk is critical.
• defence customers often value reliability and safety over cost, which suits ilika’s strengths.
also, ilika being british-owned and already connected into uk industrialisation programmes makes them strategically attractive from a sovereign capability perspective.
of course, it could also be another defence-related organisation such as dstl, qinetiq, bae etc, so there’s no proof it’s bab**** specifically. but i do think your theory is grounded and not just random speculation.
what’s especially interesting is that defence could potentially become an earlier commercial route than automotive because the volumes are smaller, margins higher, and adoption cycles can sometimes be faster for specialist applications.
if ilika ever announces further defence evaluation, programme integration, or strategic collaboration in this area, i think the market would view that as strong validation of the technology.
Sign In
Follow the stocks
