In the world of defense technology, the ability to shape public perception is just as crucial as the ability to build cutting-edge hardware. But what happens when public relations overshoot reality? When narrative outpaces capability? When rhetoric becomes divorced from strategic substance?
We don’t need a hypothetical to answer these questions. The defense technology landscape is littered with examples of PR campaigns that promised revolutions, only to deliver uncertainty, underperformance, or outright failure. From autonomous drones billed as “game-changers” to “next-gen” cyberweapons hyped as war-winners, there’s a growing pattern in which defense tech is being sold to the public and policymakers with the language ofdisruption—but with little regard for actual implementation, timelines, or ethics.
This overhype isn’t just annoying—it’s dangerous. It distorts strategic thinking, misallocates resources, and undermines public trust. In the long run, bad PR isn’t just embarrassing—it’s destabilizing.
The Culture of “Revolutionary” Rhetoric
“Revolutionary,” “transformational,” “disruptive”—these buzzwords dominate defense tech communications. Whether in press releases, contractor demos, or congressional hearings, the language of imminent revolution has become the default.
But these words rarely match reality. The truth is that most defense technological progress is incremental, not transformative. The boring but essential upgrades—logistics software, armor improvements, better radios—rarely get a press push. Instead, the spotlight goes to the speculative: AI-driven decision-making, drone swarms, cyberwarfare platforms.
And why not? These stories are exciting. They tap into both public imagination and deep-seated fears. But they also create a dissonance between what’s being promised and what’s being delivered.
Case Study: The AI Overhype
Nowhere is this clearer than in the PR campaigns around military artificial intelligence.
Over the past decade, we’ve been told AI will transform warfare—from autonomous targeting to predictive maintenance. But the real state of AI in the defensesector is far less dramatic. Most current applications remain narrow, brittle, and heavily reliant on human oversight. The challenges—bias in data, operational unpredictability, adversarial attacks—are profound and unresolved.
Yet public-facing PR often glosses over these realities. Programs are announced with splashy titles and sleek videos, but with minimal acknowledgment of their limitations. This creates inflated expectations among the public and lawmakers—who may then be disappointed or misled when timelines slip or programs falter.
Why Hype is So Harmful
There are several specific dangers to this PR strategy.
First, it distorts procurement priorities. If lawmakers are dazzled by flashy presentations of drone swarms, they may underfund critical but less glamorous needs—like updated communications systems or personnel training.
Second, it creates pressure to deliver prematurely. Developers may feel compelled to push half-baked technologies into field testing or deployment to meet expectations set by press releases, rather than technical milestones.
Third, it erodes trust. When promises go unfulfilled, it doesn’t just affect a single program—it undermines confidence in the broader defense innovation enterprise. The public and Congress grow cynical. Allies question U.S. reliability. Adversaries exploit the credibility gap.
Lessons from the “Future Combat Systems” Debacle
A classic example of PR running ahead of performance is the Army’s now-defunct Future Combat Systems (FCS) program—a massive, multi-billion-dollar initiative launched in the early 2000s. FCS was marketed as the most ambitious modernization project in Army history, promising networked warfare, unmanned ground vehicles, and sensor-fusion capabilities that would dominate the battlefield.
The reality was a tangled web of overpromised capabilities, unrealistic timelines, and technological hurdles. The program collapsed in 2009, having burned through billions with little to show.
Much of FCS’s failure lay in its ambition—but just as damaging was the relentless PR push. The program’s hype raised expectations sky-high. Its collapse was therefore not just a procurement failure but a communications fiasco. Trust, once lost, was difficult to regain.
A Better Way Forward: Responsible PR
So what should good defense tech PR look like?
First, it must be grounded in reality. That doesn’t mean underselling or hiding innovation. But it means framing it accurately—highlighting current capabilities, realistic timelines, and potential pitfalls.
Second, PR should be transparent about process. Let the public understand how technology is tested, iterated, and validated. Explain the stages. Celebrate progress without pretending it’s a finished product.
Third, highlight the boring but vital. Not every press release needs to be about AI. Talk about logistics modernization. Talk about maintenance tech. Talk about interoperability. These are the foundations on which innovation rests.
Fourth, PR must be strategically aligned. Messaging should support, not distort, strategic priorities. The goal is not just to secure headlines—it’s to build trust, support decision-making, and foster responsible innovation.
Conclusion: Humility Over Hype
Defense technology is inherently political, emotional, and risky. It demands a careful balance between inspiration and caution, excitement and humility. Public relations is part of that equation. It’s not just about image—it’s about narrative integrity.
The hype culture that dominates today’s defense tech PR is unsustainable. It fuels expectations that the technology cannot meet. It politicizes innovation. It risks losing the very audience it hopes to impress.
In this environment, the most radical act might be the simplest: telling the truth. Not in whispers, but in the spotlight. Defense PR should be grounded, rigorous, and honest. That’s not just good messaging—it’s good strategy.