TS - was not totally serious re the Russian weaponry option -...

TS - was not totally serious re the Russian weaponry option - politically unpalatable - even if was considered desirable from a performance and/or cost per unit perspective. However the sitting on the sideline option is a serious option for many cash-strapped nations.
Re the diversification. Qualifying to meet the stringent specs of the US defence elite is a double-edged sword that needs to be managed. Qualification brings rewards and connections that may well flow into high-margin opportunities. But if the sole focus is directed this way QHL is at risk of becoming a "captive" of the defence hierarchy; and of likely constrained national budgets.
Alternative pathways to commercialisation that offer substantial blue-sky potential do not necessarily require public sector funds and have global marketability. My point - & that of TS also (I think) is that these areas may suffer where the focus becomes primarily defence -related.

We are apparently well-placed for QHL to launch into domestic aircraft applications. But how close to commercial development $ for RST tech applied to the 'greening' of the transport sector..
Or the application of the huge-potential "Quickpipes" concept to the Oil&Gas industry. What did happen to VTX ....currently suspended
These are ground-breaking applications that if developed in parallel to the defence initiatives could unleash some serious private-sector interest & development $.
Obviously such a pronged approach would place considerable demands on the resources of QHL if they go it alone.

Suggesting that the pathway to development/market may need a more proactive focus on JV's with globally-able private-sector partner's and/or sector spin-offs. Or the boat may be missed.
Raving