Great article! I strongly agree with every point you made. We still have a long way to go. Even new defense tech companies like Anduril can be too expensive. Their Bolt UAS has an average cost of $20,000 when similar systems used by Russia and Ukraine are $400-$600.
BMD is another big concern. Especially if the U.S. actually used 20% of our THAAD arsenal in an 11 day conflict between Iran and Israel.
Appreciate this, and agreed, direction matters, but so does pace. If we burn 20% of a key missile defense system in under two weeks, we should be scrambling to make some changes.
And on the price gap: it’s hard to outcompete $400 drones with $20k ones, no matter how smart they are. At some point, quantity really does have a quality all its own.
We need more builders focused on cost-per-effect, not just capability. Curious what tradeoffs you think are worth making to get there.
It’ll be interesting to see what Golden Dome will look like. If you want to effectively defend the country we’ definitely have to make some changes.
As for quality and quantity I think it really depends on who’s using the system. A SOF unit can get a lot of utility out of a more capable platform like the Bolt UAS, but conventional Army units need something cheap and mass-producible at scale.
I believe the “invisible hand” will eventually strike the right balance between quality and quantity — I just hope the DoD is learning and implementing these lessons before U.S. lives are on the line.
If I had the capital, I’d pursue the idea of a shipping-container-based production unit that could manufacture UAS on-site, designed to use already mass-produced munitions that a squad would typically carry. Ideally, you’d deploy this capability with an echelon like the 82nd or 101st as part of their reaction forces. That way, you give squads immediate situational awareness (like the IDF has demonstrated in Gaza) and the ability to quickly mount a munition if they need a kinetic effect. I’ve seen a few startups moving in this direction already.
Now that VC seems more willing to invest in defense tech, I think we’ll start to see competition driving prices down and more affordable alternatives emerging on the market.
Your point about supply chains is very important as well. Hoping to see more projects to address that strategic problem soon.
One other thing I’ve noticed in interviews with Russian defense tech professionals is that the Russian MOD seems to dismiss many of these technologies as fads despite their demonstrated battlefield effectiveness. Hopefully we aren’t of a similar mindset.
100% agree. And I love that idea for UAS manufacturing. With the prevalance of 3D-printing, it probably wouldn't be super difficult to implement either. Similarly, I think there's a lot of potential for 3D-printed flat-pack designs that can be stored like sheets of cardboard, and once on-site, be easily assembled. I believe we are now able to 3D print electrical rails, so ideally at the end of that process, the avionics are just screwed into place and boom: functioning drone. Either way, we need to find a new approach to mass production that uses novel tech to cheapen costs. Anyway, you should absolutely look more into that idea, I'd love to see it as a startup. (Who cares about capital, that's what VC is for! :D)
I agree with both you and John’s takes… Quantity can matter, but the specific domain of warfare will dictate the weapon systems used. Additionally, speed, mobility and asymmetric warfare is the future.
Lastly, when it comes to startups s standard defense companies like Raytheon and Boeing, the two biggest factors for cost is economy of scale, and most importantly Government bureaucracy. Government contracts are absurd. The waste within the military because of said government contracts is unbelievable. I see it on a daily, monthly and annual basis when we budget in the Air Force. Literally screws that Boeing will outfit their own 747’s cost 100’s of times when sold under “contract” to the DoD. Also, a very small example, when making O&M purchase with a government purchase card, you are locked in to purchasing from specific companies instead of your local staples or Office Depot per se, you have to use GSA advantage and purchase the exact same pens through their site for 5-20 times the original amount…
The bureaucracy is what is mainly responsible for driving costs. If we reduced that we could develop and build highly intelligent and sophisticated drones, etc……
Highly recommend reading Unit X, it talks about the early days of the DIU and what happened when they encountered the entrenched bureaucracy
Will do! Thanks for sharing.
The modern startup is one that serves the public with lessons applied from the consumer era: we are in a new renaissance of defense. Great article.
Great article! I strongly agree with every point you made. We still have a long way to go. Even new defense tech companies like Anduril can be too expensive. Their Bolt UAS has an average cost of $20,000 when similar systems used by Russia and Ukraine are $400-$600.
BMD is another big concern. Especially if the U.S. actually used 20% of our THAAD arsenal in an 11 day conflict between Iran and Israel.
At least we’re moving in the right direction!
Appreciate this, and agreed, direction matters, but so does pace. If we burn 20% of a key missile defense system in under two weeks, we should be scrambling to make some changes.
And on the price gap: it’s hard to outcompete $400 drones with $20k ones, no matter how smart they are. At some point, quantity really does have a quality all its own.
We need more builders focused on cost-per-effect, not just capability. Curious what tradeoffs you think are worth making to get there.
It’ll be interesting to see what Golden Dome will look like. If you want to effectively defend the country we’ definitely have to make some changes.
As for quality and quantity I think it really depends on who’s using the system. A SOF unit can get a lot of utility out of a more capable platform like the Bolt UAS, but conventional Army units need something cheap and mass-producible at scale.
I believe the “invisible hand” will eventually strike the right balance between quality and quantity — I just hope the DoD is learning and implementing these lessons before U.S. lives are on the line.
If I had the capital, I’d pursue the idea of a shipping-container-based production unit that could manufacture UAS on-site, designed to use already mass-produced munitions that a squad would typically carry. Ideally, you’d deploy this capability with an echelon like the 82nd or 101st as part of their reaction forces. That way, you give squads immediate situational awareness (like the IDF has demonstrated in Gaza) and the ability to quickly mount a munition if they need a kinetic effect. I’ve seen a few startups moving in this direction already.
Now that VC seems more willing to invest in defense tech, I think we’ll start to see competition driving prices down and more affordable alternatives emerging on the market.
Your point about supply chains is very important as well. Hoping to see more projects to address that strategic problem soon.
One other thing I’ve noticed in interviews with Russian defense tech professionals is that the Russian MOD seems to dismiss many of these technologies as fads despite their demonstrated battlefield effectiveness. Hopefully we aren’t of a similar mindset.
100% agree. And I love that idea for UAS manufacturing. With the prevalance of 3D-printing, it probably wouldn't be super difficult to implement either. Similarly, I think there's a lot of potential for 3D-printed flat-pack designs that can be stored like sheets of cardboard, and once on-site, be easily assembled. I believe we are now able to 3D print electrical rails, so ideally at the end of that process, the avionics are just screwed into place and boom: functioning drone. Either way, we need to find a new approach to mass production that uses novel tech to cheapen costs. Anyway, you should absolutely look more into that idea, I'd love to see it as a startup. (Who cares about capital, that's what VC is for! :D)
I agree with both you and John’s takes… Quantity can matter, but the specific domain of warfare will dictate the weapon systems used. Additionally, speed, mobility and asymmetric warfare is the future.
Lastly, when it comes to startups s standard defense companies like Raytheon and Boeing, the two biggest factors for cost is economy of scale, and most importantly Government bureaucracy. Government contracts are absurd. The waste within the military because of said government contracts is unbelievable. I see it on a daily, monthly and annual basis when we budget in the Air Force. Literally screws that Boeing will outfit their own 747’s cost 100’s of times when sold under “contract” to the DoD. Also, a very small example, when making O&M purchase with a government purchase card, you are locked in to purchasing from specific companies instead of your local staples or Office Depot per se, you have to use GSA advantage and purchase the exact same pens through their site for 5-20 times the original amount…
The bureaucracy is what is mainly responsible for driving costs. If we reduced that we could develop and build highly intelligent and sophisticated drones, etc……