> Defense-tech startups are building impressive technology.
Not really? Every single defense tech startup I've seen is targeting "cheap and attritable" instead of expensive and impressive. Nobody in the startup scene is competing against DARPA to create maneuverable reentry vehicles or scramjets. It's only the "low" end of the high-low mix.
We'd know if defense tech was making impressive technology, it would be flying off the shelves as an export commodity. It's not. We're not seeing Ukraine beg America to license-produce Switchblade 300s or Anduril Barracuda, we're seeing the US and Gulf states beg Ukraine to license-produce their drones.
Fair point on "impressive" — that was lazy of me. What I actually mean is narrower: the engineering does what it was designed to do in a live combat environment. Maven presenting 1,000 strike options in a day is "working." That's not a value judgment, it's a functional one.
The Ukraine angle is interesting though, and you're right that the drone production flow goes the other direction. I'd push back a little on the implication that means the startups aren't contributing — Anduril's counter-drone stuff is specifically a response to the threat environment Ukraine revealed, not an attempt to export into it. Different problem. But your broader frame of "cheap and attritable vs. impressive" is genuinely useful and I wish I'd thought of it when I was writing. That tension probably deserves its own piece at some point.
> Defense-tech startups are building impressive technology.
Not really? Every single defense tech startup I've seen is targeting "cheap and attritable" instead of expensive and impressive. Nobody in the startup scene is competing against DARPA to create maneuverable reentry vehicles or scramjets. It's only the "low" end of the high-low mix.
We'd know if defense tech was making impressive technology, it would be flying off the shelves as an export commodity. It's not. We're not seeing Ukraine beg America to license-produce Switchblade 300s or Anduril Barracuda, we're seeing the US and Gulf states beg Ukraine to license-produce their drones.
Fair point on "impressive" — that was lazy of me. What I actually mean is narrower: the engineering does what it was designed to do in a live combat environment. Maven presenting 1,000 strike options in a day is "working." That's not a value judgment, it's a functional one. The Ukraine angle is interesting though, and you're right that the drone production flow goes the other direction. I'd push back a little on the implication that means the startups aren't contributing — Anduril's counter-drone stuff is specifically a response to the threat environment Ukraine revealed, not an attempt to export into it. Different problem. But your broader frame of "cheap and attritable vs. impressive" is genuinely useful and I wish I'd thought of it when I was writing. That tension probably deserves its own piece at some point.
Thanks, Claude.