OptimusDelta

Ukraine's air defense downed 549 of 600 drones and 55 of 90 missiles overnight. One Oreshnik, 2 Kinzhals and 3 Zircons got through. 16 missiles and 51 drones hit 54 locations. Main target: Kyiv and Kyiv region.

Few people realise the number of UAS / drone companies that have emerged across Europe and North America. We are seeing processes of rapid prototyping, combat experimentation in Ukraine, and refinement that is accelerating their sophistication and capabilities. We have not seen innovation on this scale since WW2. Different firms in a search for sales and profits are looking at multiple levers of technical advantage: how drones how made; what materials they use; how they fly; how they navigate to a target; remote control versus autonomous flight; how they avoid being jammed, spoofed, or intercepted; how they can be made modular and adaptable; optimal configurations and sizes; fixed wing UAS versus quadcopters versus VTOL hybrid UAS; sensor and weapon fits; speed of production; and all aiming to deliver utility at the lowest possible cost. What we are witnessing is a revolution in warfare. I am always careful before using the word transformation, but this is what we are seeing. In short these companies are creating the basis of a technical performance that could be decisive in a major conflict. China, Russia, Iran, and other authoritarian regimes can copy such technology; but they just aren't equipped to create it, because the financial incentives of a capitalist economy just don't exist. As far as the West is concerned, there will be losers as well as winners. But what the drone revolution amounts to is a fundamentally new way of fighting wars. UAS and drones will not replace traditional artillery, cruise missiles, or ballistic missiles, or crewed systems - these will still have their place. But a few soldiers operating from a concealed / protected position have now gained the means to deliver a battlefield effect out of all proportion to their unit size and strength.

Take the time to build conviction in your trades 🫡

This is $NVDA 's own map of where AI is heading. Four waves, and the final one, Physical AI, is autonomous vehicles and general robotics. That's the wave we're entering now, and it's exactly what $AMBA makes chips for - the cars and robots that need to see and decide on their own. Jensen drew the curve and AMBA sits at the top of it. 🫦

Warfare in space is seeing more importance in the modern battlefield. I would go as far as to say it is the new nuclear warfare. Here is why, and how I am investing for it: Modern war runs on satellites. Precision munitions need GPS. Drone swarms need datalinks. Carrier groups need over the horizon ISR. Ukraine fights because Starlink and commercial SAR keep it in the loop. Take satellites away from a modern force and you do not weaken it, you blind, deafen and unmoor it inside an afternoon. The first day of any peer war in this decade is fought in orbit, and whichever side controls the orbital layer wins the surface war by default. This is also a huge reason why $ASTS is about to receive billions of military contracts in the future, and partially why I am extremely bullish on $ASTS. But this post is not about them. This is the nuclear logic reborn. From 1945 through the end of the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union built tens of thousands of warheads neither side ever wanted to fire. The point was never to use them. The point was that the other side knew you could. The same equation now sits over orbit. If your adversary holds a counterspace arsenal and you do not, they can blind you on day one for free. If you hold one too, they cannot. That is the entire game. Mutually Assured Space Denial is the orbital version of MAD, with one important asymmetry: space is less stable than nuclear. Attribution is harder, dual use systems lower the threshold, there is no treaty regime for orbit, commercial proliferation accelerates the pace, and reversible attacks like jamming and dazzling sit far below any clear red line. The incentive to act first is structurally higher. The deterrence requirement is therefore not optional. You build the capability so the other side knows you can punch back, and so you never have to. This brings me to Electro Optic Systems ($EOS.AX) The market still misprices this name as a niche laser intellectual property story with a poor sales team. That framing is several product cycles out of date. EOS has two emerging franchises sitting on top of the laser IP base, and the second one is not in most models I have seen so far. The first is C-UAS, where the order book is doing the talking. Slinger, R400, R800, Apollo, interceptor drones, the MARSS acquisition. The ultimate full stack for C-UAS solutions. They recently announced an unconditional Apollo laser weapon contract with the Netherlands, the Middle East Slinger order, and UAE defense spending as the next catalyst. A few billion dollars of contracts over the next few years is my base case, and after the MARSS acquisition practically confirmed this, I would be *VERY* surprised if they did not reach this. (Yes, the current market cap is only 1.5B, why do you think I am so bullish?!) The second segment is space, and this is where the asymmetry sits. EOS Space Systems operates one of the very few Western Space Domain Awareness networks with real optical sensitivity and laser ranging built into the same hardware. ATLAS is their new space control product line, unveiled in 2025 (see picture). It is a family of ground based high energy laser systems offered in fixed, mobile and relocatable configurations that detect, track and characterise on orbit objects in real time and then deliver scalable laser power against them. The power dial runs from deterrence through to active engagement, and the system integrates with allied space domain awareness and multi domain joint operations. The whole capability sits on top of four decades of EOS heritage in SDA and laser technology, which is the part competitors cannot replicate easily. The same hardware that tracks an object can illuminate it. From there the capability ladder is well understood in the open literature. Photon pressure and laser ablation can nudge debris into safer trajectories or accelerate deorbit, which is the commercial framing. Higher power illumination can dazzle the optical sensors of an adversary satellite, denying its imaging mission without creating debris and without crossing the kinetic threshold, which is the strategic framing. This is the textbook reversible counterspace toolkit, sitting inside a Western allied company that already has the contracts, the sites and the operating history. The capital markets implication is the part that is still not priced. If C-UAS alone justifies the equity at current levels (I think it is probably the most undervalued stock on the market I am aware of right now), the space business is a free call option. You are paying nothing for a Western pure play in Space Domain Awareness and non kinetic counterspace at exactly the moment the United States Space Force, the Space Development Agency and allied space commands are scaling procurement, the SpaceX IPO is pulling every public market participant into the space sector for the first time in a decade. The right multiple for the space segment is not a defense electronics multiple. It is the listed orbit of names that will trade off the SpaceX print. EOS is one of a very small number of Western listed equities that can plausibly sit in that basket. Think about it. SpaceX is launching a LOT of satellites into orbit and causing launch prices to go down as well, which spills over to other launch providers causing to even more satellites in orbit. Space debris is a huge issue in space, and simply nudging the debris with a ground based laser seems to be the most economically viable option. The rerating, when it comes, is not just a defense rerating. It is also a space rerating. $EOS.AX