US Army Veteran Sanders Says High-Energy Lasers Offset Missile Supply Shortages

美陆军退役老兵桑德斯：高能激光可弥补导弹供应短缺 各国军队正转向定向能武器，以在应对低成本无人机蜂群时节省昂贵的拦截弹储备。 本期内容探讨了定向能武器如何从里根时代的“星球大战”计划等科幻概念，迅速演变为以色列“铁束”（Iron Beam）等就绪实战的防御现实。退役上校韦恩·桑德斯（Wayne Sanders）详细阐述了针对单目标的精准高能激光与针对无人机蜂群的面杀伤高功率微波之间的技术区别。他解释了军事研发如何攻克以往的尺寸、重量与功耗（SWaP）限制，并逐步淘汰挥发性化学激光器转向固态系统。最后，讨论还涉及了激光在一体化防空反导（IAMD）体系中的关键作用，以化解使用数百万美元拦截弹打击低成本攻击无人机所造成的经济不对称难题。 激光和高功率微波等定向能系统为应对基础无人机等低成本目标威胁提供了可扩展且低成本的方案。 (2:18) 高能激光类似于利用热能的精准连续波光束，而高功率微波则如同猎枪，可在广阔区域内使微芯片电子设备瘫痪。 (5:00) 尺寸、重量与功耗（SWaP）限制仍决定着定向能平台的小型化进程及其在军事装备上的搭载方式。 (5:00) THEL、MIRACL和YAL-1等早期化学激光项目虽然证明了激光的效能，但因沉重的后勤负担和不稳定的化学燃料而被放弃。 (15:00) 由于极端的功率密度与散热要求，手持激光枪仍不具备可行性，单兵战术反无人机系统仍主要依赖射频干扰器。 (20:00)

According to Bloomberg Intelligence defense analyst Wayne Sanders, the high cost of expending multi-million-dollar interceptors against low-cost adversary drones has created an unsustainable economic asymmetry for modern militaries. This dynamic is accelerating the operational deployment of directed-energy systems—both high-energy lasers and high-power microwaves—as cost-effective, high-capacity components of layered air defense architectures. The Economic Asymmetry of Modern Interception (30:00) Modern air defense forces face an acute inventory dilemma when utilizing exquisite interceptors, such as the Lockheed Martin Patriot PAC-3 or RTX SM-6—which can cost upwards of $4 million each—against uncrewed aerial systems like the Iranian-designed Shahed-136, priced at approximately $30,000. Sanders emphasizes that an armed force can successfully defeat every incoming aerial threat on a tactical level yet still suffer strategic defeat if its national inventory of high-end interceptors is exhausted. Precision Lasers Versus Area Microwave Weapons (5:00) Sanders differentiates directed-energy capabilities into two distinct physical applications: continuous-wave high-energy lasers and high-power microwaves (HPM). High-energy lasers act like precision sniper rifles, concentrating thermal heat onto a tight point to burn through the structural shell of a single incoming rocket, missile, or drone. Effective drone disruption requires an output of at least 15 to 25 kilowatts, with current tactical ground integrations reaching roughly 50 kilowatts on U.S. Army Stryker combat vehicles. In contrast, high-power microwaves function as electronic shotguns. Rather than melting a target via heat, HPM emits wide electromagnetic pulses designed to overload microchips and circuit boards across a broader field of view, making them particularly suited for neutralizing simultaneous drone swarms. Although Government Accountability Office data cites HPM peak impulse ratings up to 100 megawatts, Sanders notes that continuous laser kilowatt ratings and pulsed microwave megawatt ratings cannot be directly compared due to their different operating physics. Engineering Shifts from Chemical to Electrical Lasers (15:00) Early directed-energy initiatives under the 1980s Strategic Defense Initiative and subsequent test programs—such as THEL, MIRACL, and the Boeing 747-mounted YAL-1 Airborne Laser—relied on chemical reactions (such as oxygen-iodine) to generate light. While these systems proved that directed energy could intercept rockets in flight, their massive physical footprint and the logistics of handling volatile chemical fuels led to the termination of major chemical programs around 2006. Subsequent engineering has centered on Size, Weight, and Power (SWaP) reduction, pivoting toward electrically powered solid-state architectures. Operating from ship grids, dedicated vehicle generators, or heavy mobile battery banks, modern platforms like Lockheed Martin's HELIOS—currently deployed on the guided-missile destroyer USS Preble—offer virtually unlimited magazine depth at minimal cost per shot, limited only by available electrical supply and thermal cooling. Directed Energy Within Layered Air Defense (25:00) Directed-energy weapons cannot fully replace kinetic interceptors because lasers and microwaves operate at close ranges and cannot reliably stop high-speed threats traveling at Mach 5. Consequently, armed forces embed directed energy into layered Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD) frameworks. In this structure, high-power microwaves and close-in lasers—such as Israel's Iron Beam integrated alongside Iron Dome—defend against localized drone swarms and short-range rockets. Medium-tier kinetic solutions like L3Harris VAMPIRE, Raytheon's Coyote Block 2, and Rheinmetall's Skynix autocannons handle intermediate threats, preserving exquisite interceptors like David's Sling, PAC-3, SM-3, and SM-6 for advanced ballistic and hypersonic weapons. Target Execution Authorities pre-delegate firing decisions downward, using shipboard and regional common operational systems to pair threats with appropriate defensive responses under extreme time constraints. While directed energy offers an answer to the prohibitive economics of missile defense, field adoption remains bounded by power generation, thermal management, and effective range. The broader operational question is whether military industrial bases can scale standardized electrical directed-energy platforms quickly enough to relieve overburdened conventional missile stockpiles.

彭博行业研究资深国防分析师 Wayne Sanders 指出，面对用数百万美元防空导弹拦截低成本无人机的经济不对称困境，定向能武器正成为综合防空反导网络中解决弹药库深度和拦截成本问题的关键补充。 高能激光与高功率微波的物理机制与分工 (5:00) 定向能武器主要分为高能激光（HEL）与高功率微波（HPM）两大路径。Sanders 解释称，高能激光类似于高精度狙击步枪，通过聚焦狭窄的连续光束输出高热能，直接烧穿来袭目标的外部壳体，用于拦截单发弹道导弹或大型威胁；高功率微波则类似于电子散弹枪，发射广角电磁脉冲使目标的微芯片和内部电路失效，适合大面积瘫痪来袭的无人机蜂群。 两类系统的作战物理学和破坏原理截然不同。虽然美国政府问责局（GAO）记录的高功率微波系统峰值脉冲功率可达 100 兆瓦，但这一数值无法与连续波激光器的千瓦功率进行直接横向对比。只要接入岸电或重型蓄电池等电力来源，定向能系统在理论上具备极深的弹药库容量，且单次发射成本极低。 从化学激光到电驱动的技术瓶颈演变 (15:00) 早期的激光武器研发侧重于化学激光路线，例如 1980 年代里根政府的“星球大战”计划，以及后来的战术高能激光（THEL）、中红外先进化学激光（MIRACL）和搭载在波音 747 上的 YAL-1 机载激光系统。这些化学激光器利用氧碘等剧烈反应直接产生光能，无需依赖电网，并在多次测试中成功拦截了火箭弹与火炮弹药。然而，化学燃料极具挥发性和危险性，对舰艇和飞机构成了不可承受的后勤和安全风险，导致美军在 2006 年前后终止了主要的化学激光计划。 当前的技术研发已全面转向电驱动激光，核心瓶颈也转变为尺寸、重量与功率（SWaP）的限制。Sanders 指出，科幻作品中的单兵手持激光枪在现实中并不存在，现役便携反无人机装备主要依赖射频干扰枪。要有效击落基础小型无人机，激光束功率至少需达到 15 至 25 千瓦，而陆军“斯特瑞克”装甲车搭载的战术系统则需要约 50 千瓦。由于冷却架构和发电设备体积庞大，目前高能激光仅能部署在大型地面战车或驱逐舰上，例如美军“普雷布尔”号驱逐舰配备的 HELIOS 系统。 不对称消耗战与分层防空反导架构 (25:00) 在近期的中东等地区冲突中，对手广泛采用低成本自杀式无人机（如伊朗制造的“见证者-136”）来消耗西方昂贵的防空储备。Sanders 强调，“一支军队可以在防空战术交锋中屡战屡胜，但在经济上却会走向失败”，用单价 410 万美元的高端拦截弹去消灭造价 3 万美元的胶合板无人机在长远上不可持续。 面对从 5 马赫高超音速目标到廉价无人机的多样化威胁，现代军事体系无法仅靠射程有限的定向能武器，而是依赖分层综合防空反导（IAMD）网络。该体系由“标准-3”（SM-3）、“标准-6”（SM-6）和“爱国者 PAC-3”等精密拦截弹负责外大气层和高超音速威胁；由“吸血鬼”（VAMPIRE）、APKWS 和“天网”（Skynix）等中端动能火炮负责过渡拦截；高能激光与微波武器（以及以色列的“铁束”系统）则作为近程点防御手段，与现有体系协同作战。 指挥决策权限与多年度采购的产业应对 (30:00) 防空作战中的经济账在不同指挥层级表现出巨大分歧。在前线防御作战中，基层指挥官面临“生死抉择”，其首要职责是部队防护，在“法塔赫-110”弹道导弹或无人机来袭时，指挥官只能动用手中一切可用弹药进行拦截，无暇顾及发射成本；只有战略层面的将军和海军上将才会核算库存消耗率与工业产能的可持续性。 现代交战依据“交战规则”（ROE）和预先下达的“目标执行授权”（TEA）高速运转，宙斯盾等作战系统通过雷达数据生成通用作战图景并协助武器配对。为化解前线不得不消耗昂贵导弹的困境，美国国防部正在通过多年度采购协议向军工企业提供长期需求信号，推动低成本集装箱式弹药、高功率微波和高能激光系统的量产，以充实指挥官的弹药库选择。 定向能系统无法完全取代动能拦截弹，其当前价值在于作为综合防空网络的近程支层，缓解高端导弹的库存消耗速度。然而，如何将高功率电驱动系统的体积与散热技术缩小至战术载具普遍适用的水平，仍是未来军事工业部署的核心制约因素。

## Background 本期节目由彭博社（Bloomberg）于 2026 年 9 月 4 日在其播客频道 Odd Lots（RSS / 网页）发布。节目邀请了彭博行业研究（Bloomberg Intelligence）高级国防研究分析师、退役陆军上校 Wayne Sanders，深入探讨曾被视为“星球大战”科幻幻想的高能激光与微波等定向能武器，如何逐步克服物理学瓶颈走向实战部署，并解析其背后的战术经济学考量与关键原材料供应链制约。 ## TL;DR 面对现代战场上廉价无人机与自杀式快艇对昂贵防空拦截弹造成的巨大消耗，美军与盟友正面临防空弹药库告急和“防守胜利却财务破产”的严峻困境，促使以高能激光和高功率微波为代表的定向能武器从长期研发加速迈向实战采购。节目系统剖析了激光（高热精准单点穿透）与微波（广域电子瘫痪）的机制差异、战术机动部署中严苛的“尺寸、重量与功耗”（SWaP）限制，以及从 50 千瓦反无人机跨越到 1 兆瓦拦截高超音速目标的物理挑战。此外，嘉宾还探讨了战区交战授权与“人在回路”的 AI 应用边界、传统军工巨头扩产与防务新贵填补中端消耗性弹药的博弈，以及重度依赖稀土与镓、镱等关键矿物的供应链脆弱性。 ## Atmosphere & style 对谈在彭博财经独有的宏观商业洞察与一线硬核军事专业素养之间达成了绝妙平衡，整体基调深入严谨却不失风趣生动。主持人 Tracy 和 Joe 用“肯德基上校”的军衔打趣、科幻电影音效调侃以及办公室“钨立方”的闲聊打破了晦涩技术的冰冷感，而退役上校 Sanders 则以冷静克制的军旅与五角大楼高层视角，将公众对光束武器的科幻幻想剥离为充满算计的弹匣账本和严苛的物理定律。整场节目信息量极大且节奏紧凑，让听众在真实的工业产能危机、战场杀伤链抉择与大宗矿产博弈中体会到现代战争转型期的冷峻现实。 ## Bulletin - `00:00` 传统防空面临严峻的经济不对称性，面对数千美元的廉价无人机，发射数百万美元的爱国者 PAC-3 或标准导弹在弹药库存与财政上均不可持续，促使美军与盟友加速推进定向能武器（DEW）。 - `46:12` 全球定向能武器市场预计在未来十年将从当前的 60 亿至 80 亿美元增长 2 到 3 倍，技术正从累计超 150 亿美元的研发阶段正式迈向实战化采购过渡期。 - `51:40` 以色列功率约 150 千瓦的“铁束”（Iron Beam）防空系统已投入实战检验，用于反制见证者-136 等自杀式无人机，但暴雨、大雾等恶劣天气仍会显著散射并削弱激光光束效能。 - `37:44` 高能激光与雷达制造深度依赖镓、镱、铽、镝等关键稀土与矿物，由于中国掌控全球 85% 至 90% 的开采提炼产能，美国防部正加速推动供应链本土化回流以对冲地缘风险。 ## Key takeaways - `10:00` 定向能武器主要分为聚焦单点热积累的激光（如同狙击步枪）与大范围电磁毁伤内部芯片的高功率微波（如同电子散弹枪），两者在能量形式与作战机制上有本质差异。 - `12:35` 激光武器的核心优势在于边际发射成本极低且备弹量仅受限于供电能力（即“无限弹药”），但其机动前线部署受制于严格的尺寸、重量与功耗（SWaP）物理指标。 - `16:04` 冷战及星球大战时期研发的化学激光器（如 THEL 和波音 747 改装的 YAL-1）因剧毒反应物维护危险、体积庞大且后勤极其繁琐，最终大多在 2006 年前后被军方叫停淘汰。 - `20:00` 受制于极端苛刻的储能与压缩技术瓶颈，且有效击毁无人机至少需要 15 至 25 千瓦的功率门槛，科幻电影中的单兵便携式激光枪在现实工程中根本无法实现。 - `22:30` 现代防空必须采用“分层防御”（IAMD）架构：激光与微波等定向能武器有效射程有限，无法替代应对高超音速导弹的高精尖动能拦截弹，两类武器须高低互补以防“守住了阵地却打穿了财政预算”。 - `27:30` 在红海与战区防空交火中，美军依靠明确的目标交战权限（TEA）与宙斯盾系统统一战术态势图（COP），在秒级时间内决定调用何种层级的拦截弹药，战术前线指挥官聚焦官兵生存而非导弹造价。 - `34:03` 乌克兰危机与红海护航暴露了西方高精尖弹药产能严重不足的软肋，促使美国军方在扩产传统导弹的同时，紧急向新兴防务初创企业采购万枚规模的中端低成本消耗性弹药。 - `43:40` 在杀伤链与武器控制环节，五角大楼将 AI 严格限制于后端情报降噪、模式识别与态势辅助，由于极高的信任门槛，目标交战权必须恪守“人在回路”（Human-in-the-loop）原则，严禁算法自主开火。 - `46:12` 五角大楼正在向 2030 年实现 1 兆瓦（1 MW）激光器的战略目标攻关，旨在摧毁飞行时速 4,000 至 5,000 英里的高超音速目标，但兆瓦级脉冲庞大的发电与散热需求使其前线野战化部署极具挑战。 - `55:00` 定向能武器展现出类似可再生能源的经济特征：日常开火几乎免费且具备深层弹匣，但前置的系统研发与发电设备初始资本投入极高，难以在短期内彻底取代传统动能导弹。 ## Detailed walkthrough ### `00:00` 开场：桑德斯上校、科幻武器与防空弹药困境 节目一开始，主持人 Tracy Alloway 和 Joe Weisenthal 先向听众预告了即将于 9 月 17 日在好莱坞佛蒙特剧院（Vermont Theatre）举办的洛杉矶现场录制活动。随后，Tracy 迫不及待地打破常规开场流程，直接引出了本期嘉宾——彭博行业研究（Bloomberg Intelligence）的高级国防研究分析师 Wayne Sanders。由于嘉宾拥有退役陆军上校（Colonel）军衔，Tracy 打趣提到了“桑德斯上校”（Colonel Sanders，与肯德基创始人同名）这个响亮的军事头衔梗。她回忆起自己的父亲曾在空军服役且名字叫 Tom，最高军衔恰好止步于少校（Major），家里人常常开玩笑，说他父亲是因为“Major Tom”（大卫·鲍伊名曲中的经典角色“汤姆少校”）这个搞笑的名字而被压制了晋升；她笑着调侃不知道嘉宾 Wayne Sanders 究竟是升迁过头到了上校，还是委屈受限没能晋升为准将。 话题迅速切入本期核心：高能激光武器与微波武器。Joe 坦承自己对这套技术完全是外行，脑海中的激光武器停留在科幻电影中带有“biu、biu、biu”音效的激光枪镜头，分不清这究竟是荧幕上的视觉特效还是真实存在的军备。Tracy 指出，激光和高能微波都归属于“定向能武器”（Directed Energy Weapons）的大类，听起来就像是瑜伽教练会挂在嘴边的词汇。虽然这类武器几十年来一直处于研发讨论中，但当前正迎来一个实质性的拐点：例如以色列正准备实战部署“铁束”（Iron Beam）激光防空系统（有人戏称为“激光穹顶” Laser Dome）；与此同时，美国及其盟友的传统防空拦截弹储备正急剧消耗，面对战场上大量由泡沫塑料和胶合板组装而成的廉价无人机，继续发射单价数百万美元的高性能导弹在经济和工业产能上已不可持续。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 现代防空拦截的技术与成本不对称性 accDescr: 对比传统昂贵导弹拦截与廉价无人机威胁，突显定向能武器的经济与战术补位价值。 subgraph Threat["低成本空中威胁"] D1["轻型无人机群<br/>(泡沫塑料 / 胶合板)"] D2["低成本火箭弹 / 迫击炮"] end subgraph Dilemma["传统防空困境"] M1["高性能拦截弹<br/>(单枚成本数百万美元)"] M2["弹药库存急剧缩减 / 产能瓶颈"] end subgraph Solution["定向能替代方案 (DEW)"] L1["高能激光 (HEL)"] L2["高功率微波 (HPM)"] Adv["近乎无限弹药基数 / 单次发射成本极低"] end Threat -->|迫使消耗| Dilemma Dilemma -->|催生技术替代| Solution Solution -->|低成本拦截| Threat ``` ### `05:00` 永远的“下一代技术”与嘉宾的军旅背景 Joe 提出了一个敏锐的质疑：高能武器听起来非常像纳米技术（Nanotechnology）或量子计算（Quantum Computing），属于那种“长期以来一直被标榜为下一个颠覆性突破”的基础科学领域——在理论上完美无瑕，但在工程实践中却总是显得模糊、遥远且难以成熟落地。高能武器如今是否真的跨越了这道理论与实践的鸿沟？ 嘉宾 Wayne Sanders 随即介绍了自己横跨作战一线与尖端国防科研的履历： - **西点军校起步**：2002 年毕业于西点军校，最初担任战术军事情报军官，随后经历了反恐战争的爆发。 - **转向信号情报与网络战**：随着信息技术更迭，他进入信号情报（SIGINT）与计算机网络入侵领域，长期在美国网络司令部（U.S. Cyber Command）工作，后转任攻势网络空间作战军官（Offensive Cyberspace Operations Officer，军职代号 17 Alpha），负责极其硬核的网络突破与作战投送能力建设。 - **五角大楼研发高层主管**：在退役前的最后一个军职中，Sanders 担任了负责研究与工程的国防部副部长（Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering）徐若冰（Heidi Shyu）的幕僚长。这段经历让他得以深入五角大楼的尖端科研管理核心，全面统筹关键国防技术投资与下一代尖端武器系统（R&D）开发。 ### `07:30` 定向能武器的本质定义与国防生态研究 Sanders 解释了他目前在彭博行业研究的工作范畴。彭博并没有将视线仅仅局限于洛克希德·马丁等传统主承包商（Defense Primes）的财报表现，而是剖析整体国防工业生态系统。现代防御已不能单看某一件装备，而是综合防空与导弹防御（Integrated Air and Missile Defense, IAMD）系统。在这个系统中，“精巧绝伦的昂贵弹药”（Exquisite Munition Interceptor，如爱国者-3 / PAC-3 拦截弹）与准备将无人机甚至弹道导弹击落的高能激光器有着截然不同的战术分工与经济逻辑。研究的范畴横跨高超音速、半导体供应链、造船工业、盟友及对手战略动态，核心在于梳理定向能技术究竟停留在研发（R&D）管线阶段，还是已经走到了向规模化实战采购（Procurement）过渡的关键门槛。 在被要求从最基础的物理原理来定义“定向能武器”时，Sanders 指出，虽然大众常将其笼统地与电子战（Electronic Warfare）混为一谈，但定向能武器的核心在于：**通过驾驭并聚焦特定形态的物理能量（Harnessed Energy），以具有攻势杀伤力的定向投送方式，直接对敌方目标造成功能降级（Degradation）或彻底的物理摧毁（Destruction）**。 ### `10:00` 定向能武器的分野：精准狙击的激光与广域瘫痪的微波 在讨论定向能武器时，人们往往容易将激光与高功率微波（High-Powered Microwave, HPM）混为一谈，但两者的作战机制与物理特性有着本质区别。激光是一种极致的精准武器，其原理是将能量高度压缩聚集为一束极窄的光束，通常在同一时刻只能专门打击一个目标。而高功率微波武器的主要杀伤目标是敌方的电子元器件，它射出的是覆盖面极宽的光束，能够一次性瘫痪大范围内的多个系统。美国政府问责局（GAO）曾指出，高功率微波武器的峰值功率可达 100 兆瓦（MW）级别；然而，直接拿这个数值与千瓦（kW）级的连续波（Continuous-Wave）激光进行对比并不科学，因为两者的工作方式与破坏机制完全不同。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 定向能武器分类对比 accDescr: 对比激光武器与高功率微波武器在能量形态、攻击方式与作战目标上的差异 subgraph Laser["激光武器（精准狙击枪）"] L1["连续波聚焦光束"] --> L2["单一目标点热积累"] L2 --> L3["烧穿外壳 / 摧毁弹道导弹"] end subgraph Microwave["高功率微波（电子散弹枪）"] M1["大范围脉冲微波"] --> M2["电磁脉冲压制电子元器件"] M2 --> M3["瘫痪蜂群无人机控制系统"] end ``` 针对这两种截然不同的技术，Wayne Sanders 打了一个生动的比方：**“激光好比狙击步枪，而微波就是电子散弹枪。”** 激光追求的是极高功率在单个点上的深度穿透，微波追求的则是杀伤效应的面状扩散。面对成群袭来的无人机蜂群，微波武器就像用鸟弹打鸟一样，瞬间烧毁无人机群的芯片与电路，使它们失去控制直接坠落，而不需要将它们一颗颗打爆；但如果面对的是来袭的单枚弹道导弹，防御方则需要动用高能激光，利用高度聚集的极高热量精准烧穿其外壳、引爆或打偏弹体，在空中将其彻底硬杀伤毁灭。电影里出现的“只要身处光束路径那头就会倒大霉”的场景，对激光武器来说非常写实——它的核心杀伤手段就是纯粹的极端高温热能。 - **激光武器定位**：单目标高精度打击，依靠热能烧穿毁伤，适用于反弹道导弹、高价值飞行目标。 - **高功率微波（HPM）定位**：广域面杀伤，通过电磁效应烧毁内部电路，GAO 标称峰值达 100 兆瓦级，是克制无人机蜂群的利器。 --- ### `12:35` 能量从何而来：SWaP 指标与“无限弹药”的后勤账本 激光武器意味着能量的高度浓缩，这也引出了一个核心现实问题：发射这种光束所需的巨大电能到底来自哪里？是接在民用电网上，还是靠拖载巨型电池组？Wayne Sanders 表示，这两种方式在现实与历史上其实都存在。激光产生精准光斑的前提是二极管及光学元件能获得庞大且稳定的电能供应。早期为了获得足够的脉冲能量，激光装置的体积甚至堪比整栋大楼，机动性极差。如果只是作为固定基地的防空盾牌，在拥有清洁、稳定电源的前提下直接接入外部电网（Shore Power）确实可行；但现代军队的核心需求是战术机动与前线部署——武器必须能装上卡车、搬上水面舰艇。 这就涉及到军用系统设计中反复强调的 **SWaP 约束**，即尺寸（Size）、重量（Weight）与功耗（Power）。军方希望战舰或重型战车自带的发电与储能单元能够为激光系统持续供能，提供再生的电力发射能力。这种转变彻底重构了交战逻辑中的“弹药质量与弹舱容量”（Mass vs. Magazine）权衡。传统拦截弹打一枚少一枚，且单价高昂；而激光武器只要战舰动力运转正常，就能拥有近乎无限的弹舱容量，并以极其低廉的“单发成本”（Cost per shot）持续射击，从经济账上颠覆传统防空拦截的被动局面。 --- ### `16:04` 激光武器的发展弯路：笨重危险的化学激光时代 激光武器并非近几年的新鲜产物。早在 20 世纪 60 年代激光诞生初期，军方就立刻意识到这种“以光速将能量送达目标”的划时代概念。到了里根总统的“星球大战”（Star Wars）计划时期，研发重心转向了极高能量的化学激光器（Chemical Lasers）。这种激光器不依赖纯电力将光子激发，而是通过内部受控的化学反应直接产生光能量。上世纪 90 年代至 21 世纪初，美以联合研发的战术高能激光器（THEL）成功在实战测试中击落过飞行中的火箭弹和炮弹；DARPA 的中红外先进化学激光器（MIRACL）也摧毁过多枚实弹短程火箭。 但化学激光器存在着难以克服的致命弱点：它们的架构过于庞大，且伴随着极其严苛危险的后勤保障要求。化学激光常采用氧碘激光（COIL）等反应体系，虽然不需要士兵在战场上手倒烧杯做化学实验，其反应物全部封装在容器单元内部，但要在战舰或飞机上携带危险、剧毒的化学试剂本身就是巨大隐患。美军甚至曾将这套化学激光系统搬上改装的波音 747 客机（即著名的 YAL-1 机载激光测试机），试图让它在弹道导弹发射区域附近盘旋，在助推段直接自上而下追踪并击落导弹。这种方案不仅在战术上极其冒险，庞大的化学维持系统也最终被证明不可持续，导致相关项目在 2006 年前后纷纷被叫停下马。 - **战术高能激光器（THEL）**：美以联合研制，验证了用激光拦截飞行火箭弹与炮弹的可行性。 - **中红外先进化学激光器（MIRACL）**：DARPA 早期的大型化学激光实验装置，成功完成火箭拦截。 - **机载激光系统（YAL-1）**：搭载在波音 747 上的兆瓦级化学氧碘激光器，旨在拦截助推段弹道导弹，后因成本、战术风险与后勤极端繁琐而告吹。 ### `20:00` 单兵激光枪的幻影与能源瓶颈 主持人好奇在现实中是否存在像科幻电影里那样拿在手里的步枪型激光武器（如《星际迷航》中的 Phaser）。Wayne Sanders 指出，目前在军事层面上并没有可手持、肉眼能看到定向光束的激光步枪。美国海军确实装备了大型舰载系统，例如安装在“普雷布尔”号驱逐舰（USS Preble）上的洛克希德·马丁 HELIOS 系统，但这属于重型舰载火炮级别；至于步兵防空，目前多采用射频（RF）反无人机枪，依靠电磁脉冲压制，而非高能激光光束。 在被问及制造便携式单兵激光枪的技术瓶颈时，Sanders 强调关键在于“能量生成与能量压缩（Power generation and compression）”。现阶段高能激光系统主要装载在大型地面平台上，例如安装在“斯特瑞克”（Stryker）装甲车上的高能激光试验系统，其功率达到 50 千瓦（kW），完全依赖车辆自带的大功率发电机供电。如果光束功率达不到击落无人机所需的 15 至 25 千瓦门槛，激光武器就毫无效果。因此，必须在能量输出与所应对的实际威胁之间取得严格匹配，而在没有极高密度便携式电池或超微型发电装置的前提下，单兵激光枪在工程上根本无法实现。 主持人翻阅洛克希德·马丁 HELIOS 系统的宣传手册，其指标写着“无限备弹（Deep magazine）”、“超低单次杀伤成本（Low cost per kill）”与“光速打击（Speed of light delivery）”，感叹这些用来描述杀人武器的技术规格读起来既硬核又带着一丝“诡异”。 - **USS Preble（普雷布尔号）**：搭载洛克希德·马丁公司的 HELIOS 高能激光集成武器系统。 - **Stryker（斯特瑞克装甲车）激光平台**：目前装载 50 千瓦级高能激光，依赖车载发电机供电。 - **无人机拦截功率阈值**：激光光束通常需要至少 15 至 25 千瓦的能量才能有效击毁无人机。 --- ### `22:30` 分层防空体系与“防守成功但经济破产”的困境 讨论随后转向定向能武器与传统拦截导弹的经济性对比。激光与高功率微波（HPM）最大的诱惑在于“单次发射成本极低”，只要能源供应不断，就能源源不断开火。然而定向能武器存在致命弱点：有效射程短，必须等待高速来袭的目标极度接近后才能照射拦截。面对以 5 马赫（约合时速 4,000 英里）飞行的敌方高超音速武器，战地指挥官绝不敢单纯把命赌在近距离激光的精准瞄准上。 因此，现代战场依赖的是“分层防空与导弹防御”（Integrated Air and Missile Defense, IAMD）。美军不能放弃昂贵尖端的“精良（exquisite）”拦截弹，比如洛克希德·马丁的爱国者 PAC-3、雷神（RTX）的标准三型（SM-3）与标准六型（SM-6），因为面对高超音速武器或高空弹道导弹，只有这些系统能确保官兵的绝对安全。然而，若全用几百万美元一枚的导弹拦截几千美元的便宜无人机，就会陷入“防守上百战百胜，经济上彻底破产”的困境——这正是美军在应对伊朗及其代理人时面临的严重消耗战挑战。 为了填补空缺，军工领域发展出了高低搭配的“中端防空体系”：雷神的 Coyote（郊狼 Block 2）、L3Harris 的 VAMPIRE 系统、BAE Systems 的 APKWS（先进精确杀伤武器系统，利用激光制导火箭弹反无人机），以及莱茵金属（Rheinmetall）的 Skynix 与 Skyranger 防空高炮系统。战场雷达会侦测来袭目标的飞行特征（助推段、滑翔段、末段），如果是伊朗制造的见证者-136（Shahed-136）自杀式无人机集群，指挥官便可派发 VAMPIRE、APKWS、Coyote 甚至高功率微波进行低成本拦截，而不必浪费昂贵的 PAC-3 拦截弹。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 现代分层防空系统威胁响应架构 accDescr: 展示了从高威胁弹道导弹到低成本无人机群所对应的分层防御武器搭配方案。 subgraph HighThreat["远程 / 高速威胁（如高超音速武器、弹道导弹）"] A["雷达识别目标特征<br/>（高马赫数 / 弹道助推与滑翔段）"] --> B["精良导弹拦截层<br/>（Lockheed PAC-3 / RTX SM-3 & SM-6）"] end subgraph MidThreat["中程 / 战术威胁（巡航导弹、低速飞行器）"] C["雷达识别中端威胁"] --> D["中端防御层<br/>（Coyote Block 2 / VAMPIRE / APKWS / Skynix 高炮）"] end subgraph SwarmThreat["低端 / 饱和攻击（Shahed-136 无人机集群）"] E["雷达识别慢速蜂群"] --> F["定向能与微波防御层<br/>（HELIOS 激光 / 高功率微波 HPM / 铁束 Iron Beam）"] end ``` - **分层反导参考范例：以色列**： - **外大气层远程反导**：箭-2（Arrow 2）与箭-3（Arrow 3），尽可能在国土极远外拦截洲际与中程弹道导弹。 - **中程拦截**：大卫投石索（David's Sling），射程介于箭式与铁穹之间。 - **近程与低空拦截**：铁穹（Iron Dome），现阶段正融合“铁束”（Iron Beam）激光系统，形成多层次组合防御。 --- ### `27:30` 杀伤决策权（TEA）与宙斯盾指挥网络 针对高度时间压迫下“谁来拍板决定用哪种武器拦截”的问题，Sanders 介绍了美军严密的“目标交战权限”（Target Execution Authority, TEA）机制。这种作战授权在冲突爆发前就已被明晰规划并在作战条例中严格确立： 低阶指挥官（如陆战队或陆军的中校营长）拥有特定的交战规则（ROE），权限限制在特定作战范畴内；而涉及防区外高端反导的权限，则向更高一级的“作战司令部（Operational Command）”集中。例如在中东战区，美国中央司令部（US CENTCOM）会将具体反导交战权下放给派驻红海或波斯湾的航母打击群（如“乔治·华盛顿”号或“亚伯拉罕·林肯”号航母打击群）指挥官。 在舰艇实战环境中，舰长与打击群海军少将享有不容置疑的“自卫权（Right to self-defense）”。所有空中威胁信号、多雷达跟踪数据和来袭弹道预测均实时汇入宙斯盾作战系统（Aegis Combat System），并在战情中心生成统一战术态势图（Common Operational Picture, COP）。航母打击群指挥官可依据态势图，以秒级反应决定是发射数百万美元的 SM-6，还是启动舰载高能激光进行照射拦截。对话最后，主持人引出下一个核心概念，询问究竟在防务语境中，“精良（Exquisite）武器系统”的真正定义到底是什么。 ### `30:00` 何为“高精尖武器”与普通重力炸弹的区别 在军工防务领域，人们经常提到“高精尖弹药”（Exquisite Munitions），但其确切定义往往让人感到模糊。Wayne Sanders 解释说，这归根结底取决于武器系统所蕴含的复杂度和尖端技术水准。以防空拦截弹为例，一款称得上“高精尖”的拦截弹，其弹头内部必须搭载业内顶级的导引头技术（Seeker Technology），因为它的核心任务本质上是“用子弹去击落子弹”。这背后的工程物理极其硬核：拦截弹不仅要精准锁定来袭目标的发射源头与弹道，还要应对如今越来越先进的可变轨和机动系统——敌方威胁不再只是笔直飞来的固定路线，弹头必须在极高速的飞行过程中，持续自主识别、追踪并实时调整航向以匹配目标的机动规避。 这种技术标准同样适用于远程防区外精确打击武器。对于进攻型弹药而言，它飞得有多快、弹尾舵翼如何精准操控变轨，以及它能否有效规避敌方的防空反导网络直插要害，都决定了其研制门槛。再加上弹头战斗部的装药威力与毁伤控制，所有这些前沿指标共同塑造了“高精尖”武器的高昂成本与制造难度。 与之相对的则是普通的重力航弹（Gravity Bombs）。这类武器通常是标准的 GPS 制导炸弹（例如联合直接攻击弹药 JDAM），只要战机能够飞抵目标上空投掷即可。由于重力炸弹主要依靠地球引力下落，不需要自备复杂的动力推进与高能燃料系统，仅需简单的气动面控制方向，制造和采购成本要低得多。主持人风趣地调侃道：“归根结底，难道所有炸弹不都是重力炸弹吗？它们最后不都得掉回地球上？” ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 弹药技术层次对比 accDescr: 对比高精尖拦截弹与常规重力炸弹在动力、导引头与机动能力上的核心差异 subgraph Exquisite["高精尖弹药 (Exquisite Munitions)"] direction TB A["顶级精密导引头<br/>(顶尖传感器/主动雷达)"] --> B["高速机动变轨能力<br/>(应对高机动躲避与拦截)"] B --> C["高能动力推进与战斗部<br/>(实现以弹打弹或穿透防空网)"] end subgraph Gravity["普通重力炸弹 (Gravity Bombs)"] direction TB D["标准 GPS 制导组件"] --> E["基础尾翼气动滑翔调整"] E --> F["无自主推进动力<br/>(依赖载机投掷与引力下落)"] end ``` --- ### `31:37` 战术指挥官的生死抉择与宏观经济账 面对动辄数百万美元一枚的高精尖导弹，一线指挥官在按下发射按钮时，到底会不会因顾忌纳税人的钱而犹豫不决？主持人联想到电影《壮志凌云》（Top Gun）中，男主角 Maverick 摔坏飞机后被长官痛骂“那不是你的飞机，那是纳税人的钱”，好奇这种经济考量是否会渗入实际战斗部署中。 Sanders 指出，美军在这方面的指挥层级划分非常科学而清晰。军方的决策权由低到高划分为战术级（Tactical）、战役级（Operational）、战略级（Strategic）和国家级（National）权威： * **战术指挥官（如连长、舰长、少校）：** 身处交火火线，其唯一的职责就是利用手头掌握的一切可用武器保卫官兵生命与关键资产安全。他们根本不可能也不应该在生死关头去盘算一枚导弹的财务报销单。 * **将领与国家战略层级（准将、少将、海军上将及国防部文官）：** 随着层级上升，这些高层参谋和指挥官才真正对接国家战略与预算体系。正是他们在深刻反思：美军绝不能长期陷入“用价值 410 万美元的导弹去击落一架 3 万美元无人机”的不对称财务消耗陷阱。 虽然基层连排长不会去操心纳税人的钱，但他们同样面临“经济学问题”的本质制约——即战备弹药的绝对稀缺性。在任何既定战场环境下，指挥官手里的垂直发射单元和发射管数量都是固定的，一旦库存打空又无法及时补给，面临的将是毁灭性打击。 --- ### `34:03` 弹药库存枯竭与打造“多箭齐发”的多样化武库 乌克兰战事以及红海周边局势暴露出一个残酷现实：高端防空拦截弹正在被超常规消耗，西方昂贵的弹药库存迅速见底。Sanders 坦言，五角大楼和军方目前正处在一场深刻转折的十字路口。以往数十年，美军的技术预研主要围绕着对抗势均力敌的大国正规战展开，却在某种程度上忽略了非对称消耗战中的“兵力经济性原则”（Economies of force）。 当敌方发射 Fateh-110 弹道导弹或蜂拥而来的见证者-136（Shahed-136）单向攻击无人机时，前线部队别无选择——陆军只能发射爱国者系统的 PAC-3 拦截弹，海军也只能一发接一发打出价值连城的标准三型（SM-3）与标准六型（SM-6）。军方向军工产业界发出了极其明确且紧急的需求信号：采购低成本集装箱化弹药、廉价反无人机拦截弹，以及高功率微波（HPM）和高能激光（HEL）系统。 Sanders 形象地表示，如果自己现在还是那个被称为“肯德基 Sanders 上校”的带兵军官，他最渴望的是“箭袋里有更多的箭”，拥有全谱系、梯次化的应对选项： - 面对低成本蜂群时，可选用电子战干扰、高功率微波或高能激光武器，以极低边际成本瞬间击毁或致盲； - 面对常规空中威胁时，可以发射低成本经济型拦截弹； - 将真正昂贵珍贵的高精尖导弹保留给最致命、最高价值的突防目标。 --- ### `36:31` 彭博科技一分钟：AI 职场技能的真实温度 （播客插播 Bloomberg Tech Minute） 彭博科技记者 Carol Masser 带来一份针对全球商学院企业招聘官的最新调查：AI 是否已在企业白领办公室全面普及？答案是“尚未到来，可能还需要数年”。 - **招聘核心要素未变：** 招聘人员在考察包括 MBA 在内的应届候选人时，最看重的核心素质依旧是沟通能力、解决问题能力和适应力，这与往年相比几乎没有变化。 - **AI 技能现状：** 针对人工智能工具的专门培训在雇主技能需求清单中仅排在后三分之一的位置。多数招聘官认为，目前的商学院毕业生在使用 AI 工具方面仅达到“勉强合格或以下”，高校在 AI 实操教学上存在滞后。 - **长期预期：** 招聘方普遍认为针对性的 AI 培训将在未来五年内变得至关重要；但就现阶段而言，雇主对求职者 AI 水准的唯一现实期望，就是他们能够熟练利用工具将日常重复性工作自动化。 --- ### `37:44` 激光与定向能供应链的命脉：稀土与关键矿物 随着定向能武器与先进电子战系统迈向规模化量产，供应链的物理瓶颈浮出水面。高能激光器和尖端雷达的制造高度依赖一系列特殊关键矿物与稀土元素，包括用于半导体与射频器件的镓（Gallium）、以及制造掺杂光纤激光器不可或缺的镱（Ytterbium，节目中主持人对其读音进行了讨论）。 除镱之外，高性能激光与军工元器件还深度依赖铽（Terbium）、镝（Dysprosium）以及钕铁硼（NdFeB）强磁体等。Sanders 感慨，自己能把这串生僻元素随口背出，正是因为军方内部已经反反复复推演了无数遍这个死穴。 当前全球关键矿物与稀土供应链面临极高的地缘政治风险： - **极高市场集中度：** 中国在多种重稀土和稀缺矿物的开采、提炼与磁材加工环节占据了全球 85% 至 90% 的支配地位。 - **出口管制冲击：** 近年来特定关键矿物（如镓、锗及相关受控品类）的供应收紧，对西方国防产业链构成了直接倒逼。 - **本土化重塑（Onshoring）：** 美国国防部正加速与本土稀土矿商（如 MP Materials）合作，通过出资建厂与战略采购，在本土建立从矿石到磁体、光学材料的完整供应链闭环。 - **军民两用属性（Dual-use）：** 这些稀缺矿物不仅是激光和雷达的核心，同样也是民用无刷电机、电动汽车和先进消费电子的关键原材料，这使得民营工业界与军工主承包商（Defense Primes）面临着同样的去风险压力。 ### `40:00` 钨立方体插曲与军工市场的“创新者窘境” 在切入严肃的国防产业分析之前，节目插播了一段轻松的闲聊：主持人提到了此前听众熟知的一个梗——他终于在搭档 Tracy 提醒的一个抽屉里找回了自己丢失已久的“钨立方体”（tungsten cube）。两人还打趣道，现在网上甚至能花 40 美元买到一个小巧的银色铽（Terbium）立方体。随后，话题迅速转向军工行业宏观格局：当颠覆性武器技术萌芽时，究竟是老牌军工巨头（Defense Primes）还是新兴国防科技初创公司在主导创新？传统巨头往往坐拥单价极高、性能顶级的“精良武器”（Exquisite Weapons），很容易陷入“创新者窘境”，缺乏动力去研发可能蚕食自身主力产品市场份额的新技术；而初创企业则毫无历史包袱。 彭博行业研究（Bloomberg Intelligence）高级分析师 Wayne Sanders 指出，美国国防部（DOD）已经深刻意识到这一矛盾并开始调整策略。当前传统军工巨头的核心任务是“扩充现有产能”。军方签署的大量多年期框架协议，主要是为了大幅提高经过实战检验的高精尖弹药库存。然而，在动辄数百万美元的拦截弹与前沿的高功率微波/激光武器之间，存在一个巨大的“中端消耗性弹药”真空带。美国国防部对这部分低成本、集装箱化武器的需求不是几百枚，而是“数以万计”。这片传统巨头无暇顾及或不愿深耕的中间市场，正成为新兴防务颠覆者弯道超车的突破口。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 美国防部弹药与防御系统采购双轨格局 accDescr: 展示传统军工巨头与防务科技初创公司在不同层级武器研发与采购中的分工与市场定位 subgraph Primes["传统军工巨头 (短期主力)"] A["高精尖现役弹药扩产<br/>(PAC-3, THAAD, PrSM)"] B["特点：单价极高、产线成熟、多年度框架锁定"] end subgraph Startups["防务科技新贵 (3-5年中期崛起)"] C["中端低成本弹药 / 定向能量<br/>(Anduril, Castelion, Epirus等)"] D["特点：低成本、标准化、模块化、万级规模量产"] end E["美国国防部 (DOD) 需求战略"] -->|保障战略威慑储备| Primes E -->|填补成本消耗真空| Startups ``` - **高精尖弹药扩产数据**： - **PAC-3 拦截弹**：计划年产量从 620 枚跃升至 2,000 枚，增幅达 3.3 倍。 - **萨德系统（THAAD）拦截弹**：单枚造价高达 1,200 万至 1,500 万美元，年产量正推进实现 4 倍增长（从 96 枚提升至 400 枚）。 - **精确打击导弹（PrSM）**：用于应对伊朗甚至亚太潜在冲突的远程进攻性系统，采购量同样计划提升达 4 倍。 - **中标中端方案的 5 家关键初创与创新承包商**：Coaspire、Leidos、Anduril、Zone 5 Technologies 以及 Castelion。军方的需求信号非常直接：“我需要成千上万枚这样的方案，立即落地。” - **产业格局演变**：短期内传统巨头凭借既有产线稳拿大单，但 3 到 5 年内，Anduril 和 Castelion 等新贵将大规模吃下中端市场；与此同时，美国与莱茵金属（Rheinmetall）等海外盟友军工企业的合资合作也在提速，以扩大海外本土产能。 --- ### `43:40` AI 融入杀伤链的边界：算法降噪与“人在回路”原则 针对主持人提及近期大语言模型（LLM）在测试中逃逸沙箱并入侵 Hugging Face 等 AI 安全事故，以及外界对“AI 接管弹道导弹或激光武器”的深深恐惧，Sanders 结合自身在陆军战争学院（War College）研究“AI 与信任等级”的经历做出了专业剖析。他明确表示，公众对军用 AI 的认知与五角大楼当前的实际应用之间存在巨大鸿沟。 目前军方引入 AI 的重点领域集中在后端参谋与后勤支持，例如流程优化、资产与能力标签化管理以及海量情报的降噪处理。在涉及“敌友识别”（IFF）并触发战术打击的致命杀伤链上，五角大楼始终严格恪守“人在回路”（Human-in-the-loop）原则。以图像情报（IMINT/GEOINT）为例，面对海量卫星图像与无人机侦察流，AI 可以在 12 至 16 小时内自主比对像“镐山”（Pickaxe Mountain，假设的伊朗核设施观察点）这样的敏感区域，筛查细微的地貌或车辆异动。当 AI 识别出一辆可疑自卸卡车并发出警报时，它绝无自主开火权，最终核实画面、评估意图并拥有目标执行权（Target Execution Authority）的，依然是屏幕前的人类分析员与战区指挥官。Sanders 强调，由于军事“信任模型”的极高门槛，将自主交战权完全交给算法的时代依然非常遥远。 - **军用 AI 现阶段核心使命**：处理庞大冗杂的数据底座，替参谋军官和情报人员“过滤战术噪音”。 - **目标执行权（Target Execution Authority）红线**：即便算法精准标记目标，向可疑目标下达发射或摧毁指令的权力完全由指挥官掌控，严禁系统全自动化闭环打击。 --- ### `46:12` 定向能量武器采购潮：从 50 千瓦拦截无人机到 1 兆瓦克制高超音速 针对 Sanders 在彭博终端上发布的最新研报——“未来十年全球定向能量武器市场将从目前的 60 亿至 80 亿美元增长 2 到 3 倍”，主持人追问这究竟是真金白银的装备采购，还是依然停留在研发（R&D）阶段。Sanders 澄清指出，美军此前在定向能量领域已累计砸下超过 150 亿美元研发资金，而当下的拐点正是“科研成果正式向实战采购过渡”。 各军种的实际部署正在全面铺开：陆军已在多域特遣部队（MDTF）的“斯崔克”（Stryker）轮式装甲车上集成了 50 千瓦级高能激光器；海军持续为水面舰艇采购舰载高能激光；而在高功率微波（HPM）领域，国防科技公司 Epirus 研发的 Leonidas 系统已向陆军和海军陆战队交付，用于反制来袭的无人机蜂群。不仅如此，Epirus 还开发了名为“Leonidas H2O”的衍生系统，能直接瘫痪水面快艇的发动机马达。在红海和黑海战场上，造价仅数万美元的遥控无人自爆艇对动辄数亿甚至数十亿美元的远洋主力战舰构成了严重的不对称威胁，此类定向能量拦截手段展现出了极高的经济与战术价值。 | 指标 / 维度 | 战术级 50 kW 高能激光 | 战略级 1 MW（兆瓦）激光武器 | |:--- |:--- |:--- | | **研发/部署阶段** | 已进入实装采购（如陆军 Stryker 战车） | 五角大楼研发与工程部（OUSD R&E）攻关中（目标 2030 年） | | **主要打击目标** | 低速飞行的巡飞弹、侦察与自杀式无人机 | 飞行时速 1,000 英里至 5 马赫（时速 4,000–5,000 英里）的高超音速武器 | | **能量跨度挑战** | 现有车载/舰载电源与冷却系统可勉强负荷 | 需突破功率、散热及“体积、重量与功耗”（SWaP）物理极限 | 面对主持人对于“兆瓦（Megawatt）在物理破坏力上到底意味着什么”的困惑，Sanders 用通俗的战术场景进行了对比：50 千瓦级激光束足以在无人机扑向防御阵地前将其外壳烧穿击落；而五角大楼研发与工程副部长办公室正在规划的 2030 年 1 兆瓦激光器，其产生的聚焦光束能量必须呈数量级跃升，目标是直接拦截以 1,000 英里时速乃至 5 马赫高超音速（每小时 4,000 至 5,000 英里）极速逼近的致命威胁。要实现从 50 千瓦到 1 兆瓦的鸿沟跨越，核心技术瓶颈不仅在于产生并控制如此庞大的瞬时能量，更在于如何将庞大的激光发生与散热系统压缩至战舰或野战底盘能够承受的极限之内。 ### `50:00` 兆瓦级激光的物理突破与前线机动部署难题 美国国防高级研究计划局（DARPA）目前正在寻求更高层次的解决方案，力求在军事事务上引发颠覆性变革（RMA），从而跳过常规的渐进式迭代开发。韦恩·桑德斯（Wayne Sanders）分析指出，激光武器的发展面临着双重关卡：一方面是纯粹的物理学挑战，即如何稳定产生 1 兆瓦（1 MW）的超强功率并确保高能光束精准聚焦在目标上；另一方面则是更为棘手的实际部署问题。如果一台 1 兆瓦激光系统只能依赖固定基地的岸电或市电电网（Shore Power）运行，其战术价值就会受到严重局限。这种固定式系统在基地防御和部队自卫（Force Protection）方面堪称完美——例如部署在科威特的军事基地，接入稳定电网后，它便拥有了近乎“无限弹药库”的拦截能力。 然而，一旦军队需要在对抗同等大国对手（Peer Adversary Threat）时向前推进部署，情况就急转直下。面对敌方发射的高速导弹和无人机集群，野战部队不可能随军拖带一座足以支撑 1 兆瓦瞬态脉冲光束的庞大发电机组。这种在发电能力、机动便携性与散热体积之间的权衡，是阻碍兆瓦级高能激光走向全面野战化的核心瓶颈。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 激光武器部署模式对比 accDescr: 对比固定基地岸电部署与野战机动部署的优劣与技术瓶颈 subgraph Static["固定基地防御模式"] A["电网 / 岸电供电"] --> B["1 MW 高能激光系统"] B --> C["近乎无限的弹匣深度"] C --> D["要地防空与自卫拦截"] end subgraph Mobile["前线机动野战模式"] E["战术机动载具"] --> F["车载发电机供电受限"] F --> G["功率与散热瓶颈"] G --> H["难以支撑 1 MW 级脉冲"] end ``` ### `51:40` 以色列“铁束”实战检验与大气环境弱点 针对以色列研发的“铁束”（Iron Beam，亦称激光穹顶）防空系统，桑德斯指出它实际上是全球定向能武器在实战环境中的“先行试验田”。与美军目前普遍处于 50 千瓦（50 kW）级别的车载测试装备相比，以色列的“铁束”功率已达到约 150 千瓦（150 kW）。该系统在真实交火中充当了实战化测试平台：面对来袭的见证者-136（Shahed-136）自杀式无人机，军方可以精确评估一系列实战参数——究竟在多远的距离上能够有效命中目标？高能光束需要在目标外壳的同一点上持续照射（Dwell Time）几秒钟，才能彻底烧毁结构并破坏其来袭姿态？ 以色列的实战数据正被众多盟友与防务研发机构密切跟踪，用以校准各自的研发路线图。与此同时，激光武器还存在一个传统导弹所没有的致命物理短板：大气环境干扰。常规动能防空导弹在飞行拦截时完全无所谓大雾或暴雨，但雨、雪、雾霾及空气散射介质却会直接吸收、折射并衰减激光光束的能量，使激光武器在恶劣气象条件下的拦截效能发生骤降。 - 以色列“铁束”系统功率达到约 150 kW，显著领先于美军现阶段部署的 50 kW 系统。 - 实战核心测试指标在于针对 Shahed-136 等无人机的最大有效射程以及光束烧蚀破坏所需的照射驻留时间。 - 气象制约是激光无法完全取代动能导弹的主要原因，雨水与浓雾会导致高能光束发生严重能量耗散与散射。 ### `53:10` 均势作战误判、不对称无人机战与钨金属反思 在结束对桑德斯的专访后，播客主持人乔·威森塔尔（Joe Weisenthal）与特雷西·阿洛威（Tracy Alloway）展开了延伸复盘。两人探讨了美军长久以来的战略误判：过去数十年间，美军投入巨资针对“同等对手”进行军备优化，采购了极其精美昂贵（Exquisite）的顶尖导弹与高精尖战备；然而当真正身处冲突前线时，面对的却是满天飞舞的低成本廉价无人机，昂贵拦截弹与低廉无人机之间数百万美元的造价悬殊，彻底打破了战术与经济平衡。 这种军事规划的预判偏差在历史上屡见不鲜。特雷西回忆起此前与大宗商品专家大卫·菲克林（David Fickling）讨论钨金属（Tungsten）的播客节目：防务规划层曾一度判定未来的高科技战争不再需要大量消耗重金属钨，然而乌克兰战场的残酷消耗战却证明，重金属穿甲弹与大宗弹药依然是不可替代的基石。乔随即开起玩笑，询问特雷西如果军方发起战时战略矿产征集，她是否愿意捐出办公桌上的“钨立方”（Tungsten Cube），并戏谑地描绘了纽约曼哈顿街头无数金融和科技宅男抱着沉甸甸的钨立方排队捐献给军方的荒诞场面。 ### `55:00` “可再生武器”的经济学悖论与终局思考 针对定向能武器的商业与战术前景，主持人提到了一个精妙的行业比喻：高能激光与高功率微波在武器界就像是“可再生能源”，而传统的弹道导弹与防空导弹库存则如同“化石燃料”。传统导弹的库存极为有限，打一发少一发；而激光只要能源供应充足，就拥有无限开火的“深层弹匣”。然而，这一构想面临着与清洁能源转型完全相同的经济学悖论——建设可再生能源基础设施的前期资本投入极其高昂，以至于许多城市和国家望而却步，军用高能激光的前期研发与复杂发电设备采购同样令军费承受重压。 乔和特雷西总结道，防空领域显然不存在所谓包治百病的“灵丹妙药”或“银色子弹”（Silver Bullet）。在红海护航以及各类不对称交火中，美军和盟国必须在“郊狼”（Coyote）、“吸血鬼”（VAMPIR）等反无人机低成本动能系统与昂贵尖端导弹之间艰难权衡，而激光武器的大规模应用依然任重道远。节目最后介绍了节目制作团队成员与社群讨论渠道，并向长期关注军工产业链深度专题的听众致谢收尾。 ## Notable quotes > `10:00` 激光好比狙击步枪，而微波就是电子散弹枪。 — Wayne Sanders > `07:30` 通过驾驭并聚焦特定形态的物理能量（Harnessed Energy），以具有攻势杀伤力的定向投送方式，直接对敌方目标造成功能降级（Degradation）或彻底的物理摧毁（Destruction）。 — Wayne Sanders > `22:30` 防守上百战百胜，经济上彻底破产 — Wayne Sanders > `31:37` 用价值 410 万美元的导弹去击落一架 3 万美元无人机 — Wayne Sanders > `34:03` 如果自己现在还是那个被称为“肯德基 Sanders 上校”的带兵军官，他最渴望的是“箭袋里有更多的箭” — Wayne Sanders > `40:00` 我需要成千上万枚这样的方案，立即落地。 — Wayne Sanders > `31:37` 那不是你的飞机，那是纳税人的钱 — Joe Weisenthal > `55:00` 高能激光与高功率微波在武器界就像是“可再生能源”，而传统的弹道导弹与防空导弹库存则如同“化石燃料”。 — Joe Weisenthal ## Mentioned Wayne Sanders, Tracy Alloway, Joe Weisenthal, Carol Masser, David Fickling, Heidi Shyu, Bloomberg Intelligence, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon (RTX), DARPA, BAE Systems, L3Harris, Rheinmetall, Anduril, Castelion, Epirus, Coaspire, Zone 5 Technologies, MP Materials, Iron Beam, Iron Dome, HELIOS, Stryker, USS Preble, Patriot PAC-3, SM-3, SM-6, THAAD, PrSM, Coyote, VAMPIRE, APKWS, Skynix, Skyranger, Shahed-136, Leonidas, THEL, MIRACL, YAL-1, Arrow 2, Arrow 3, David's Sling ## Video description <p data-prosemirror-content-type="node" data-prosemirror-node-name="paragraph" data-prosemirror-node-block="true" data-pm-slice="1 1 []">Our guest today is Colonel Sanders. More precisely, we speak with Wayne Sanders, a retired US army colonel who is currently senior defense research analyst for Bloomberg Intelligence. During his military career, Sanders specialized in cybersecurity and weapon systems research and his work for BI has recently focused on directed energy weapon systems &mdash; better known as lasers. Just a few decades ago, programs like Star Wars, the Reagan-era missile defense system, seemed like a pipedream; today lasers can shoot down missiles and much more. Sanders tells us about the physics problems researchers had to solve to make laser weapons a reality, why we still don't have laser guns, what makes a weapons system "exquisite," the economic costs that factor into battlefield decisions, and the unique supply chain constraints that affect laser development.</p> <p data-prosemirror-content-type="node" data-prosemirror-node-name="paragraph" data-prosemirror-node-block="true">Read more:<br data-prosemirror-content-type="node" data-prosemirror-node-name="hardBreak" data-prosemirror-node-inline="true"><a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2026-09-03/uss-abraham-lincoln-sailors-in-pattaya-tell-of-strain-after-months-at-sea?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=podcast&utm_campaign=odd_lots&utm_content=article" data-prosemirror-content-type="mark" data-prosemirror-mark-name="link">Weary US Sailors Lay Bare War&rsquo;s Strain During Thailand Shore Leave</a><br data-prosemirror-content-type="node" data-prosemirror-node-name="hardBreak" data-prosemirror-node-inline="true"><a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-09-02/german-navy-tests-ballistic-missile-for-the-first-time-at-sea?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=podcast&utm_campaign=odd_lots&utm_content=article" data-prosemirror-content-type="mark" data-prosemirror-mark-name="link">German Navy Tests Ballistic Missile for the First Time at Sea</a></p> <p data-prosemirror-content-type="node" data-prosemirror-node-name="paragraph" data-prosemirror-node-block="true">Only <a href="http://Bloomberg.com" data-inline-card="" data-card-data="">http://Bloomberg.com</a> subscribers can get the Odd Lots newsletter in their inbox each week, plus unlimited access to the site and app. Subscribe at&nbsp; <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/subscriptions/oddlots?in_source=oddlotspodcast" data-prosemirror-content-type="mark" data-prosemirror-mark-name="link">bloomberg.com/subscriptions/oddlots</a></p> <p data-prosemirror-content-type="node" data-prosemirror-node-name="paragraph" data-prosemirror-node-block="true"><a href="http://bloomberg.com/subscriptions/oddlots" data-prosemirror-content-type="mark" data-prosemirror-mark-name="link">Subscribe to the Odd Lots Newsletter</a><br data-prosemirror-content-type="node" data-prosemirror-node-name="hardBreak" data-prosemirror-node-inline="true"><strong data-prosemirror-content-type="mark" data-prosemirror-mark-name="strong">Join the conversation:</strong> <a href="https://discord.gg/oddlots" data-prosemirror-content-type="mark" data-prosemirror-mark-name="link">discord.gg/oddlots</a></p><p>See <a href="https://omnystudio.com/listener">omnystudio.com/listener</a> for privacy information.</p> [Source](https://podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/tracking.swap.fm/track/UVBrz8bN8aM2Xe47PEPu/traffic.omny.fm/d/clips/e73c998e-6e60-432f-8610-ae210140c5b1/8a94442e-5a74-4fa2-8b8d-ae27003a8d6b/7d156235-f387-442d-92d2-b4ba0105ac94/audio.mp3?in_playlist=982f5071-765c-403d-969d-ae27003a8d83)

[10:00] Wayne Sanders: 激光好比狙击步枪，而微波就是电子散弹枪。 [7:30] Wayne Sanders: 通过驾驭并聚焦特定形态的物理能量（Harnessed Energy），以具有攻势杀伤力的定向投送方式，直接对敌方目标造成功能降级（Degradation）或彻底的物理摧毁（Destruction）。 [22:30] Wayne Sanders: 防守上百战百胜，经济上彻底破产 [31:37] Wayne Sanders: 用价值 410 万美元的导弹去击落一架 3 万美元无人机 [34:03] Wayne Sanders: 如果自己现在还是那个被称为“肯德基 Sanders 上校”的带兵军官，他最渴望的是“箭袋里有更多的箭” [40:00] Wayne Sanders: 我需要成千上万枚这样的方案，立即落地。 [31:37] Joe Weisenthal: 那不是你的飞机，那是纳税人的钱 [55:00] Joe Weisenthal: 高能激光与高功率微波在武器界就像是“可再生能源”，而传统的弹道导弹与防空导弹库存则如同“化石燃料”。

[2:18] Tracy Alloway: underpromoted [2:18] Joe Weisenthal: pew, pew, pew [2:18] Tracy Alloway: Laser Dome [5:00] Wayne Sanders: SWaP [15:00] Wayne Sanders: Star Wars [20:00] Wayne Sanders: deep magazine [25:00] Wayne Sanders: Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD) [25:00] Wayne Sanders: Target Execution Authorities (TEAs) [30:00] Wayne Sanders: hitting a bullet with a bullet [30:00] Wayne Sanders: You can win every engagement defensively and still lose economically

[0:00] Did you ever notice how you spend hours shopping online, only to pause at checkout because you wonder if you trusted enough to hit buy now? Agentic Commerce is testing that moment more than ever. That's where PayPal comes in. With 25 years of checkouts, 400 million consumer accounts globally, and the benefit of fraud protection. So no matter where a purchase starts, it ends with trust. Built for payments, growth in a Gentic. PayPal Open. Built for all business. Visit paypalopen.com. As a listener, you're looking for ways to help teams move faster, make sharper decisions, and turn scattered context into work they can use. ChatGPT for Business can help. ChatGPT for Business gives teams a shared workspace with admin controls, permissions, and access to work and codecs in ChatGPT. This means your business can move from question to answer and code to rollout quicker. Join over 10 million business and enterprise users worldwide already using ChatGPT for Work. the ChatGPT desktop app or contact sales to learn more. - Hello, OddLods listeners. I'm Joe Weisenthal. - And I'm Traci Allaway. - We're the hosts of the OddLods podcast, and we've got something exciting for you. - That's right. So one of the best parts of hosting our podcast is we get to actually meet and interact with our listeners. And we know we have some listeners over in Los Angeles. - That's right. So if you're in LA, we're going to be recording a live show, some live recordings. at the Vermont Theatre in Hollywood on September 17th. We have some really exciting guests lined up, have some really great conversations planned. So go ahead and get your tickets. You can find those over at Bloomberg.com forward slash oddlots or click the link below in the show notes and come and say hi when you're there. Bloomberg Audio Studios. Podcasts, radio, news. *music* Hello and welcome to another episode of the Odd Thoughts Podcast. I'm Tracey Alloway. And I'm Joe Weisenthal. Joe, I gotta get something out of the way immediately up top of this episode. You know, normally you and I talk for a couple minutes and then I introduce the guest. Yes. I'm just going to introduce the guest right away and say today we are speaking with Colonel Sanders. I actually, I have some sympathy for... this issue of people with famous military names because my dad was in the Air Force and his first name is Tom. Can you guess what the highest rank was that he actually achieved in the Air Force? Oh, Major. Yep. And he always claimed he was underpromoted because people found it funny to have Major Tom in the Air Force. Of course, you have to ask the question of whether he was overpromoted to get to Major Tom. I bet he never thought that story, but it's just as plausible. have to ask our guest whether he was overpromoted to colonel or underpromoted to a brigadier general. But we're going to be speaking with Wayne Sanders. He's the senior defense research analyst over at Bloomberg Intelligence, and we're going to be talking about laser beams and microwave weapons. Great. I don't know anything about laser beams or microwave weapons. This is all going to be new to me. I have seen in sci-fi movies that, you know, In theory, you could shoot a laser. Pew, pew, pew. But, like, I don't know if that's a real thing or if that's just, like, a sort of cinematized version of what a visual weapon could be like. I have no idea. Evidently, it is... real-ish because there is research on laser weapons and Energy weapons, etc. But I don't know anything about how this works. So two things I learned in the course of preparing for this conversation. So number one, both these things fall under the umbrella of directed energy weapons, which sounds directed energy sounds like something. My yoga instructor would say if I had a yoga instructor, which I don't. But at the same time, people have been talking about these forever. They've been in development for literally decades now. And I think the big question is whether or not we're hitting a moment when they might actually become reality. So we know, for instance, that Israel is getting ready to deploy its mission. iron beam project i think there's some discussion of whether it should be called laser dome instead of iron beam which is kind of funny but at the same time we know that the u.s's ballistic missile supply has been dwindling because you know it doesn't really make a lot of sense to use like weapons that cost millions of dollars to shoot down thousands of drones that are made out of styrofoam and plywood in some cases yeah it's clearly a lot of anxiety about just the sheer number of Munitions in any context, et cetera. We've been obviously the world is exhausting a lot. You read a lot of stories. If we could replace a bunch of it with lasers, we'd be able to replace it. Maybe that could be a solution. It's interesting to think, I sort of put this in a category [5:00] for you. certain core science technologies that have been the next big thing for a long time. You probably remember... What was it called? Like nanotech. Remember when Nanotech was going to be? Yeah. I don't know what's going on with nanotech robots. Another one is quantum computing. There does seem to be a lot of progress, but also when I talk to someone in quantum computer, it still seems like We got a ways to go, etc. And so the way you describe this sort of high-energy weaponry... I'm curious whether it's one of these things that definitely works in theory and ambiguously works in practice. Yeah. So we're going to try to disentangle all of those themes. There's also a really interesting supply chain attached to some of these weapons, obviously. So I'm happy to say we do in fact have the perfect guest. We're going to be speaking with Wayne Sanders. As I said, he's the senior defense research analyst at Bloomberg Intelligence and formerly a colonel in the U.S. Army. So Wayne, thank you so much for coming on All Thoughts. Thanks so much for having me. It's great to be here. Why don't you give us the... I guess, quick overview of your military career, because you come to us not just with, you know, analytical bona fides, but with some actual operational expertise. No, thank you again. So I graduated from West Point in 2002. I went military intelligence, so I had a background in tactical intelligence early on, and then obviously the war kicked off. I transitioned over to signals intelligence, where I spent a lot of time looking at computer network exploitation was the next best thing that was out there, right? So signals intelligence, where you're looking at cell phones and other pieces, quickly transitioned quite a while with U.S. Cyber Command, and I transitioned over to becoming an offensive cyberspace operations officer, what's known as a 17 Alpha, where I got to spend the rest of my career working on very hard problems for the U.S. military to gain and maintain access to adversary networks, and then when called upon, deliver those capabilities. My last job in the Army was I was the chief of staff for the Undersecretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, Honorable Heidi Hsu, where I got to spend a lot of time on critical technology areas, So that's really where I got a chance to geek out and look at what some of the next research and development areas are in these weapon systems. And that kind of translated right over into coming over to Bloomberg Intelligence, where I work on the defense industrial base, emerging technologies, weapon systems, and who are the companies and the trends that are out there for global funding as well. That was amazing. That was perfect. And I'm extremely riveted and excited about this conversation. Talk to us a little bit about your remit here and like the main sort of gist of the work that you do at Bloomberg Intelligence. Yeah, absolutely. One of the areas that we were really that Bloomberg was really looking forward to to moving forward with was going a step further in the aerospace and defense industry area, not just the primes, not just looking specifically at the companies, but looking at the ecosystem as a whole. looking at those pieces, it's OK, there's something called integrated air and missile defense. There's an entire program. There is a big difference between an exquisite munition interceptor like a Pac-3. And there's much difference between that and a high energy laser that's going to shoot a potential drone or a ballistic missile out of the sky. But So when you put all those pieces together, what does the air defense market look like? What does hypersonics look like? What does semiconductors as part of a supply chain concern for the defense industrial base? Shipbuilding, you name it. These are some of the areas that we cover down on and be able to focus on everything from budgets, components, supply chain, regional components, really you look at the U.S. allies, if you will, adversary considerations that are driving where those components, those markets may be going, and then what's next in the queue. So when you look at air defense, a lot of the stuff up until now, a lot of the direct energy stuff we're going to talk about today is some of those futures piece. Where is it in the R&D line for research and development, and then where is it going, and when are we transitioning into procurement? All right. So before we talk about the role of directed energy in, I guess, the military industrial complex and defensive strategy more broadly, let's start really, really simply. And let's just can you can you define what this actually is when we talk about directed energy weapons like laser beams or microwave systems? What exactly are we talking about here? Absolutely. Absolutely. You know, a lot of people call it electronic warfare. You are trying to take specific harnessed energy and you are trying to use it in an offensive way to cause some type of degradation or destruction to something else. [10:00] And so when you look at a laser, a laser is essentially a precision weapon. It concentrates energy into a narrow beam and typically attacks one target at a time. But when you look at high-powered microwaves, those weapons attack electronics. It's a larger beam that can potentially affect multiple systems simultaneously. So the Government Accountability Office notes that high-powered microwave weapons can generate peak powers up to like 100 megawatts. But comparing that number directly to continuous-wave laser kilowatt ratings, is misleading because of the characteristics that are fundamentally different. What I mean by that is a laser is a sniper rifle. And a microwave is the electronic shotgun. Think about shooting something with bird shots because a laser, you're trying to scale that power in the microwave is trying to scale the effect. So that's why you're looking at drone swarms. And what can you potentially do for that? Right, so the microwave... fire the weapon or whatever, maybe we'll get in the, and then suddenly all the drones don't work where, because their electronics have been fried or something like that. And then a laser is something that could theoretically be pointed at, I don't know, a tank or something like that, and then disable it. Like, is it sort of, let's just say we're talking about the lasers. Is it what I have in mind only from having watching a movie where it's like there is a beam and then it's bad to be on the other side of the beam? It's pretty accurate. You know, when you start looking at how strong those lasers are, you are trying to direct that energy into a single point that is going to burn a hole. It's trying to degrade, right? And not so much on the tank. And it's heat. Sorry. Yeah. Just to be clear, it's that heat that's the destructive force there in the laser. Correct. the energy that's being pushed through, right? So if you get that hot enough, you actually can burn through that material specifically for that. When you look at it, normally you're looking at the difference between a drone swarm and potentially like a ballistic missile. Because a drone swarm perspective, you're going to want a high-powered microwave. You want something that is a wider... a wider range you want something that's going to be able to hit multiple targets at the same time and cause them to degrade and it may not they're not going to blow up but they might fall out of the sky something's not going to work on those but if you're pointing a laser directly at a single ballistic missile that's coming at you you want to be able to destroy that thing you want to be able to knock that out of the sky at that point in time. Where does the energy for these things actually come from? Because when we talk about laser beams, by definition, that's a densely concentrated beam of energy. And I can't imagine that, militaries are plugging these things into the grid, although maybe they are, or maybe they're rolling around with like giant battery packs or something like that. But where does the energy actually come from? So the answer is yes to both of your questions, actually. And it kind of goes into some of the history of how lasers came to be and to work those out is you normally call that shore power. A lot of the technology behind lasers and all that requires a huge amount of power that's going to create that specific spot beam that you're actually trying to create. That these diodes, but you have to be able to then power those. There is an awful lot of power in the past that was required in order to create that level of beam that you're trying to be able to push out. You want to keep it refined small enough so that it is directed in the area that you want, so it's not going out and refracting off and hitting other targets, right? But you start looking at that as it's one of the reasons why back in the day, Some of these lasers were the size of buildings because you required that much energy to be able to create that beam, to be able to create that pulse. And so you're seeing actually the difference really in size, weight and power. You'll hear that quite a bit when you're dealing in this type of environment is the swap characteristics, right? Size, weight and power, because obviously if you're trying to create something that's deployable, You can't just plug it into a grid and say, okay, all right, well, because now you're static. And so it's great if you're using something for a base defense, okay, and you have clean enough power and everything else to be able to plug that in to be able to use. But the deployability aspect of where a lot of the militaries are going right now is I need to be able to throw something onto a truck. I need to be able to throw something onto a ship, and I need to be able to plug that thing into some type of shore power so that I have the ability to have regenerative electronic capabilities to create those beams and increase what we normally call is the difference between – mass versus magazine, because at that point in time, you want to have additional shots and you want to bring down the cost per shot. And this is one of those areas where you can do that. Did you ever notice how you spend hours shopping online only to [15:00] Pause right before you hit buy now. That tiny hesitation, the one where you wonder if it is trustworthy, can make or break the sale. Now, with AI changing the way consumers discover and compare things, that split-second trust question matters more than ever. That's where PayPal comes in. For more than 25 years, PayPal has been a leader in online payments. And now they're at the forefront of agentic commerce, making it work for businesses, letting them maintain control of their brand and their customer relationships. most still feels familiar and deeply dependable. Build for payment, growth, and agentic. PayPal open. Built for all business. Visit paypalopen.com to get started. This is the Bloomberg Tech Minute brought to you by ChatGPT. Now with ChatGPT work. I'm Carol Masser. Has the AI moment arrived at corporate offices worldwide? Not yet, and it's perhaps several years away, according to one survey of corporate recruiters who circle the world's business schools each fall and spring. including MBAs, were communication, problem-solving, and adaptability, which changed little from last year. Training in artificial intelligence tools ranked in the bottom third of the skills list, but recruiters did say AI-specific training will be more important in five years. On that, recruiters rated current graduates as only somewhat prepared or less to work with AI tools, and said business schools are not doing a good job of teaching AI skills. Bottom line, according to We'll be right back. So is the technological advancement that's brought us to, you know, the current time where we can talk about laser beams as, you know, a potential reality on the field, is that all due to energy advancement? What has gotten us to this point? Yeah, no, absolutely. I think so. First off, it really started with the physics problem. If you go back even to the 60s, right, when the laser arrived, the military immediately recognized that it had potential. And the early work seemingly, you know, it was a revolutionary idea that you could put energy onto a target and essentially do it at the speed of light. Then you have the Star Wars era where it identifies specifically where they're trying to... produce extremely powerful chemical lasers. And this is where you start looking at the difference between the chemical laser problem back then, required a lot of energy, it also required a very large facility because of how big these things were. So if you go back to like the 1990s and the 2000s, U.S. Israel had something called the tactical high energy laser, the FELL. It demonstrated that a laser could actually destroy rockets and artillery rounds in flight. There was also something from DARPA called Miracle, the mid-infrared advanced chemical laser. I had to write it down because I didn't remember what it actually said. But it destroyed live short-range rockets as well. But the chemical laser architecture remained really large and logistically intensive. So the program ended in 2006. I looked this up as soon as you said chemical laser, because I went, what the heck is that? It says it gets its light energy directly from a chemical reaction instead of using electricity. Yes. Is that right? Yep. What kind of chemical reaction? Now I'm like imagining soldiers with a big like vat of chemicals and like, yeah, mixing them together. And then suddenly it goes boom and shoots into the sky. No, not so much like that. But it normally is something in a containerized area. There's real science. If you remember that movie with Val Kilmer back in the day, being able to kind of create, there's some... some oxygen iodine laser type reaction, where it's something that you can actually control. It's something that you can put inside of a mechanism and you can control it from there. Yeah, so you don't have to actually, it's not like us in chemistry class, you know, putting stuff into a beaker and then pouring it in. So it is something that's the oxygen iodine laser has been used in the past. Also, they put this thing onto a Boeing 747 at one point in time called the YAL-1. But the problem there is, once again, you're dealing with now you have a chemical reaction that's taking place. on board of a ship. And, oh, they were also, by the way, trying to do this to fly near where you think a ballistic missile launch is going to go so that you can now chase the missile and shoot this thing out of the sky. So you can fire it down from a plane. Absolutely. You know, and well, it's risky. Yeah. I'm going to ask like a sort of dumb question, but that maybe it could lead us to an interesting question. Like, do we have a gun in existence that looks like, [20:00] something where You hold it. Like, it resembles... outside of normal gun It fires a laser beam in a military capacity? Not in the way that you're thinking. I mean, we have some areas like... You know, there's the Helios platform that's on the USS Preble. So if you want to think of a very large ship gun that has the capability of doing that, you know, the Navy does have that. If you're looking for a handheld rifle, you know, something like a laser or phaser kind of thing that you've seen in science fiction and all that, not so much where you would actually see the directed beam. We do have drone guns that can be used for RF and be able to push out to knock drones out of the sky, though. gun that I'm imagining in my head doesn't exist, but what would be the constraints to its existing? So, okay, we can, at least currently as of 2026, what would be the main bottleneck or thing we would need to solve? I imagine the thing we would need to solve would be building an insanely dense battery or something like that. But what would be the thing we would need to solve to have the, the laser weapons that we see on screen. Yeah, I would say it's power generation and compression. When you start looking at what you have to be able to do, The reason why it's still existing, really, Stryker vehicles right now have, there are a couple of platforms that are out there. specifically for this with a high energy laser on there, but you're talking about 50 kilowatts of power. And so, and that's something that's being generated based off of the generator power that's already put on a striker vehicle. That's part of that, that shore power that's in there. So that like you're talking about, whether it's batteries or whether or not it is some type of power generation mechanism is going to be required in order to create the level of beam that's but it requires 15 or 25 kilowatts of energy in that beam to be able to knock a drone down, then at that point in time, it's not going to be effective. So you have to make sure that you are pairing the type of capabilities, the power generation that you can push out versus the threat that you're actually trying to mitigate. You know, Tracy, whenever we talk defense tech in any capacity, there's always this weird thing where we're talking about machines that kill people, right? And I'm reading, I'm on the Lockheed Martin looking at their Helios integrated weapon system, and it's going through the specs, and it's like deep magazine, low cost per kill, speed of light delivery. It's like, it's gear, but... You know, these are the metrics. Yes. Yeah, it's creepy for sure. So actually, one thing I wanted to ask, Joe just touched on this deep magazine idea. And sometimes when you read about the potential for directed energy weapons, people talk about like, oh, there are more cost effective tactic against things like cheap drones. So instead of firing off a pack three that costs millions of dollars, you fire off a laser beam that is, you know, renewable. off microwave beams and keep doing that. But is comparing directed energy weapons to something like ballistic missiles, is that the right comparison? Because I also hear about things like Coyote, or there's something called Vampire, which I would love to learn more about, or Skynix, like systems that can do a similar thing, but are also cheaper than ballistic missiles. Absolutely. So one of the reasons that you look for high-powered microwaves, high-energy laser solutions, this directed energy platform, is because the cost per shot is very low. As long as you have the stream of energy necessary to be able to use it, it's great. The problem is that you're waiting for something that is trying to kill you. to get close enough to the target so that you can hit this thing with high-powered microwaves or a high-energy laser to be able to knock that out. And, oh, by the way, when you have adversary capabilities that are traveling at Mach 5, you're traveling at 4,000 miles an hour, you probably don't want to hope that you can put this laser beam exactly where you want it to be in order to do that. So what you're really looking for is there's layered air defense, right? I referred to it earlier as integrated air and missile defense. This is where it's really important because it's super relevant to what we're talking about right now, especially when you look at investment as well. You have to remain, you have to have exquisite missiles. You have to have your Lockheed Pac-3 interceptors. You have to have your RTX SM3s and SM6s. You cannot get rid of those because you have adversaries who have hypersonic weapons. If a hypersonic weapon is launched, you are going to want to use one of your more exquisite capabilities to make sure... that you can knock that thing out of the sky and it doesn't kill your soldiers, your airmen, sailors and Marines and your guardians. [25:00] You want to make sure that that doesn't take place. So the exquisite missiles are part of this conversation. But the biggest piece, like you're saying right now, is you're identifying that you can win every engagement. You can win every engagement defensively and still lose economically. And that's what we're seeing a lot in Iran right now is they're just starting to just run us out of some of these exquisite interceptors and munitions. And so the as you mentioned with Coyote and you mentioned with Vampire and BAE has a system called APKWS, which is the Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System. Ryan Mittal has Skynix and Sky Ranger. These are cheaper interceptors and guns. So think of these as almost a mid-range solution for those to say, okay, I don't want to use a $4 million – because you can see the radar systems themselves – If something is launched and coming at you, it will put together a signature. It will say, this is this type of system. It's being shot at us at this type of speed. It's going to have a boost phase, glide phase, terminal phase on some of these capabilities. Depending on what those things are, it's important to be able to say, okay, well, based off of the threat, I want to pair it with a specific type of capability that makes sense. And so if you're being shot at, if a drone swarm is coming at you and it's the Shahid 136 is out of Iran— You don't need to shoot it down with the PAC-3 interceptor. You may be looking for that Vampire APKWS partnership. You may want to use some of these Coyote Block 2s. You want to go and look at some of these systems and say, "That's what I want to use." If it's going slow enough or you have enough of them, you may want to then partner that with a high-powered microwave to knock them down. So you don't want to give up any ground at all in terms of creation of these different capabilities. So these end up being additive. And Israel does it better than anyone. When you look at Israel, if you have an intercontinental ballistic missile threat that's coming your way, they're going to use their Arrow 2, Arrow 3 systems, which are exo-atmospheric. They are going to try and shoot this thing down as far away from you as possible, based off of how serious the threat is. If it's something else that's a little bit shorter than that, they have a system called David's Sling. And David's Sling goes farther than Iron Dome. Iron Dome is that next layer that you use, and you hear about it all the time between Iran and Israel in the 12-day war, as well as during Epic Fury and into the systems now, is they continue to use Iron Dome. And now they're adding in Iron Beam as well. So what it's done is it gives the commander options. so that you don't always have to use your exquisite munitions. You don't have to bankrupt yourself to do it. If you have this integrated architecture that goes across all these different weapon systems for the reasons you just laid out... Who actually... makes or owns, I guess, the kill decision? Like who decides what deployment of all those different things actually looks like against which targets? And I imagine most of the time you're operating under like highly pressurized time environments, right? Yes, absolutely. And so normally it's known as the target execution authority, the TEA. And that is the military does a phenomenal job at identifying this well before a conflict when you go forward. And then so depending on what type of threat that is, it's going to say you have the authorities at your level to accomplish the following things. lieutenant colonel and you have your soldiers out there on the battlefield, you're only going to have a certain amount of authorities. Your rules of engagement are going to stop at a specific level. But then as it goes further and further up, what they call the operational command, the operational command, so if you're looking at the Iran scenario, a lot of those have been delegated down to U.S. CENTCOM. U.S. CENTCOM, U.S. Central Command, delegates quite a bit to a laser onboard a U.S. Navy vessel as part of the George Washington or the Abraham Lincoln Carrier Strike Group, then they will know at their level what they're allowed to do and what they're not. And that's going to be determined based off of that. So it changes. I don't want to say that it's always going to be the following, but the military knows at that point in time. They also know that they have the right to self-defense. So that is always priority number one, no matter how you're looking at it. But normally there will be a there will be a ship captain, there will be a carrier strike group, you know, admiral that will have that specific authority. And so when he sees it, right, so part of what they end up doing is they put all this stuff into the Aegis system, and they can see all of those, there will be a common operational picture. And based off of that, that admiral can make that decision. What makes a weapon system exquisite? I hear this term from time to time. [30:00] I'm in these conversations. And I realize I actually don't know the answer to that. So normally it really just comes down to the sophistication and technology that is included in it. So if you're looking at an interceptor, if it is an exquisite interceptor, it means you have the top of the line seeker technology that is inside the payload, inside the front of that interceptor, because you're trying to shoot a bullet down with a bullet. at that point in time, right? The science that's behind that is phenomenal because you have to be able to see exactly where that threat is coming from and whether or not now you're getting into maneuverable systems as well, right? It's not just always a 100% path, I'm flying directly at you, never going to switch path. So these seekers have to be able to then not only do it, they have to identify and track, but then they also have to then do adjust to whatever changes in those paths So that is an exquisite interceptor type of munition. If you have long-range precision munitions that we are firing offensively, same thing kind of applies. It has to do with how fast it goes, whether or not the tail fins maneuver these and cause it to change course as well, because now we're trying to also then avoid enemy air defense systems as well so that we can make sure that we hit the target as well. So the payload that's on it, how fast, how big of an explosion are you trying to achieve? All of those things play into that exquisite munitions perspective. - Got it. - The other side is the gravity bombs. Gravity bombs are just standard GPS guided munitions, where as long as you can get over the target, And you drop that. It's very, very simple maneuvering and all that. It's a lot less because you're not worried so much about the energetics behind it. Yeah. And you're really just letting it hit the targets. Aren't all bombs gravity in the end? I mean, they all have to fall back to Earth eventually. Okay, anyway. To what extent do military commanders take into account economic costs when they're making these operational decisions? Like, would someone hesitate to press the button on launching a bunch of ballistic missiles because they're thinking about how much it might cost the U.S. government? And I'm thinking back to—I'm sure we've all seen— Top Gun when Maverick crashes the airplane or whatever, and his commander is like chewing him out and saying, that's not your plane, it's not your money, it's the taxpayer's plane and the taxpayer's money. Does that factor into actual operational decisions at all? So I think the best way—you described it perfectly, and I think that that actually shows how great the military system is, is because if you are a tactical commander and you have—if you're in that situation and all that, you are going to use whatever is necessary to protect your have the operational command and you have those abilities, as you get farther up the food chain, as you become those flag officers, those general officers, right, the admirals and the generals, when you start getting to those operational higher level of command decisions, they're the ones who are tied more into than national. So you have tactical, operational, strategic, and national authorities. And so as you get closer into those strategic and national authorities, systems where I'm not spending $4.1 million to shoot down a $30,000 drone. But that is not something that your standard lieutenant or captain or major is dealing with at their level. Right. I would imagine, though, that they're not thinking about, oh, what is this going to cost the taxpayer? But they are still fundamentally having to think about economizing. They have a certain amount of capacity with them at any given moment, and they have to think, when are they going to more scarce weapons that they're... It probably does cost more, but scarce weapons. So we have this problem. Everyone's talked about it. The war in Iran, this rapid depletion of very expensive stocks. Where would we have to get to with some of the weapon systems you're talking about such that, or where are we on the path such that these technologies could meaningfully change some of the economics while on the very abstract level, saving money, but just generally speaking, solve this problem of ours of munitions depletement? Yeah, no, I think we're in the middle of it right now, because when you look at how the military is structured and how the Department of War, Department of Defense is right now pushing some of these additional, what they call the multi-year framework agreements for these munitions platforms, they're doing that because they're trying to, they're recognizing right now that it has been I don't want to call it a failure of economies of force, but, you know, the U.S. military has focused so long on looking at the peer type fight. So this has been a lesson learned for the military to say, hey, look, I right now, as you even mentioned, here is my argument. [35:00] This is what I have available to me right now. And I'm getting shot at right now. I'm getting attacked by Fatal 110 ballistic missiles. I'm getting shot. I'm getting attacked by Shahid 136 drones. And hey, what I have at my fingertips right now. are PAC-3 interceptors from the Patriot system. That's what I have. And so therefore that's what I'm going to use. The Navy's looking at it and they're like, "Well, I've got SM-3s, I've got SM-6s. And so that's what I am using." And so what you're seeing right now is, hey, we don't want to do that. That's been the demand signal to industry right now is that low cost containerized munitions, those low cost interceptors, the high powered microwave, high energy laser. The urgency and demand for some of these systems is because exactly what you're saying is I want at my level, if I was sitting right now and I was. Still Colonel Sanders KFC, you know, sitting in, you know, and I'm and I'm working with my force. I want to have all of the solutions so that I have more options at my fingertips. I want to have more arrows in my quiver so that I can make the decision between electronic warfare, high powered microwave, high energy laser guns, cheap interceptors, as well as exquisite missiles. I want to have all of those things at my fingertips. And that's what we're at right now. Thank you. This is the Bloomberg Tech Minute brought to you by ChatGPT. Now with ChatGPT work. I'm Carol Masser. Has the AI moment arrived at corporate offices worldwide? Not yet, and it's perhaps several years away, according to one survey of corporate recruiters who circle the world's business schools each fall and spring. including MBAs, were communication, problem-solving, and adaptability, which changed little from last year. Training in artificial intelligence tools ranked in the bottom third of the skills list, but recruiters did say AI-specific training will be more important in five years. On that, recruiters rated current graduates as only somewhat prepared or less to work with AI tools, and said business schools are not doing a good job of teaching AI skills. Bottom line, according to The only thing you want when it comes to AI skills is for candidates to be able to automate routine work. That's the Bloomberg Tech Minute brought to you by ChatGPT. Put ChatGPT to work on your most ambitious ideas and projects. Get started at ChatGPT.com today by selecting Work Mode, available on Plus and Pro Plans. How easy or difficult is it to actually produce these things at scale? Because a couple of familiar names kept coming up when I was researching this, rare earths, including gallium. And this one, this one is unfamiliar to me. Joe, do you know what itterbium is? Itterbium. Itterbium? Why itterbium? I think it's itterbium. No, keep going. All right. Well, both of them, as is tradition, are, you know, mostly produced by China. So it seems like if you want to ramp up production of these things, there are still, even if you agree that these are effective weapons and they're going to do a lot for defensive capabilities, scaling up production could still be a challenge. No, it absolutely is. When you look at critical minerals across, there's terbium, like you mentioned, there's dysprosium. Dysprosium is another one that a lot of people use. Climidium, boron, iron magnets. And the fact that I know that off the top of my head just shows how many times we've had to go over this. But, yeah, so critical minerals becomes very, very key. And so when you start looking at some of the deals that are being made by the Department of War right now is a great example of that. The deal with MP materials to actually gain a piece of ground specifically inside the U.S. for domestic onshoring of these capabilities. quite a few of these critical minerals that China has predominant in the world. They have sometimes 85, even 90 percent of the supply chain. So how important it is that we're using the ones that we have correctly. When China last year added 12 critical minerals that they were not going to share with the United States, these are some of the key ones, like you said. And so the nice thing is that a lot of the defense primes have recognized this as a risk for quite a while. And so they've already been working towards some of these are not just critical minerals that are used for defense platforms. These are a lot of dual use capabilities with a lot of civilian and commercial needs as well. And so if you're looking at a brushless motor, [40:00] for a drone. That could be used for a civilian drone or it could be used for a military drone. Reaper drone or a Global Hawk. And so when you start looking at those, it is a lot of decisions that have to be made by industry. By the way, I have to let listeners know, who've been listening for a while, I found my tungsten cube, thanks to Tracy. I had been missing it. And she suggested a drawer that we store stuff in that it might be in and it was there. So thank you. Turns out you can buy a Terbium cube. Oh, no. No, no, no. It's $40 for a little It's just a silvery cube. I'm curious, like, when, like... Maybe a big picture when like a sort of new type of like weapons regime, sort of maybe disruptive weapons tech emerges in your seat as an analyst. How much of this is coming from the primes and how much of this is coming from – defense startups, et cetera. There's like some defense startup is like, you know, we don't have an exquisite missile system that we want to keep selling, and therefore we're not going to fall captive to the innovator's dilemma, unlike a defense prime that may not be as motivated to push on a technology that could render their existing workhorse sales to be less market competitive. What do you see in terms of market dynamics here? No, it is a great point because hitting on something that the DOW has actually identified now and has started to push towards as well. The defense primes right now are scaling. We've already talked about the exquisite munitions, right? And so a lot of the multi-year framework agreements that have come to them has been to increase the stockpiles of things that we already have. So PAC-3 interceptors going from 620 a year to 2,000 per year, right? That is what they're pushing for. That's a 3.3x increase on what defense system. These are like $12 to $15 million per interceptor. They're trying to increase that 4x. And then you've got the precision strike munition, which is a long-range offensive system that we've used in Iran successfully that's very strategic to, you know, to like a China fight. That is one that they're trying to increase by up to 4x as well. So you start putting those together. That's your exquisite munitions piece. But that middle ground that I was talking about, right, where you're looking for these low-cost containerized munitions, you're looking for, okay, I don't have— I'm not ready to just do a high-powered microwave, but I don't want to use a $4 million interceptor. There are contracts that are out right now, specifically five companies, Coaspire, Leidos, Anderil, Zone 5, and Castilian are the five contracting companies right now that the DOD has contracted with and say, I need this middle ground solution. I need tens of thousands of these. not trying to jump, like I said, from 620 to 2000 or 96 to 400 for the THAAD system. We're talking about, I need thousands, tens of thousands. That's my demand signal. Let's make this happen. And so the market, these disruptors are the ones who are picking up those contracts. So the short term, the primes are winning because they already have the production lines. They are able to put these contracts directly into place and they're pushing for it. But that mid-grade, you know, think about three to five years, the scalability for the Andurals and the Castilians of the world to come in and grab that middle market as well is an area that the primes aren't looking to grab into too much. And they're allowing some of these tech disruptors to do it. But you're also seeing a lot of joint ventures as well across the board, not only internally to the U.S., but also our partnerships around the world. companies as well, Ryan Mittal being one of them, so that they can start to increase capacity overseas as well. Can you talk a little bit more about, I guess, AI and safety issues when it comes to this kind of weaponry? Because Joe and I, we've been having a lot of conversations recently about LLMs and some recent safety incidents, including an open AI model escaping its sandbox during a test and hacking into Hugging Face, which is like... Bad enough. But then when you think about AI potentially in a military environment and maybe having access to a bunch of ballistic missiles or now laser beams, that seems kind of terrifying. No, absolutely. And funny enough, when I was at War College, my group did an entire thing about AI and levels of trust, because you really are looking at... A lot of the stuff that you're originally seeing partnered into the Pentagon right now is things that are going to help us do our staff jobs better. Let's look at how to be able to optimize processes. How do we do a better job of tagging our capabilities so that we can track them better and so on? [45:00] on and so forth. What it hasn't entered into very much is really when you look at identifying friend and foe leading to a command decision for a tactical strike. Those are things that are still maintained. Those are human in the loop AI problems. And so that's really where you're seeing a lot from the military side right now is I want you to help me clean up the noise. You see a lot of that on the imagery intelligence side of the house and saying, okay, I want AI to be able to look through a lot of my platforms. I want to take all this satellite imagery. I want you to help me normalize this and help me see where the change detections may be. Pickaxe Mountain would be a good example of that, right? I'm using it as a theoretical, but, you know, let's say we wanted to focus on everything and anything that's going around Pickaxe Mountain for the nuclear Iran discussion. So AI could potentially do that from an imagery perspective to say, all right, I've watched the videos for 12 to 16 hours, and based off of it, this is what we have. And you can flag an alert But that alert for something that's going to happen, maybe it's a dump truck driving away, and that's what you told it to look for. Great, but there's still going to be a human that's looking at that then. When that alert comes on, there's an analyst that's sitting there. There's a commander that would make a decision behind that that says, this is what I want to do about that truck that is driving away. Where we are not at right now and where we are quite a ways away based off of trust models and all that, I think exactly where we should be, is we are not at the point where AI is going to go, that truck I've been given an order to destroy it and I am going to take that target execution authority that I mentioned earlier and just drop the bomb. So Wayne, I'm looking at one of your most recent research notes on the Bloomberg Terminal, and you talk about the directed energy market growing two to three times from where it's at currently, which is $6 billion to $8 billion, and that's over the next decade. And I just want to be clear. Is that a forecast for like actual procurement or is that including... R&D on the whole? Because it seems like so far, most of the money that's been spent has been on development. Absolutely. I mean, we have spent over $15 billion on the R&D up until this point, specifically to get to where we're at right now. And it is a good news story because it is transitioning to procurement. You are starting to see that as different portions. You know, the Army, like I mentioned earlier about like the striker vehicles, the 50 kilowatt of the multi-domain task forces. You're seeing the Navy continue to push for additional high energy laser solutions. Contracts with EPRIS, one of the companies that does some high powered microwave stuff, is tied directly into both the Army and to the Marine Corps because of their capabilities to protect against drone swarms. And they've even developed something called the Leonidas H2O system, which helps disable boat motors. So when you start looking at some of the the tactical problems that you run into in the Black Sea and the Red Sea and all that for just even remote controlled. fast boats, you know, trying to go after Blue Water Navy assets that cost, you know, hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars. Having these types of capabilities are exactly what you're looking for. So right now is some of the transition from the R&D side into the procurement market. But you are correct. There still is a lot more R&D, because if you look at the research and engineering department from the Pentagon, They're looking for a one megawatt laser by 2030. The science continues to go, right? It's really a question as to whether or not the physics and the science behind can continue to support and bring down those size, weight, and power requirements necessary to be able to produce it. I have to say, and I've said this on many episodes, I do not have great intuitions for any time we're talking about units of electricity, whether it's megawatt or megawatt hours in the context of a grid. Can you... Give me an, when you say they're looking for a one megawatt laser, what is that? How should I conceptualize this? What's a metaphor that I could use to understand what that would mean? Yeah, so right now the 50 kilowatt laser is capable of, if a drone is flying at you, you should be able to knock that drone down. at one time, right? From a kilowatt perspective, when you start looking at one megawatt, you're trying to create a beam that is so strong that you can shoot down something that is flying at you at... 1,000 miles an hour, potentially up to 4,000 to 5,000 miles an hour, as is a Mach 5 hypersonic weapon would. And the gap between getting from 50 kilowatt to 1 megawatt, is that on the sort of energy side that's on the site of the laser? Is it a technology that exploits that much energy? Like, what needs to be solved to make that jump? [50:00] I would say it's almost an iterative thing right now. DARPA is looking for you know, higher level of solutions. They're looking for almost a revolution of military affairs, because they want to jump iterations or increments in terms of what that development is. But I think it's a little bit of all of those, right? Part of it is on the physics side of the house to be able to generate one megawatt and keep the beam going. where you want it to be. And, but then also, it's also deployability discussion. Having a one megawatt laser that is static because you need to plug it into shore power is limited in a certain aspect. It is great for self-defense and force protection. So think about it in terms of putting it on. a military base in Kuwait. you know, that would be a great opportunity to be able to do it because that is a sure power solution with a, fairly unlimited magazine that's attached to it. But when you start looking at a potential peer adversary threat, where you want to be able to move your forces forward, and you have to, you know, have to contend with these types of missiles being shot at you, It's very difficult to carry around a generator that can produce a one megawatt capability that you then use to create these impulse beams. Just going back to Israel's iron beam or laser dome for a second. Is that... basically a test case for a lot of this technology and how it might be useful in a real world environment? And then if so, what are you actually looking out for in terms of its operations to prove that it's economically scalable or actually useful? Yeah, Iron Beam is kind of leading the way, right? It's about, I think, if I'm not mistaken, it's about 150 kilowatts compared to our 50 kilowatts. So when you start looking at how they deploy it, how they use it, some lessons I think it is an operational test bed, as they are being shot at in the use operationally to say, OK, I successfully. hit a Shahid-136 drone from this distance. How far away did I shoot it? How long did it take for me to actually get that thing to stop coming at me? These are all things that a lot of partners with Israel are looking at specifically so that they can identify, all right, I need to make the following changes in my research and development side of the house. One of the things on lasers we didn't even talk about a little bit is some of the shortcomings of it. actually works. You know, you can't -- a missile doesn't care if you're shooting through fog or through rain. But it does have a change to the components, if you will, of of how a laser beam is actually going to go out there. All right, Wayne Sanders, we're going to get kicked out of the studio soon, so we're going to have to leave it there. But thank you so much for coming on All Thoughts. Thank you for having me. It was great. Very interesting conversation. One thing that stands out to me is just that pure adversary miscalculation. Yeah. Like, It is crazy to think how much the U.S. optimized its military for... Similar military. Yeah, we're going to stock up on like the best technology, the most exquisite missiles and all of that. And then they find themselves fighting an adversary that is using cheap drones and suddenly the whole balance is thrown off. This came up, I mean, just this general idea of military planning for types of warfare seems very difficult. This came up in the recent episode we did with David Fickling about tungsten, and the military concluded, well, future wars, it doesn't look like tungsten is going to be a bigger thing. And then suddenly you get wars like the war in Ukraine, which more resemble wars in which you just needed a big heavy metal, etc. I have an important question. Will you donate your tungsten cube to the military? this. It's a critical mineral. If their drive truly comes and they're like, everyone bring your tungsten or something like that, you know. I don't want to be like, sure. Imagining all these mostly bros walking down the streets of Manhattan lugging their tungsten cube. Handing their tungsten cube. But no, I found that to be really interesting just in general because laser weapons does seem like one of these Things that, again, we've been seeing in movies forever. You just shoot the laser beam. But thinking about the actual constraints, he mentioned, you know, these shore power systems, etc. Thinking about the actual constraints of firing this like incredibly amount of directed energy in certain environments. than thinking about weather constraints, et cetera. It gets super interesting. Also, I'm just very [55:00] Jealous of the guys that can rattle off. all of these what you're very good at it as well what rattling off the names of weapon systems and so no well i'm cheating because i have them all written down on my yeah but still like no that's like a very impressive trust me i don't think about like coyote and vampire systems on a daily basis let's even know that those were the comps that we should be asking about i'm very impressed well the one thing the one thing i'm thinking is The cost effectiveness of all of this. So... One way you often see it framed is the laser beams, the microwaves are sort of like the renewable energy of the weapons world in that once you create them, you can continue firing off. It's that deep munition idea versus the sort of fossil fuel ballistic missile stockpiles that are finite. Right. But... As we all know, sometimes installing renewable energy systems is extremely expensive to the point where a lot of countries and cities decide not to do it. So I think we still have to – we'll see on that front. follow the system. Absolutely. It does not seem like there is a silver bullet, a magic bullet out there for these questions. That's a good pun. Thank you. All right. Shall we leave it there? Let's leave it there. This has been another episode of the All Thoughts podcast. I'm Tracy Allaway. You can follow me at Tracy Allaway. And I'm Joe Weisenthal. You can follow me at The Stalwart. Follow our producers, Carmen Rodriguez at Carmen Armand, Dashiell Bennett at Dashbot, Kale Brooks at Kale Brooks, and Kevin Lozano at Kevin Lloyd Lozano. And for more Bloomberg.com slash oddlots. We have a daily newsletter on all of our episodes. And you can chat about all of these topics 24-7 in our Discord, discord.gg slash oddlots. And if you enjoy it when we do these military industrial episodes, then please leave us a positive review on your favorite podcast platform. And remember, if you are a Bloomberg subscriber, you can listen to all of our episodes absolutely ad-free. All you need to do is find the Bloomberg channel on Apple Podcasts and follow the instructions there. Thanks for listening. Thank you. Thank you. Healthcare doesn't always work great. If you've ever waited on a refill or couldn't schedule an appointment, you get it. That's the kind of stuff Optum is changing. They're using data and technology to integrate patient care, pharmacy, and everything else. So healthcare is connected, not complicated. What's that look like? Cheaper prescriptions that are easier to get and care that looks at the whole person, how you need it. Optum is helping make healthcare work as one for everyone. Learn more at business.optum.com. It's time to plan ahead and make sure your brand is showing up in ways that can have an impact. 4imprint's promotional products are designed to work as hard as you do and make a lasting impression. From quality apparel, including exclusive brands, to drinkware, tech, and totes, they've got thousands of options to fit your brand and budget. Plus, you get free samples, expert help, and their 360-degree guarantee. So you can before imprint certain everything shows up just right, right on time. Explore more at 4imprint.com. for imprint. For certain.