Brian SchimpfCo-founder & CEO

My co-founders Matt Grimm, Trae Stephens, and I had worked together for a long time. Trae was at Founders Fund searching for a defense tech investment, but no one in Silicon Valley would touch defense. When Palmer Luckey left Facebook, we partnered to bring Silicon Valley engineering to the Pentagon.

I spent a decade working around the national security space. The people working there are true believers, and the mission is real. I felt it was wrong to deny our military personnel the best technology. Being controversial actually worked to our advantage because we had no competitors.

In software, you can iterate your way out of almost any decision. In hardware, you cannot. Parts have months of lead time, so you get few chances before shipping. The product must survive harsh conditions for over a decade, requiring immense design foresight and rigorous upfront engineering.

We combine rapid software iteration with disciplined hardware engineering. Safety-critical systems controlling aircraft require rigorous, structured coding, but that does not mean the engineering cycle has to take ten years. Elon Musk proved you can execute high-quality engineering in months, not years.

We started with autonomous border surveillance towers. We then expanded into counter-drone systems, surface-to-air missiles, autonomous submarines, and fighter jets. Today, our portfolio covers everything from space surveillance to complex weapons systems and missiles.

We co-developed a school bus-sized autonomous submarine with the Royal Australian Navy. This led to winning the loyal wingman fighter jet program for the United States Air Force, beating out Lockheed, Northrop, and Boeing. It proved we could build complex aircraft and advanced autonomy.

Lattis is our core software layer. It networks thousands of systems together, including sensors, drones, strike weapons, and troops. Lattis fuses all incoming data and applies machine learning at the edge, helping military commanders make sense of highly complex and distributed battlefields.

We did two point two billion USD in revenue last year, and we are targeting four point three billion USD this year. This rapid scaling reflects the growing demand for modern defense systems and our ability to ramp up manufacturing and production lines quickly.

Hard military power is the backstop for peace. Since World War II, allied navies have stabilized the seas to enable global trade. Deterrence works by making it clear to aggressive neighbors that the use of force will not succeed, which prevents conflicts from starting.

It is a combination of technological change and political shifts. Many nations atrophied their defense capabilities by relying on American protection for decades. When the United States signaled a less interventionist posture, it created opportunities for aggressive neighbors to pursue their aims.

Low-cost drones make standard military invasions incredibly expensive. Historically, attackers needed a three-to-one advantage over defenders. With drone defenses, that ratio rises to a hundred-to-one. This has closed the window for successful ground invasions against prepared adversaries.

Militaries use long-range strike to target economic infrastructure, airfields, and supply lines rather than just military hardware. This creates severe political and economic pressure on adversaries. Fending off coordinated long-range strikes requires defending the entire country simultaneously, which is highly challenging.

The United States has deployed bounded autonomous systems like the Aegis combat system, torpedoes, and anti-radiation missiles since the 1970s. Bounding decision-making to a defined area or target profile is a proven defensive technique. The ethical choice is to build the most precise weapons possible.

Allied policy dictates that humans remain accountable for the use of force. If a weapon system fails or selects the wrong target, the responsibility rests on the command structure. We design systems to ensure operators understand exactly how the software makes decisions.

Anthropic originally restricted the military from using its models for surveillance or lethal applications. However, they continue to work with the government. Their concern about deploying technology before it is ready is valid, but the best approach is to engage in policy debates.

Policy makers are not technologists. They need experts to show them what can and cannot be done safely. Technologists must participate in developing testing guidelines and specifications, while government entities remain responsible for enforcing the rules.

Participating in the wealth creation engine is a solid idea for the public. It could help fund public programs like social security. Having government equity does not make private executives policy makers, as demonstrated by sovereign wealth funds in Norway and Singapore.