Applied Energetic’s Battle Lab vs. Skepticism
A former DOD scientist doubts USPL’s potential. AE’s new facility aims to prove him wrong.
Introduction
This past week, I spoke at length with a former high-ranking Department of Defense scientist who has been at the forefront of the DOD's directed energy efforts. At the same time, Applied Energetics announced the opening of their new Battle Lab in Tucson, AZ. I spoke with AE’s management about their expectations for the Lab. The striking contrast between these two events compelled me to write this article.
On one hand, the scientist expressed deep skepticism about AE’s USPL technology. On the other, the Battle Lab represents a pivotal opportunity for real-world tests of a technology that has, until now, been confined to laboratory conditions. There is no longer room for ambiguity, and I believe the next six weeks will be decisive for AE and its valuation. I’m hoping to visit the Battle Lab soon to evaluate the facility in person. In the meantime, I think it’s important to understand what each side expects and why.
The Scientist's Doubts
The scientist’s primary concern is the effectiveness of AE’s lasers, particularly questioning their performance compared to existing directed energy solutions. Beyond their impact on targets, he doubts their effectiveness over long distances and in real-world atmospheric conditions. He also believes that USPLs could be vulnerable to simple countermeasures like optical filters, potentially rendering them largely ineffective.
Additionally, he thinks the technical complexity of USPL technology is a drawback that would make integration into existing military infrastructure difficult without substantial modifications. He is also skeptical about the system’s accuracy against targets that are not perfectly aligned with the laser’s targeting system, questioning their practical tactical utility.
My Reflections as a Layman
I fully respect the scientist and value our discussions, but it's important to note that he has never observed AE’s technology nor spoken with anyone from AE’s team. While he is familiar with USPL technology, his expertise in directed energy weapons lies primarily in continuous-wave (CW) laser technology, which has been a cornerstone of the military’s directed energy R&D for decades.
During our discussion, he frequently referenced "holes in plastic (drones)" and the necessity for directed energy weapon operators to understand a drone’s structural vulnerabilities. This, in my view, reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how USPLs affect targets.
CW lasers cause thermal damage, melting or burning through plastic. USPL lasers, on the other hand, deliver extremely intense, ultrashort pulses that induce non-thermal material modifications such as ablation and dielectric breakdown, effectively disrupting a sensor’s functionality.
So while the scientist is a highly respected expert in his field, his familiarity appears to be significantly stronger with CW than with USPL technology.
Evolving Battlefield Dynamics
The expert’s focus on drone architecture and sophisticated countermeasures also suggests, in my opinion, an underestimation of how the battlefield is evolving. Sensors are everywhere, enabling widespread ISR (Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance), much of which relies on small, low-cost drones.
This demands a countermeasure that is equally nimble and lower cost—qualities that do not describe CW or high-energy microwave technology, both of which are comparatively massive in size and weight (not to mention higher cost).
Moreover, if an adversary were forced to invest heavily in more sophisticated drones with countermeasures, that shift alone would represent a strategic win for the DOD.
Addressing USPL's Perceived Complexity
The scientist repeatedly criticized USPL technology for its complexity. And he’s right—most USPLs rely on crystals and mirrors, which, as I understand it, are neither ruggedizable nor easily integrated compared to CW solutions.
However, this critique overlooks a key distinction: AE’s USPL is fiber-optic-based, marking a significant departure from traditional crystal-based USPLs.
Fiber-optic construction enhances durability and enables AE’s low SWaP (size, weight, and power) design—a crucial factor in enabling nimble and widespread deployment. As for the technical challenge for the DOD, fiber-optics are already widely used in military applications, making this technology far more compatible with existing infrastructure than the scientist suggests.
Discussion with Management and Battle Lab Overview
The Battle Lab is designed to validate AE's technology and address key concerns within the defense and scientific communities. Engineers will use controlled testing environments to simulate real-world distance and atmospheric conditions.
The tests will also assess USPL’s speed of threat engagement, a critical battlefield requirement. AE management is confident that the high intensity of the laser’s energy will overcome optical countermeasures like light filters.
Additionally, the facility provides a secure environment for defense customers to conduct classified tests and demonstrations, ensuring proprietary use cases remain protected.
Implications for AE’s Strategic Direction
The expected outcomes of the Battle Lab tests could fundamentally reshape AE’s trajectory.
If the demonstrations successfully address skeptics' concerns, AE could see rapid adoption and new partnerships—potentially leading to immediate orders.
Even modest success could push AE’s valuation to $1 billion ($5.00 per share) based on comparable companies, while traction with multiple defense primes or integrators could push it to $2 billion ($10.00 per share) or higher.
Directed energy weapons are a major focus in defense technology, and any successful advancement would attract significant attention. While AE’s USPL technology has remained largely under the radar, a successful demonstration of a versatile, deployable solution could quickly put it in the spotlight.
Conclusion
The upcoming Battle Lab tests are more than technical demonstrations—they are a litmus test for USPL’s strategic relevance in modern warfare.
By directly addressing criticism from seasoned experts and showcasing real-world effectiveness, AE has the potential to shift the narrative from skepticism to validation.
We’ll know soon.
Next Steps
I’m hoping to visit the Battle Lab in person and anticipate sharing detailed results from the demonstrations, along with any key insights that emerge.