Loading summary
Transcript79 lines
- [00:00]
Jill Wiesenthal
Running a business means dealing with a lot of overly complicated Software, and most CRMs tend to follow the same pattern. They're packed with endless features. You'll never use interfaces that feel clunky, and teams end up spending way too much time just trying to find basic information. Today's sponsor, pipedrive is a simple CRM tool designed for small and medium businesses. Pipedrive brings you entire sales processes into one dashboard, giving you a crystal clear, complete view of sales processes and customer information. Designed to help teams stay in control and close more deals faster. It's it all centers around the visual sales pipeline where you can see every deal, what stage it's in, and what needs to happen next. Since everything is in one platform, pipedrive is designed to unite your team, keep track of sales tasks and stay on top of your leads. Switch to a CRM built by Salespeople for Salespeople and join the over 100,000 companies already using Pipedrive right now. You'll get a 30 day free trial, no credit card or payment needed. Just head to pipedrive.comsimplecrm to get started. That's pipedrive.comsimplecrM the thing about AI for
- [01:02]
Malcolm Gladwell
business, it may not automatically fit the way your business works. At IBM we've seen this firsthand. But by embedding AI across hr, IT and procurement processes, we've reduced costs by millions, slashed repetitive tasks and freed thousands of hours for strategic work. Now we're helping companies get smarter by putting AI where it actually pays off. Deep in the work that moves the business lets create smarter business.
- [01:29]
Cincinnati Insurance Announcer
IBM if you follow markets, you know the value of long term thinking. You plan, you diversify, you prepare for volatility. But in life, even the best strategies can't prevent every bad day a fire, a loss, a disruption that demands immediate attention. When that happens, what matters isn't just what you planned. It's who shows up. That's where Cincinnati Insurance comes in. For more than 75 years, they've helped individuals and businesses navigate life's toughest moments with care, expertise and personal attention. Together with independent agents, Cincinnati Insurance focuses on relationships, not transactions. Their approach is grounded in experience, follow through and trust built over time. Bad days happen, and when they do, you deserve an insurance partner who understands risk, respects what you've built and is ready to help you move forward. So the Cincinnati Insurance companies let them make your bad day better. Find an independent agent@cin fin.com Bloomberg Audio
- [02:35]
Jill Wiesenthal
Studios podcasts, Radio News. Hello and welcome to another episode of the Odd Lots Podcast.
- [02:53]
Tracy Alloway
I'm Joe Weisenthal and I'm Tracy Alloway.
- [02:55]
Jill Wiesenthal
Tracy, you know, I think we're roughly maybe a little bit less than two weeks into the war in Iran. We are recording this March 12, 2026. And there are of course, extraordinary number of questions about the timing and the duration of the war. We know already that the economic impact has been quite significant, particularly if you just look at commodity markets. But one of the questions that sort of may help determine timing or outcome, I guess, you know, when we talked about this in the after the war in Ukraine started. Wars are about supply chains in large sense. And quite obviously wars are about size and scale of the arsenals and how fast they can be replenished.
- [03:36]
Tracy Alloway
Right. Two things I know, war is logistics.
- [03:39]
Jill Wiesenthal
Yes.
- [03:40]
Tracy Alloway
And also war is a racket. And the only reason I know that is because I just literally downloaded the book. So I'll know more about that in a second. But you're absolutely right. I do not like talking about war or conflict or military stuff in general, but I do enjoy talking about supply chains. And there's one crucial supply chain that we haven't really discussed in detail ever before, but it keeps coming up more and more in this conflict.
- [04:03]
Jill Wiesenthal
Yeah, that's right. So obviously, you know, you see these numbers and I don't know how real they are, but they're extraordinary. You know, it's like Iran can launch an attack against a military base and a nearby country, etc. China, all this talk about the extraordinary efficacy of cheap drones and so forth, and then you hear about the extraordinary cost of missile defense.
- [04:26]
Tracy Alloway
Right. So putting on our old international relations hats, a lot of what we used to study was this idea of asymmetric warfare, right? And the classic examples that would come up would be guerrilla warfare where, you know, you have a, a less well equipped army that is engaging in exhausting skirmishes against like a better equipped larger army. And it's a way of like offsetting their own weaknesses against the strengths of another force. Nowadays we don't really have that kind of ground conflict, knock on wood. But you're seeing it, some people say, play out in this arena of missiles, which is really where all this conflict is playing out is in the missile space. So you hear these stories about like Iran is launching these drones that cost I think $25,000 a pop, some of them, or putting mo mines in the Strait of Hormuz, which are also very cheap relative to some other tactics. And meanwhile you hear things like, well, the UAE's missile defense system costs like millions of dollars per pop, literally per pop against a drone. And meanwhile, the US is firing, you know, interceptor missiles or whatever that cost, again, millions and millions of dollars.
- [05:36]
Jill Wiesenthal
Yeah. And you hear, and you know, again, the math, the sort of missile math seems very lopsided. And then of course the question is just the pure numbers and how many do you have and what is the capacity to ramp up production, etc. All huge questions that are, where do
- [05:52]
Tracy Alloway
missiles actually come from, where are they made?
- [05:55]
Jill Wiesenthal
That's right. Anyway, we have a ton of questions and we don't have the answers, but we're going to learn a lot. We have the perfect guest, someone who knows about this intimately, someone who focuses on this entirely. We're going to be speaking with Tom Carricko, senior fellow and director of the missile defense project at csis, and he's going to walk us through all of this and how to think about the supply chain of these armament. So, Tom, thank you so much for coming on odd lots.
- [06:19]
Tom Carricko
Hey, great to be with y'. All.
- [06:20]
Jill Wiesenthal
Thank you so much. Why don't you tell us, just to begin, what do you do? What is the focus of your work?
- [06:25]
Tom Carricko
CSIS center for Strategic and International Studies, I would say is the main defense think tank in Washington D.C. it's been around since, you know, I think the 60s in the cold War. And within CSIS there's sort of the, the department that focuses on hard power, focus on defense department centric things. And within that, I run the missile defense project. And so basically think mud to space, UAVs, cruise missiles, ballistic missiles, space sensors, you know, everything in that, in that window, both offense and defense is what my team kind of studies, writes about, comments upon and hosts just a lot of events and commentary.
- [07:05]
Tracy Alloway
Actually, before we even get into missiles, this is a question I wanted to ask, but why do we have defense think tanks anyway? Like, why do these exist? Because if you think about military conflict in the U.S. presumably there should just be one actor engaged in military conflict with other states at any one moment of time. And that's the actual US government, the Department of Defense, slash Department of War. Why do we need private actors opining on military tactics, strategy, supply chains at all?
- [07:36]
Tom Carricko
Yeah, that's a good question. That's a fair question. And I think I would answer it with what folks coming out of DoD always say, which is it's the world's largest bureaucracy and quite literally they don't have time to think. That is what, that is what senior officials say all the time. And when you go in, you also tend not to have new ideas and so it's, it's kind of an opportunity for idea generation. And this is not my formulation. This is what you frequently hear from people who go in and out of government, that they need those idea generation in a way to be contracted out by those people who have time. And so now, having said that, a lot of people who go into government come from the think tank world, come from the policy world, as I think I would put it rather, and they go out, they think, they write some things, they reflect on things and study things, and then they kind of perhaps go back in to, to, to govern.
- [08:33]
Jill Wiesenthal
Let's talk about from the outside perspective. You know, you try to estimate the size of the arsenal of various different weapons that the US Has. How transparent is the government about the size of stockpiles and how much is one's job from the think tank world, from the outside, an exercise and triangulation, inference and so forth to be able to understand these things. And then just like besides the sort of approach you take to measuring these things, what are some of the numbers that we're talking about right now?
- [09:05]
Tom Carricko
Yeah, so look, it's going to vary case to case. But I would say in many respects, although it's the government's job to keep a number of things secret so that the bad guys don't know exactly what we have or how many we have, rather, I would nevertheless say that to a very large extent, we are a democracy and a lot of detail is available in the budget books that go over to Congress every year when the budget request, the annual budget request comes out. And so there is a pretty good amount of tracking if you want to understand what kind of defense department you have, look at the money. And so there's a, there's a decent amount of information out there about, you might say, the garden variety missiles and the garden variety capabilities that have to be, you know, deliberated appropriated by Congress and then also built by industry. And so while exact numbers are kept sensitive, you can get pretty close in terms of these dollars and this number of rounds you can get, you can get pretty close.
- [10:10]
Tracy Alloway
For those who haven't been following this as intensely as you have, can you paint a schematic of the kind of missiles where, where talking about, when we talk about the situation in Iran right now and what exactly are the different missile types being used for? I know guys love talking about missile names, right. And being like armchair military strategists. So some people might know this already. But for the benefit of those of us who have it, you know, we just See a missile and it's a missile. What are the different types that are currently being deployed?
- [10:41]
Tom Carricko
Basically, there's platforms and there's projectiles, you know, aircraft, ground vehicles, ships, and this sort of thing. But Basically, since the 1960s, there's been a high degree of emphasis on essentially guided missiles, precision guided munitions of various kinds, and also standoff capability. And so, you know, indirect fire cannons, guns, this kind of thing began to be replaced by much more over the horizon capabilities that could fly out a good ways, come back down, and especially in terms of terminal guidance, could then find a ship on the ocean or find using terrain mapping or what have you. So basically, since the kind of the precision guidance revolution in the 70s especially, just been an enormous amount of progress. And so, and frankly, this, this technological progress is no longer that a monopoly of the United States as it perhaps once was. It's ubiquitous. Even folks like Iran, North Korea and that kind of thing have it. And so that's the baseline. And so there's look, there's different kinds of missilery. And a missile, analogically speaking, is simply that which is sent. There's ballistic missiles that fly gravity's rainbow, mostly unpowered for most of their flight, cruise missiles that are essentially aerodynamic and use lift and drag to travel some kind of jet engine or what have you. And then there's these new classes of things that are kind of blending and, you know, people talk about hypersonic gliders that may start off with a ballistic push, but then have the maneuver, the speed of a ballistic missile, but the maneuverability of a cruise missile or aircraft, you might say. And so it's a rich and diverse spectrum that has emerged over the years. And as a former Biden administration official said, and I like to repeat, missiles truly have become weapons of choice. It's the thing for which we reach early and often in a conflict and. And largely because of the combination of that precision guidance and that standoff capability. And so when the first Trump administration wanted to go hit Syria, you know, they sent 59 tomahawks, that's a cruise missile, to go get them. And in this conflict, there has been an enormous, and I would say a scary amount of missiles expended on the part of the United States, hundreds and hundreds on the part of Iran, lashing out at basically all of their neighbors with a combination of ballistics. And a lot of these drones are essentially cruise missiles. When you're over 1000km in range, you know, it's essentially a cruise missile. These shaheds, for instance. And so then you and then you have the, the missile defense world and you know, it wasn't that long ago when in polite society it was, it was conventional wisdom that it was impossible to hit a bullet with a bullet. Over the past especially five years that has been completely and utterly refuted. And in conflict after conflict in Ukraine, in the Red Sea, operations in the defense of Israel. A couple times now we've seen an extraordinary degree of missiles being defeated by a combination of effects. Not just missile on missile, but combination of effects. And now we're kind of surprised when we miss at some of these things. And what was once an American idiosyncrasy, the pursuit of this missile defense capability is now very much a global phenomenon. After the Ukraine conflict, especially in Europe, the European Skyshield initiative, Germany buying an Israeli Arrow 3 system for ballistic missile defense, it has been a sea change. The demand signals, the supply and demand signal of long range standoff and the means to contend with it is very much a global phenomenon. I'll say that the top two priorities for aid for Ukraine over the past four years were what long range fires, missiles and air and missile defense. They went so far as to put the Patriot launcher on, on their currency because it has basically kept them, kept them sovereign. And these are the top.
- [14:39]
Tracy Alloway
I didn't know that.
- [14:40]
Tom Carricko
It's fun. I've, I've got one in my office.
- [14:42]
Tracy Alloway
Oh, right, the currency, not the missile. Right.
- [14:45]
Tom Carricko
I'm still trying to buy a patriot for the office they won't get, but I'm working on it.
- [15:03]
Jill Wiesenthal
Running a business means dealing with a lot of overly complicated Software. And most CRMs tend to follow the same pattern. They're packed with endless features. You'll never use interfaces that feel clunky and teams end up spending way too much time just trying to find basic information. Today's sponsor, pipedrive is a simple CRM tool designed for small and medium businesses. Pipedrive brings you entire sales processes into one dashboard, giving you a crystal clear complete view of sales processes and customer information. Designed to help teams stay in control and close more deals faster. It all centers around the visual sales pipeline where you can see every deal, what stage it's in and what needs to happen next. Since everything is in one platform, pipedrive is designed to unite your team, keep track of sales tasks and stay on top of your leads. Switch to a CRM built by salespeople for salespeople and join the over 100,000 companies already using Pipedrive. Right now. You'll get a 30 day free trial, no credit card or payment needed. Just head to pipedrive.com/CRM to get started. That's pipedrive.com/CRM. Hello.
- [16:04]
Tracy Alloway
Hello.
- [16:05]
Malcolm Gladwell
I'm Malcolm Gladwell, host of the podcast smart talks with IBM. I recently sat down with IBM's chairman and CEO Arvind Krishna, and I asked him, how can companies use AI to its fullest potential to create smarter business?
- [16:20]
IBM Executive
My one advice to them, pick areas you can scale. Don't pick the shiny little toys on the side. For example, if anybody has more than 10% of what they had for customer service 10 years ago, they're already five years behind. Behind it. If anybody is not using AI to make their developers who write software 30% more productive today with the goal of being 70% more productive.
- [16:51]
Tracy Alloway
Yeah.
- [16:53]
IBM Executive
So we are not asking our clients to be the first experiment on it. We say you can leverage what we did. We are happy to bring out all our learnings, including what needs to change in the process. Because the biggest change is not technology, is getting people to accept that there's a different way to do things.
- [17:11]
Malcolm Gladwell
To listen to the full conversation, visit IBM.com smarttalks.
- [17:21]
Sonesta Announcer
Travel smarter, not Harder at America's Best Value Inn by Sonesta. With convenient locations from coast to coast and value pack comfort at every turn, it's a practical choice for road trips, quick getaways and everyday travel that keeps things simple without sacrificing comfort. And when you're a Sonesta Travel Pass member, staying at America's Best Value Inn means earning points toward free nights, upgrades and more every time you stay. Go to Sonesta.com to book your stay and unlock the best rates with Sonesta Travel Pass here today, Rome tomorrow. Join now at sinesta.com, terms and conditions apply.
- [17:56]
Jill Wiesenthal
That was already extremely helpful. But just to go back, use the word scary to talk about the sort of volume of activity that the US has or how much we've fired already. What did you mean by that? Unpack that statement a little bit.
- [18:09]
Tom Carricko
Yeah. So let me just say that missile defense will not win a war for you, but its absence will lose one or could lose one pretty quickly. And so I said a moment ago that Ukraine, the missile defense has helped keep Ukraine sovereign. Right? If not for being able to thwart these incoming air and missile attacks, it would have been a very different situation. Let me go back to last summer and the Hundreds of missiles, 650 projectiles from multiple parts of the Middle east coming at Israel all at once during the 12 Day War. If those hundreds and hundreds of objects had arrived all at once, as they were intended to do, in a place the size of New Jersey, it would have been catastrophic. Surprisingly enough, almost everything was defeated. And so missile defense buys time to end the threat by other means. It does not end the threat itself. Now, what I said last summer after that conflict ended, the Trump administration basically threw the Iranians a lifeline and said, hey, we're going to stop. I said, that's going to be a mistake, because what's going to happen is the Iranians are going to rebuild, and then we're going to come and we're going to do this again in a year or so. And I was wrong, because it didn't take a year. It's only nine months. And why that matters and why it's scary is because it's about capacity. Capacity of defensive interceptors buys time, but it takes a heck of a lot of time to produce that capacity. And so this gets to the specter, I've got an op ed coming out on this, the specter of going Winchester, of running out of defensive interceptors, and that would be a very bad day. And so when you talk hundreds and hundreds of missiles are going to require hundreds of interceptors. That was last year, again this year. And so that's the scary part is, is the massive expenditure of these things. And I want to quote General Kaine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, who said, who's asked, do we have enough? And he said, we have enough for this conflict. That is not the same as saying that we have enough for the other tasks that we have around the world, most significantly deterring a conflict with China. And so we have now cut in very substantially to our total inventory of missile defense interceptors. The numbers, the complete numbers are not been released. We've done a study on this from what it was last year, and it was a lot. And so why that matters right now, we're moving patriots and perhaps some thaad those missile defense systems from South Korea and Japan to the Middle East. That's significant because their job is to be in the Pacific and to deter, to provide a defensive deterrent to Chinese adventurism or to North Korean adventurism or what have you. And so, you know, we've been saying, different administrations have been saying that we're going to pivot to the Pacific. Since the Obama administration, we're still kind of waiting for that to happen. We keep lurching back to Europe and to the Middle East. In fact, a lot of the administration officials in this Pentagon have been among those who said, hey, we got to focus on China, we got to focus on the Pacific. And what they're doing right now is presiding over an extraordinary vaporization of our inventory in a very short window of time. And so what I worry about, you've heard of the Davidson window, The former head of Indopacom, who said, hey, he worries that China would be ready to move against some of their neighbors by 2027. What I worry about most is that this extraordinary expenditure of stuff is not going to be replaced in a year. Absolutely not. And that in fact, this may kind of be a self fulfilling prophecy of encouraging, of tempting China to do something very bad.
- [21:51]
Tracy Alloway
Joe, I haven't heard the term going Winchester or I'm Winchester for years and years and years. Do you remember?
- [21:58]
Jill Wiesenthal
No.
- [21:59]
Tracy Alloway
It's running out of ammunition.
- [22:00]
Jill Wiesenthal
Yeah.
- [22:01]
Tracy Alloway
The only reason I know this is because my dad made me watch like an inordinate amount of military movies growing up. But anyway, I'm very curious about something you said, which is that you can't win a war with missiles. And it seems like with missile. Oh, I'm sorry, with missile defense, but with offense, presumably you can, which seems to be the strategy right now.
- [22:23]
Tom Carricko
Well, and so let me speak to that. The Joint Force, the United States and working with Israel, hit. You know, I think it's up to 5,000 targets within the first several days of the war. Well, they were doing so from afar, they were doing so from standoff. And so while they're not releasing the numbers of the Tomahawk missiles, of the Jassm, of the lrasm and such, not releasing those, one may easily surmise that a significant number of those targets were serviced by these long range things of which we have finite quantities. And so the offensive strike capabilities is also even more important as a deterrent. And we are chewing those up by at least the many hundreds. And it may, I suspect, turn out to be thousands. And that's, that's also part of the scary part.
- [23:10]
Tracy Alloway
Can you give a little bit more detail on, I guess, the procurement process for different types of missiles? Because I'm very curious about the thinking that goes behind, you know, someone saying that we want to have this many long range offensive missiles versus this many, you know, maybe shorter range defensive missiles. How do those decisions actually get made?
- [23:32]
Tom Carricko
That's a good question. You know, it fundamentally comes down to an idea, an idea of the order of battle, of how a conflict may play out. And so, you know, this is the job of the military planners and the Joint Staff to kind of think that through and hypothesize this is how many, how many missiles we would need to have in theater, how many aircraft, how many ships. And this is how we might be able to marshal a force and conversely, how we think the other side might be able to marshal their forces. I will say that the Ukraine conflict especially made folks realize that our estimates of what we would likely need were dramatically too low. And so I'm just going to give one example, but I think you're going to see this. And in fact, there are news developments over the past year that gratify this in different ways, that in April of last year, the US army quadrupled its objective acquisition number of how many Patriot PAC3 missiles it needed to buy over the next coming years, quadrupled that number from like 3,000 and something to 13,000 and something. And I think kind of behind the scenes you're seeing a recognition that as we've seen the Ukrainians and the Russians use enormous numbers of projectiles or missiles of different kinds, kind of sinking in that, oh, in an actual conflict, this would ramp up dramatically. And so even before the 12 day war last summer between Israel and Iran and our being involved, even before that, the Pentagon began to do a few things, some really important things. The Biden administration had been ramping up a number of missiles of offensive and defensive, of various stripes. You probably remember the discussion about 8Hack and whether we could spare any atoms to give to Ukraine. And the Biden administration didn't at first and then they eventually did. That was true with a lot of munitions over the past four years. Flash forward to last spring. Incoming Deputy Secretary Steve Feinberg, who comes out of the private capital world, as your listeners no doubt know, came in and began to call in the CEOs of a number of defense companies and I will say metaphorically grabbed them by the lapels and shook them to say, we need to maximize production. You know, I respect his respect for hard power. And over the next six months, from a basically Memorial Day of last year, over the next six months, you began to see a lot of drills and a lot of figuring out of just how many Tomahawks and all these offensive and defensive missiles and how much solid rocket motor production we could do on and on. And so over the past two months since in January and February of this year, all that work was basically publicized, at least in press releases it said that Raytheon would ramp up five munitions. There's more to come. By the way, Lockheed announced THAAD and PAC3 Patriot that they were going to Quadruple thaad and go on the patriot side from 600 a year to 2000 a year in production. And we're going to go from, by the way from Tomahawks Cruise missiles, from 57 requested last year, which is a pittance to their goal, is a thousand a year of Tomahawks. And what I would say is that those are all very sensible moves, very belated by the way, that are properly allowing the lessons of the past a couple years to be applied. Break. That was all before we went to war with Iran. And so now the ramp, it's called the munitions ramp, hasn't yet begun. And the other kind of scary thing is it hasn't begun because the money wasn't there. And the appropriations bill that came out in January or I guess became law in early February last month, the report language said, oh by the way, we know, we Congress, the appropriators know that this appropriation is 28.8 billion with a B short of what the Pentagon requested just for munitions. And so there's a couple things going on here. One, we already had that 28 billion and change shortfall for FY26. And then, and because of that we can't put things on contract adequately to start this seven year process. That is a good plan, very good plan. And now we have just gone and vaporized many billions of dollars and hundreds and probably thousands of missiles over the past two weeks. And so you put that together and it's not a very good picture. And so at the very minimum, Congress is going to have to step up, I believe for munitions supplemental in the very near term.
- [28:13]
Jill Wiesenthal
So let's talk about the binding constraints to really ramping up production because there's clearly the political constraint and by political I mean appropriations votes have to happen to say we're going to allocate these dollars to defense. Okay, we understand that part. There's politics that's difficult. Let's talk about the binding physical constraints. So when you say, okay, you want to go from 57 to a thousand, what are we talking about in terms of the facilities that we have, the natural resources? I imagine rare earth metals and certain key commodities may be choke points or bottlenecks in this process. We all would love, I presume, to have an infinite number of missile defense capabilities, etc. We would like to not have to choose between Korea and the Middle east or the Gulf allies and so forth. But what are the physical constraints as you see them to ramping up production?
- [29:09]
Tom Carricko
Yeah, well you mentioned their unlimited supply if I'm not mistaken. There was a presidential tweet the other day saying that we had a virtually unlimited supply. And I would just say that that is a, a statement that is problematic to say the least relative to reality. So look, you just listed off facility long lead items for production. I know you all like supply chain issues. There's also people, there's also the workforce. You know, there's basically one facility in Tucson, Arizona that cranks out Tomahawks for instance. There's a small number of things. And so actually when you start looking at the, the supply chain it is in surprising degree. And there's been a number of papers written on this. Although there's a lot more to to ascertain is there's a lot of bottlenecks or there's a lot of sole source for some widget. And to the Pentagon's credit over the past several years there's been a lot of, I would say navel gazing is a bad term, but a lot of introspection trying to figure out and understand, to at least truly intellectually understand what is the supply chain. And there is still some opacity to that. But nevertheless, the primes, the defense prime companies and the department have been been looking into this and I think has been illuminating in terms of the bottlenecks and sole source issues. And so you've seen for instance, I would say a series of experiments trying to a get private capital involved. The Office of Strategic Capital. When that was first being stood up, I asked the guy in charge of it. I said I really want to know one thing. Are you going to be big enough to matter? America's asymmetric advantage, use that phrase. America's asymmetric advantage is we're a wealthy country but we have to leverage that private wealth. And I think there's a number of initiatives on that front that will direct and are helping to direct private capitals to the supply chains for things that matter to defense. The other thing, a couple of experiments going on here are investment in for instance solid new solid rocket motor producers. Everybody knows SpaceX and Space Launch side of the things, there's also a lot of kind of new startup companies for solid rocket motors. I think this is good, I think this is necessary and if they are big enough to matter then we should absolutely be doing all that. At the same time there is the risk that we're kind of like to say fiddling with the bass and the treble knobs and not turning up the volume. And that essentially means there's two big companies that do SRM solid rocket motor drivers. And one of them just got a billion dollar equity stake investment by the Pentagon. That is L3Harris, that had Aerojet as a subsidiary. The other big one of course is Northrop Grumman which owns an assumed orbital ATK in the past and so on the solid rocket motor front, there's these experiments going on and these investments. The Biden administration put $216 million into Aerojet in Camden, Arkansas, which is actually one of the handful of places where we, we kind of keep it away from polite society. You don't want big things blowing up near cities, which is one of the challenges of production as well. A third type of experiment, and this is coming out of Steve Feinberg in particular, is that in this plan, this initiative to get this munitions ramp, he's doing something very different, which is he's asking the primes to lean in on their own dime. And when I say lean on their own dimes, I mean a lot of dimes because we're talking about double digit billions. He's basically asking the companies to pony up out of their internal funds, publicly traded companies again to on spec, begin to invest in these facilities. Now if you're a publicly traded company, that's, that's sticking your neck out. And there has been the customer here. The DOD is a monopsony in terms of buying things that blow up. The customer has not been very reliable over the years. And of all the things DoD buys, munitions has been a sine wave up and down, lots of very cyclical. And so that hurts the certainty of industry to be able to invest and hire and buy long lead items, etc. And that's why you need multi year procurement, that's why you need a seven year window. And that's why this whole Munitions plan makes sense if we can get it off the ground.
- [33:55]
Jill Wiesenthal
Hello. Hello.
- [33:55]
Malcolm Gladwell
I'm Malcolm Gladwell, host of the podcast smart talks with IBM. I recently sat down with IBM's chairman and CEO Arvind Krishna and I asked him how can companies use AI to its fullest potential to create smarter business?
- [34:11]
IBM Executive
My one advice to them, pick areas you can scale. Don't pick the shiny little toys on the side. For example, if anybody has more than 10% of what they had for customer service 10 years ago, they're already five years behind. If anybody is not using AI to make their developers who write software 30% more productive today with the goal of being 70% more productive.
- [34:42]
Tracy Alloway
Yeah.
- [34:44]
IBM Executive
So we are not our asking our clients to be the first experiment on it we say you can leverage what we did. We're happy to bring out all our learnings, including what needs to change in the process. Because the biggest change is not technology, it's getting people to accept that there's a different way to do things.
- [35:01]
Malcolm Gladwell
To listen to the full conversation, visit IBM.com smarttalks.
- [35:12]
Sonesta Announcer
Travel Smarter, not Harder at America's Best Value Inn by Sonesta with convenient locations from coast to coast and value packed comfort at every turn, it's a practical choice for road trips, quick getaways and everyday travel that keeps things simple without sacrificing comfort. And when you're a Sonesta TravelPass member, staying at America's Best Value Inn means earning points toward free nights, upgrades and more every time you stay. Go to Sonesta.com to book your stay and unlock the best rates with Sonesta Travel Pass here today Rome tomorrow. Join now@sinesta.com Terms and conditions apply.
- [35:46]
Public Announcer
Support for the show comes from Public. Public is an investing platform that offers access to stocks, options, bonds and crypto, and they've also integrated AI with tools that can assist investors in building customized portfolios. One of these tools is called Generated Assets. It allows you to turn your ideas into investable indexes. So let's say you're interested in something specific like biotech companies with high R and D spend small cap stocks with improving operating margins or the S&P 500 minus high debt companies. Chances are there isn't an ETF that fits your exact criteria, but on Public you just type in a prompt and their AI screens thousands of stocks and builds a one of a kind index. You can even backtest it against the S&P 500. Then you can invest in a few clicks, go to public.com market and earn an uncapped 1% bonus when you transfer your portfolio. That's public.com market and paid for by
- [36:40]
Tom Carricko
Public Holdings Brokerage Services by Public Investing member finra SIPC Advisory Services by Public Advisors SEC Registered Advisor crypto services by ZeroHash sample prompts are for illustrative purposes only, not investment advice. All investing involves risk of loss. See complete disclosures@public.com Disclosures Joe I was
- [36:59]
Tracy Alloway
going to say we should sound the monopsony klaxon, but I don't think we want any loud noises on a podcast about missiles. Tom what about if we can't ramp up production really quickly? There are existing missiles out there, although to your point, there's a dwindling stockpile. But are missiles like I don't know, shoes or a jacket. Can you just like tap your allies and say, well, we loaned you a missile. Can we have it back and use it now and then? If so, what does that actually mean for some of our allies who are still engaged in conflict, like Ukraine? I see there's a, there's a headline out there right now saying that in recent weeks, Ukraine's F16 jets have been starved of US made missiles. And now we have other allies like the Gulf states who need some of their missiles more than ever.
- [37:48]
Tom Carricko
So you raise a really good point. And I'll tell you, if I had a nickel for every time the Trump administration 1.0 or 2.0, said to our allies, hey, you need to spend more on defense. You need to be buying more American. There was just an executive order a couple weeks ago saying we shall use the sale of American weapons to our allies as an instrument of foreign policy. We've always kind of done that basically since forever. But it was a little bit of chest beating and saying, hey, you, our friends, need to buy more American made products. And there's good reason for that. America makes the best of the kind of exquisite crown jewels capabilities for seekers and things that hit bullets with bullets, to be sure. But there is also a problem. There are 18 countries, there used to be 19 now, 18 countries that operate the Patriot missile defense system globally. And the Biden administration had to suspend the deliveries of Patriot missiles to basically everybody a couple years back because they had to send more to Ukraine. Right. So in terms of our allies, it's actually that on the one hand we're telling them buy more of American stuff, and then the second thing is, oh, but we might not be able to fulfill your orders of the things you already bought. Like, that's the problem. That's one of the big reasons why this ramp needs to happen is not merely for US needs, but also to provide the deliveries that we want our friends and allies to, to be equipped with and we want them to, to buy it. Not just because we have some, some commercial interest. A lot of times US Taxpayer ends up putting the bill for some of these things, but because we want interoperability. We want Australia and Japan to be operating Tomahawk Aegis destroyers so that our Aegis destroyers and our Tomahawk weapon system, they can all work together and the hull be more than the, more than the sum of its parts. So there has been a lot of leaning on the Europeans to send stuff to the Ukrainians. And look, it is their backyard. So it kind of makes sense for Them to be ponying up for their security, the Poles. Poland remembers the Soviet boot quite well and they and a handful of other countries have been especially at the tip of the forefront to help to help the Ukrainians. So this is very much a global phenomenon and there are, to your point, a lot of entangling relationships in terms of the deliveries of systems, the acquisition of systems. Denmark for instance, just decided they were going to buy a French samptee air defense system rather than Patriot. Not because Patriot was better and frankly it wasn't because of the whole Greenland thing, it was because of schedule because there's a long queue of partners that want that stuff and, and sometimes you need stuff sooner as opposed to the best.
- [40:41]
Jill Wiesenthal
Can you talk about, you know in the very beginning we talked about the asymmetry of these very ostensibly very cheap drones and very expensive missile defense. And you just think if they're really, if the drones are as cheap as advertised, there could just be quite a lot of them and you could chew through that missile defense. How do you talk to us about that math? How real are these numbers that you see like $20,000 drone versus $4 million defense missile? Because that seems pretty brutal. But how do you see that equation?
- [41:12]
Tom Carricko
I have to say that has to be the most repeated cliche that's put out there, the most repeated headline. You know, I think the Iranians heads are a little bit more than 20,000. Of course there's lots of really super small short range stuff but when they're talking about going a couple thousand kilometers, I think the number is quarter somewhere between 50 and 80,000. There's some poetic justice that we captured some of those shitheads in an American company, reverse engineered them. They're called Lucas drones and we sent some, some of them back at Ukraine and the, the quoted cost for that I think was, I think was $30,000. So that's good. You need affordable mass, you need a tritable mass. And so that phenomenon, look, Ukraine is producing more millions, millions per year of now many of them are very, very small. But millions of drones, I mean it's darkening the sky as it were. Most of them don't last very long. Most of them may only fly once for instance. And so that is certainly a phenomenon, a major trend. But you know, going back to the, the cost per round, people like to count the cost of a missile because it's kind of easy to count. The things that are harder to count, that are frankly bigger is often the massive quantities of jet fuel that are used to drop much cheaper gravity bombs. And so I think it is actually rather misleading to just look at the cost of the Patriot or the cost of the standard missile or what have you. If you had to throw a thousand drones to have the Same effect as one 1200 kilometer range tomahawk missile, you might not even be able to get there. Tomahawk missiles are longest range missile and it's got a 500 pound warhead. These drones don't have that kind of warhead so therefore they don't have the kind of effect. So there's a, it really comes down to what is it you're trying to do. And oh, by the way, it's the platforms and it's the whole operational cost that matters, including by the way, the cost of operational failure. You know, I like to say I've had plenty of admirals say this on stage with me at CSIS over the years because I always ask this point. A ship captain when he sees a cruise missile coming into his ship is not going to pull out his slide rule or his pocket calculator and say what's the cost of that Houthi drone and what is the cost of the missile? We're going to do that. No, they're going to protect the ship. They are going to go for mission success. And so now you say, well that's value versus cost and that's true. But the cost, the real cost of the Iran operation is not going to be the munitions. It's going to be the enormous steaming of the USS forward from Venezuela to the Middle East. It's going to be the people and all in the jet fuel and all of these other things. And by the way, the facility repair, those things are going to eclipse the cost of the munitions. So nevertheless, defense is hard. It is hard to hit an incoming screaming ranch re vehicle from 1200 kilometers away, for instance. And so defensive interceptors are going to be more expensive than offensive ones. That's just a fact. And that's again why missile defenses won't win a war. They can only buy you time to win that, to end the threat by other means. And that's why you have all these other things as well as I like to say you could throw 1000 cheap UAVs into the sky and it won't do the job of a single Patriot interceptor capability matters too.
- [44:45]
Tracy Alloway
So you mentioned ending the threat just then. And this is the other big question that I, and I imagine a lot of other people have at the moment with, with a ground conflict you can kind of envision an endpoint where, you know, an army comes marching into a state capitol. And that's pretty much the end of the conflict. With missile warfare, it seems like it can go on for a very long time. And I'm not quite sure what the defining point is at which two sides basically say, okay, we're done now, someone's won and someone's lost.
- [45:23]
Tom Carricko
Yeah, well, and that was the case in the 1980s between the, between Iran and Iraq, for instance. Lots of missiles going back and forth. So you've hit on a couple important points there. One, as is often observed, it's really hard to do everything with air power. It's hard to know if you have destroyed things on the ground without being there. And that's why I've said, you know, there, there is at least going to be the need. Whether that need is met or not. There's going to be the need to have some forces on the ground, could be special forces, could be partners from other countries, but there's going to be that felt need to figure out, did we hit that underground missile city, for instance. Point two, you know, everybody, myself, other folks were getting nervous when day by day would go on and the Iranians kept launching. So the good news is that the curve is flattening. That was a phrase from the COVID years, flatten the curve of the rate of fire. And so you take a look at the press conferences, that's a very good development. That they've gone from hundreds a day to, you know, smaller numbers. That reflects that we are somehow doing something, hitting the launchers, hitting the missiles, hitting the command and control, or at least the commanders, perhaps decentralized commanders. That is, that is a good sign. And add to that that we've now gotten. This is the two most important words from one of the recent press releases from Chairman General Kane is he said the words munitions transition, which is to say we don't have to keep using thousand kilometer range Tomahawks because the Iranians don't have air defenses anymore. We can use gravity bombs, of which they are plentiful. Still had to fly back and forth, and that's not cheap. But you still, but you can, you can fly back your JDAMs, your small dam or bombs. And there was a press release, I think, over the weekend that we were transferring a bunch of munitions to Israel. And when you look at it and you look what's in that list, it was gravity bombs. And the reason that we've gotten there is we no longer have to do the standoff stuff. That's good. We can now do the stand in, you know, flying over top and dropping. But to your point, it's still hard to do all that from the air. And there is going to be that uncertainty, which is why frankly, you're not going to have perfect military certainty from the air to really end this, you're going to have to have, I would say, a political change.
- [47:46]
Jill Wiesenthal
Tom Carricko, thank you much so, so much for coming on. Odd lot. I learned a lot from this. Really appreciate you taking your time.
- [47:52]
Tom Carricko
Thanks all really enjoyed it.
- [48:06]
Jill Wiesenthal
I never heard that TRA going Winchester, that's like a, that comes up in movies.
- [48:11]
Tracy Alloway
You know, my Dad's, he flew B52 bombers in Vietnam. So I, yeah, I have very mixed feelings about all of this.
- [48:20]
Jill Wiesenthal
Defense procurement strikes me as an extremely difficult, I don't know, game theory, equilibrium problem to get right. Because you have the monopsony buyer. It's a monopsony buyer, but it's also political and the political winds are going to change. You have companies that are naturally profit seeking and profit maximizing. And many of them, and he alluded to this, we didn't talk about it that much. Are monopoly sellers. Right? Like, if there's one component, if they're. And we know all about how with advanced supply chains of complicated things, you might have millions or thousands of parts that go into it. And some of these parts may be produced by one company. Maybe there's like a shiny mirror or something somewhere that is only produced by one optical factory somewhere in the United States. Then you have the buy American requirements. So that further narrows supply chains, et cetera. So you have monopolies and monopsonies facing off. And then, you know, how do you get sustained spending, sustained procurement through the ebbs and tides of a war? Extremely difficult challenge.
- [49:26]
Tracy Alloway
It's such a weird ecosystem of players in military procurement. And the other thing is like most of the time what you're planning for is a hypothetical conflict, right? If an actual conflict emerges, then I guess you have some more certainty to a degree about what you need to actually fight it. But you know, if just a few years ago, if you're sat there and you're going like, should we be buying stuff for war with Iran? Should we be buying stuff for China doing something with Taiwan? Like, these are very different theaters of war. And I imagine that if you're a procurement officer, like, the temptation must be to. You always want to have the best, like newest, shiniest stuff. And so I'm just fascinated by how people actually make those decisions in the face of both monetary limits and physical reality and political reality as well, which we kind of, we glided past, but for obvious reasons.
- [50:22]
Jill Wiesenthal
Have you seen the photos? I mean, there are photos of the US Packing up Thaad missile defense systems from South Korea.
- [50:31]
Tracy Alloway
I have not seen.
- [50:32]
Jill Wiesenthal
Yeah, if you just search for it, it's kind of, it feels very. When you see the photos, you do not feel like, oh, we are major superpower. It's like, oh, here are these missiles. Sorry, we're taking. We have to move them elsewhere because we don't have enough right now. It's pretty, it's pretty shocking. But, you know, like, it's, it's hard, it's hard to argue against the fact that we seem to be spread very thin these days. The war in Ukraine continues to go on. Obviously, there's this new war in Iran. And then as you mentioned, you know, at least since the Obama administration, they've been talking about the pivot to Asia and so forth. And that keeps not happening. But there are obligations on the ground there. The whole thing seems to spread very thin.
- [51:17]
Tracy Alloway
War is logistics and a racket.
- [51:20]
Jill Wiesenthal
Yeah.
- [51:21]
Tracy Alloway
Shall we leave it there?
- [51:22]
Jill Wiesenthal
Let's leave it there.
- [51:22]
Tracy Alloway
All right. This has been another episode of the Odd Lots podcast. I'm Tracy Alloway. You can follow me at Tracy Alloway.
- [51:28]
Jill Wiesenthal
And I'm Jill Wiesenthal. You can follow me at the Stalwart. Follow our guest Tom Carico. He's at Tom Caro. Follow our producers Carmen Rodriguez at Carmen Armand, Dashiell Bennett at dashbot and Kale Brooks at Kale Brooks. And for more Odd Lots content, go to bloomberg.com odd lots for the daily newsletter and all of our episodes and you can chat about all these topics 24. Seven in our Discord. Discord. GG odd lots.
- [51:52]
Tracy Alloway
And if you enjoy Odd Lots, if you like it when we talk about where missiles actually come from, 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,
- [52:24]
Tom Carricko
Sam.