mmm good point.

@topowl all generalised perspectives are still much appreciated (every alternative PoV is helpful) … doesn’t sound like you will be the sucker on the other side of the trade when it comes time for me to sell.

I’d always assumed that an acquisition from one of these big boys would be a likely outcome and was part of my thesis …

That part of the thesis was boosted when Epirus chucked in some money back when share price was 20c https://www.suasnews.com/2022/11/epirus-invests-3-7-million-in-droneshield/

The other big part of my thesis was them becoming more SaaS centric (the software type, not Ant Middleton) and getting a multiple re-rate (but that’s already happened without the SaaS revenue being meaningful). That’ explains part of my dislike and bearishness towards the amount of DroneGun revenue.

i think the other handy thing DRO has done is get a bunch of NATO catalogue numbers and do much of the heavy lifting of early stage trial stuff with key buyers. (Sort of like an exploration company who then hands over to a major in the mining industry).

I too am struggling with the moat especially since CEO and Chair regularly pump and dump their own holdings (you would think they hold more conviction) while voting themselves options with a low hurdle.

I wouldn’t be disappointed with a $2 all cash offer from a big player in the military industrial complex.

Thanks mate.

Good to hear your take !

I mean I understand an owner dumping some stocks if they don’t have a lot of wealth and are doing it for the family….

But yes, it’s hard if that’s not the case. How our we meant to take the company seriously if they don’t…

MMmmm some good points here I hadnt thought about. Thanks for thw write up @topowl & @RhinoInvestor.

My understanding is Droneshield is the only approved NATO and US hand held “counter drone” company.

They are operating in a small nische area which, I doubt (I assuming) the big boys would be interested.

Droneshield is talking 300-500m in revenue by 2028 not likely to get the big companies falling over themselves.

Now that they have the relevant anpprovals and have demonstrated significantly over the years they have that advantage (say first mover for all intents and purposes) that approved countries can buy as the due diligence has been done, so they are in the prime position.

This support also seems to be backed up by the continual R&D $$$ they are getting from both Aus and US military divisions.

Furthermore, the technology and costs probably make them a more desirable choice for non military use. I can’t imagine Sydney airport wanting to take out annoying drones with a 1m Patriot missile. Just speculating maybe they would like to do so ;)

Thanks much appreciated !

Here’s the thing, I see loads of different counter drone handheld devices(including things looking like guns) and vehicle mounted setups online being used or trialled by the US military all the time.

(sorry to not include any names)…

none of them are ever drone shield…

so is drone shield aimed at non/military customers like police and government agencies ?

so I’m kinda not getting how they’re a leader or first to market….

feel free to ignore my comment, I’m being lazy, am going to watch the footy so can’t provide examples….

appreciate all your posts though !

Yes Droneshield doesn’t need to do trialling anymore it’s an as proved or endorsed so can just be bought by US and allies etc same situation being NATO approved now without field testing after years of exhaustive infield review.

Non military is a market for them as Oleg has mentioned.

I think (from memory) Oleg has also mentioned that it has been shown to be better than the other handheld options. I guess this has been established during trials and comparisons conducted by the US and other militaries.

The key is the time (it seems quite a while - reading back through DRO releases) it takes to be added to an approved buyers list. Once you are on you are up and running.

This is the position Droneshield finds itself. That’s how I interpret the information I have read.

Hi everyone, great discussion. With regards utility and other possible counter measures there was some edifying discussion on this pod recently. Oleg’a perspective obviously but I found it helpful for my understanding at least:

https://podcasts.apple.com/au/podcast/frazpod/id1451246735

No NATO part numbers on these but ... potential threat to the other non-gun half of the DRO revenue stream.

Some interesting information on price points here as well ... I'm not sure how that compares to DRO prices but shows there might be potential for rapid commoditisation (I hope DRO has good Intellectual Property protection).

https://euromaidanpress.com/2024/05/17/the-ew-backpack-revolution-how-ukrainian-portable-tech-jams-russian-drones/

Note: this one is in Ukrainian so view it in Google Chrome with translate turned on:

https://www.epravda.com.ua/publications/2024/04/22/712696/

I found this passage interesting:

"In addition to Ukrainian complexes, there are also Western ones at the front, which the Armed Forces usually receive for free. At the beginning of the great war, this technique supported the ability of the Ukrainian military to defend itself against drones. In the future, the army is likely to prefer domestic products.

Ukrainian EW means are cheaper and battle-hardened. Developers constantly communicate with the military and refine new models based on their feedback. There are many nuances: operating frequencies of the enemy, ease of use, functionality to prevent "friendly fire", the possibility of integration with various systems at the front."