Skip to content
Welcome, thoughtbot's Giant Robots listeners!Start here
European Oil Markets
27JUL

Hegseth watches five laser weapons fire

2 min read
10:27UTC

Pete Hegseth watched five laser and microwave weapons fire at White Sands on 23 June, the first sitting US defence secretary to attend such a test.

← Back to Saudi crude reroutes to Suez, freight bitesJump to analysis ↓
EconomicDeveloping
Key takeaway

Hegseth watched five directed-energy weapons fire, a bet on cheap shots against cheap drones.

Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth watched five directed-energy (DE) weapons fire live at White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico, on 23 June, the first sitting US defence secretary to attend such a demonstration⁠1. Directed-energy weapons use lasers or microwaves rather than munitions. The line-up ran from AeroVironment's AMP-HEL laser at 20 kilowatts, through nLight's 50-kilowatt DE-M-SHORAD and Lockheed Martin's 300-kilowatt IFPC-HEL Valkyrie, to two microwave systems: Epirus's Leonidas and Raytheon's Coyote high-power microwave (HPM) Block 3.

A laser pulse costs a few dollars; the one-way attack (OWA) drone it burns down costs thousands, and a kinetic interceptor to stop that same drone can run to millions. Only cost-per-shot survives contact with drone mass, which is why a defence secretary turned up to watch electrons do the work.

AMP-HEL comes from the same AeroVironment now digesting a Space-segment writedown, a reminder that the DE contenders are the same names carrying the sector's production strain. France has already bought into the European end of this market, ordering Latvian BLAZE interceptors in June. The kilowatt figures, though, are demonstration numbers; the Army does not expect fielded systems at scale until late 2027, leaving years of dependence on the expensive interceptors lasers are meant to replace.

Deep Analysis

In plain English

Pete Hegseth is the US Defence Secretary. On 23 June he became the first person in that job to personally watch a live test of laser and microwave weapons designed to shoot down drones and missiles. Five different weapons fired at White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico: three lasers of increasing power, made by AeroVironment, nLight and Lockheed Martin, and two microwave weapons, from Epirus and Raytheon, which disable electronics across a wider area rather than burning through a single target. The idea is that these weapons cost only a few dollars per shot, far less than a missile that does the same job, which matters when an enemy can launch many drones at once cheaply.

Deep Analysis
Root Causes

The structural driver is an interceptor supply constraint, not laser enthusiasm: US industry's PAC-3 MSE production capacity has been targeted at roughly 500-600 missiles a year even after recent expansion, while a single large drone or missile salvo can involve well over 100 munitions, so the kinetic interceptor base cannot physically produce enough rounds to match salvo volume.

Directed-energy weapons are being fast-tracked specifically to close that mismatch with a cost-per-shot that scales with raid size rather than production-line capacity, which is why the demonstration paired five different systems, lasers and microwave weapons alike, rather than backing a single design.

What could happen next?
  • Consequence

    Continued reliance on cost-per-shot economics rather than fielded systems means US forces stay dependent on expensive kinetic interceptors for salvo defence until directed-energy weapons reach scale, not expected before late 2027.

Sources:The Defense News
Mentions:Pete Hegseth →New Mexico →AeroVironment →Lockheed Martin →Epirus →Raytheon →France →Coyote →BLAZE →Israel →PAC-3 MSE →
First Reported In

Update #14 · UK's £5bn drone bet follows Healey's exit

The Defense News· 5 Jul 2026
Read original →
Causes and effects
Caused by
France buys a Baltic interceptor drone
France's June order of Latvian BLAZE interceptors preceded the US directed-energy demonstration by a week.
Occurred 17 Jun 2026
Read story →
This Event
Hegseth watches five laser weapons fire
The demonstration put cost-per-shot at the centre of counter-drone policy, the only economics that holds against thousands of cheap attack drones.
Different Perspectives
Gulf oil producer
Gulf oil producer
Secured OPEC's confirmed 188,000 b/d September increment with the next meeting set for 6 September, but the Secretariat's own 2 August release says nothing about the fourth quarter. Output guidance beyond September remains undisclosed even as delegate sourcing keeps filling that gap.
Money manager positioned in WTI
Money manager positioned in WTI
Added 28,964 lots to a 92,943 net long in NYMEX WTI in the week to 28 July, against just 1,485 added to Brent's 15,740, a roughly twenty-to-one split. Conviction sits in the American benchmark even as the European diesel story sets the record.
Indian refiner buying Urals
Indian refiner buying Urals
Bought Russian crude at a discount that narrowed to $1-2 a barrel in the week to 29 July from over $10, as Hormuz risk pushed it toward Urals. If that risk eases with the strike now called off, the discount it is currently enjoying could re-widen just as fast.
Russian diesel exporter
Russian diesel exporter
Novak tied any lifting of the diesel export ban, due to lapse 31 July, to an unspecified market recovery with no date, and pushed the gasoline ban to end-2026. An open-ended constraint suits an exporter benefiting from the record European crack it feeds.
War-risk underwriter
War-risk underwriter
Withdrew war-risk cover for Saudi-linked hulls on 24 July and has not reinstated it, holding Bab el-Mandeb tanker transits near 7.5 a day. A cancelled strike does not by itself trigger the committee review needed to re-accept the class.
Northwest European refiner
Northwest European refiner
Sources only 17% of diesel imports from Saudi Red Sea ports against the Mediterranean's 24%, so the ARA crack at $85.86 trails the Med print by $5.81. Lower Red Sea exposure is cushioning it against the rerouting cost, not eliminating it.

Written with AI from Lowdown's published reporting. Not individually reviewed by an editor. Editorial standards.