the Paladine AI Corp second quarter 2026 earnings call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. A question and answer session will follow the formal presentation. If anyone should require operator assistance during the conference, please press star zero on your telephone keypad. Please note this conference is being recorded. I will now turn the conference over to Brian Siegel, Senior Managing Director, Hayden IR. Thank you, Brian, you may begin.

Thank you, Nicole. Good morning and welcome to Paladine AI's second quarter 2026 earnings conference call. Joining me on the call today are Ben Wolfe, President and Chief Executive Officer, and Trevor Thatcher, Chief Financial Officer. Earlier this morning, Paladine AI issued a press release announcing financial results for the second quarter ended June 30th, 2026, along with the updated commentary regarding backlog and its reiterated 2026 revenue guidance. A copy of that release, along with the accompanying financial tables, is available on the Investor Relations section of Paladine AI's website. Today's call will include prepared remarks from Ben and Trevor, followed by a Q&A session. During today's call, management will make forward-looking statements within the meaning of the federal securities laws. These statements include, but are not limited to, statements regarding Paladine's 2026 revenue guidance, expected backlog conversion, anticipated quarterly operating cash burn, product development milestones, commercialization timelines, defense program activity, potential customer adoption, market opportunities, and future strategic positioning across air, space, land, and maritime domains. Forward-looking statements are based on current expectations, assumptions, and beliefs, and involve risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied. These risks and uncertainties include, among others, Paladine AI's ability to execute on development programs, convert backlog into revenue, scale production, manage operating expenses, integrate acquired businesses, secure additional contracts, maintain liquidity, and navigate evolving and commercial market conditions. These and other risk factors are described in detail in Paladine AI's filings with the Security and Exchange Commission, including its annual report on Form 10-K and subsequent filings. Paladine undertakes no obligation to update any forward-looking statements except as required by law. In addition, during the call, management will reference certain non-GAAP financial measures. In general, management will adjust for acquisition and other transaction-related expenses, stock-based compensation expense, non-cash warrant income or expense that are marked to market quarterly based on changes in the company's stock price, expenses related to the change in contingent consideration liabilities associated with closed acquisitions and any tax impact these items may cause. A reconciliation of these non-GAAP measures to the most directly comparable GAAP measures is included in this morning's press release. With that, I'll turn the call over to Ben.

Thank you, Brian, and good morning, everyone. Thanks for joining us. Every quarter, we meet with our board of directors to review our prior quarter and year-to-date performance and to discuss, among other things, the business's prospects, opportunities, and challenges in the near, mid, and long term. Prior to that meeting, I meet with the various leaders across the organization for a comprehensive review of the same topics at a business unit and division level. Our most recent board meeting was last week, and I have to say the most recent round of quarterly meetings validated the growing optimism I developed over the quarter. I'm feeling more bullish about our prospects than I have since I returned to the company almost two and a half years ago. We are seeing meaningful traction across all parts of the business. Since I returned, we've built the two things that I believed we needed in order to deliver on our vision for making the United States defense industrial base more competitive, more capable, and more responsive. The first is a new kind of autonomy, a decentralized embodied collaborative AI architecture that enables machines to operate on their own, work together, and adapt in real time without being pre-programmed, or relying on a constant connection to the cloud, or relying on human direction and intervention. What I'm describing is the definition of true collaborative autonomy. What most others mean when they use these words is really nothing more than pre-programmed action where humans have made all of the decisions for the machines well in advance. The second is the ability to make the machines that can put that autonomy to work, which requires world-class aerospace engineering, low-cost next-generation avionics, precision manufacturing capabilities, and ultimately, complete weapons systems, including access to some of the most capable battle-proven lawyer munitions on the planet. Together, they will enable us and our customers to field affordable, attritable systems at scale that are designed from the ground up to leverage our decentralized, embodied, collaborative AI. These two objectives are closely aligned with our nation's priorities. The Department of War has made it abundantly clear that the United States needs both more intelligent autonomous systems and a stronger industrial base capable of designing, manufacturing, and fielding them quickly and economically. We are focused on doing our part to answer that call. This quarter, we began to see every one of these pieces working together in a way that is showing up in revenue, customer activity, and the number of opportunities in front of us. We still have much to do, but the business has meaningful momentum across the company. We generated record quarterly revenue of approximately $5.8 million, up 63% from $3.5 million in the first quarter. The growth was broad-based across our business units, and we expect continued growth through the second half as backlog converts to revenue and new contract awards and customer wins begin contributing. We ended the quarter with approximately $25 million of backlog, up from $17 million at the end of the first quarter, which means after taking into account our Q2 revenues, we booked roughly $13 million of new business during Q2. Now, backlog will not always necessarily increase every quarter. The timing of bookings, the duration of contract performance, and the timing of revenue recognition can all cause backlog to ebb and flow. But the current backlog and the level of new contract awards and customer engagement give us good visibility into the second half. As a result, we are reaffirming our full year 2026 revenue guidance of $24 to $27 million. We ended the quarter with approximately $44 million of cash on hand. Operating cash burn, including capital expenditures, was above our guided average quarterly rate, primarily due to increased business development efforts, some non-recurring capex and the expansion of our engineering team to support new business that will contribute to revenue in the second half of this year we are also carrying infrastructure that our current revenue base has not fully utilized this cash burn was offset by our prudent use of our atm facility we continue to expect operating cash burn of 32 to 36 million dollars for the full year inclusive of capex which means we expect operating cash burn to decline in the second half the defense market is moving quickly towards affordable mass, large numbers of lower-cost autonomous systems that can be deployed and replaced without the economics of traditional weapons platforms. The Department of War is also pushing the industry to develop and field those systems faster than ever. Both trends are directly relevant to what we have built. For the most part, launching 1,000 drones today requires 1,000 soldiers. Other companies are attempting to solve this manpower challenge by automating multi-drone launches that follow a pre-programmed flight path. But that doesn't really solve the challenge, because most of these drones can't react to what's happening around them in real time. That still requires a soldier. Pre-programmed flight, or what we call automated flight, is not a substitute for human intelligence or human direction. But true autonomous flight can be. That's what we do, and it is essential to understand the distinction and how that distinction translates to real-world operations. We put real reasoning and decision-making abilities directly on the drone, and then we enable multiple drones to collaborate in a manner such that the knowledge of each individual drone can be aggregated and used across the entire swarm. This is what we mean when we refer to true collaborative autonomy. And we don't just do this on Paladine drones. We enable UAVs from different manufacturers to collaborate with any drones that are also running our Swarm OS software. We call our approach Decentralized Embodied Collaborative Autonomy, or DECA for short. The intelligence operates on the machines at the edge so they can coordinate and adapt without relying on a continuous connection to the cloud or from a remote operator. We proved this capability in the field under real operating conditions during the Army's IV Mass exercise in Q2. Soldiers from the Army's 4th Infantry Division used Swarm OS to command a mixed team of surveillance drones and our own Gremlin X drone in a contested environment. One Army operator controlled the entire group of UAVs. In June, we announced that Swarm OS and Gremlin X were awarded contracts by the Army under its Disruptive Applications Program. Following IV Mass, we were informed that certain contract options would be the exercise for FY27 and we were formally invited to additional exercises. That exercise and the future exercises are important steps for us because the software was and is being used by soldiers in an operational setting, not simply being demonstrated by our engineers in a controlled environment. This was not a demo in the traditional sense, rather it was a real world exercise. A few moments ago, we issued a press release about our success at PCC-6, which was even larger and more complex than Ivy Mass. Turning to our business operations, I will start with our components business. Brain is our low-cost flight computer for autonomous air systems. It is built into our own Gremlin X mini bomber drone, and it is being integrated on systems designed by us for our defense prime customers. During the quarter, we booked a follow-on order from a defense prime that was five times larger than its prior order. The order covers more than 1,000 BRAIN FC1 units with an aggregate value of approximately $2.3 million. These units deliver the guidance, navigation, and control for a new, low-cost counter-UAS interceptor. As these systems gain traction with customers, we expect demand for BRAIN to grow with it, and we are expanding our domestic production capacity accordingly. And Brain may be just the start. In building our own platforms like Gremlin X and Swarm Strike, as well as designing third-party systems, we have developed a range of other high-value subsystems and components, all made here in the U.S. We're now exploring the business case for supplying some of these components to other drone and missile manufacturers as well, but we will only do so where we have a unique competitive advantage and can deliver differentiated capability or performance or a cost advantage. We have no interest in being in a highly competitive, commoditized, or low-margin business, although there can be no doubt that as a nation, we need more UAV and missile components made here to reduce reliance on foreign sources. Our precision manufacturing business accounts for the balance of our components revenue. It machines and fabricates hardware for defense programs and industrial customers. This capability is strategically important because it allows us to produce components that are often in short supply and that impair our country's capacity to produce the volume of weapons that the Department of War is looking for. We also expect it to support the work required to bring IAI's loitering munitions into production in the United States when and as we develop customer demand. Our engineering services for UAVs, missiles, loitering munitions, and spacecraft generate real revenues today. give us a seat at the table to educate and inform customers about the component and software solutions we offer that could give these customers and their products a competitive edge. During the quarter, we added engineers and moved into a larger facility to accommodate the increasing demand and utilization rates we are experiencing. Specifically, the additional capacity allows us to support existing and new third-party programs, continue developing our own products and manufacture and assemble brain and gremlin x without one activity interrupting the other swarm os also continues to mature and is increasingly being integrated with autonomous systems from other oems an operator defines the mission but the software allows the machines to respond to what is actually happening around them coordinate with one another and adjust in real time it is not tied to a single airframe or manufacturer which is one reason the army has asked us to deploy our software across multiple drone platforms. We are also extending the technology to integrate sensors from other domains, including sensors in space, under the recently signed $4.2 million hangtime contract with the U.S. Air Force. Today, revenue relating to our DECA AI solutions still comes primarily from development, integration, and trial contracts with the Department of War, but SwarmOS customer engagement is increasing, and the software remains the foundation of our aerospace and defense strategy. Our autonomous systems portfolio combines that software with physical platforms. Gremlin X is a reusable mini-bomber designed to deliver a kinetic effect for less than $1,000 per effect. We have prioritized development of this platform, which has advanced from TRL-6 to TRL-7 in just the past quarter. We're also evaluating a modular version that could support missions beyond strike, including potentially ISR and County UAS missions, by making the payload modular rather than having to field different airframes for different missions. Swarm Strike is our low-cost mini-cruise missile designed to operate in coordinated groups using our IntelliSwarm product, which combines Swarm OF and BRAIN. With our alarm contract with the U.S. Navy, we were in the early stages of developing a low-cost, air-launched, near-hypersonic missile for use with the F-35. During the quarter, we were one of only 14 companies invited to the Air Force's Relentless Wolfpack Industry Day, which focused on networked autonomous weapon salvos. We had proposed swarm strike as an answer to the challenge, and we were the only small company invited to participate. This does not mean we will land a contract, but it shows the DOW recognizes our innovation and capabilities. Separately, and importantly, a major Tier 1 defense prime included Swarm OS in its own relentless Wolfpack proposal. Again, we don't know who will be downselected, but this is great validation from a large industry partner. Major defense primes don't make these kinds of decisions lightly. I will now turn to our partnership with Israel Aerospace Industries, or IAI. In June, we announced that Paladine had entered into a partnership with Israel's largest defense prime. As part of that partnership, we secured the right to Americanize, manufacture, and integrate IAI's Harrop, Harpy, and Mini Harpy loitering munitions for the U.S. Department of War. These are large, combat-proven systems, not small FPV drones. IAI pioneered the loitering munition category more than 40 years ago, and today has a backlog across its business of more than $30 billion. Harpy and Herop, which have been sold to numerous countries around the globe, are 10-foot wingspan unmanned aircraft that are designed for long-range missions, extended loitering, and for suppression and destruction of enemy air defenses. These are exactly the kind of systems that could potentially mitigate some of the aircraft losses our country has recently experienced in the Middle East. Harpy is designed to search for and attack enemy radar emitters. I personally am not aware of any other UAV of this size or class that has anti-radiation capabilities. HAROP has an electro-optical seeker, allowing the HAROP to identify and engage a target with precision. Mini Harpy combines anti-radiation and electro-optical capabilities in a smaller system with shorter range and a lower price point. These products have been used in combat and address missions that have become increasingly important as mobile air defense systems become more common and present our military with real targeting challenges. We believe the U.S. military has a meaningful capability gap in this area. As a nation, we typically counter these defenses by launching missiles from manned aircraft. I have been told, but have no way of independently confirming, that the current cost of striking one of these mobile or intermittent air defense systems can range from $10 to $40 million. Our IAI systems can present an alternative at a small fraction of that price without risking human life or the cost of a manned aircraft. We believe that a successful U.S. program based on these IAI systems could ultimately amount to hundreds of millions and potentially even billions of dollars of revenue over time. IAI selected Paladine based in large part on our engineering capabilities, our U.S. manufacturing capacity, our team, and our autonomy software. Once there is a clear government demand signal and we begin to work to stand up domestic production, we believe initial units could be available in about 18 months. We also intend to integrate Swarm OS where appropriate so these systems can coordinate their actions as part of a larger mission set rather than operate only as individual aircraft. That combination takes the mission capability to a whole new level, unlike anything else on the battlefield today. One more proof point worth mentioning is the caliber of people joining our team. This quarter, we added senior military advisors to our Defense Advisory Board, including retired Lieutenant General Sean Ganey, who ran U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command, led the operational command behind Golden Dome, and founded the U.S. military's Joint Counter-UAS office. To be blunt, people with that kind of record don't lend their names to companies they don't believe in. He joined us precisely because he truly believes in our mission, our capabilities, and our opportunity to make a real difference for our nation's warfighters. On the commercial and industrial side, we have sharpened our strategy with Paladin IQ in two ways. First, we are focused on applications where autonomy addresses work that is difficult, dangerous, repetitive, and hard to staff, like surface preparation and corrosion treatment, typically done by hand. A good example is our robotic work at an Air Force Logistics Center, which we expanded this quarter with an additional $2.9 million contract award, bringing the total for this program to more than $10.6 million to date. Second, we are shifting to a partner-led go-to-market strategy for IQ and pilot, rather than trying to sell and deploy every solution ourselves. And we are seeing encouraging interest from ecosystem partners. We're not ready to announce more today, but we expect to have more to share on both products over the next several quarters. I will finish with the opportunity pipeline. As of today, we have submitted proposals for more than 20 Department of War funding programs with an aggregate initial potential value of several hundred million dollars. The timing and probability vary significantly by program. Some are relatively near-term, others are larger opportunities with longer odds. Of course, we will not win all of them, and we may not even win any of them, but the important point is that the number and size of the programs we are pursuing are materially greater than they were six months ago. We are increasingly getting shots on goal as the Department of War's requirements continue to evolve and begin to incorporate the types of capabilities we have been developing for years. To continue the analogy, we have been skating in front of the puck for a while now, and I believe we are just on the cusp of that strategy and focus paying off. We have a lot of work ahead of us, and much of the opportunity I've discussed still depends on successful execution and customer funding decisions. But the quarter showed progress in the areas that matter. Revenue, contractually committed backlog, proving out our autonomy software with customers in the field, repeat component orders, and a much larger opportunity pipeline. The pieces we assembled over the last two years are beginning to reinforce one another. That is why I'm increasingly confident that we are in the right place at the right time. With that, I will turn the call over to Trevor to walk through the financials in more detail. Trevor?

Thanks, Ben. I'll focus on our second quarter results, our liquidity position, and our capital outlook. Revenue for the second quarter was $5.8 million, up 470% from $1 million a year ago, and up 63% sequentially from the first quarter. Product revenue, which today comes primarily from our precision manufacturing business and our brain avionics product was $2.7 million. Engineering services revenue was $1.9 million, and AI product development contract revenue was $1.2 million, which accelerated near the end of the second quarter after the government shutdown suppressed revenue during the first quarter. Cost of revenue was $4.1 million, and consolidated gross margin was approximately 29%. Similar to the first quarter, our margin reflects manufacturing utilization running well below full capacity and includes set up costs and investments related to new program wins that have not yet been covered by revenue. As these programs come online, we expect that these efforts will turn into a tailwind and as incremental volume runs through capacity we're already carrying. Research and development expense was $4.3 million, up from $3.1 million a year ago, reflecting continued investment in Gremlin X and our AI software. General and administrative expense was $8.1 million, up from $4.2 million a year ago, driven by added headcount from our November acquisitions, hiring to support new business opportunities and higher stock-based compensation expenses. Stock-based compensation expense was $2.3 million this quarter, up from $1.1 million a year ago, driven largely by executive equity awards approved by shareholders in June. This is a non-cash expense and was a primary driver of the increased general and administrative expense and operating loss versus last year. Going into the third quarter, this expense will increase materially from the second quarter since we only recognize roughly one month's worth of non-cash expense in the second quarter related to the new awards. Sales and marketing expense was $2.3 million, up from $1.3 million a year ago, reflecting the expansion of business development efforts within our Paladine Aerospace and Defense Division as we pursue more opportunities with the Department of War. Operating loss for the quarter was $13.4 million compared to $8.1 million a year ago. Below the operating line, we recorded roughly $1.1 million of other income, which includes $800,000 from a non-cash gain on the revaluation of our warrant liabilities, together with interest income of $300,000. Gap net loss was $12.3 million or 27 cents per diluted share compared to $7.5 million and 20 cents per diluted share a year ago. On a non-gap basis, which excludes the impact of warrant revaluation, stock-based compensation, and the change in our contingent consideration liability, net loss was $10.8 million or 23 cents per diluted share compared to non-gap net loss of 6.4 million dollars or 17 cents per diluted share in the prior year period turning to liquidity we ended the quarter with 43.7 million dollars in cash cash equivalents and marketable securities flat with the first quarter and down 3.4 million dollars from the 2025 year-end balance operating cash burn which we define as cash used in operations plus capex was 11.1 million dollars during the quarter. This includes approximately $10.2 million of operating cash and $900,000 of CapEx. This was offset by approximately $10.8 million of net proceeds from our ATM program and $300,000 in interest income. During the first half of 2026, we raised $17.3 million in net proceeds under the ATM at an average price of $6.84 per share. We view the ATM as a flexible tool that we can deliberately use to expand our runway at a low cost of capital. As of June 30th, we had approximately $24 million in remaining capacity under the program. Backlog into the quarter at $24.6 million, an increase of 43%, driven by approximately $13 million dollars of new contract awards during the quarter partially offset by revenue recognized during the quarter we expect a majority of our current backlog to convert the revenue over the next 12 to 18 months turning to guidance we are reiterating our full year 2026 revenue guidance of 24 to 27 million dollars which represents roughly 357 to 415 percent growth over 2025 revenue of $5.2 million. And we continue to expect organic growth across each part of the company. We're also reiterating our full year operating cash burn guidance of $32 to $36 million, or roughly $8 to $9 million per quarter on average. We ran above that pace in the first half, although we offset most of that with funds raised via our ATM, and we expect operating cash burn to trend lower through the second half as revenue and margins ramp. Based on our liquidity position, our access to the ATM, and our expected backlog conversion, we believe we are well positioned to execute our plan.

Operator, we're now ready to take questions.

Thank you.

We will now be conducting a question and answer session. If you would like to ask a question, please press star 1 on your telephone keypad. A confirmation tone will indicate your line is in the question queue. You may press star 2 if you would like to remove your question from the queue. For participants using speaker equipment, it may be necessary to pick up your handset before pressing the star keys. One moment while we poll for questions. Our first question comes from Max McEllis with Lake Street Capital Markets. Please proceed with your question.

Thanks for taking my question. Congrats on the quarter. A couple from me, a bunch of different topics here. First, I want to touch on the IAI. You guys mentioned it, but my real question around that is kind of what sort of has been the progress being made on the Americanization process? I mean, or process, have you identified any domestic manufacturing sites? Do you need that? Have you sort of been in any conversations, preliminary conversations with U.S. governments just around these systems and kind of getting your foot in the door on that end?

Hi, Max. Thanks for the questions on IAI. So we have been very active. You know, we just announced the deal, what, seven, eight weeks ago, and we hit the ground running with kind of a full court press, ticking down the list of every potential U.S. government customer that could be interested in these systems. And we have engaged now, I would say, with about half of those targets. And across the board, I would say that there is meaningful interest, but interest is just Then you have to get into the specifics and details about performance and capability and all of those kinds of things. But the bottom line is we have yet to have anybody that we targeted tell us that there's no interest. So we are extremely encouraged and feeling bullish about the opportunity set. In a lot of cases, there was pre-existing familiarity with these weapon systems, but obviously no perception that there was access to them here in the United States. So we're not starting from a stopped position or a standstill position because these are battle-triven weapon systems that the community is generally familiar with. In terms of your question about the facilities and our capacity to manufacture, we have a fair bit of manufacturing capacity and space today. The real question is what kind of volumes might the government want? and we could quickly outgrow our capability in terms of size and facilities. So we are in the process of identifying additional facilities, not that we would need to build and construct because of the timelines associated with that, but we are developing a short list of currently available facilities that if the government were to say, let's go, we'd be ready to jump into and hopefully without a lot of modifications be ready to start standing up manufacturing in a relatively near term.

Awesome. Makes sense. A couple more from me. Secondly, Gremlin X advanced from TRL 6 to TRL 7 in the quarter. What was that specific milestone that got you there? And I guess what is required to get you guys to TRL 8?

Over the quarter, we did five different design revs. We've talked in the past, Max, about how our team can move quickly. That was definitely moving quickly. Five different design iterations, flying and testing in each instance. What got us over the hurdle was getting into the hands of customers and have the customers actually fly it as intended, not us managing or demoing the systems, but actually having soldiers in the field using them under battlefield conditions. So we now feel like we're in a great spot with that. One could argue whether we're at TRL 8 yet or not, but again, because we haven't been in live fire, actual battlefield conditions will hold off on making that announcement. But the bottom line is the system's performed as expected and ahead of schedule.

Perfect. Last one from me.

I think you need $15 million to $18 million of revenue to sort of hit the guidance range for 2026. Backlogs that are on $25 million, that's going to be converted over the next 12 to 18 months. I guess share what you guys can, but, I mean, when we think about that last $15 million to $18 million in 2026, I mean, what percentage of that is already contracted to be shipped for this year, if you could share?

So, you know, when we talk about backlogs, that number is contractually committed. binding legal contracts. What is less certain is exactly the timing of deliveries, hitting of milestones and all of that. So it is a little challenging for me, Max, to give you a straight answer on how much of that backlog will absolutely be delivered in 26 before the end of the year. What I can tell you is we are feeling based on everything that we see, that Trevor and I see in the business, we are confident in reiterating the guidance that we previously gave.

Awesome. Thanks, guys. Congrats on the quarter. Thanks, Max.

Thanks, Max.

Our next question comes from Mike Lattimore with Northland Capital Markets. Please proceed with your question.

Yeah, good morning. Great quarter, great bookings. I guess on Swarm OS, can you talk a little bit about the exercises you're involved with and compare that to kind of, you know, some of the programs that are visible, like Swarm Forge. You know, what's the difference between, you know, the exercises you're involved in versus, say, the Swarm Forge program? You know, what are the different requirements? What are the relative opportunities? Maybe just help us clarify that a little bit.

Yeah, sure. Thanks, Mike, and good to talk to you. So, you know, the military is like a, you know, it's a hydra. I mean, it's got lots of different groups doing lots of different things. And the DIU has a focus on trying to find and identify companies with products and technologies that could be useful to the military. And so they're kind of on their path that is a bit of a treasure hunt, and they frequently will stand up different kinds of competitions, if you will, where they will throw out some specifications and requirements, say to industry, can you meet these specifications and requirements? They'll do a bake-off, they'll down-select, and then they'll give some money to actually develop a product into or technology into what they're looking for based on the best criteria that they had to choose from. So that's one path of getting – of a young or small or new entrant company getting their products and technologies and audience in front of people at the Pentagon. There is another path, and that other path is to have a finished product that's ready to go, not still under development, and to get it in the hands of actual users in real-world exercises. And that is what we have just done with both ID Mass and with PCC6. It is not a matter of having some really smart technologists and some business people take a look at a venture capital type of approach to developing new product technology. Rather, it is actually getting your product and technology in the hands of warfighters, let them get real world experience with it and evaluate it, and then develop a report that says to the operating units and to the buyers and the acquisition people and the requirements writers, hey this is something we've actually got our hands on in the field we've used it and either we like it or we don't like it or here's where it can improve or or whatever but they give a full written evaluation so what we've just announced this morning with the with the press release right before this call and what we talked about uh in in in uh in past press releases is our success at real world battlefield condition exercises not demos that we control we do a training we We train the team that's going to be using it, or multiple teams. We give them the technology. We give them the drones. And they go out like they're on the battlefield. They are on the battlefield. And they do exercises using our products. And we have no ability to control it once it's in their hands. So it is not kind of a, you know, it's not a constrained set of environments. And these are generally soldiers that may or may not have any drone experience. They certainly don't have any experience with autonomous systems. And part of what we get evaluated on is can soldiers without a lot of training or experience actually learn it? How challenging is it? Can they use it? Can they accomplish the intended mission? And we have been gratified that at every turn and every exercise that we've been in, We've gotten great feedback that we're under-promising and over-delivering. We're delivering what we told them we would deliver, and that is resulting in getting invited to more exercises with different and diverse groups of potential users. And I would say our reputation is spreading in a very organic way across different units. So a couple of different paths that you can go. we have opted to go for the one that says we're no longer in a kind of a bake-off. We're just in real world execution. Does that make sense? Yep. Yep.

Awesome.

Thank you.

And then I guess as you look to the third quarter here, you know, it seems like there could be a really heavy sweeps sort of period here. And, you know, I think Ike says, talked about spending a lot of money, you know, kind of through fiscal year end. I mean, does it feel like this quarter could be another healthy booking score or even better than the second given up?

It's premature. When you talk about the cleanup money that's available, it's a little bit like watching a game of musical chairs. And everybody, we, our peers, everybody that's in the defense industry is hoping to go capture some of that. So much of it depends on who's actually got access to what capital, what that individual group's priorities are. So I'm hopeful, but I wouldn't yet say that I'm at the position of saying I have any degree of confidence in it, because until it happens, you don't really know, meaning until the music stops, you don't know who's got a chair.

Sure, sure. Makes sense. I guess the last one for me on IAI, you know, they have those three products. Are there any sense of, you know, would a customer buy all three? Is there more interest in one?

Just curious, any feelers there? different uh customers have different use cases and missions um and so when you think about uh perhaps uh the the what what folks are trying to do to deal with longer range and longer distances um you are talking about the bigger platforms the hair up in the harpy if you were talking about perhaps launching from a vessel to try and destroy another vessel or launching from shore and you're not trying to go very far to hit a target, you might be talking about the mini harpy. And you realize, I mean, every potential customer purchaser has their own specific reason to exist and their own mission and use case. So what is uncommon is to have a single customer say, I need all three, because that's just, they generally are operating in different environments with different purposes. But, but if you want to talk about a customer being, let's say the U.S. Army, sure, you can see the U.S. Army buying all three, absolutely. But when you get down to specific groups, that's where the mission set bifurcates a bit.

Yeah, that sounds okay. Cool. Thanks a lot. Thank you.

And our next question comes from Adam Samuelson with Jefferies. Please proceed with your question.

Yes, thank you. Good morning, everyone. I guess for me, I want to just hone in on the cash burn and outlook for the balance of the year. Obviously, you've got an outlook that has improved revenue, at least on average, in the second half each quarter. How do we think about that scaling into the cash line versus margin versus working capital, kind of other operating expenses? I'm just trying to think about the kind of base cash spend for underlying the business and how that can kind of scale into cash flow prospectively on greater revenues as we think about 2027. seven. Thanks.

Trevor, you want to respond to that?

Yeah. Yeah. So, I mean, we talked about reiterating our guidance for the year. And if you do the math to hit those numbers in the back half, cash burns about $12 million is what we're anticipating. There is some CapEx built into that that we're going to use strategically there. But we do see, you know, with the revenue trending up and more margin dropping to the bottom, that cash flow does go down and that cash burn requirement goes down. So, you know, we have quite a bit of capacity, both from a manufacturing standpoint and from a, you know, product standpoint when we start getting into our AI software opportunities to be able to scale the business without having to add a lot of costs. So, you know, we're optimistic about seeing that trend down and still, you know, with some planned investment in the business being able to significantly get below what the trend has been in the first half, in the second half.

Okay. And maybe just along those lines of the $24 million of backlog, can you share, is there a proportion of that that's actually software-related revenue or software licenses? and so that would presumably carry very high incremental gross margins?

So the backlog composition that we see going forward is roughly, and this is just kind of very rough, it's about 50% from product sales, which means our precision components and our avionics. Avionics are higher margin, the precision components a little lower margin, And then roughly in the range of about 30% relating to our software. Now, I want to caution you, most of the revenues that we have coming in from software right now relate to trial contracts and development contracts with the military that have not yet transitioned into high-volume licenses. but it does show that we've got you know a fair bit of software related backlog it is a good margin business but it's not the kind of 85 margins that we will expect to be getting when we start just selling you know sending out copies of that software in high volume and then the balance of our backlog is in the engineering services side of the business okay that's um

that's very helpful uh color i'll pass it on thank you our next question comes from brian Kinslinger with Alliance Global Partners. Please proceed with your question.

Great. Thank you. With the successful results at IVMASS and PCC6, can you talk about the next steps in the sales cycle as the end customer gets educated and sees these positive results? And how should we think about these events turning into production orders?

Yeah, two different parts of it there, Brian, because we've got both hardware and software that are being used in these exercises. You know, as I try and look at my cloudy crystal ball, what I believe will happen is reports will be from each of these exercises will be aggregated and accumulated by the folks that are both writing requirements for new programs and contracts and also by the purchasers, the folks that actually spend the money and as the need for on the software side the need for autonomous solutions and swarming solutions continues to percolate up I think that we will wind up with ultimately having and I don't think when I say ultimately I don't think we're talking about years away I think we're talking about months away solicitations come out that start to define requirements that look a lot like what is being trialed in the field with our software. And so then the requirements come out, we respond, and hopefully we get downselected and we wind up getting the contract. We have been asked about how we could retrofit our software on drones that have already been deployed to units in the field and the numbers of drones that they're talking about are not small numbers, they're pretty sizable numbers, starts becoming an interesting logistics question about how do you actually then get our software onto drones that are already in the field and distribute across a lot of people and a lot of users. And just because I've been asked or we've been asked doesn't mean that that's going to translate into a contract. But it shows you the kind of thought that's now going into trying to deliver this kind of capability on a broader base. So that's the software side. On the Gremlin X side, I believe that in the relatively near term, we will probably start getting some inquiries about volumes that we could deliver both in terms of time and cost. And when I say volumes, I think it's going to, my guess is it will start with relatively modest numbers, hundreds of units, not thousands. But I think that the awareness of the need for a mini bomber solution is now starting to spread. As you may recall, we originally submitted our mini bomber as a solution for one of the original drone dominance programs. We weren't selected because we submitted something that did not meet the requirements. As far as I know, we're the only one submitted a mini bomber type of solution for a low cost, cost per effect or cost per kill. And lo and behold, now we have a solicitation that comes out specifically for mini bombers. And so I think our message is resonating. And I think that as awareness of the cost effective nature, low cost per effect that a mini bomber can deliver, I think there will be increasing demand and opportunities for that. So that's all to say, I think we're just at the cusp of getting to the point where we can start seeing volume coming into business on both the software and the drone side.

Great. I have one follow-up related to that. You highlighted you have 20 proposals submitted worth several hundred million dollars.

Can you speak to is this hardware mostly because it sounds like the software is a little bit further out in terms of procurement or maybe just characterize you know how that uh how that proposal activity uh you know kind of can be characterized i think most of most of the biggest dollars there brian are combined hardware and software uh solutions um meaning one of the things that make we think makes our hardware solutions more compelling and attractive is because of the inherent capability of jointly developing the hardware and the software in tandem we've talked about that's why we got back into the hardware business because having systems designed from the ground up that can be optimized from a sensor and compute perspective to be able to leverage our AI capabilities delivers a whole different category of capabilities to the warfighter. And I think, I think, you know, I don't have numbers in front of me, Brian, but I think the vast majority of, I shouldn't say vast majority, a majority of the, of those numbers represented and reflected by what I've mentioned in terms of size are combined to complete systems that incorporate both our hardware and our software.

Thanks so much. Thank you, Brian.

Our next question comes from James Kistner with Water Tower Research. Please proceed with your question.

Thanks for taking my question. So I just want to talk a little more about PCC-6. Congrats again on that. You advanced pretty rapidly there from the rehearsal to a larger event. Do you see more kind of what you learned, you know, from operating in that kind of faster, you know, bigger environment, you know, in general or more or less?

You know, some of the takeaways were that we really can get a single soldier to have the mental capacity to be able to focus on those things that really matter that's going on in the battlefield environment and not have to try and micromanage the operations. of each individual drone. We knew we could do it from a technology perspective, but until you have a soldier with limited experience with drones actually get their hands on it, you don't know that it really proves out. And we saw no limitations on the number of drones that we could fly or the number of drones that a fairly inexperienced soldier could actually manage. So that, from a scaling perspective and from an overall capability perspective, was extremely encouraging for us. Some of the things that we learned, little things, like we learned that if comms is degraded or challenged, which is real world experiences, that our system worked as advertised. That sounds like a little thing, but given the fact that you never know what's going to happen to comms degradation on the battlefield, that was an important thing for us to not just be able to have demonstrated ourselves and be satisfied, but to actually have the military see it in action. So it sounds like a small thing, but it's really a big deal. We learned a bit about how to best train new people to the system. We compressed the training time so that you can get more people using the system faster. We got some good feedback about what they'd like to see on the user interface. And we were given a challenge, again, to integrate with, integrate with Anduril's Lattice, and we were challenged to do that in a very short period of time, going from basically a standing position to 60 miles an hour with that, and we did that well. So a lot of great learnings that reinforced our assumptions, but you never know until you're in the field and giving it a try.

Yeah, that's, that 30-minute stat is pretty impressive. You know, I guess more broadly, you know, it seems like that hardware-independent multi-vendor approach is resonating, you know, at PCC6, you know, just as the Army moves towards these larger feats of autonomous systems, like how durable an advantage do you think it is that vendor neutrality versus the kind of closed single platform ecosystem?

You know, the mantra at the Pentagon right now is certainly open architecture, not being trapped or beholden to any particular vendor, contractor, or system. And so I think it plays well. And then you get into the real world applications, you know, when you have a number of different units from a number of different divisions or even services that are all trying to collaborate and cooperate to accomplish a mission on the battlefield, as you know, I mean, you can see how many different vendors are providing drones to the military today. Lots of them, right? They're buying from a lot of different sources. Well, how do those drones communicate with one another when you've got, you know, company A providing drones to this unit and company B providing drones to that unit, and we're really missing an opportunity to enable full across-the-board collaboration. Our software enables that to happen, so I think it is a big deal. I don't think that the military will ever want it to be just one provider of that kind of capability for the reasons we just talked about. They don't want to be beholden to anybody, but we're there and we're doing it, and I think that gives us a lot of a lot of room to run with this with this software suite right last follow-up on that i mean so you've now integrated a number of manufacturers aircraft here um including an enduro so um is it fair to say like bringing a new platform on is getting faster and more repeatable at this point yeah we certainly have have learned a lot along the way but it really depends on the the oem themselves and the architecture for the drone that they've got. I mean, we are in the process right now of integrating with our first fixed-wing platform. Everything else has been a rotor platform. And we're learning a lot. The architecture on that drone is just different than what we've dealt with before. When you think about the altitude that those fly at and the sensors that they have and the compute they have, things are different. And so I wish it was as simple to say, all right, well, we used to do it in two weeks and now we can get it down to one week. It's just not that easy because there's not a lot of consistency in the different components that all have to, that our software has to touch and manage. So we're understanding a lot more about what questions to ask and what to get nailed down before we begin the process. But it's still, you know, it can range from two to four weeks and a couple of people doing it full-time to get an integration done from our current knowledge very helpful coloring congrats thank you thank you once again if you would like to ask a question please press star one on your telephone keypad and our next question comes from ralph wheel please proceed with your

question good morning and uh those good results are you involved or trying to become involved it all in the Golden Dome program? And if so, which of your products would fit into that? And the second question would be, your StratFi program is now, as you said, at $10.6 million. What is the potential market for that product that is used there? And where will your capabilities be used?

Ralph, good morning. On Golden Dome, the primary focus for Golden Dome right now is on larger, more exquisite weapon systems to be able to intercept big things that are coming in, big weapons. There certainly, I believe, will be an opportunity for us to talk about ways that we can deal with smaller enemy form factors, things like the smaller Group 1 drones that may become problematic. But right now, I think that The really big focus and the big dollars are, for example, trying to use space-based assets to take missiles out of the sky. That's not us. We don't play in that sector. But as kind of it trickles down and they start looking at more local and regional, effectively, domes, where you're talking about dealing with the interception of smaller weapons that are coming in, I think we may have an opportunity to play there. but that's not Golden Dome's priority today. In terms of our stratify contract, that relates primarily to our IQ product, which is our industrial manufacturing artificial intelligence platform. I mentioned in my comments that that is primarily focused on doing the kind of challenging work that humans have historically had to do because you are not able to automate at things like doing paint stripping and surface preparation for large components on aircraft. That's the thing that we're doing with the Air Force right now. And if you look at the total market for that, not just military market, but the market for being able to substitute automated and autonomous machines for doing the kinds of dangerous and awful jobs that humans don't really want to do anyway, but that have historically been too challenging to be able to automate. It is a very large TAM. I mean, it is, you know, globally, it's billions of dollars. So it is a big market opportunity for us. Our focus now is on trying to go deep in individual verticals where we have gotten some success. So what we refer to as a land and expand approach, start off showing customers what we can do in a narrow targeted use case, and inevitably, as we're already seeing, they start asking questions about, well, now that I've seen that it can do this, can it do that and that and that and that. So that's our land and expand approach. We introduced the version two of the software at the beginning of this year. We've had great engagement with customers and systems integrators to do trials. And we expect to start seeing more placements of that software over the second half of this year.

Is that it?

That does conclude our question and answer session. Thank you all for your participation today. This concludes today's teleconference. You may disconnect your lines and have a wonderful day.