The Next Generation C-sUAS Missile project comes as the U.S. and other nations are pursuing lasers, microwaves and other alternatives to kinetic anti-drone weapons, such as missiles and cannon, which are seen as too expensive and in short supply.

The Army wants to quickly develop an “extended-range, quick-response missile to defeat Group 2 and Group 3 small Unmanned Aircraft System (sUAS) threats,” according to the Army’s Sources Sought notice. The deadline is August 20.

The initial specifications are for a missile that can intercept a drone flying at 6 kilometers altitude, at a range of more than 16 kilometers. The ultimate goal is to destroy drones flying 8 kilometers high, at a range of more than 25 kilometers. Missile guidance would be via a radar seeker.

NGCM appears intended as a step up — but still compatible — with the Army’s Coyote C-UAS missile system.

“The Army is looking for NGCM to be produced and integrated into the existing Coyote Launch System to provide extended range, rapid launch time, and reduced time-to-target over current effectors,” the notice said.

The weapon is intended to stop Group 2 and 3 drones. Group 2 drones have a maximum gross takeoff weight of 21 to 55 pounds, fly below 3,500 feet and have a speed of less than 250 knots, according to the Department of Defense’s UAV classification system. This includes models such as Boeing’s ScanEagle. Group 3 drones, such as Insitu’s RQ-21 Blackjack, have a takeoff weight under 1,320 pounds and fly below 18,000 feet at a speed of less than 250 knots.

The NGCM missile should take less than five seconds to leave the launcher after the operator gives the fire command.

“The missile must be compatible with the Coyote Launcher with minimal to no modifications,” the notice said.

In addition, the missile must also fit with existing air defense systems, including the Sentinel A3/A4, LTAMDS and TPQ-53 radars.

The Army envisions the NGCM missile system in two versions. The fixed-site version would be equipped with a variety of sensors. A mobile version would be “mounted on tactical vehicles for employment at the halt and on-the-move, providing a scalable capability at the tactical edge.”

The Army is aiming for Technology Readiness Level 7 — prototype testing in the field — by the end of fiscal 2027. Contractors will need to have 50 missiles ready for operational assessment by the beginning of 2028.

Significantly, the Army desires missiles costing less than $150,000 apiece as part of a bulk purchase of 5,000 missiles. While that’s a bargain compared to a $4 million Patriot air-defense missile, critics may still question the economics: An Iranian Shahed-136 drone costs around $35,000.

That’s one reason for the drive to develop anti-drone lasers that, theoretically, cost only pennies per shot. On the other hand, missiles can function in bad weather that disrupts laser beams.

The missiles are principally the Army’s surface-to-surface weapons, known as Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS) and Precision Strike Missiles (PrSM). The U.S. has used “virtually all” of these weapons, according to two of the sources.

The degree to which the military is running out of ATACMS and Precision Strike Missiles has not been previously reported.

The long-range munitions are an important part of the military’s arsenal, allowing accurate strikes from a safe distance. U.S.-supplied ATACMS have played a key role in the war in Ukraine, allowing Ukrainian forces to attack targets inside Russia. The PrSM is a newer, more advanced generation that will replace the ATACMS, which have a shorter range.

Analysts say such weapons — which cost over $1 million each — would also be important in any conflict with China.

The sources declined to say how many of each munition the U.S. had left.

President Donald Trump launched the Iran war jointly with Israel in February, predicting that the conflict would last a short time.

But as the war drags on, the three people familiar with the matter expressed worry that the falling missile supplies could limit the U.S. ability to deter adversaries, including Russia and China.

A fourth person familiar with the matter said that while Central Command — which oversees U.S. forces in the Middle East — has nearly used up the land-based missiles it had before the war began, it has been able to reload from U.S. military supplies elsewhere in the world.

The sources interviewed for this story spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Asked for comment on the stockpile data, the White House issued a statement from Trump, saying the U.S. had “far more munitions than anyone in the world” and “far more than we need.”

“Our defense companies are, at this moment, making more munitions than they have ever made before, in addition to expanding their plants and equipment at record levels,” Trump said.

Analysts agree that certain munitions, including artillery shells and several types of missiles, are being produced at record levels but caution that supplies might far short of what is needed for a prolonged war.

Lockheed Martin, which makes the ATACMs and PrSMs, along with the anti-ballistic missile THAAD system, did not immediately respond to questions about Trump’s statements or about supply levels.

Raytheon, which makes Tomahawk missiles and Patriot interceptors, two important U.S. weapons, also did not immediately respond.

Responding to a request for comment, chief Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell said: “America’s military is the most powerful in the world and has everything it needs to execute at the time and place of the President’s choosing. We have executed multiple successful operations across combatant commands while ensuring the U.S. military possesses a deep arsenal of capabilities to protect our people and our interests.”

The supply figures have circulated inside the federal government over the last week during tense conversations inside the Trump administration about how much longer the U.S. can continue striking Iran without drawing down the stockpile to levels that would limit the military’s ability to respond to crises elsewhere.

WARNINGS OVER WEAPONS SUPPLIES

One of the sources said the drawdown of the ATACMS and PrSM stockpiles reflected a decision by the Trump administration to avoid riskier ways of attacking Iranian targets, such as by using piloted aircraft to drop bombs.

Because these weapons allow the military to attack targets from a distance, analysts say they would be valuable in a war against an adversary with strong air defenses, such as China.

They have been used to strike targets inside Iran, according to a March report by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).

According to the report, PrSM stockpiles were low to start with, since it is a relatively new munition, but the U.S. military has ordered a large number of them for 2027. The Army has said that ATACMS are being phased out and that production is shifting to the newer PrSM missiles.

Military leaders have for weeks warned the president that stockpiles of defensive weapons — including Patriot interceptors, which are effective against ballistic missiles — were dwindling, said two of the sources.

Last week, several media outlets reported Trump had decided not to launch another massive offensive inside Iran in part because his military advisers had warned about the U.S. stockpile.

A U.S. official disputed those accounts, saying Trump chose not to move forward with another attack because of pressure from Gulf states.

The Middle East conflict has sparked intense debate about Trump’s authority to prosecute hostilities against Iran without congressional authorization. No request for a declaration of war or an authorization to use military force has been submitted to Congress.

DEFENSIVE WEAPON STOCKS ARE ALSO DIMINISHED

Last week, CSIS published a report estimating that between February and July about 65% of Patriot interceptors had been expended and that the number of THAAD ballistic missile interceptors in U.S. stockpiles was at least 38% lower than at the start of the war.

Patriots and THAADs are systems that detect and destroy incoming missiles and are among the most effective in the country’s arsenal.

While Reuters has not seen the supply figures, those numbers match internal U.S. data, two of the sources said.

The U.S. also burned through a little less than half of its global supply of Tomahawk cruise missiles, which are generally launched from ships, since the start of the war, one of the sources said.

Reuters could not independently verify that number.

The Tomahawk is a Navy weapon, launched from destroyers, cruisers and submarines, and has long served as the sea service’s principal means of striking heavily defended targets without risking pilots.

Raytheon, a unit of RTX, has reached a tentative multi-year agreement with the Pentagon aimed at boosting Tomahawk production, alongside increases in other munitions, as Washington races to rebuild stockpiles.

After decades of relying on the U.S.-made Patriot interceptor system and its hit-to-kill PAC-3 munition as the most proven air defense against ballistic missiles, three new tracks are now leveraging international cooperation and a dire global need to develop and manufacture cheaper interceptor platforms.

Some officials, meanwhile, are hoping the sense of urgency leads to the fielding of the first new prototypes by the end of 2026 — years faster than today’s Patriots can be made.

It’s an ambitious ask.

The missile defense world has long described the mechanics behind anti-ballistic defense as akin to hitting a bullet out of the sky with another bullet, multiplied in difficulty by the number of simultaneous air threats coming in — a stark reminder of the mass air raids seen today in Iran and Ukraine that stretch air defenses to the breaking point.

Today’s anti-ballistic momentum began with U.S. President Donald Trump’s seemingly off-the-cuff comment at the NATO summit in Ankara earlier this month, when he pledged to grant Ukraine permission to produce Patriot missiles for the first time.

“We’re going to give a license to you to make Patriots. That’s pretty cool. This way, you can’t complain that we’re not giving ‘em enough,” Trump said, adding that the companies that make the system’s components, primarily Lockheed Martin, had not yet been consulted on the plan.

Five days later, Ukraine and nine European countries launched a coalition in Paris to field Freyja, an entirely new anti-ballistic system centered on a Ukrainian interceptor priced at roughly one-fifth of a Patriot round.

A week after that, Lockheed Martin unveiled a cheaper, faster-to-produce Patriot missile of its own. And on Wednesday, the company announced the Pentagon had awarded it another $53.86 billion for PAC-3 production, bringing its multiyear deal up to $58.62 billion and aiming to triple production capacity by the end of 2030.

The new anti-ballistics arms race has manifested largely as a result of the munitions shortage created by the U.S.-Israeli war with Iran, during which American forces have fired at least 1,060 to 1,430 Patriots at roughly $3.9 million apiece, draining an estimated two-thirds of America’s pre-war Patriot inventory, according to a new analysis by the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

The diminished stockpile is compounded by the ongoing war in Ukraine, where ballistic missiles are the only threat Kyiv still needs help taking down and the one munition it has completely run out of.

With three new anti-ballistic tracks opened in July alone, NATO and its allies are aiming to shore up air defenses as quickly as possible.

Here is where the primary Patriot interceptor stands, and how the three new alternative pathways in the arms race stack up.

The standard: The Patriot interceptor

The Patriot, the U.S.-made gold standard of ground-based air defense, pairs a radar, a command post and launchers with two families of interceptor missiles, each fielded in several variants.

Lockheed Martin builds the PAC-3 MSE, the hit-to-kill round that rams ballistic missiles out of the sky, while Raytheon, which also makes the Patriot’s radars and ground systems, builds the older PAC-2 GEM-T, a round that explodes near its target and works best against aircraft and cruise missiles.

The MSE is the only Western munition that has reliably killed Russian ballistic missiles — from Iskanders to modified S-300s — in Ukrainian service. It has even downed the air-launched Kinzhal, which flies at hypersonic speeds.

That record is why the Pentagon on Wednesday awarded Lockheed a multiyear deal now worth up to $58.62 billion to triple production capacity by the end of 2030. Today, each round costs roughly $3.9 million.

“This is a once-in-a-generation moment, and we are moving with wartime urgency to deliver the Arsenal of Freedom,” Lockheed chairman and CEO Jim Taiclet said in a statement.

The grant: Ukrainian PAC-3s under US license

Trump’s pledge in Turkey would make Ukraine only the second country outside the U.S. licensed to build Patriot missiles, after Japan, which has produced them under license for decades.

Germany, the Netherlands and Spain are only now standing up a joint production line. Berlin is negotiating a license of its own and Germany’s existing GEM-T work runs through a joint venture with Raytheon rather than a national license, according to The Associated Press.

The license under discussion for Kyiv would likely cover the missiles — rather than complete batteries — and could mean final assembly from imported component kits instead of production from scratch, the AP reported.

Poland has offered to host the joint production on its territory for safety and security reasons, according to Polish news agency PAP.

“It is about securing this production, so that this production takes place in a safe location,” Polish Deputy Defense Minister Magdalena Sobkowiak-Czarnecka said in Washington on July 23.

Zelenskyy said he met with Lockheed Martin representatives while visiting the U.S. for Sen. Lindsey Graham’s funeral on July 28, posting on Telegram that “Our teams are already working on specific solutions to move to joint production as soon as possible.”

The cost of the licensed PAC-3, meanwhile, would stay the same at close $4 million per round.

Yehor Chernev, deputy chairman of the Rada’s committee on national security, defense and intelligence, estimates Ukraine needs at least 18 to 24 months to launch a first pilot production line, “followed by more time to complete the first weapons,” per The Associated Press.

Zelenskyy is pushing for even faster joint production.

“We expect that by the end of 2026, our Ukrainian team will have the technical capability to produce U.S. missiles,” he said on July 15.

The analogue: Freyja

Freyja is a full Patriot-style anti-ballistic system that includes an interceptor, launcher, radar and command-and-control network.

The system, designed by Kyiv startup Fire Point, is built around its FP-7.X interceptor missile and various capabilities supplied by European partners.

Zelenskyy called Freyja “an analogue of Patriot, but a system for more mass production and a cheaper system.”

His comments came as he formally launched the Integrated Anti-Ballistic Missile Coalition in Paris on July 13 alongside nine other countries, including Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom.

The FP-7.X flew for the first time in early June and is built to kill ballistic targets at roughly 15 miles up using a high-explosive fragmentation warhead rather than the PAC-3’s hit-to-kill collision — which may come in later versions — at a target price of approximately $700,000 per interceptor, or roughly one-fifth the price of a PAC-3.

The company says it will build three interceptors a day starting in August. Zelenskyy wants the system up and running within 12 months, and the coalition is targeting its first real ballistic intercept for the end of 2027.

“We have an ambitious goal: to have an MVP ready by the first half of next year,” Davyd Aloian, deputy secretary of Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council, told Reuters on July 27. “That is a prototype that can already demonstrate its first practical results.”

The Lockheed cost-cutter: PAC-3 ACE

Lockheed unveiled the PAC-3 Adapted Capability Effector, or ACE, at the Farnborough International Airshow on July 20.

Built on the PAC-3’s fire-control system and fully linked to the Patriot and the Integrated Battle Command System that allied air defenders already run, it is designed to counter airbreathing threats — meaning weapons that rely on oxygen for propulsion — along with cruise missiles and close- and short-range ballistic missiles, a tier below the high-end targets the MSE was built to counter.

“American and allied warfighters need a solution that is battle-tested and budget-smart, and PAC-3 ACE delivers exactly that by building on the unrivaled performance of the PAC-3 MSE,” Tim Cahill, president of Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control, said in the announcement.

Lockheed says it will develop and produce the round jointly with American and European industry partners.

International manufacturing is also under consideration, with the munition’s first flight expected in early 2028.

The company advertises ACE at less than half the price of an MSE, or roughly $2 million a round, without disclosing an exact figure.

The exercise brought Army aviators and experts together in May at Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, to test virtual versions of the MV-75’s cockpit, according to a Thursday release, which said the feedback will be incorporated into the aircraft’s design ahead of its first flight and ultimate delivery to the 101st Airborne Division.

The service’s new tiltrotor aircraft — named in honor of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe and the Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribe — was designed for use in the Pacific theater. The Army has sped up its development timeline and announced in April that the 101st Combat Aviation Brigade of Fort Campbell, Kentucky, is expected to field the MV-75 in 2027.

Chief Warrant Officer 2 Julian Dilg, a UH-60 pilot who participated in the weeklong exercise, said there was a noticeable cockpit change from current aircraft.

“The displays are inherently different, so we were able to work together and bounce ideas off of each other and gain insight,” he said in the release.

The collaboration was critical for the participants to “find enough common ground to work with in order to decide what changes needed to be made to display the information needed to fly it most effectively,” Chief Warrant Officer 2 Jordan Brooks, a CH-47 pilot, said in the release.

Army and Bell engineers have begun incorporating the feedback into the aircraft’s cockpit design by adjusting display symbols, improving menu navigation and improving alerting. One recommendation prompted by the exercise was the push to group power and performance data together, a change they said would make decisions easier, per the release.

The evaluation comes as militaries prepare for future battlespaces defined by drones and inundated with data. Future pilots may be expected to contend with fleets of unmanned aircraft and sensors in a crowded airspace, meaning they will have to process unprecedented amounts of information.

The U.S. has supplied large quantities of ‌weapons to allies while also using munitions in its own military operations in Iran, raising concerns about inventories of key air defense and precision-guided weapons.

The Lockheed award converts a previous one-year deal worth $4.7 billion awarded in April into a seven-year draft agreement, creating a multiyear procurement plan for the interceptors from fiscal 2026 through 2032, the Army said.

Pentagon negotiators ​are pressing contractors to move much faster, with tentative production agreements struck earlier this year at the center of efforts to increase missile output. The administration of President Donald Trump has also steadily increased pressure on defense contractors to prioritize production over shareholder payouts. Trump signed an executive order in January to identify contractors deemed to be underperforming on government contracts while continuing to distribute profits to shareholders.

Industry executives have welcomed the production agreements, but said Congress must first appropriate funding before companies can invest more heavily in components and production capacity.

Exact terms and delivery dates for many Pentagon munitions deals are still under negotiation.

A similar framework deal had been struck with Raytheon’s parent company RTX to boost production of Tomahawk cruise missiles from the current rate of about 60 per year for the U.S. to eventually 1,000 units annually.

Lockheed, a Bethesda, Maryland-based defense contractor, said the funding would allow it to follow through on a promise to triple PAC-3 MSE production capacity by the end of 2030 and increase jobs at its Camden, Arkansas, plant by 50%, to about 1,850 from 1,200. Lockheed previously announced Patriot PAC-3 missile interceptor production would go to 2,000 units annually.

Lockheed Martin said it is investing $8 billion to $9 billion through 2030 to modernize more than 20 U.S. facilities, including new munitions centers in Alabama and Arkansas.

PAC-3 MSE is a hit-to-kill interceptor used within the Patriot air defense system to counter ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and aircraft.

The Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington-based think tank, estimated this week that the U.S. military has fewer than 1,000 Patriot interceptors on hand and fewer than 250 THAAD interceptors — two key air defense systems. Both have seen recent heavy use in the Middle East.

The Defense Department has put out a solicitation for robot boats that are capable of launching small attack drones — with technology mature enough to be deployed to the field within 120 days.

The goal for the Suitable Warfighting Adaptive Payloads, or SWAP-USV, project is to find “mature, market-ready [unmanned surface vessels] fully integrated with two or more mature, market-ready aerial drones to detect, identify, track, and defeat hostile threats,” according to the Defense Innovation Unit solicitation. The call out set a response deadline of Aug. 10.

To make this happen, DIU created a year-long contest backed by $100 million in prize money. DIU wants to “partner with established maritime manufacturers, autonomy developers, sensor manufacturers, and UAS developers to execute a multi-phase Prize Challenge.”

The SWAP-USV project is billed as a solution to a problem that has also plagued missile and drone defense on land: the economics favor the offense.

“The cost-exchange ratio for detecting and neutralizing asymmetric maritime threats in contested environments is heavily skewed in favor of the adversary,” the DIU solicitation states. Nor can the U.S. military continue to rely “on exquisite, multi-million-dollar naval and aviation assets to intercept these inexpensive targets.”

The solicitation paints the picture of a drone boat that can carry, launch and control at least two small UAVs. The UAVs together should be capable of conducting kinetic strikes with a combined payload of at least 2 kilograms, or just over 4 pounds.

DIU wants a mix of recoverable and one-way attack drones that can patrol ocean, coastal and riverine waters, and loiter on station. The drones, according to the solicitation, should “support one or more operational effects, including ISR, comms relay, electronic warfare, payload delivery, or precision engagement of moving or stationary, as applicable, under operator command.”

The Pentagon also wants the system to be mobile enough to fit into a standard cargo container, on road trailers or on C-17 and C-130 transports.

“Solutions that can launch from unimproved locations or provide additional launch flexibility, i.e. remotely from a container, will be looked upon favorably,” DIU noted, adding that the UAVs should be “technically mature and have an established production line.”

Interestingly, among the maritime threats the DIU solicitation cites are “‘go-fast’ smuggling boats, and semi-submersibles.” Drug cartels have used semi-submersibles to transport contraband from South America to the U.S., and such pseudo-submarines are hard to detect.

The SWAP-USV project calls for robot craft capable of “autonomous surveillance and interdiction of defined maritime operating areas, maximizing operational coverage, probability of detection, interdiction effectiveness, and time on station while minimizing daily operating cost, logistics burden, and required personnel.”

The surveillance elements of the solicitation state that the drone boat must be able to “autonomously follow or shadow a vessel of interest, and autonomously intercept a noncooperative, maneuvering vessel. Autonomous execution of these functions is desired but not required.”

The SWAP-USV Challenge, meanwhile, comprises three “sprints,” or phases, each with separate prize money. To sweeten the pot further, companies that pass the test in each phase will be eligible for procurement contracts backed by a $200 million budget.

Sprint 1 calls for in-water testing in fall 2026, with a goal of deploying a system in the field within 120 days.

“Solutions must include a complete mission ready USV with integrated drone capability system available for testing and evaluation within 29 days of down-selection for Sprint 1,” the solicitation specified. There will be $40 million in prize money.

Sprint 2 will have a fall 2026 deadline and in-water testing in early 2027, with the focus on “expanded payloads, upgraded autonomy, and multi-vendor integrations.” The prize money for that timeframe will also be $40 million.

Sprint 3 will take submissions in early 2027, with in-water testing in summer 2027. The goals of this phase will be announced later, but there will be $20 million in prizes.

Companies must specify which phase they want to join. “The government reserves the right to assign applicants to [Sprint] cohorts based on technical and manufacturing maturity,” the solicitation noted.

The service on June 30 awarded firm-fixed-price Other Transaction Agreements to Ford, GM Defense and BC Customs, the Army confirmed Tuesday. Each company will deliver three Infantry Squad Vehicle-Heavy, or ISV-H, models, with the first expected by March 30, 2027. The six-seat platforms will then be tested with the Army Test and Evaluation Command.

The Wall Street Journal first reported the awards on Monday.

Military Times requested the dollar amounts of the contracts, but the Army did not specify the cost.

In a Commercial Solutions Opening, or CSO, published in April, the Army posted that it was looking for vehicles capable of carrying a 4,000-pound payload, towing a 6,500-pound trailer and supporting large power requirements. The service wants its new ISV-H able to export 60 kW of continuous high-voltage DC power — an immense load — so soldiers can operate counter drone systems, electronic warfare, directed energy weapons and more.

The Army also wants the vehicle to be rechargeable — able to replenish its power to 90% within six hours — in conditions ranging from extreme cold that dips to -25 degrees Fahrenheit to intense heat climbing to 130 degrees.

The Army is preparing for autonomous operations, with desired specifications like architecture already in place for “drive-by-wire.” It also wants rotating rear seats and “ergonomic mobile workstations,” as well as rear seating that can be quickly configured — without tools — to hold a litter for evacuations.

The current Infantry Squad Vehicle, built by GM Defense, was designed to quickly move nine soldiers through landscapes that were dangerous or impractical to use other military vehicles.

The Army’s fiscal 2027 budget request, released in April, calls for purchasing an initial 34 ISV-H vehicles at an estimated cost of $463,000 per truck, with a long-term goal to buy 606 vehicles.

In a June Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, Jess Tolleson, principal deputy assistant secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology, said the ISV-H needs to fill a power-generation shortfall.

“One of the things that we do have a critical capability gap on right now is power generation at that mobile brigade combat team level,” he said.

GM Defense had not responded to a Military Times inquiry at the time of publication but previously said on social media that it was optimizing a Chevrolet Silverado 3500HD truck.

Ford, in a Tuesday statement regarding the contract, said its Super Duty trucks are well suited for military applications but did not provide further details on the specifications. Breaking Defense on Monday reported Ford would be using its F-Series pickup truck.

In a call on Tuesday, BC Customs chief operating officer, Dave Baringer, said the company was uniquely able to create an endlessly modify-able, “purpose-driven, ground-up vehicle.” He also said BC Customs was working in cooperation with Raglan, a company that will handle the electronic infrastructure of the prototypes. Baringer declined to discuss the timeline or contract amount.

The Army’s quest for a vehicle that can produce powerful amounts of energy comes amid its push to field more energy-directed weapons on lighter tactical vehicles.

The service has already operationally tested AeroVironment’s 20-kilowatt LOCUST laser aboard both the Infantry Squad Vehicle and Joint Light Tactical Vehicle through its Multi-Purpose High Energy Laser effort.

But this time, the Pentagon is in a hurry. The Iran war has exposed the problem of relying on costly long-range missiles such as the Tomahawk. To remedy that, DoD is putting out a call for long-range, autonomously guided Ground-Based Affordable Mass, or GBAM, weapons that cost less than $250,000 apiece.

The Pentagon also wants the GBAM munitions to be ready for demonstration within three months, and full-scale production within 18 months.

The goal of the GBAM initiative is to supplement expensive smart munitions with “affordable, scalable long-range effects, and “enable commanders to service a broader target set, preserve exquisite munitions for their intended purpose, and sustain operational tempo throughout a prolonged conflict.”

To facilitate that, the Defense Innovation Unit has created the GBAM Challenge. Contestants will pitch ideas in the form of a pitch deck or white paper, with a deadline of Aug. 5.

Winning teams will be invited to a Phase II flight demonstration at a government test site in early November, where they will give a 30-minute presentation — and get a $250,000 cash prize.

The top Phase II contenders may receive up to $5 million “to immediately deliver operational test quantities to units.” They may also be eligible for other funds, including Prototype Other Transaction agreements, follow-on production contracts and Small Business Innovation Research awards.

“In total, the government has budgeted up to $250 million to support prize execution and follow-on transition activities associated with this effort,” DIU pointed out.

However, grabbing that pot of gold will require much work. For starters, the timeline is tight. The Pentagon wants “mature, affordable, long-range precision strike systems that can be demonstrated within 60 to 90 days, certified, and scaled into production within 12 to 18 months.”

DIU doesn’t specify whether GBAM will be a missile or a drone, though it does say GBAM will be “aligned with the Direct Reporting Portfolio Manager for Unmanned Systems (DRPM-UxS) mandate to field low-cost autonomous capabilities at scale.”

Either way, the U.S. military wants a “favorable cost-per-effect at operationally relevant ranges while minimizing the logistical, training, and sustainment burden on employing units.” This means a ground-launched weapon with a range of at least 600 nautical miles, and a minimum payload of 35 pounds while ideally allowing for 100 pounds.

It should have automatic target recognition and autonomous terminal guidance, and be “ideally mission-proven” to function in jamming and GPS-denied environments. This includes “Alternative Position, Navigation, and Timing (PNT) or redundant navigation capabilities suitable for GPS/GNSS-denied operations in maritime and other ‘feature-poor’ environments.”

DIU is also looking for a weapon that doesn’t require any proprietary launch equipment, with “remote and low-signature launch methods strongly preferred.”

Companies should have an “existing production capacity or credible path to producing 100+ systems monthly.” And with a price tag of “cost-per-effect below $500,000 based on system reliability and mission success rate, with a sub-$250,000 all-up flyaway cost at scale.”

In addition to GBAM, the U.S. military is pursuing other strike weapons that don’t cost as much as traditional missiles, and can be mass produced as needed. They include the Family of Affordable Mass Missiles, or FAMM-BAR, program to launch cruise missiles from cargo planes, as well as the Low-Cost Containerized Missiles hypersonic weapons program.

The “Readiness Simulation” project comes as the U.S. government is about to change its draft registration system.

Since 1940, men within a designated age range have been required to register with the Selective Service. But under a proposed rule, men aged 18 to 26 will be automatically registered starting Dec. 19, 2026. The Selective Service System will work off data contained in other federal databases.

Questions remain about how prepared the Selective Service System is to handle the change.

“SSS currently relies on manual analysis, legacy modeling approaches, outdated assumptions, and historical datasets that do not fully reflect modern demographics, communications channels, throughput constraints, or operational readiness conditions,” warned the agency in a Request for Quote for the Readiness Simulation tool.

The deadline for vendors to propose their simulation models is Aug. 14.

The computer simulation will explore multiple areas. These include evaluating staffing and resource requirements, comparing mobilization and police scenarios and assessing the operational impact of surge conditions. In addition, the system will “identify throughput risks, delays, and bottlenecks” and support executive planning and reporting obligations.

The goal is a simulation system that “models the full end-to-end SSS mobilization pipeline, supports configurable scenarios, and provides decision-support analytics necessary for leadership, planners, and operators.”

Scenarios will encompass draft registration, selection, notification, delivery and classification. They will also cover the Alternative Service Program, which includes various forms of community service as well as conscientious objectors.

Computer models will “represent MEPS [Military Entrance Processing Stations] throughput, no-shows, medical disqualification rates, claims processing, and ASP diversion,” according to the Request for Quote.

Contractors must be prepared to run the Readiness Simulation while “recognizing that legacy SSS draft data may be outdated or unreliable,” the agency said.

A draft registration system based on data compiled by — and accessed from — other federal agencies is likely to raise privacy concerns.

The computer simulation “shall operate within an SSS-designated cloud environment, use anonymized aggregate data, and support complete Government ownership and sustainment,” the agency said.

The simulation must also comply with multiple privacy regulations.

The PAC-3 Adapted Capability Effector, or ACE, will cost less than half of what a PAC-3 Missile Segment Enhancement, or MSE, interceptor costs, the defense firm said, and can be used with legacy equipment.

The announcement, which came during London’s 2026 Farnborough Airshow, comes as the U.S. looks to reduce its dependence on expensive interceptors to combat mass-produced munitions, a juxtaposition that has come under increased scrutiny as American forces have blown through the country’s finite interceptor stockpile to combat Iran’s relatively inexpensive drones during Operation Epic Fury.

The PAC-3 interceptors cost an estimated $4 million, far more than the $35,000 typical price tag of an Iranian Shahed drone. Experts warn that the U.S.’ increased interceptor use has raised concerns about whether stockpiles can be replenished quickly enough to sustain a prolonged campaign.

The PAC-3 ACE is designed to combat airbreathing threats — weapons that rely on oxygen for propulsion — cruise missiles and close- and short-range ballistic missiles.

Lockheed Martin said the new interceptor will still be compatible with the Patriot weapon system and Integrated Battle Command System, which enables the company to speed up development, an effort it says will be coordinated jointly with American and European partners.

U.S. forces in the Middle East have leaned heavily on the Patriot system, which uses radar to detect and track an incoming threat, calculate its trajectory and then guide an interceptor towards a predicted collision point, using a hit-to-kill method.

Patriot systems have become integral to Ukraine’s defense against Russia and as Kyiv’s missiles run out, the country pleaded for more interceptors before joining with nine other nations to create Freyja, a Patriot alternative, amid a global shortage of anti-ballistic interceptors.

The U.S. currently relies on a layered missile defense network that includes the Patriot system, the Navy’s Aegis Combat System — armed with SM-3 and SM-6 interceptors — and the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense, or THAAD.

In April, Lockheed Martin announced that the Navy was preparing to bring PAC-3 MSE interceptors to sea for use by its Aegis system, which uses advanced radars to identify, track and then guide missiles. The company was awarded a multimillion dollar contract but did not specify a dollar amount or timeline in the announcement.

In the same month, the Pentagon also agreed to a $4.7 billion contract with Lockheed Martin to accelerate PAC-3 MSE interceptor production.