The business, which operates a plant in Singapore, is discussing cooperation with local partners elsewhere to extend its production footprint in the coming two years, an executive said.

Ira Hughes, a senior director of sales at Doodle Labs, told Defense News the company specializes in long-range, wireless mesh networking solutions that power drones and robotics. In Ukraine, the business works with local suppliers of unmanned systems and the Ukrainian military to adapt its radio solutions to the evolving threats on the battlefield.

“One of our customers makes two different types of drones. They make an inexpensive drone … with a cheap radio and camera system in it, and then they make a drone with our radio in it, and they use that for higher-value targets,” Hughes said. “They’ll go back to us and say: For vehicles with jammers, tanks with jammers, we go with your radios first, and this lets us change channels very quickly if we come under a jam.”

“We also have a very wide range of frequencies we can upgrade to in a single radio,” Hughes added. “So if we can move from the channels that they’re trying to jam to an unjammed channel, we continue to operate, and we can continue to get to the target.”

Amid rising demand for its radio systems, Doodle Labs is holding talks with manufacturers in the U.S. and Europe to launch local production. In particular, the company keeps an eye on a specific stateside policy provision.

“We are working on the ability to do U.S. manufacturing when needed. We’ll manufacture with a third party … and as the NDAA requirements change in the United States and the Made in America incentives come, we’ll be prepared and able to manufacture in the United States,” Hughes said, referring to the National Defense Authorization Act, an annual legislative vehicle for enacting defense-acquisition policies.

As drone production continues to increase in Western countries, allied nations will also need to ramp up their radio production as the existing supply chains lag behind the demand for unmanned systems, according to Hughes.

“A lot of those systems need advanced radios to be able to operate at the ranges and in the difficult conditions that they operate in,” he said. “We can make tens of thousands of radios a month, millions of radios a year if we need to.”

Such has been the case at London’s 2026 Farnborough Airshow, where Lockheed Martin on Monday introduced what it hopes will be a low cost per kill solution to the ever-evolving unmanned threat.

The Morfius X-Rotor is a ground-launched “one-to-many” airborne high power microwave, or HPM, counter-UAS system the company says can “neutralize more than 50 enemy drones in a single flight.”

Built, notably, to be recovered and reused, the Morfius is capable of using any command and control system and does not rely on any unique sensor or fire control radars, the company announced.

Morfius “sets a new benchmark for counter-drone capability — delivering a high kill rate while keeping the cost per kill low,” Randy Crites, vice president and general manager of Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control Advanced Programs, said in a release. “By leveraging a lightweight, field reusable high-power microwave architecture, we provide the most effective, low-cost solution on the market today.”

The company announced it is accelerating prototype production of both the drone and its HPM payload in the interest of getting it into the hands of frontline troops.

The system was recently flight-tested in Arizona, California and Oklahoma, the company stated, where it also demonstrated interception and lethal capabilities. Additional tests are slated in the months ahead.

Monday’s announcement comes as the U.S. looks to reduce dependence on cost-prohibitive interceptors to defend against cheaper munitions, a juxtaposition that has come under increased scrutiny as U.S. forces have quickly expended interceptor stockpiles to combat Iranian missiles and Shahed drones.

Lockheed Martin on Monday also introduced a cheaper Patriot interceptor as a potential off ramp to the reliance on exorbitantly priced interceptors.

The system, called Hypnosis, consists of an array of mobile “stations” around a defended area, working in unison to disrupt the command-and-control signals of incoming threats, according to the manufacturer.

The company said the technology is the product of IAI’s experience in navigation warfare, of NAVWAR.

The soft-kill weapon is meant as a method for taking out large numbers of drones at once, in situations where hard-kill — or kinetic — intercepts would be tricky to execute because of the number of airborne objects.

The unveiling comes amid a resurgence of military confrontation between the United States and Iran and heightened tension across the Middle East as a result of it, as well as an intensifying exchange of missile and drone strikes between Russia and Ukraine.

Defense companies around the world have been working on technology enabling swarms of drones to attack targets with an inherent logic of their own.

Similarly, companies are also chasing defensive offerings for such scenarios.

Swarms are difficult to defend against because they can saturate and overwhelm traditional air defense networks, increasing the chances of at least one warhead making it through.

Frank Kendall, the Air Force’s 26th secretary who served under former President Joe Biden, said in a Thursday roundtable hosted by Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies that gathering experience in the field and through simulations help operators establish trust with autonomous systems, like the Collaborative Combat Aircraft.

“You have to accumulate a basis for trust over time, and so I think we just need to think carefully about how we structure things in order to make that opportunity,” Kendall said during the roundtable.

Earlier this week, the Air Force announced that it conducted the first-ever live-fire test of an inert AIM-120 from an Anduril-made YFQ-44A. The CCA recently completed an end-to-end, beyond-line-of-sight strike against a simulated target, the service announced, but did not specify when the exercise occurred.

The Air Force is scheduled to continue live-fire testing with General Atomics’ YFQ-42A this fall.

Kendall said that using the aircraft in Red Flag, the service’s leading large-force aerial combat training simulation held at Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada, will be “fascinating,” but he worries about the force using initial setbacks as an excuse to “retreat” instead of pushing ahead.

The former secretary was optimistic that institutional support will be enough to overcome those setbacks, saying that enthusiastic operators want to see the aircraft’s full potential realized.

Kendall recalled when he once asked an Air Combat Command crew who were developing CCA tactics why there wasn’t more resistance.

“[A young fighter pilot’s] answer was, ‘Sir, these things are going to save our lives.’” Kendall recalled.

The simulations define the exercises, he added, saying that it showcases how the aircraft protects crew fighters effectively right now even as the force needs to develop more sophisticated tactics.

“The guys with the CCAs are beating the crap out of the guys without them, and not losing any manned fighters,” he said.

AI-controlled fighter jet takes Air Force secretary on historic ride

Kendall said that computerized, man-in-the-loop simulations are the best tool to assist operators in learning how to use the aircraft effectively since more trials can be completed. Integrated simulations have been used by the Air Force for roughly 30 years.

“In simulators with cockpits their sensors are showing them simulated threats as well as their friends, and then they basically fight a battle together,” he explained.

Kendall referred to a time when he took a flight in an F-16 modified by artificial intelligence. In flight, the aircraft’s testers would collect data points, he said, and run a million simulations to adjust the software overnight to complete the flight again the following day.

The first increment CCA aircraft in the program are “all the same” as weapons carriers, but in Increment II, Kendall stipulates that the force can begin equipping them with sensors and possibly distributed electronic warfare capabilities.

China is working on this autonomous system capability as well, he added, stating that air battles could soon be CCA versus CCA. Intelligence is going to play a significant role in how well the U.S. understands their systems, tactics and vulnerabilities, he said, noting that it’s a “hard game” to play.

In Increment I, the Air Force showed interest in obtaining 100 to 150 aircraft, the first phase of a longer-term goal of eventually fielding 1,000 CCAs.

Each platform would carry between nine and 12 Hermes 650 Spark aircraft along with the deck infrastructure, control systems and mission support needed to operate them. Elbit described the approach as an alternative to acquiring a traditional aircraft carrier, aimed at giving naval forces extended maritime reach without the associated cost and complexity.

The Hermes 650 Spark is built around a front-mounted engine that provides a wider speed envelope and additional power margin, supporting short takeoff and landing (STOL) capability, heavier payloads and longer missions. The aircraft carries two payload bays, satellite communications and diagnostic systems, the Israeli company notes.

Elbit says the aircraft is built for compatibility with the ground control infrastructure of its larger Hermes 900 drone, meaning the smaller 650 Spark would be managed as part of a combined array with the Hermes 900 from a land-based control system. In such a setup, ships would serve as remote launch and recovery sites. According to the company, the arrangement is intended to reduce manpower requirements and the number of control stations needed, the company said.

The Israeli defense company cited Japan’s expansive maritime geography, Denmark’s responsibilities around Greenland, and Germany’s security environment in the Baltic Sea as examples of the kind of large, distant maritime areas the concept is meant to address. For Israel, a maritime UAS-carrier concept holds appeal given Israel’s encompassing offshore gas platforms that sit dozens of kilometers from shore and require monitoring against both conventional threats and drone and missile attacks from Iran and its proxies.

A converted vessel carrying multiple long-endurance UAS could extend early-warning coverage over these installations and fit Israel’s broader doctrinal preference for cost-effective, unmanned-heavy solutions over large manned platforms.

The company did not specify a timeline for when the system would become operational, nor did it name any customers or governments that have expressed interest in the idea.

Elbit’s announcement seeks to position the company as a player in this segment mainly against Turkey’s Baykar and South Korea’s Hanwha and can be interpreted as an attempt to export an existing system, the Hermes 650, in new operational packaging.

The sea service “is exploring the industrial base’s capacity to deliver highly capable, autonomous platforms optimized for operations from Ford-class and Nimitz-class Nuclear Aircraft Carriers,” according to the RFI. The response deadline has been set for Aug. 13.

The drones the service is targeting, part of the Air Wing of the Future Family of Systems, can be designed as “a single-role platform, a multi-role platform, or a modular FoS [family of systems],” according to the service.

But whatever the solution, the Navy wants the platforms to be capable of performing eight different missions: strikes against surface ships, strikes against land targets, anti-submarine warfare, air-to-air combat against enemy aircraft and missiles, electronic warfare, ISR, aerial refueling, and resupply flights for a naval task force.

The service is soliciting “industry expertise to identify a mix of platforms that can provide affordable mass, risk-tolerant platforms that can perform the above missions to counter current and emerging threats,” the request states.

The RFI lists a few specific requirements, including a minimum 1,000-nautical mile range for strike missions.

Drones must also possess “flight autonomy (e.g., carrier pattern, taxiing) and mission autonomy (e.g., dynamic tasking/retasking, threat evasion, automated aerial refueling) maturity.”

Additionally, they must be compatible with existing Unmanned Carrier Aircraft control systems, according to the RFI.

Significantly, while the RFI mostly focuses on carrier-based drones, the Navy also wants vertical-takeoff UAVs that can operate from other types of vessels, such as destroyers and mobile sea bases.

“The Navy is interested in novel concepts that can operate from any air capable platform in addition to the CVN (e.g., DDG, ESB) using Vertical Take-Off and Landing (VTOL),” the RFI said.

The RFI is indicative of the Navy’s desire to eventually move on from fourth-generation carrier air wings to an air wing composed of fifth- and sixth-generation manned and unmanned aircraft.

The new drones “must demonstrate increased combat effectiveness over current fourth generation platforms at a given spot factor.”

The Air Wing of the Future, as designed, appears to be modeled for an old-fashioned battle of attrition, in which combat is waged by affordable — and expendable — drones rather than a handful of expensive platforms.

Contractors responding to the RFI are asked to “detail how your production approach supports rapid scaling and elasticity in a surge scenario,” and what techniques they will use to “keep unit recurring flyaway (URF) and sustainment costs within sustainable limits.”

Companies should also explain how their proposed designs will minimize maintenance requirements and fit into existing naval supply chains, according to the RFI. Potential manufacturers should also submit “planned capital investments (CAPX) or Internal Research and Development (IRAD) commitments to mature the solution.”

The Air Wing of the Future Family of Systems is part of the Trump administration’s Golden Fleet expansion plan for the Navy.

Existing family-of-system drone projects include the MQ-25A Stingray tanker and the Collaborative Combat Aircraft, or CCA.

The system is called the Arctic Over-The-Horizon Radar (A-OTHR), and the deal is worth some US$1.75 billion to Australia.

Gordon Frazer – Founder and CEO of the Australia-based HF radar technical services company FrazerLab – told Defense News Canada’s decision would fill an urgent need.

“I used to say to people, you could fly a jumbo jet from Beijing to Canberra if it had its transponders off and no one would know,” he said, arguing the same is likely true for Canada.

“Russia could fly a Tu-95 from one of their bases, Engels Air Base or something like that, to Canada and possibly no one would know.”

He added, “That’s why NORAD is so concerned, and why they’ve been pushing so hard to get this sort of technology done.”

Frazer was formerly an engineer involved in Australia’s OTHR program known as the Jindalee Operational Radar Network (JORN).

Expanded surveillance coverage

While NORAD maintains the North Warning System, a line of microwave radars in Canada’s frozen north, Frazer said it would be “almost a trivial problem to defeat it” by flying at low altitude between these known and stationary radar sites.

Instead, because OTHR bounces high-frequency signals off the ionosphere, it can look down on airborne targets — and sometimes even surface vessels — with ease, including aircraft and missiles.

An over-the-horizon radar results in radar coverage stretching far beyond what traditional line-of-sight radars can achieve due to the curvature of the Earth.

With its particular A-OTHR contract, BAE Systems Australia will transfer technology and expertise for Canada to build its own OTHR radar sites to monitor its periphery. Officially, Canberra says JORN can detect targets 3,000 kilometers (1,700 miles) away, but its capability almost certainly reaches far beyond that.

Ottawa stated in a press release: “The signing formalizes Canada’s partnership with Australia and enables the delivery of Australia’s proven OTHR technology in support of Canada’s A-OTHR program. It marks a major milestone in the program, transitioning A-OTHR from the planning phase into delivery phase.”

Natural challenges

Canada has already been researching the application of OTHRs in its north, where environmental and solar conditions are far different than they are in Australia.

Furthermore, significant differences exist between operating OTHRs in equatorial, mid-latitude, high-latitude and polar areas. Frazer pointed out that Canada, despite the “Arctic” in the A-OTHR nomenclature, is actually buying a high-latitude system.

Polar regions present even more complicated challenges for OTHRs due to the Earth’s magnetic field, which creates serious background clutter. In fact, some 40% of Canadian territory lies above the Arctic Circle.

Although it may sound counterintuitive, Frazer said Canada’s A-OTHR radar facilities would be built as far south as possible. This is in order to bounce radar signals off the ionosphere ahead of the zone where the worst distortion occurs.

However, Canada will also have the future opportunity to expand its OTHR network with trans-polar coverage, which would allow it to see deep into Russia.

Positioned thus, the technology could enable NORAD to see Russian strategic bombers taking off or ballistic missiles being launched, for example.

If Canada does seek transpolar radar coverage, it would likely want to place those radar installations as far north as possible, Frazer explained.

Australia has three JORN radar sites, but it is unclear how many sites Canada will establish. In North America, Frazer expects the Pacific west coast will be covered by an American system, the Atlantic east coast will be covered by Canada, and then an additional system can cover the north. If NORAD wants 360-degree coverage, Frazer suggested five or six radar installations would be needed.

Australian expertise

Craig Lockhart, CEO of BAE Systems Australia, said: “Canada’s acquisition of a cutting-edge Australian OTHR system supports the strategic interests of both nations through enhanced detection and tracking of threats to North America, strengthening Five Eyes situational awareness.”

Frazer said Australia developed world-leading OTHR talent “because of multi-generational consistency” in its investment in the technology.

The New Zealand-born engineer pointed out that around 15% of the cost of OTHR technology sits in equipment to inform human operators how to set the radar’s parameters to account for constantly changing atmospheric conditions.

Frazer highlighted that OTHRs are bespoke, national systems built only once per generation. However, he hopes the Canadian deal will benefit both countries.

“I think you’re starting to get the critical mass of being able to keep the technology pipeline from design to sustainment to upgrade to far-reaching tech.”

Because over-the-horizon radar coverage can vary drastically due to solar conditions, other methods help plug surveillance gaps.

Airborne early-warning aircraft, for example, are complementary to OTHR. In May, Canada selected Saab’s GlobalEye as its future airborne early-warning platform.

Canada expects its A-OTHR to reach an initial operational capability by December 2029.

The equipment office of the German armed forces signed a contract with MBDA Deutschland and Rheinmetall Waffe Munition in June to develop the full system, from reconnaissance to target tracking and engagement, the companies said in statements on Thursday. The contract value is in the “mid three-digit” million-euro range, Rheinmetall said.

Several European navies are working on laser weapons, with the United Kingdom’s Royal Navy planning to fit the DragonFire directed-energy weapon on a destroyer by 2027, in work led by MBDA in partnership with Leonardo and QinetiQ. Naval vessels are particularly suited to deploy powerful lasers, as they can provide the physical space, electrical power, sensors and cooling required.

“The laser weapon system will provide our personnel deployed on naval vessels with a significantly higher level of protection, particularly when it comes to countering drones,” Roman Koehne, head of Rheinmetall’s weapons and ammunition division, said in a statement.

The laser weapon system from MBDA and Rheinmetall has a “very high level” of technological maturity, the companies said. The demonstrator has been deployed on the German frigate Sachsen, covering 28,000 nautical miles from the Baltic Sea to the Mediterranean, and firing over 1,000 shots at air, sea and land targets in more than a year of testing, according to MBDA and Rheinmetall.

The containerized laser effector will also be a cost-effective weapon for port security, MBDA Deutschland Managing Director Thomas Gottschild said. The system can focus power on an area measuring just a few centimeters, and has proven to be effective even in adverse weather conditions, according to Rheinmetall and MBDA.

The MBDA-Rheinmetall joint venture will place “particular emphasis” on German supply chains and local systems expertise to secure national sovereignty in the technology, the companies said. Serial production will “largely” take part in Germany, according to Koehne.

In other weapon-development news, the French-German Research Institute of Saint-Louis said it tested its electromagnetic railgun outdoors for the first time in June, moving the system out of laboratory conditions. The institute will now work on higher energy levels and longer distances as a path towards a possible future deployable system, it said in a statement on Thursday.

Railguns use electromagnetic acceleration rather than chemical propellants to fire a projectile, and could provide a possible counter to hypersonic threats.

Meanwhile, Belgium said it will buy 20 of Rheinmetall’s Skyranger 30 anti-drone cannons as well as 14 Thales GM200 radars, in addition to a previously announced plan to buy 10 NASAMS air-defense systems from Kongsberg. The country is investing €3.1 billion ($3.5 billion) to build up a layered air defense system, after two decades of going without, Defense Minister Theo Francken said.

The company is in talks with a French producer to launch manufacturing of its solutions abroad and is also looking for partners in other European countries, according to a senior company representative.

Oleksii Konik, the co-founder of Trinity Robotics, told Defense News that the company initially planned to make around 1,100 UGVs this year, but, with the Ukrainian military increasing its orders, the business is ramping up throughput at its facilities in Ukraine.

“We work with the [Ukrainian] military procurement agency and more than 20 military units directly,” Konik said. “The most important mission that we have now is the robotization of the battlefield, because only this will allow our country to win the war.”

The company’s flagship UGV, Konyk One, is suitable for performing logistics and medical evacuation tasks. At the same time, Trinity Robotics is working on a new variant that will be fitted with a turret. This will enable users to deploy the UGV for combat operations, according to the co-founder.

While some Ukrainian officials expect the country’s ban on exporting weapons could be lifted this year, local defense companies are currently prohibited from exporting their wares. Meanwhile, Trinity Robotics is discussing cooperation with partners from allied countries to produce its unmanned vehicles abroad.

“We are looking for partners, manufacturers from Europe that manufacture trucks, vehicles, military parts,” Konik said. “We have an opportunity to create a joint enterprise in Europe … to produce our UGVs.”

“This will allow us to give additional volumes of our UGVs to our end users who are interested in that,” he said.

Under Kyiv’s Build with Ukraine program, joint manufacturing isprimarily intended to cover the needs of the country’s armed forces, but surplus output can be exported to other countries.

The company’s co-founder said that Trinity Robotics is currently negotiating with an unnamed French producer to launch a joint venture and produce its UGVs abroad. The Ukrainian manufacturer is also working to secure funds for its expansion, with recent investors including Sweden’s Front Ventures and Hede Capital Partners.

In its standard version, Konyk One weighs 460 kg (1,014 lb) and has a load capacity of up to 300 kg, according to data from the producer.

The search comes after dozens of MQ-9s were swatted out of the sky during the Iran war, according to a May 13 Congressional Research Service report.

With the Air Force currently possessing about 135 Reapers — which cost approximately $30 million apiece — such a loss rate is not sustainable, especially against a force like Iran, whose air defenses are less sophisticated than those of China or Russia.

“The Joint Force’s reliance on low-density, high-value ‘exquisite’ (>$30 million) manned and unmanned aircraft is unsustainable against adversaries utilizing layered defenses enabled by increasingly low-cost antiaircraft capabilities,” warned the Defense Innovation Unit solicitation for a new drone, which the Pentagon wants to “execute missions that the MQ-9A performs today.”

Rather than build a better Reaper, DIU is opting for an expendable replacement. The Massed Modular Aircraft, or MMA, project aims to develop a UAV designed to operate in such large numbers that it can absorb heavy losses and still overwhelm enemy defenses.

Particularly of interest is the size of the MMA. Drone swarms may be the next big thing in unmanned warfare, but generally those hordes are made up of small, inexpensive UAVs with limited range and payload.

But the DIU solicitation envisions a drone that has long range and a heavy payload — and is still inexpensive enough for mass production. The solicitation calls for a payload of at least 2,800 pounds, a bit less than the MQ-9’s 3,800-pound capacity.

The MMA should also have an unrefueled combat range of at least 2,300 nautical miles, according to the solicitation, and a one-way transfer range of at least 8,000 nautical miles. Additionally, the drone should reach speeds of at least 200 miles per hour and have the ability to operate from a 6,000-foot runway or improvised airstrips.

The DIU solicitation states that the drone should have “sufficient available size, weight, power (25kW), and cooling (5kW) to host a variety of internal and/or external payloads,” with a level of autonomous operations that would allow one operator to control several drones.

The solicitation does not specify the MMA’s dimensions, though the specifications suggest a drone comparable in size to the MQ-9. It also did not list a desired price point, though presumably it would be less than the $30 million price tag of an MQ-9.

The timeline for the MMA project, meanwhile, is ambitious. DIU is calling for “full-scale prototype flight testing within 21 months of award, with a targeted Initial Operating Capability (IOC) in FY2031. IOC for MMA is envisioned as 20 mission-ready aircraft delivered to an operational unit, able to be deployed.”

Pentagon solicitations continue to reflect a mindfulness of lessons from the Ukraine War, as well as the experiences during the Iran War. In both conflicts, the defender exhausted interceptors before the attacker ran out of drones.

“Keeping a constant airborne MMA presence to launch weapons, gather intelligence, perform electronic warfare missions, or relay communications will force an adversary to stay on the defensive,” DIU said. “This relentless pressure will exhaust the adversary, forcing them to burn through expensive anti-aircraft missiles and resources faster than they can be replaced.”

We have soldiers for land, sailors for sea, airmen for air, and guardians for space. But in cyberspace, a borderless domain where American forces are engaged with adversaries every day, we still do not have a military service whose central purpose is to build a quality, expert force, equipped with the most cutting-edge capabilities, for war-fighting in the cyber domain.

For more than a decade, Washington has tried to patch this problem instead of fixing it. Congress has granted U.S. Cyber Command new authorities. The Pentagon has adjusted organizations, budgets and training pipelines. Senior leaders have made the current structure work better than it should. But those reforms have not changed the basic fact that there is no military service that sees organizing, training and equipping forces for the cyber domain as its first and primary priority.

Cyber Command’s job is to employ cyber capabilities in military operations. But it still depends on the existing services to recruit, train, retain, and develop the people who carry out those missions and equip them with the capabilities to do so. In the rest of the military, that division of labor is clear: services build forces, and combatant commands employ them.

Cyber remains the exception. The Navy must build fleets, the Army must build land power, the Air Force must attain air superiority, and so on. Each service has cyber responsibilities, but each also has core missions that naturally, and appropriately, come first. Cyber matters to all of the services, but it is not the central organizing mission of any of them.

The result is a weaker cyber force than the country needs. The military’s cyber enterprise still struggles with inconsistent recruiting and retention problems. A young American who can write code, spot weaknesses in software or understand how digital systems break may be exactly who the country needs, even if that person does not fit the standard mold the existing services were built to recruit, promote and retain.

Cyber talent does not grow by accident. It must be recruited deliberately, trained continuously and retained through a career model that rewards technical mastery, instead of forcing top operators to move into command or management roles just to advance. The country needs people who can spend years becoming experts in offensive and defensive cyberspace operations, not personnel forced through systems that were never built for the mission.

The threat is evolving too quickly to justify continuing marginal fixes to the current system. China, Russia, Iran, North Korea and criminal actors are targeting U.S. networks, critical infrastructure and military systems. Artificial intelligence will only increase the speed and scale of cyber operations. The United States cannot keep relying on a cyber force stitched together across multiple services, each with different priorities, incentives and personnel rules.

A new report from the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and the Center for Strategic and International Studies shows how to build a Cyber Force with a clearly defined mission, not a sprawling bureaucracy. Its job should be to organize, train and equip forces for offensive and defensive cyberspace operations. It should not take over every military information technology network or absorb every technology function inside the Department of Defense. The existing services should continue to operate and secure the networks and systems tied to their own missions.

A Cyber Force would also strengthen Cyber Command. Too much of this debate treats a new service as a judgment on Cyber Command’s performance. It is not. Cyber Command houses some of our nation’s most talented cyber warriors. What they need is a better force-generation system behind them.

The U.S. military has adapted before when new domains became central to warfare. The Air Force was created because airpower became too important to remain secondary to another service’s priorities. The Space Force was created because space needed its own culture and focus. Cyberspace has reached the same point: American forces are already in daily contact with adversaries online, cyberattacks can disrupt military operations and civilian infrastructure alike, and artificial intelligence is making the domain faster and more dangerous.

For too long, cyber has been treated as everyone’s responsibility, and therefore no one’s first priority. Our adversaries are not waiting for us to get organized. They are building capabilities, probing our defenses, and preparing for the next conflict. The United States should not enter that fight with cyber forces generated as a side mission by services built for other domains.

If cyberspace is truly a domain of warfare, it deserves its own service built to fight in it.

Dr. Erica Lonergan is an assistant professor in the School of International and Public Affairs at Columbia University and previously held several positions at the United States Military Academy at West Point.

RADM (Ret.) Mark Montgomery served for 32 years in the U.S. Navy and is now the senior director of the Center on Cyber and Technology Innovation at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

They both served on the CSIS-FDD Commission on U.S. Cyber Force Generation.

That’s according to a new report from the Government Accountability Office, which found that three versions of the augmented-reality “all-weather fighting goggle” developed between 2018 and 2025 were deemed not ready for fielding and will stay in a warehouse rather than ever reaching soldiers.

The news, tucked within the GAO’s annual weapons systems assessment, was first reported this month by Task and Purpose. The watchdog agency did note that the vision of IVAS is not completely dead; the prototype will be transitioned to a separate effort with similar goals related to improving soldier awareness, and development will begin again. But that leaves almost 10,000 pricey headsets that appear bound for shelf real estate next to the Ark of the Covenant.

“An Army evaluation reported that soldiers found the headsets difficult to wear and noted that they did not perform better than existing equipment,” the GAO report said. “As a result, the nearly 10,000 units that were produced are obsolete and will remain in storage.”

Those 10,000 units include versions 1.0 and 1.1 of IVAS. Version 1.2, which “was expected to address reliability and wearability issues identified in the previous versions such as comfort and low-light performance,” according to the report, will be used instead to inform the new rapid prototyping effort, known as Soldier Borne Mission Command.

Some 400 of the version 1.2 goggles will inform the design of SBMC, in a contract now held by Anduril, who received funding from IVAS in April after the Army reprogrammed the money. Microsoft had previously held the contract.

Anduril announced it had gotten the $159 million contract award for initial prototyping last September, saying the award represented “the largest effort of its kind to equip every soldier with superhuman perception and decision-making capabilities—fusing the best of night vision, augmented reality, and AI into a single system.”

Like IVAS, SBMC aims to overcome the challenges built into legacy night-vision goggles, including lack of a common networked picture and battlefield data integration, resulting in siloed information.

Anduril’s solution, which it touted as developed with the benefit of 260,000 hours of soldier input from the IVAS program, purports to give troops “superhero-like abilities” with an augmented-reality battlefield picture overlaid onto advanced night vision capabilities.

Yet despite the billions invested in IVAS over seven years, the end result was worse than the legacy headsets it purported to replace, investigators found.

“While IVAS used limited elements of leading practices in its prior efforts, the program’s minimal implementation of these contributed to IVAS concluding with no fielded capability. Problems that users reported with the 1.0 and 1.1 versions were not adequately addressed in 1.2,” the report found. “These included poor performance in low-light conditions and the added weight on users’ helmets. The program’s failure to adequately incorporate user feedback into design updates resulted in a product that users report is less useful than legacy equipment.”

Investigators faulted the program for moving into production with “limited evidence from testing in an operational environment” to show that the goggles actually did what the soldiers needed them to do. After a wave of negative feedback on the 1.0 version of IVAS, the program did not even conduct operational testing on the 1.1 version, the report said.

“This runs counter to our prior work, which found that systems-integrated testing in an operational environment helps ensure product designs meet user needs before significant funding is spent on production,” the report stated.

Moving forward, according to the report, the new contractor, Anduril, will conduct continuous operational assessments on the latest version of the goggles, getting user feedback from brigades via the Army.

“The program expects to use these assessments to collect feedback and inform the first phase of SBMC, which aligns with leading practices to make improvements in subsequent iterations,” GAO investigators said.

But berthed in port — or sailing on the surface while transiting to and from port — these powerful yet fragile boats can be sitting ducks for drones, mines and even anti-tank rockets.

What once seemed the plot of thriller novels has become reality. Ukraine claims it successfully used an underwater drone to damage a Russian submarine in the Black Sea port of Novorossiysk last year. Guerrillas and terrorists lurking along a waterway could use anti-tank guided missiles or handheld anti-tank rockets to ambush an unwary sub.

To face the new threat, the U.S. Navy is looking to develop better methods of protecting its missile subs, as well as the shore installations that support them.

These defenses include “prototype technologies to detect, track, identify, deny, and defeat unmanned systems across all domains,” according to a Sources Sought announcement. “This area seeks scalable solutions for shore-based installations and afloat operations in Port, Harbor, Littoral, and Waterways (PHLW) and open ocean environments.”

The Navy is also searching for ways to escort and protect its missile subs as they transit to and from port.

The goal is to “ensure the zero-failure secure movement of strategic maritime assets,” the announcement said. “This area seeks advanced maritime situational awareness, physical security enhancements for escorting SSBNs [nuclear missile subs], and the detection, avoidance, and mitigation of maritime mines, and the defeat of direct-fire kinetic threats (e.g., shore-launched ATGMs/RPGs) during transit through PHLW to and from dive points.”

The threat of anti-tank weapons even extends to the truck convoys hauling ICBMs to sub bases. The Navy is interested in active protection systems — sensors and shotgun-like launchers mounted on armored vehicles to destroy incoming anti-tank rockets — “for ground transport and convoy operations of strategic weapons and equipment.”

US Air Force wants more armored transporters for ICBM warheads

Other security items in the Sources Sought announcement, which lists 22 “focus areas” that the Navy’s Strategic Systems Program wants to address, include sensors to protect harbors. The Navy is also interested in security robots, including “Unmanned Surface Vehicles (USVs) for waterside patrol, Unmanned Ground Vehicles (UGVs) for perimeter screening, and robotic inspection platforms that seamlessly integrate with existing response forces.”

Artificial intelligence has also emerged as a threat in the form of drone swarms or cyberwarfare.

The Navy is searching for countermeasures that “focus on defeating autonomous swarms, disrupting AI-enabled Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) directed at nuclear facilities, and hardening strategic security networks against AI-driven cyber-physical attacks or spoofing.”

The best defense for submarines is simply not to be detect in the first place. To that point, the Navy is seeking “prototype technologies that may mitigate the generation, radiation, propagation, and scatter of a variety of signal types (acoustic, chemical, optical, electromagnetic, radiological, hydrodynamic, and cyber) associated with submarine and unmanned system operations, to include both peacetime and wartime operations.”

“I’m really pleased to announce that eight allies are launching a project to explore the development of a mega-constellation called HALO, opening a new chapter in allied space operations,” said Radmila Šekerinska, the NATO deputy secretary-general.

HALO — Hybrid Alliance Layered Operations in Space — will focus on improving connectivity and integration of sovereign, nationally owned and controlled military satellites into a networked constellation.

Denmark, Canada, Finland, Germany, Norway, the Netherlands, Sweden and Turkey are part of the effort. It aims to improve alliance resilience and military advantage in space, enabling high-speed communications, intelligence and missile tracking.

Individual satellite constellations run independently by member countries are vulnerable to cyberattacks, jamming or physical destruction, while also being too slow to relay large amounts of data, Šekerinska said.

“So this new model will be particularly helpful for high-speed communications, intelligence and missile tracking, overcoming the cost, the time and coverage limitations of single-nation satellite fleets,” she added.

Meanwhile, at the NATO Summit Defence Industry Forum, several nations declared their contributions to the space domain. Canada became the 15th member of NATO’s STARLIFT multinational initiative, which explores ways to develop a network of launch capabilities that will help allies launch assets on short notice from spaceports across the alliance.

Spain became the 19th country to join NATO’s Alliance Persistent Surveillance from Space initiative. Madrid will contribute by increasing coastal surveillance through imagery from its “Atlantic Constellation” satellites.

Turkey announced plans for the development of two additional high-resolution satellites to complement space capabilities in the region.

Built by Northrop Grumman, the MQ-4C Triton is a high-altitude, long-endurance UAV specifically designed for maritime surveillance over vast stretches of sea.

According to Rutte, the aircraft will help NATO detect threats early, protect sea lines of communication, and support operations in demanding regions, such as the High North. “These aircraft can fly for long periods at high altitude and cover large areas, including over open water, more efficiently than most other aircraft can,” he said at the event, organized to coincide with the NATO summit this week.

Rutte stressed that intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) is a vital capability for the alliance, as it provides the situational awareness needed to make the right decisions and stay ahead of threats. “Today, allies are taking a concrete step to strengthen this capability,” he added.

Rutte said Northrop Grumman will build the Triton aircraft, while European industry will be work on mission support, data systems and infrastructure. “It is genuinely made in NATO and is creating jobs on both sides of the Atlantic,” he said.

The MQ-4C Triton is capable of operating at altitudes above 50,000 feet for 24-plus hours, with a range of 7,400 nautical miles, according to the manufacturer. Current users of the Triton are the U.S. Navy and the Royal Australian Air Force.

Thales will offer to buy the remaining Exail shares for €134 each, the company said on Monday. That’s a 44% premium to the Exail share price on June 25, the day before Safran announced talks with the Gorgé family at a price of €128.50 a share.

Safran said it ended exclusive negotiations on Friday about the potential acquisition after the parties were unable to reach mutually acceptable terms.

Exail provides maritime drones for several European autonomous mine-hunting systems, including the French program led by Thales. The market for mine warfare is expected to grow in the high single digits through to 2030, while the addressable market for unmanned anti-submarine warfare is forecast to increase eightfold by the end of the decade, Thales said in a presentation.

“With this acquisition, Thales aims to increase its scale in the underwater warfare market, and to expand its capabilities in inertial navigation systems through the addition of Exail’s complementary expertise,” the company said.

Thales said the acquisition allows it to gain critical mass in the growing market for unmanned mine countermeasures and speed up innovation in anti-submarine warfare. Exail produces a range of underwater and surface drones, as well as inertial navigation technology, with 76% of its sales coming from navigation and maritime robotics, and the remainder from advanced technologies.

Exail’s autonomous maritime drones are used for underwater mine clearing and seabed mapping, with emerging uses including anti-submarine warfare as well as intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance. Thales is one of the world’s largest manufacturers of sonar systems, including towed sonar used by many Western navies.

The purchase by Thales of the Gorgé family stake is expected to close in the third quarter of 2026, after which the company will file a mandatory tender offer for all of Exail’s shares and convertible bonds that is expected to close by early 2028 at the latest.

Thales said it expects “significant value creation” for its shareholders from the acquisition, with Exail adding to the company’s earnings per share from the first year, and an impact on Thales operating profit of more than €90 million by 2032.

Exail had 2025 revenue of €479 million, and an order book of €1.1 billion at the end of March, according to the presentation document. That compares with Thales sales of €22.1 billion last year, and an order book of €53.3 billion at the end of December.

Thales said the purchase will strengthen its underwater warfare business, allow it to gain market share in inertial navigation systems, and help accelerate development of quantum sensors. Combining the two companies could generate additional revenue of €500 million within 10 years, Thales said.

Fincantieri acquisitions

Meanwhile, Italian shipyard Fincantieri is spending €600 million to acquire four maritime drone and undersea engineering firms as it seeks to strengthen its role in the growing civil and defense undersea market.

The Italian state-controlled yard said it was buying firm Next Geosolutions, which offers offshore construction support services, as well as Italian start-ups WSense, Graal Tech and Defcomm which specialize in underwater communications and surface and undersea drones.

“The acquisitions announced today mark a historic transformation for Fincantieri, as it creates an international champion in the underwater domain,” the group’s CEO, Pierroberto Folgiero, said in a statement.

Supported by a €500 million capital increase in February, the acquisitions add to Fincantieri’s recent purchases of undersea firm Remazel and torpedo maker WASS.

Following the new acquisitions, Fincantieri’s sub-sea revenue will hit €1.1 billion this year, €1.4 billion in 2028 and €1.8 billion in 2030, the firm said.

Fincantieri said it would seek synergies between civilian and military sub-sea technologies, in the same way it has long sought synergies between its naval vessel and cruise ship businesses.

Following the acquisitions, Fincantieri will employ 1,500 in sub-sea activities in Italy, the Netherlands, the U.K., Norway and the United Arab Emirates, the firm said.

The United States, Taiwan’s most important international backer and arms supplier despite the lack of formal diplomatic ties, has strongly backed the government’s military modernization plan and increased defense spending.

Taiwan says it needs to bolster its defenses in the face of a stepped-up threat from China, which claims the island as its own territory.

Speaking at a forum on drones in the central city of Taichung, Raymond Greene, director of the American Institute in Taiwan and the de facto U.S. ambassador, said drones represented a “game-changing opportunity” to enhance Taiwan’s security and reinforce peace in the broader region.

The U.S. and Taiwan can anchor “democratic” drone production and strengthen the collective deterrence posture of the free world, Greene said.

“Fortunately for Taiwan, drones have significantly boosted defenders, even when facing overwhelming odds,” he added, referring to the war in Ukraine.

“Nothing will deter conflict more effectively than turning Taiwan into a hornet’s nest of air, surface, and subsurface drones.”

DRONE SPENDING

While Taiwan’s government has prioritized drones and other asymmetric systems, in May the opposition-dominated parliament passed only two-thirds of the T$1.25 trillion ($40 billion) in extra defense spending President Lai Ching-te had asked for, earmarking funds only for U.S. arms.

The government has now proposed a new, T$210 billion ($6.59 billion) package for surveillance, coastal attack and small unmanned surface drones to the end of 2031.

The Kuomintang (KMT), Taiwan’s main opposition party, this week proposed its own drone legislation, with a spending cap set at T$240 billion over six years, and annual spending capped at T$40 billion. Its plan would fund drones from the main budget rather than a special budget, which is what the government wants.

Speaking at the same forum as Greene, Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen, a senior member of the KMT, said parliament should “work together” on promoting the development of the drone industry.

“From Ukraine to Iran, the nature of international warfare has changed because of drones and unmanned vehicles,” said Lu, widely seen in political circles as a future presidential candidate.

Taichung is one of the centers of Taiwan’s drone industry, home to companies like Thunder Tiger and major government defense contractor Aerospace Industrial Development Corp (AIDC).

On Wednesday, President Lai Ching-te said the need for drones was pressing.

“Facing changes in the geopolitical situation and the evolution of modern warfare, building asymmetric combat capabilities is a national defense project that is a race against time,” he told a meeting of his Democratic Progressive Party.

Lai rejects Beijing’s sovereignty claims, saying only the island’s people can decide their future.

The Direct Reporting Portfolio Manager for Unmanned Systems, or DRPM-UxS, will become “the single joint integrator for all unmanned and autonomous system programs” in the department, according to a June 29 memo the Pentagon made public Wednesday. Its director, yet to be named, will answer to Deputy Secretary of Defense Stephen Feinberg and oversee how the military develops, buys, fields and sustains unmanned systems in the air, on the ground and at sea.

The office’s reach is wide, including small drones in unmanned aircraft groups 1 through 3, unmanned boats, ground robots and counter-drone systems. It also covers the artificial intelligence and swarming software that guides them. Unmanned underwater vehicles will be handled jointly with the Pentagon’s submarine portfolio manager.

The office’s authority stops short of the Pentagon’s major defense acquisition programs, the big-ticket programs that already follow a separate approval process set in law. That means large airframes like the Air Force’s Collaborative Combat Aircraft and the Navy’s MQ-25 Stingray and MQ-4C Triton stay with the services, as does the Navy’s medium unmanned surface vessel.

Two existing organizations are now moving under the new office. Joint Interagency Task Force 401, which has led the fight against small aerial drones, will expand to countering unmanned threats in every domain. The Defense Autonomous Warfare Group, the Pentagon’s effort to mass-produce cheap drones, becomes a subordinate element. Neither will see its staff or positions relocated, the memo notes.

The new office inherits one of the largest spending increases in the Pentagon’s budget. The department’s latest budget request set aside $53.6 billion for autonomous drone platforms, part of what Pentagon officials called an unprecedented commitment to drones and counter-drone systems.

Separately, the memo names the Defense Innovation Unit, the Pentagon’s link to commercial tech firms, as the single point of contact for the new portfolio.

The office holds significant power. It will act as the milestone decision authority for its programs, the official who decides whether a weapon advances through development, and it will take precedence on drone acquisition matters behind only Hegseth and Feinberg.

The office can act as the top buying official on its contracts, order the services to shift money between programs through the Pentagon comptroller, and stop any system from reaching the field.

The move also centralizes congressional engagement through the DRPM-UxS, requiring every part of the department to clear its drone-related plans with the office before contacting lawmakers.

The memo says the office’s programs, jobs and people are exempt from the department’s hiring freezes, personnel reductions and reductions in force, and gives its chief the power to hire directly. The memo also lays out a staffing timeline. Once a director is named, hiring is to begin within 30 days, an organizational plan is due within 60 and a full list of the programs moving over is due within 90.

The reorganization is the latest step in Hegseth’s push to field weapons faster, a broader “speed to delivery” initiative that has already drawn warnings from the government’s top auditor.

A Government Accountability Office report released Tuesday found the Pentagon’s independent testing office, which Hegseth cut from 126 civilian jobs to 30 last year, now watches just 15 of about 110 active programs on one fast-track buying pathway, Defense News reported.

It is the latest of several direct reporting portfolio managers Hegseth’s team has stood up to pull the department’s top priorities under Feinberg, and the widest in scope. What this all means for the drone programs already underway inside the services is not spelled out in the memo.

Soaring demand for rocket motors used to power missiles and other weapons has spurred new thinking about supply chains. Seeking big returns, Silicon Valley-style startups are now taking on defense companies that have long dominated the industry, pulled into the competition by a need for production speed, high volume and lower costs, according to 10 industry executives, experts and U.S officials interviewed by Reuters.

The U.S. has plowed through over 50,000 rockets, missiles and other projectiles propelled by rocket motors since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 through the U.S. attack on Iran, Pentagon data shows. Washington is setting aside $53 billion and simplifying procurement rules to increase critical missile and rocket production.

CEOs from Lockheed, Boeing and Raytheon parent RTX, among the largest military contractors, have warned that solid rocket motor shortages were hurting missile production.

Now, defense entrepreneurs must prove they can deliver. Pleasing the Pentagon brings huge benefits, including contracts with a government agency that has an annual budget of more than a trillion dollars and a seal of approval other governments want to see before buying from new contractors.

But challenges are ahead. All the new entrants will need to produce enough of the new weapons to meet growing demand. Many new entrants are making rocket motors for existing missiles, some are making the entire missile, but none of the companies have scaled up production to replace legacy contractors.

Legacy solid rocket motor makers Northrop Grumman and L3Harris said they have been pushing their own research and development to pull these new technologies like 3D printing and new mixing technologies.

FROM STEERING CARS TO STEERING MISSILES

California-based Castelion, which makes solid rocket motors and hypersonic weapons, turned to the auto industry for sophisticated electronic components used in advanced driver assistance systems and electric vehicles to help steer its missiles to targets.

These auto industry processors, known as Field-Programmable Gate Arrays, can be bought at a tenth of the cost and obtained six times faster than comparable versions used in the aerospace industry, Chief Operating Officer Sean Pitt said.

The oil and gas industry has been another important supply chain resource for Castelion. Rather than sourcing high-pressure metal tubes from aerospace vendors with long lead times, the company is using high-temperature, stress-rated precision machined tubes used to help crack open rocks in the fracking process.

These tubes are built to handle heat and pressure levels comparable to what is required for a rocket motor, but are sold by far more vendors, at lower prices, than the aerospace industry equivalent, Pitt said.

Castelion, recently valued at nearly $3 billion, has won big Pentagon contracts to make over 500 hypersonic weapons.

Mixing rocket motor propellant is another area of innovation for startup Anduril. The company, among the more successful recent defense industry entrants with several billion dollars of contracts under its belt, is using a pharmaceutical industry technique to mix chemicals used in rocket motors.

Anduril, valued at $61 billion, has purchased Colorado-based FlackTek’s bladeless mixers capable of processing multi-hundred-kilogram propellant batches in minutes rather than hours.

Anduril says the machine delivers more than a tenfold increase in production throughput compared to its previous mixing systems. The bladeless mixers produce more than 24 times the output of conventional industrial mixers, which are more like a giant kitchen mixer with paddles that require time for cleaning.

The same bladeless centrifugal technology is used to produce precision compounds including liposome-based cancer treatments — applications where batch consistency and contamination control are as unforgiving as in weapons production.

Still, challenges lie ahead for new entrants trying to break into the solid rocket motor business.

Tom Karako, director of the Missile Defense Project at the think tank Center for Strategic and International Studies, said they include “the painstaking, multi-step manufacturing process of casting, curing, baking, x-raying and sanding that solid-fuel rocket motors require — followed by rigorous inspection.”

Curing ovens and X-ray equipment remain a bottleneck for the industry, Karako added.

3D PRINTING TO CUT PRODUCTION TIMES

Innovations have already had a dramatic impact on arms production. A 2024 case study from traditional rocket maker Northrop Grumman estimated that replacing conventionally machined metal tooling with 3-D printed polymer tools reduces the amount of time it takes to create a production line from roughly a year to about six weeks, enabling a new rocket motor to be developed from scratch much more quickly.

X-Bow Systems is a New Mexico-based company that specializes in low-cost solid rocket motor (SRM) production through a process that utilizes 3D printing of propellants and motors.

The technology has the potential to reduce the time and cost of SRM production drastically. X-Bow has also said it can shorten the creation of a new production line — which makes 3D printed motors — from a three- to six-year timeline to about 12 months. X-Bow already has a $191 million Pentagon contract for hundreds of solid rocket motors.

Texas-based Firehawk Aerospace, founded in 2020, also uses 3D printing to manufacture SRMs at a fraction of the cost of traditional production methods.

Firehawk says its manufacturing process cuts rocket fuel production time from up to 60 days to just 7 hours, at one-tenth the traditional cost.

It enables custom designed missiles to be test-ready in a matter of months. Firehawk is backed by funding from venture capital firm 1789 Capital, a fund where President Donald Trump’s son is a partner.

Government purchasing patterns will always be a limiting factor for startups. The Pentagon has traditionally bought rocket quantities annually, resulting in unpredictable demand shifts from year to year.

“How can we get good multi-year agreements that don’t roll off when administration changes?” said Lukas Czinger, CEO of Divergent Technologies, which makes parts for missiles. “That’s what businesses need to perform at low cost.”

A Naval Air Systems Command Request For Information posted on July 1 is asking industry whether it is capable of supplying up to 600 Advanced Emission Suppression Missiles per year.

In February — before the Iran War and the consequent guided missile shortage — NAVAIR posted a Sources Sought notice that stated “production demand is expected to be on the order of up to 300 [all up rounds] per year.”

The new RFI asks for a “mature design” of at least technological readiness stage 6 — the fully functional prototype stage.

“The U.S. Navy is seeking to enhance its capabilities to suppress and neutralize enemy air defenses in contested environments,” the RFI said. “This effort aims to identify and potentially acquire a weapon system focusing on extended range, advanced targeting, counter-countermeasures, and integration with existing and future platforms.”

Both the RFI and the earlier Sources Sought share some details. The Navy wants an “advanced anti-radiation seeker with broad frequency coverage” and the “ability to target modern and advanced radar systems.”

The AESM should be compatible with the F/A-18 E/F and the EA-18G, as well as being capable of mounting internally and externally on the F-35. It should also require minimal maintenance, and have at least a 15-year service life and more than 500 captive carriage flight hours.

But the RFI does not include several specifications contained in the Sources Sought. In particular, the Sources Sought asked companies to “describe ability to engage air-to-air and air-to-ground targets.”

The RFI doesn’t mention an air-to-air capability for the AESM. Nor does it repeat the Sources Sought call for an anti-radiation missile “with a longer range than existing in the Navy’s current inventory.”

The Navy’s existing anti-radar missile, the 1980s AGM-88 High Speed Anti-Radiation Missile, or HARM, has a range of up to 80 miles, depending on the launch aircraft’s altitude.

The AGM-88G Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile Extended Range, or AARGM-ER, has a longer range. But amid development delays — including problems with the rocket motor and software — the Navy has paused procurement for the AGM-88G, with limited procurement set to resume in Fiscal Year 2028.

The U.S. has sent HARMs to Ukraine for use against Russian air defense radars. However, the Ukrainians are replacing them with domestically produced attack drones, perhaps out of concern over the limited number of HARMs received.

With the counter-drone market “red hot,” demand for affordable short-range radars could grow tenfold by 2030, Frankenberg told Defense News at the Eurosatory defense show near Paris last month. Echodyne, based near Seattle, is shipping radars as fast as it can make them, and will cut the ribbon on a new facility this month that at full rate will lift production capacity tenfold.

As drones have become the main killers on the battlefield in Ukraine and inflicted billions of damage in the Middle East, counter-unmanned aerial systems could be spotted all over the 2026 edition of Eurosatory, the world’s biggest defense show. The Echodyne team tallied at least 29 stands displaying the firm’s radars integrated in C-UAS offerings.

“There is a rush of interest globally for counter-drone,” Frankenberg said. “The Ukraine war made it obvious to everyone that drones had changed the face of warfare, but the Iran war made it obvious that everything’s at risk.”

Defeating drones starts with detection, and suppliers of relatively small and affordable radars such as Echodyne, Blighter and Robin Radar have benefited from surging interest in anti-drone warfare, which doesn’t require the powerful and expensive radars that equip missile and air-defense systems.

“The more traditional defense-radar companies make amazing radars,” Frankenberg said, citing RTX, SRC and Thales. “But they all cost half a million dollars or a million dollars a face. If you have a million cheap, lethal drones, you can’t have one battlefield-wide system at $5 million or $10 million. You have to have a ton of inexpensive, yet highly effective systems.”

Polish-Ukrainian startup develops radar to track elusive, low-flying drones

Echodyne’s compact, solid-state radars use the firm’s proprietary metamaterials technology, with densely packed antenna arrays to electronically steer radar beams without much of the complexity and cost of traditional phased-array systems.

The firm was founded in 2014 as a spin-off from Intellectual Ventures, with early investors including Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates. Frankenberg said the reason to create Echodyne was to make radars with the performance of active electronically scanned array radars “for fractions of the cost.”

Echodyne’s small radars, about as big as a hard-cover book, cost around $40,000 a panel, while its bigger radars, the size of a small carry-on suitcase, are in the $160,000 range, the CEO said.

The company is investing $40 million in a new facility that will lift production capacity to 30,000 radar panels a year, a mix of smaller and larger models. Frankenberg said Echodyne has advanced its entire 2027 expansion plan to this year, with the new plant already online before the official ribbon cutting in July.

“There’s just massive demand now, and it goes back to the point that the only way to counter mass is with mass, and so there’s just going to be a huge number of these systems,” Frankenberg said. “We’re building this new factory for a reason.”

The market for small radars will probably reach hundreds of thousands of panels by 2030 from a market that today numbers in the tens of thousands, according to Frankenberg. He said Echodyne is currently leading in the segment, but didn’t want to provide an exact number for market share.

Echodyne’s first radar, the book-sized EchoFlight, designed for commercial drone collision avoidance, got a lot of press but “wasn’t going in a hurry anywhere commercially,” the CEO said. The firm got its first big break in 2017, when Anduril adopted EchoGuard for its Sentry autonomous surveillance tower, which in turn kicked off interest in the radar for ground-to-air drone detection.

The company developed the larger EchoShield radar using its metamaterials technology for clients wanting more detection range, and introduced the model around the time of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, as demand for military counter-drone systems took off. Defense now accounts for about 65% of sales, a reversal of the mix before 2022.

EchoGuard can typically track a small quadcopter drone at 1 km (1,100 yards), while the larger EchoShield can do the same at 3 km and track more than 1,000 objects at a given time. The radars are usually part of a sensor stack including optical sensors and often also radio-frequency detection.

While “exquisite systems” for traditional air defense won’t go away, Echodyne expects much greater demand for affordable short-range radar than high-end systems, according to Frankenberg.

“You’re going to need a massive number of short-range systems. All those short-range systems need to be able to detect and track the incoming threat, which means they’re going to need some kind of radar.”

Echodyne has outgrown the startup phase and considers itself a medium-sized technology company, with around 60% of revenue from the United States and 40% from international markets, Frankenberg said.

The firm worked with Northrop Grumman around 2020 to integrate EchoGuard on Bushmaster chain guns for counter-drone fire control, with Frankenberg saying radar cueing solved tracking problems that optical sensors alone struggled with. That approach has since been adopted by turret makers including Kongsberg and Rheinmetall.

For any platform with a gun, “that gun needs to be able to defend the platform,” Frankenberg said. “Every maneuver unit should have this. At the end of the day, is that your most exquisite counter- drone system? Maybe not, but does it allow you to defend yourself in battle? Yes.”

The CEO said turning guns into anti-drone weapons requires a radar, maybe a computer upgrade depending on the platform, software algorithms, “and then the gun is ready to go. We think there’s going to be huge demand for this.”

Echodyne radars are used on high-powered microwave C-UAS from Epirus and ThinKom, laser-based systems from AeroVironment and Electro Optic Systems, in European laser-weapon programs, and in directed-energy projects with primes who make their own radars, Frankenberg said. Other solutions include pallets loaded with interceptors, and an Echodyne radar to cue them.

“We’re on pretty much anything you can think of in the counter drone space,” Frankenberg said.

No single system will win the C-UAS race, “you’re going to see a mass of systems,” Frankenberg said. He said lasers and high-powered microwaves are good options where appetite for collateral damage is low, whereas rotary machine guns are extremely effective “if you don’t care about collateral effects.”

With the proliferation of new drone counters, “I’m sure it’s confusing for buyers,” Frankenberg said. “There’s going be room for a lot of them to be effective and be winners, but which ones, it’s hard to pick right now.”

As for Echodyne, the firm became profitable last year and is open to all long-term options, including staying private, an initial public offering or an acquisition, according to the CEO. Frankenberg said his investors right now are “incredibly happy” with how business is going.

“We’re clearly in the middle of this market that’s red hot, and so from that standpoint, it makes sense that we would be attractive to people,” Frankenberg said. “We’re profitable, attractively profitable, so we can run as long as we want, but good business management is, always be open to what comes around.”

The U.S. military is closing in on its high-energy laser weapon of choice for counter-drone missions. Now it needs the vehicles to support it.

With the demise of its Stryker-based Directed Energy-Maneuver Short Range Air Defense (DE-MSHORAD) program, the U.S. Army has focused its ground-based laser weapon efforts on light tactical vehicles.

AeroVironment’s 20 kW LOCUST Laser Weapon System has already been operationally tested aboard both the Infantry Squad Vehicle and the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle through the Army Multi-Purpose High Energy Laser (AMP-HEL) effort, establishing that the U.S. military’s preferred mobile platforms can carry and employ directed energy weapons in the field.

The Army has reinforced this preference with its Enduring High Energy Laser (E-HEL) push, which is explicitly targeting light tactical vehicles like the JLTV for what might become the U.S. military’s first directed energy program of record.

Both the ISV and JLTV are at the center of the U.S. military’s emerging approach to future distributed operations. For the Army, the speedy and versatile ISV is seen as providing an essential maneuver capability for Mobile Brigade Combat Teams on a battlefield increasingly dominated by low-cost weaponized drones.

And while the ultimate fate of the JLTV remains uncertain, the vehicle is currently the chosen platform for the Marine Corps air defense system that’s the backbone of the service’s new Marine Littoral Regiments.

Both platforms, however, face the same big problem: power. The two services’ potential solutions offer a look at what the U.S. military’s future fleet of laser trucks might actually look like.

As the modern battlefield is increasingly defined by unmanned systems and the electronics needed to counter them, consistent and reliable power at the tactical edge has become as important as ammunition.

During the height of the Global War on Terrorism, a 30-soldier infantry platoon carried 400 pounds of batteries during a 72-hour mission to power equipment, a load that Army researchers have sought to lighten in the intervening years.

The U.S. military’s new crop of tactical vehicles don’t currently offer a robust solution: the JLTV can only generate up to 15 kW of exportable power, while the ISV’s output beyond baseline vehicle operations is not public (and likely negligible).

The challenge for building a laser truck is bigger than just raw power. The core problem for directed energy weapons, as Chariot Defense founder and CEO Adam Warmoth told Laser Wars earlier this month, is that while they don’t consume enormous amounts of energy in absolute terms, each engagement demands a significant spike in power sustained for several seconds.

Conventional generators are optimized for steady output but not for these spikes, and running one at the ready around the clock is not just inefficient and expensive, but actively dangerous on a battlefield where heat signatures and engine noise turn are prime targets for drone-based reconnaissance and precision strikes.

“That targetable signature is always on because you have to be ready to provide power to that laser system at any moment,” Warmoth said. “So, you have efficiency challenges, signature management challenges and then mobility problems, where you have to bring the generator sized to your peak demand, which is three to five times larger than the equivalent battery system.”

The proposed solution to this problem is a hybrid architecture: a generator sized for average load paired with a high-voltage battery system capable of delivering instantaneous surges on demand. The battery handles the spike, the generator recharges the battery between shots and the overall system is smaller, quieter and more tactically versatile than alternatives.

A vehicle with the right hybrid architecture becomes more than just a maneuver capability, but a node in a distributed battlefield power grid capable of charging drone batteries, running C2 and sensor networks and powering electronic warfare equipment — and, when the moment requires it, feeding a laser weapon the juice it needs to fry a target.

The Army and Marine Corps have understood the benefits of vehicle electrification for some time. In January 2024, GM Defense demonstrated its Next Generation Tactical Vehicle-Hybrid — built on a Chevrolet Silverado HD 3500 with the same Duramax engine used in the ISV and paired with a battery producing roughly 300 kW hours — with soldiers from the 3rd Brigade, 10th Mountain Division in Hohenfels, Germany.

The following February, the service’s Rapid Capabilities and Critical Technologies Office demonstrated a Humvee-based Tactical Hybrid Electric Vehicle at Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland, highlighting silent watch, silent mobility and increased power generation and export as the core operational advantages.

And later that month, the Army’s JLTV program office released a market survey for a “projected new production effort of a light tactical wheeled hybrid-electric vehicle.”

The U.S. military has validated this technology despite ongoing concerns that the Trump administration might put the kibosh on such efforts. Now the Pentagon has to actually field it in the right package.

The Army’s answer to the power gap is the ISV-Heavy. The name is slightly misleading: what makes the vehicle “heavy” is its chassis and, more importantly, its proposed power generation capabilities.

According to a commercial solutions opening (CSO) document published in late March, the system must produce and export a minimum 60 kW of continuous high-voltage DC power to support modular mission-specific payloads, from C2 communication equipment and radar to, explicitly, future directed energy weapons.

If the original ISV, based on GM Defense’s Chevrolet Colorado ZR2, was intended as a high-speed troop transport, the ISV-H is envisioned as a mobile power plant that happens to carry soldiers.

The ISV-H is designed to fill a “niche requirement there between an ISV and then, say, a JLTV, and it’s really going to be focused on the power generation part,” Jess Tolleson, principal deputy assistant secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology, told the Senate Armed Services Committee during a June 16 hearing.

“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,” she added.

The ISV-H, meanwhile, is moving faster than the earlier CSO document might have indicated. According to the Army’s fiscal year 2027 budget request released in April, the service plans on procuring an initial tranche of 34 ISV-H vehicles at a unit cost of roughly $463,000 each, with a total procurement objective set at 606 vehicles.

The service plans to release proposal requests by the end of this year, Tolleson said, describing the platform’s development as “a top priority” that the service wants to accelerate. The Army wants to award a contract by September 2027 and accept its first deliveries by January 2028, per the budget documents.

GM Defense had previously announced it will offer the same Chevrolet Silverado model showcased as the Next Generation Tactical Vehicle-Hybrid for the effort.

The ISV-H’s power specifications track with the hybrid architecture necessary for a mobile directed energy weapon employment, while the silent operations mode addresses the generator signature problem. The vehicle is purpose-built for the demands of the electronically-defined battlefield — a laser truck designed from the outset to fight, and win, the laser wars of the future.

For the Marine Corps, there is no equivalent clean-sheet solution available. The JLTV is firmly entrenched in the Corps’ redesigned force structure: the Marine Air Defense Integrated System (MADIS) counter-drone and air defense system, which carries a 30mm cannon and Stinger missiles, operates across a fighting pair of the vehicles, while the Navy-Marine Corps Expeditionary Ship Interdiction System (NMESIS), which mounts the Naval Strike Missile on a JLTV, forms the centerpiece of the service’s Indo-Pacific sea denial strategy.

The main problem is that the Army’s relationship with the JLTV has deteriorated sharply over the past year. In May 2025, Secretary of the Army Dan Driscoll published a directive stating that the service would cancel procurement of “excess ground vehicles like the [Humvee] and JLTV” and redirect funds toward modernizing light formations around the ISV. According to the Congressional Research Service, the service planned to procure no additional JLTVs beyond the 250 delivered in January of that year.

AM General’s JLTV A2 variant, the next-generation successor that was supposed to carry the program forward, is now running more than 20 months behind schedule with roughly 2,000 vehicles in arrears, and House appropriators have proposed cutting $133 million from the program’s $245 million budget.

The Army’s JLTV ongoing issues jeopardize the Corps’ plans for the platform. As Marine Corps Commandant Gen. Eric Smith stated during a June 2025 posture hearing, the service would have to buy fewer JLTVs in the future due to the Army stoppage. The Corps has already fielded roughly half its 12,500-vehicle requirement, but with Army volume gone, per-unit costs will rise.

This past February, the service reaffirmed its commitment to fielding the vehicle as part of its new force structure, as its Marine Littoral Regiments are built around JLTV-mounted capabilities in a way that makes a clean break from the platform effectively impossible.

In May, the service released a request for information seeking “mature, production-ready, rapidly fieldable” alternatives from vendors capable of supplementing or replacing AM General’s supply, a tacit acknowledgment of the A2’s production troubles.

This is where original JLTV manufacturer Oshkosh Defense comes in.

Displaced by AM General in 2023, Oshkosh arrived at Eurosatory 2026 in Paris with a potential answer to the power problem: an upgraded version of the hybrid-electric eJLTV demonstrator the company first unveiled in 2022, capable of generating 115 kW of exportable power and operating in silent drive and watch modes that allow for full electronic functionality without the tactical liability of a engine signature.

With the purported ability to generate bursts of power up to 250 kW, the system was explicitly designed with future directed energy weapons in mind.

“[Working out where to] aim the power available for export is a consideration and the top end is kind of where we’re focused,” Logan Jones, chief growth officer of Oshkosh’s transport division, told Shephard Media. “One that we’ve been tracking is the Australian-based Electro Optic Systems Apollo high energy laser weapon. At the other end, another type of integration is the Cilas HELMA-P [counter-drone] system.”

Oshkosh is already pushing to reclaim its role as primary JLTV supplier for the Marine Corps, but its broader institutional argument for eJLTV adoption is relatively straightforward: a service that already operates JLTVs can easily integrate the electric version into existing maintenance infrastructure, draw on established spare parts supply chains and train crews already familiar with the base vehicle.

With the Army walking away from the JLTV and the Marines actively shopping for alternatives, Oshkosh’s power-capable variant may prove the most realistic near-term path for the latter service to get directed energy into the fight.

Together, the ISV-H and eJLTV offer the U.S. military a two-track approach to fielding laser weapons on light tactical vehicles at scale. The Army gets a purpose-built platform with the power architecture, silent operations capability and modular payload bays to support directed energy weapons like the E-HEL from the ground up. Meanwhile, the Marine Corps gets an evolutionary upgrade to a platform it is already committed to.

Neither track, however, is without risk. The Army has yet to select an ISV-H manufacturer, and 606 vehicles is a modest procurement objective for a capability the service describes as a critical gap.

The eJLTV remains a demonstrator, and the Marine Corps’ JLTV procurement future depends heavily on whether AM General can close its production gap and Congress will continue to fund a program it has already threatened to cut.

But if AV’s LOCUST proved the feasibility of a real-world laser truck, the ISV-H and the eJLTV are the U.S. military’s first serious attempts to build enough of the right vehicles to make laser weapons a standard battlefield capability.

The major challenge ahead, as senior defense officials have repeatedly emphasized, is whether directed energy weapons can be produced, procured, fielded and sustained at the scale required to prove effective. Without the right platforms to support them, these weapons will remain niche capabilities — impressive in demonstrations, but absent when it matters most.

Ukraine’s 427th Separate Unmanned Systems Regiment, known as Rarog, posted the unverified night-vision clip to its Telegram channel last month showing an interceptor closing on a one-way attack drone and a flash at the moment of contact. The unit flies Ukrainian-built interceptors alongside foreign systems, and did not specify which it used.

Foreign Policy Research Institute senior fellow Rob Lee shared the clip and called it the first public video he believed of Perennial Autonomy’s Merops, the American interceptor, “targeting Shahed/Geran one-way attack drones.”

The footage lands as the Army is moving to build a version of that drone it can call its own.

On June 23, the Army opened a Low-Cost Interceptor program at an industry day in Arlington, Virginia, seeking complete systems for under $1 million and government-owned designs it can hand to any manufacturer, with a first live-fire demonstration set for the fall.

The program would let the Army break the interceptor into pieces, buy or lease the design, and use contract manufacturers to build it — so it owns the weapon rather than depending on a single prime, Army Secretary Dan Driscoll said in May.

The Army does not own the Merops design and cannot produce them at will. The new program would change that, letting it hand a government-owned blueprint to any manufacturer rather than buy from only a single contracting company.

The vendor that the U.S government appears to be seeking independence from in this case is Perennial Autonomy, the maker of Merops.

Former Google chief executive Eric Schmidt launched the defense startup in 2023 and signed a three-year, $500 million contract with the Pentagon in May — the largest single counter-drone deal it’s ever awarded — making the company uniquely influential to military supply chains.

The Pentagon turned to Merops after burning through hundreds of Patriot missiles defending against Iranian Shaheds, each Patriot costing more than $3 million and drawing down stockpiles Ukraine has long depended on for its own air defense.

The Army bought 13,000 Merops in eight days after the Iran war began in late February, at roughly $15,000 each, Driscoll told Congress in April.

“They protected U.S. troops,” the Army secretary told lawmakers, defending the cost as a fraction of what a Shahed costs to produce. “We will make that trade all day long.”

A Merops costs roughly $15,000 against a Shahed that runs $30,000 to $50,000.

The interceptor is a roughly three-foot, fixed-wing drone that flies up to 174 mph (280 km/h) and homes in on its target using thermal radar or radio-frequency sensors when its links are jammed.

It has downed more than 4,000 Russian drones in Ukraine, German production partner Twentyfour Industries said.

The system has conservatively accounted for 40% of all Shahed destruction in Ukraine, Brig. Gen. Curtis King, commanding general of the 10th Army Air and Missile Defense Command, told reporters at a Polish base in November.

NATO has already built Merops interceptors into the forces protecting its eastern flank.

Romania folded Merops into its national air defenses on June 29, joining Poland in fielding it, and Lithuania bought 48 interceptors earlier this year. Officials said they are planning a deployment along the Danube corridor, where Russian drones have repeatedly crossed from the war next door, according to Reuters.

But the system still faces technical difficulties.

In mid-June, footage circulated of Merops interceptors failing to down a Russian drone, and a Romanian field test in April logged a failure the military attributed to “target maneuvering,” according to Greek publication Pronews. The outlet still called Merops one of the most effective low-cost tools in the drone war.

Ukraine’s military also flies an array of homegrown drones that run $1,000 to $3,000 a unit and have downed thousands of Russian drones since 2024, on a cost exchange that runs as steep as 85-to-1 in Kyiv’s favor.

Kyiv asked the Pentagon last August to help scale that manufacturing, offering to co-produce its cheap interceptors for the U.S.

Washington declined.

The Sea Baby, a strike boat built and operated by Ukraine’s Security Service, or SBU, can now carry six to eight FPV drones in side compartments that open during an attack, alongside thermobaric Shmel rockets, according to Russian accounts of the boats operating around the Kinburn Spit, roughly 40 miles east of Odesa, shared by Forbes.

Ukrainian officials count on the autonomous vessels’ ability to move closer toward Russian military positions than land-based launchers could, with the SBU assuming a range of 930 miles (1,500 kilometers) on a 4,400-pound (2,000-kilogram) payload. Some of the drones in the cargo hold are guided by fiber-optic cable, leaving them immune to the radio jamming that downs ordinary FPVs, according to Forbes.

Ukraine has turned nearly everything it fields into an FPV launcher. Sea drones carrying fiber-optic FPVs struck the Russian ports of Tuapse and Novorossiysk in September. Several companies have rigged ground robots to fire the same drones, and both sides have flown balloons carrying them.

“The SBU became the first in the world to pioneer this new kind of naval warfare,” Brig. Gen. Ivan Lukashevych said at an unveiling of the Sea Baby’s latest generation in October 2025, “and we continue to advance it.”

Ukraine fields two distinct naval drone families.

The Sea Baby is developed and operated by the SBU, Ukraine’s domestic security service. The Magura – built by Uforce for the GUR, Ukraine’s military intelligence directorate – is a separate system with its own lineage and export path.

The Sea Baby is primarily remote-piloted from a mobile ground station but carries AI-assisted targeting and navigation systems that allow it to operate autonomously when communications are jammed or degraded – a design imperative born from Russia’s intense electronic warfare environment over the Black Sea.

American forces have begun using the boats themselves.

U.S. special forces sank a target ship with a Ukrainian Magura at the Balikatan 2026 exercise off the Philippines on June 24, the first use of the technology in the Indo-Pacific.

The interest is not one-off. A cheap, expendable boat that can carry a cluster of attack drones to within striking range is exactly the kind of weapon the United States is looking for as it prepares for a possible war with China across the Pacific’s vast distances.

“Magura’s successes on the Ukrainian-Russian front confirm their value for use in the Indo-Pacific region,” Oleg Roginsky, chief executive of Uforce, the London-based startup that makes the Magura, told Bloomberg last week.

Uforce is in talks with Indo-Pacific buyers and weighing at least two production sites in the region, Roginsky said. Ukraine barred weapons exports in 2022 to keep its arms at the front, and only began opening that market in 2025.

Ukrainian naval drones have sunk or damaged roughly a dozen Russian warships since 2022 and forced the Black Sea Fleet to pull its main operations back to Novorossiysk, the U.S. Naval Institute reported in September.

Each boat costs a few hundred thousand dollars, below the price of a single modern torpedo.

The Pentagon is studying the lesson as it shifts focus toward a possible conflict with China.

The U.S. Navy expects to field thousands of small uncrewed surface vessels across the Indo-Pacific by 2030, Capt. Garrett Miller, who leads its Surface Development Group One, said at a Navy symposium on April 20, as reported by USNI News.

In a report last July, the Center for Strategic and International Studies urged the U.S. military to copy Kyiv’s acquisition methods, arguing that “unlike theoretical models or peacetime pilots, Ukraine’s innovations in defense acquisition are battlefield tested.”

And Ukraine has continued to innovate. Its Sub Sea Baby underwater drone struck an Improved Kilo-class submarine at its pier in Novorossiysk on Dec. 15, the first time an unmanned underwater vehicle has hit a submarine in port, the SBU said.

Russia denied any damage, but satellite imagery taken the following day showed a 9-meter crater in the pier, the submarine visibly lower in the water, and the vessel, later identified as the B-271 Kolpino, unmoved at its berth more than a month later. Ukrainian and independent analysts assessed it as a mission kill.

NATO is already training with Kyiv’s tactics, too.

Ukraine’s navy led a NATO red team and beat the alliance’s blue force in all five scenarios at the REPMUS naval-drone exercise in Portugal in September, the first time it had run the opposing force.

The defense ministry declined to provide technical specifics on the modifications. However, it stated that the upgrades enhance the system’s ability to contend with high rates and volumes of fire, allowing Israel’s air defenses to more effectively manage massive, concentrated saturation salvos.

A key element of the latest test series was the operational integration of the Iron Beam. During the tests, joint operational scenarios were successfully executed and managed directly from the Iron Dome’s battle management center, the government said.

This integration is a prerequisite for future operational deployments allowing commanders to dynamically toggle between missile and laser interceptions based on the nature of the incoming threat, system availability and cost-benefit calculations.

Israel’s announcement comes amid a U.S.-Iran ceasefire, a diplomatic development that has left Israel in a state of high strategic tension along its northern border with Lebanon, where it continues to endure persistent drone salvos launched by Hezbollah.

The Iron Dome was declared operational in 2011, when it also achieved its historic first interception of a Gaza-launched Grad rocket, and since formed the backbone of Israel’s multi-layered air defense network. Each of its batteries consists of a radar system, a command center and missile launchers carrying about 20 Tamir interceptors, protecting against threats within a range of 4 to 70 kilometers.

The primary developer for the Iron Dome is the Israeli firm Rafael, which is also the primary developer for the Iron Beam.

That system is designed to neutralize targets within four to five seconds from the moment it locks onto the target, at ranges up to 10 kilometers. An Iron Beam laser pulse is deemed to cost only a few dollars while a single Tamir interceptor missile costs roughly $50,000.