The U.S. Army is seeking a new munition to shoot down small drones that costs less than $150,000 per round.
The service published a sources-sought notice for the Next Generation Counter-sUAS Missile initiative. The effort comes as the military pursues tools to address the growing threat of small unmanned aerial systems on modern battlefields [1].
Officials stated the principal objectives are to develop, produce and sustain a missile capability at extended ranges with rapid launch and reduced time-to-target over existing effectors. The weapon targets Group 2 and Group 3 UAS. The system is expected to achieve Technology Readiness Level 7 following the end of the initial developmental test series in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2027 [1].
The notice lists a threshold capability for defeating drones at ranges greater than 16 kilometers at a 6-kilometer altitude, and an objective capability of reaching them at 25-plus kilometers at an 8-kilometer altitude. The Army wants a quick-fire interceptor equipped with an all-weather RF seeker that can be launched from a platform less than 5 seconds after operator initiation [1].
The weapon must be compatible with the Coyote missile launcher and other components of the military’s counter-drone architecture, such as the Integrated Battle Command System Maneuver. The Army is interested in integrating the missile into the FS-LIDS and M-LIDS counter-drone capability configurations for fixed-site and mobile defense [1].
Affordability of munitions is a growing concern as the Pentagon seeks cheaper alternatives to firing million-dollar interceptors at inexpensive enemy drones. The cost for the NGCM should be less than $150,000 per round in a quantity buy of at least 5,000 missiles. Industry responses to the notice are due Aug. 20 [1].
The initiative has sparked debate about the economics of defensive weaponry. James Filley, an industry observer, noted that critics often focus on the asymmetry between the cost of the interceptor and the cost of the drone, but fail to consider the value of the asset being protected [2].
“The equation is NOT just the two variables of drone and interceptor,” Filley wrote. “It’s three. Cost of the threat, cost of the interceptor, cost of what is about to be hit if we don’t intercept the threat.” [2]
Filley argued that defensive weaponry is inherently more robust than offensive weaponry because the defense must react to the offense. He compared the situation to the development of the $90 million Ground-Based Interceptor to defeat $2 million to $5 million North Korean ICBMs, noting that the cost disparity was accepted because the stakes were understood [2].
References:
[1] Army seeks next-gen missile that could shoot down small drones for less than $150K a pop
[2] James Filley LinkedIn Post
*AI generated