Leonardo DRS has been heavily involved in mobile counter-unmanned aerial systems (C-UAS) efforts including the U.S. Army M-SHORAD (Maneuver Short-Range Air Defense) Increment 1 program, also known as SGT STOUT, which provides an air defense capability for ground maneuver forces against low-altitude aerial threats. The company is now preparing for the forthcoming M-SHORAD Increment 4 program, which requires a vehicle-agnostic, reconfigurable, palletized or “sled”-based air defense capability.

TWZ’s Jamie Hunter spoke in-depth with Joe Rolwes, Director of Business Development at Leonardo DRS, about how mobile air defense is evolving and the various technologies that are being employed.

The post Leonardo DRS Explains How Army Counter-UAS Mission Is Evolving appeared first on TWZ.

A plan for a new military weapons “super range” test center in Montana announced by President Donald Trump Wednesday night seeks to address a growing concern about the need for more such facilities. As the U.S. races to develop autonomous capabilities, hypersonic munitions, laser and directed energy weapons and improved electronic warfare systems, a limiting factor has been the lack of suitable locations for testing.

While the U.S. military has a wide array of installations where it can test these systems, it’s still not enough. In addition to the massive increase in weapons development and the need for more realistic training, the changing nature of war is outstripping the capacity of existing facilities as future kill webs will extend thousands of miles, not hundreds. There are only so many places with enough space to try out these systems even to a limited degree without butting up against statutes and regulations while also avoiding interference with civilian air traffic and communications, all in an environment remote enough to avoid prying eyes. The need for more and bigger testing grounds is an issue TWZ has long raised.

In addition to the backdrop of the increase in a wide range of weapons testing, much of it aimed at China, Trump’s super range announcement was delivered as the Pentagon and services are specifically creating commands dedicated to autonomous weapons. On Tuesday, during the annual Association of the U.S. Army (AUSA) conference in Washington, D.C., attended by TWZ, the acting Army Secretary unveiled one such new command, which we will discuss in greater detail later in this story.

“I’m pleased to inform ​you and announce that right here in Montana, the Department of War is ⁠going ⁠to establish a new ⁠”super range” ​for testing advanced weapons and technologies, technologies including potential autonomous weapons, space, and electronic ​warfare technology, supersonics and ⁠hypersonics,” Trump said during a campaign rally in Kalispell. “Montana will help ensure the American military always reigns supreme.”

.@POTUS: "I'm pleased to inform you and announce that right here in Montana, the @DeptofWar is going to establish a new Super Range for testing advanced weapons and technologies, including potential autonomous weapons, space and electronic warfare technology, supersonics, and… pic.twitter.com/W4YqKfq8X4

— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) October 15, 2026

Trump provided no additional details about where this new “super range” will be located, when it will come online, exactly which systems will be tested or how much it will cost.

Thursday morning, the office of U.S. Sen. Tim Sheehy noted that he has been “a strong advocate for building an advanced training range in Montana, securing $10 million for a feasibility study in the FY27 National Defense Authorization Act that passed the Senate Armed Services Committee earlier this year.”

“The 21st-century battlefield is being redefined by new weapons and evolving technical frontiers that require a novel approach to how America will resource its warfighting capabilities,” the senator said in a statement. “Contested spectrum, electronic warfare, hypersonics, space capabilities and enhanced targeting require a new class of testing and evaluation facilities for our military. The U.S. faces a clear choice: adapt and expand our development infrastructure to the realities of modern warfare, or risk falling behind adversaries who iterate faster.”

The Montana Republican highlighted the value of his state’s huge swaths of undeveloped land for this effort.

“By combining our state’s vast landscapes, innovative spirit, and proud tradition of military service, we are the Last Best Place to ensure America’s fighting men and women have the technological edge they need to dominate the battlefield and win the wars of tomorrow,” he explained.

Like Trump, Sheehy offered no specifics about exactly where in Montana the “super range” will be located, when it will come online or how much it will cost. We have reached out to the White House, Sheehy and the Pentagon for more details. The Pentagon deferred us to the White House, which referred us back to the Pentagon. We also contacted the office of U.S. Sen. Steve Daines and Gov. Greg Gianforte.

There are already a number of facilities in Montana conducting the kind of military weapons testing described by Trump. One that closely matches what would be needed from such a location is the Montana Spaceport & Test Range and the affiliated Limestone Hills Innovation & Test Campus. A public-private aerospace and defense initiative, it already conducts testing for next-generation space vehicles, hypersonic, supersonic and ballistic weapons, drones and counter-drone systems and electronic warfare equipment.

Another potential site could be an expansion of the Big Sky Autonomous Systems Range (BSASR). Located near Bozeman, it is “the Lobo Institute’s primary training and testing facility for U.S. and allied military, federal, and partner organizations.” Operated under the Lobo Tactical division, BSASR is “a 6,000-acre, fully fenced complex purpose-built for advanced unmanned aerial systems operations, full-spectrum live fire, mounted and dismounted mobility, and full mission profile exercises grounded in the latest tactics, techniques, and procedures from active conflict zones,” according to the Lobo Institute. “The range pairs realistic terrain with the regulatory, infrastructure, and instructor depth required to train against the operational realities of today’s and tomorrow’s battlefields — and it does so in a remote, controlled environment where units can push hard while keeping risk to acceptable levels.”

We have reached out to both facilities for more details.

The new super range could also leverage existing range space on the ground and in the air. There is also the large Hays Military Operations Area (MOA) which could be expanded for this new test range effort. MOAs are blocks of airspace designated for military training. Malmstrom Air Force Base and its ICBM fields could also potentially be utilized. Overall, it’s possible a number of existing range areas could be interconnected, both digitally and via airspace corridors, to create a larger complex, as well.

The Pentagon has long realized the need to increase the areas where it can test out these systems, especially to evaluate them under combat-like conditions.

“The current open-air range space should be increased and better integrated to support system-of-systems assessments of air, land, and sea combat systems with capability for emerging long-range fires, hypersonic missiles, EMS warfare, unmanned systems, nuclear effects, and directed energy (DE) weapons,” the Pentagon’s Director of Operational Test & Evaluation (DOT&E) stated in a report last year. “The DoW needs to invest in and coordinate expanding and connecting the airspace available to the open-air ranges enabling testing and training of advanced capabilities.”

The current facilities are inadequate, DOT&E further explained.

“Threat systems and our own capabilities far exceed the current available air space on the open-air ranges,” according to the report. “The ranges need support and assistance to coordinate additional airspace and corridors with the FAA and industry. Expanding and connecting range air space is necessary to facilitate testing and training critical long-range capabilities that our warfighters need and to replicate the threats they will face.”

In addition, the report states that “to test missiles with longer ranges and gather data to support simulation validation, including for hypersonic missiles, the DoW should invest in long-range, overland missile flight test corridors with land-based impact areas and mobile hypersonic-specific range instrumentation to produce the required lethality data against threat-representative targets for terminal area assessments.”

The Defense Department had largely been conducting the testing of hypersonic weapons — those that can reach speeds of Mach 5 and above — at sea given the need for the long ranges for evaluation. Still, even that was limited. The Pentagon restricted the number and location of hypersonic tests it carried out each year because of the aging fleet of ships it used as its primary data collection assets to track the capabilities while in flight.

Retired Block 20 and Block 30 RQ-4 Global Hawks belonging to the U.S. Air Force, reconfigured as RangeHawks under the SkyRange hypersonic weapon testing infrastructure program, would help address some of those restrictions. You can read more about that in our story here.

However, if testing moves to an overland phase, the need for expanded air corridors could grow increasingly critical. Last year, the Pentagon’s Test Resource Management Center (TRMC) identified three candidate locations to perform those tests, one over Alaska, another at White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico and a third in Australia, Defense News reported at the time.

Hypersonic testing in Australia is already underway. Earlier this month, we broke the news that the U.S. Air Force’s scramjet-powered Hypersonic Attack Cruise Missile (HACM) had finally reached the flight test phase, with at least one “release” having been carried out so far over a range in Australia.

The military is also looking to expand where it can test electronic warfare systems to help ease the bottleneck at White Sands and a few other locations. Such testing is limited due to U.S. restrictions on jamming, which can interfere with civilian systems.

Before he resigned after tensions with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, former Army Secretary Dan Driscoll in June said the service had plans to set up at least two domestic ranges that mimic realistic conditions on Ukraine’s battlefields, where the electromagnetic spectrum is a highly contested domain. This spectrum would be even more heavily disputed in a fight with China.

“You can have a kind of electronic warfare and all of the contested environment created, and you can have drone manufacturers and counter-drone tool-builders engaging together,” Driscoll told reporters. “Then, we also want soldiers to be able to go there, so that they can strengthen their skills and work hand-in-hand with developers.”

Driscoll said there are already places in the U.S. where the Army can test safely, and separately, the service is looking at a global range outside the U.S. to do “much more aggressive testing,” including with hypersonics. When asked, Driscoll declined to say where these ranges would be until planning is farther along. 

“At least some of the current counter-drone training for soldiers, like one CBS News saw in April, does not include electronic jamming — in part because the U.S. restricts jamming domestically,” CBS reported.

In August, the Army opened premier test ranges for the use of private industry to conduct internal research and development. Additionally, the service co-hosted a Denied, Disrupted, Intermittent and Limited testing environment, at Camp Grayling in September, and there are three more scheduled for Fiscal Year 2027, an Army spokesperson told us.

Trump’s news about the “super range” was delivered as the Pentagon and the services are working to ramp up the development and production of a range of autonomous systems.

Last month, as we noted earlier in this story, the Pentagon announced plans for a new functional combatant command, very broadly akin to U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) or U.S. Space Command (SPACECOM), but for operational activities involving autonomous and robotic capabilities. In addition, Hegseth also announced new initiatives to help further accelerate the fielding of uncrewed systems in the air, at sea, and on land, as well as to explore future warfighting challenges. All of this builds on previous and long-overdue efforts to prioritize the fielding of various tiers of drones, as well as artificial intelligence (AI) and other emerging technologies, across domains, but there are questions about how these new efforts will translate into tangible developments.

.@SECWAR “Today, at my direction—we are announcing the creation of Autonomous Warfare Command, or AutoWarCom:

A new 4-star combatant command—with service-like authorities—built to scale autonomous and robotic capabilities across the Joint Force in the fastest peacetime shift in… pic.twitter.com/kYWBxy6Dij

— DOW Rapid Response (@DOWResponse) September 30, 2026

On Tuesday, acting Army Secretary Adam Telle announced the creation of the service’s Futures and Autonomous Systems Command (FASCOM).

“This is our way to make sure that we take all of the great work that’s been happening with the resources that we have today, and we centralize it,” Telle said. “We’re pushing autonomy down into our units, but when it comes to having and making sure that the left hand in the Army knows what the right hand of the Army is doing, this happens at FASCOM; then FASCOM feeds up into AutoWarCom.”

Telle added that FASCOM “will work with the other services to create scale for purchasing power and share best practices on autonomy.”

“It is too soon to speculate about anything related to FASCOM,” the Army told us. “Specifics on structure, command, mission, etc. will be announced at a future dates [and] will require the kind of additional testing facilities that a new Montana super range could provide.”

The use of highly cooperative autonomous weapons platforms that can swarm and operate collectively over large areas will also tax existing ranges beyond their capacity.

Details about the new range proposed by Trump are scant, and it remains to be seen whether it will live up to the hype or even be built. As we noted earlier in this piece, a feasibility study, which hasn’t even been funded yet, is still needed before major work can begin. However, if and when it does come online, a new Montana test range will be welcomed by a military in need of additional places to test out its latest capabilities.

Contact the author: howard@twz.com

The post New Montana “Super Range” Complex Could Add Critical Weapons Testing Capacity appeared first on TWZ.

The U.S. Army turned the Merops interceptor drone into a formal program in just 142 days, an acquisition milestone that highlights efforts to speed the service’s response to emerging threats and get combat-proven capabilities into the hands of troops and allies. The Merops won accolades for its role in defending against Iranian barrages of Shahed-136 one-way attack munitions in the Middle East.

Speaking at the Association of the U.S. Army’s (AUSA) main annual convention in Washington, D.C., where TWZ is in attendance, Col. Christopher Hill, director of the Army’s Global Tactical Edge Acquisition Directorate (G-TEAD), described the Merops effort as “an example of how we can move fast when we need to.”

The Merops is a small, relatively low-cost counter-UAS system designed to rapidly intercept long-range, one-way attack drones in flight. It was originally developed by Perennial Autonomy. The system uses Surveyor drones as airborne interceptors, with onboard sensors to track targets and the ability to operate autonomously or under remote control. The interceptors can destroy enemy unmanned aircraft through direct impact or a proximity-detonated explosive warhead.

The interceptor was initially brought to the Army’s attention after drone incursions involving two NATO partners prompted a senior commander to demand an urgent response. The system was not part of the commander’s original acquisition plan, Hill explained, but its demonstrated performance in Ukraine made it a compelling candidate.

“He said, ‘I want this capability in the hands of our partners within 14 days,’” Hill recalled. “Everyone looked around the room, and he looked over at me, and I nodded my head like, ‘We’ll figure it out.’”

The Army did not quite meet that deadline. Hill said acquisition personnel and soldiers went into the theater to evaluate the capability, ultimately getting it into the hands of NATO partners within approximately 21 or 22 days.

That initial effort has since expanded. Hill said the Army procured additional Merops systems in partnership with the Joint Interagency Task Force, which procured 13,000 of the interceptors. The effort also progressed from providing the capability to NATO partners to supplying mobile Merops firing teams to a second theater — presumably U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM).

In CENTCOM, the U.S. military has been confronting the threat posed by Iran’s Shahed-136 and other one-way attack drones, which have been used in barrages against American and allied forces and installations in the Middle East. Former Army Secretary Daniel Driscoll had previously highlighted Merops as a particularly attractive option for countering such threats because of its relatively low cost and the speed with which it can be acquired.

You can watch Driscoll’s testimony on Merops at the 36-minute mark of the video below:

During congressional testimony, Driscoll said the Army was able to purchase 13,000 Merops interceptors within approximately eight days after the conflict with Iran began. He put the cost at about $15,000 per interceptor, with the potential for that figure to fall below $10,000 as production scales. In a separate interview with Bloomberg, he suggested larger orders could eventually push the price down to between $3,000 and $5,000.

Shahed drones have been estimated to cost tens of thousands of dollars apiece, while traditional air defense interceptors are far more expensive. Using comparatively inexpensive drones to defeat them can improve the economics of air defense while preserving more sophisticated interceptors for threats that require them.

Ukraine has employed Merops alongside domestically produced interceptor drones to counter Russian Shahed/Geran one-way attack drones. The system’s battlefield use has helped demonstrate the potential of a new class of air defense weapons designed to defeat these kinds of drones without relying exclusively on costly surface-to-air missiles.

However, Hill cautioned that success in Ukraine does not automatically mean a system will perform equally well in every operational environment.

“On the Merops, it absolutely was influenced by [Ukraine]. I mean, that’s where it came from. That’s where we saw the capability,” he said. “But that’s one of the things where the employment of the system really matters.”

Hill noted that the system’s effectiveness will vary depending on where it is used, including differences between desert environments and the urban areas where it has operated in Ukraine. The objective, he said, is to get the capability into the Army’s inventory so commanders can make informed decisions about how and where to use it.

“Once we get it into our hands, now we can make a decision in Europe. Where does it go? Do I even need it?” Hill said. “It’s getting it in our hands. So that was the key for the Merops. The speed of getting it, then we can make the decision of how we employ it.”

That approach reflects a broader change in how the Army wants to manage emerging technology. Rapid fielding is important, but the service also wants to avoid acquiring a capability for an urgent operational need only to leave it without a clear path toward long-term funding, production, and support.

Hill said G-TEAD’s process is designed to involve the organizations that will eventually take responsibility for a capability from the outset. Program acquisition executives, or PAEs, are involved early, while the Army’s test and evaluation community and soldiers provide feedback as the system is assessed. The goal is to identify a transition partner upfront rather than wait until after an initial fielding effort to determine who will take ownership.

“We want to make sure that we’re giving commanders capability that we know works,” Hill said.

He described the directorate’s standard process as a 180-day effort, with the objective of reaching a decision on whether a capability should become an Army program within that period. The Merops effort, at 142 days, moved faster than that target.

The process is also intended to address what acquisition officials often call the ‘valley of death’: the gap between getting an emerging capability into the hands of operational units and the point at which a program office takes over and provides the funding and contracting structure needed to scale it.

“We will work to fill that valley of death gap between the time that we put capability into the hands of units and the time that the PM picks it up and actually [provides funding],” Hill said. “There’s a gap there. So we can do that intermediate scaling portion before it fully transitions.”

The effort builds on the Army’s wider push to streamline acquisition, an issue Driscoll has also emphasized. The Army secretary previously described an old process involving 16 decision-making steps, each with the ability to veto a proposal and send it back through the system. That structure could leave the service waiting two to seven years to purchase a capability.

The Merops experience suggests that some of those delays can be reduced when acquisition professionals work directly with operational units and the organizations responsible for evaluating and sustaining new equipment.

But rapidly acquiring an interceptor is only part of the challenge. The Army must still determine where it offers the greatest value, how it fits into existing air defense architectures, and how to produce and sustain enough systems to meet operational demand.

Low-cost interceptors are also not a replacement for every layer of air defense. They are, however, an increasingly important option against large numbers of relatively inexpensive attack drones, particularly when the alternative is expending missiles worth hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars to defeat each target.

For the Army, Merops is therefore serving two purposes: providing an additional tool against the growing one-way attack drone threat and demonstrating a faster route from an emerging battlefield capability to a formally supported military program.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The post Army Explains How Merops Interceptor Drone Became Program Of Record In Just 142 Days appeared first on TWZ.

Raytheon is developing a new iteration of its Coyote Block 2 counter-drone interceptor powered by a solid rocket motor rather than a small jet engine. This pushes the Block 2C+RM version, which also comes with a new seeker and warhead, into the surface-to-air missile side of the interceptor spectrum. With a significant boost in speed, range, and terminal intercept performance, it is designed to address evolving one-way-attack drone threats. The Coyote Block 2 series is already a combat-proven system, with more than 600 kills in the course of operational U.S. military deployments to date.

The unveiling of the Coyote Block 2C+RM came today around the start of the Association of the U.S. Army’s (AUSA) main annual convention, at which TWZ is in attendance. The rocket-powered version has been in the works for some 15 months now, and three successful live test launches have been conducted. That followed static test fires of the new rocket motor, which an unnamed subcontractor is supplying, and other testing.

The Pentagon and the U.S. Army have been engaged with Raytheon (now formally RTX) on the development of the Block 2C+RM, but whether there are formal U.S. military contracts to buy this version now is unclear. The U.S. Army is the largest known operator of Coyote Block 2-series interceptors now, with previously stated plans to buy at least 6,000 of them between Fiscal Years 2025 and 2029. We will come back to this later on.

As mentioned, existing versions of Coyote Block 2 are powered by a turbojet engine. A small rocket booster is also used to launch these interceptors, but does not propel them through the entire course of their flight.

With the rocket motor, “you get upgraded propulsion for faster launch and higher velocity flight,” Tom Laliberty, President of Land & Air Defense Systems at Raytheon, told TWZ and other outlets during a press call last week ahead of today’s announcement. “In terms of range and so forth, I can’t really get into any specifics about that, for obvious reasons.”

“What I would just say is it’s significant in terms of the range difference, and in the [sic] what I call end-game capabilities of the missile, where velocity might come into play,” he added. “Then with the seeker [and] warhead [upgrades], it really gets after the sort of more cutting-edge drone capabilities that we’re seeing from the adversary.”

Laliberty also did not elaborate on the specific improvements to the seeker or warhead. Existing Block 2-series Coyotes use on-board radio frequency seekers to find their targets in the terminal phase of flight after first being cued via radars and other sensors on the ground. They also carry blast-fragmentation warheads.

During last week’s call, Laliberty was asked about whether new faster-flying jet-powered one-way-attack drones, like Iran’s Shahed 238 and Russia’s Geran-4 and -5 derivatives, had prompted Block 2C+RM’s development. He was also queried about Block 2C+RM’s ability to defeat traditional cruise missiles.

“Unfortunately, I can’t get into the specific threats, but I can tell you the intention is to have this cover all types of Class 3 drones,” he said in response. “If you think about the Class 3 drone kind of ‘spectrum,’ there’s a pretty good overlap there with the capabilities of cruise missiles, as well, right? So it all depends on the specific[s] of the cruise missile.”

The U.S. military defines Group 3 drones, whether they are weaponized or not, as designs that weigh anywhere from 56 to 1,320 pounds, are able to fly up to an altitude of 18,000 feet, and reach a top speed of no more than 250 knots. The Shahed 238’s combustion engine-powered predecessor, the Shahed 236, is a prime example of a Group 3 kamikaze drone. The claimed top speeds of the jet-powered derivatives (approximately 270 to 320 knots) actually push the upper boundaries of this broad middle-tier category. TWZ regularly highlights the additional challenges that jet-powered kamikaze drones like the Shahed 238 and Geran-4/5 present. We also routinely note how the line between longer-range one-way-attack drones and cruise missiles has become increasingly blurry. The Block 2C+RM itself also further blurs the definition between a drone-like counter-drone interceptor and a more traditional surface-to-air missile.

RFE/RL takes apart a Russian Geran-4 drone to uncover what makes the jet-powered unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) faster, harder to intercept, and capable of operating deep inside Ukraine — from its turbojet engine and advanced camera to foreign-made communications and navigation… pic.twitter.com/WGNdlpS9w1

— Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (@RFERL) September 25, 2026

The conflict with Iran, as well as other crises in the Middle East in recent years and the ongoing war in Ukraine, make clear that even slower-flying Group 3 kamikaze drones present real dangers now. Those threats are magnified when these one-way attacks are employed in large volumes and/or in complex attacks mixed in with ballistic and cruise missiles.

As noted, Raytheon has highlighted how Coyote Block 2C+RM also has a faster overall response time compared to its predecessors, offering additional flexibility for engaging incoming waves of drones. The new version also works with all existing four- and eight-cell launchers, which can be variously mounted on vehicles and static positions on the ground, as well as on ships.

As mentioned earlier, the U.S. Army is the primary operator of Coyote Block 2s today, with the interceptors being used in both vehicle-based and palletized versions of its Low, Slow, Unmanned Aircraft Integrated Defeat System (LIDS). The U.S. Air Force has also been at least involved in the operation of fixed-site versions of LIDS at forward-deployed locations. The U.S. Navy has integrated launchers for Coyote Block 2s on several Arleigh Burke class destroyers, as well.

It’s also worth noting here that Coyote is generally described as a lower-cost interceptor, with a unit cost reported in the past to be around $100,000. How the new rocket-powered version will compare to existing types price-wise is unclear, but this is an increasingly important factor for the U.S. military and others, especially when considering the cost curve against the expected target set. As an example, the estimated cost of a Shahed 236 is in the $50,000 range.

To be clear, Coyote Block 2C+RM is still in development, and when it might start to enter operational service with any user remains to be seen.

“We’ve got additional tests scheduled into the first half of next year, and we’re working with the Department of War,” Raytheon’s Laliberty said last week. “We’ve got an ongoing investment from Raytheon, but now essentially received some government sponsorship as it kind of transitions into the program of record, and that’s still kind of ongoing with the Department of War in terms of how all of that is going to be structured. Certainly, in follow-on contracts for Coyote, this can be cut in.”

Raytheon has no plans to stop producing jet-powered Block 2 versions, either, at least for now. Beyond the U.S. military, there are now contractors to supply these interceptors to Qatar and Jordan.

The Block 2 series is just one part of the larger and still growing Coyote family of drones. A separate series of Coyote Block 3 drones, which evolved from the original electric motor-driven pusher propeller Block 1 design, is also steadily expanding. This includes versions configured as loitering munitions and as counter-drone interceptors carrying still unidentified “non-kinetic” payloads. The U.S. Army is already in the process of acquiring Block 3 types in addition to Block 2 interceptors.

As an aside, the U.S.-based subsidiary of Germany’s Rheinmetall is currently competing in the Army’s XM30 Mechanized Infantry Combat Vehicle (MICV) competition with a design that will be capable of employing Coyote Block 3. The launchers on American Rheinmetall’s Lynx-based XM30 offering will also be able to fire anti-tank guided missiles like the TOW and Javelin. You can read more about the XM30 competition and the other design in the running, General Dynamics Land Systems’ Wolf, here.

More broadly speaking, Coyote Block 2C+RM will be entering a hugely expanding market space for lower-tier and lower-cost counter-drone interceptors globally. The U.S. Army alone is already pursuing several new lower-tier anti-air interceptors to expand its capabilities against Group 3 drones, as well as other types of uncrewed threats and cruise missiles.

If nothing else, the newly unveiled Coyote Block 2C+RM reflects continued high demand, broadly speaking, for new interceptors, and more of them, to address ever-more capable longer-range kamikaze drones.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The post New Coyote Anti-Drone Interceptor Swaps Jet Engine For Rocket Power appeared first on TWZ.

The U.S. Marine Corps is buying Anduril Pulsar-L electronic warfare jammers to meet an urgent operational need to better protect its 8×8 wheeled Amphibious Combat Vehicles (ACV) from drones. This is part of broader efforts the service is pursuing to boost the ACV’s defenses against uncrewed aerial attackers, as well as incoming anti-tank guided missiles and other threats. Drone threats are real now and have notably sidelined even the most advanced heavy armor in Ukraine.

Marine Corps Systems Command (MARCORSYSCOM) announced it had awarded a sole-source deal to Anduril, valued at $15,711,445.50, for an unspecified number of Pulsar-Ls, yesterday. This follows a statement of intent the Command put out last month. Anduril first unveiled Pulsar-L, a lightweight addition to its larger Pulsar family of electronic warfare systems, in April 2025.

The Marine Corps had 150 baseline personnel carrier variants of the ACV (or ACV-Ps), as well as 21 command-and-control ACV-C versions, in inventory as of April 2026. The default armament for ACV-P currently is just a single .50 caliber M2 machine gun in a remote weapon station on top of the hull. The service’s goal is to eventually acquire 389 ACV-Ps and 33 ACV-Cs, as well as 152 ACV-30s with new 30mm cannon-armed turrets and 34 ACV-R armored recovery vehicle variants. The ACV family has already supplanted the Marine Corps’ previous fleet of tracked Assault Amphibious Vehicles (AAV).

“The Anduril Pulsar-L system is a platform-integrated omni-directional SK C-UAS [soft-kill counter-uncrewed aerial systems] with a combined sensor/jammer package that detects, tracks, identifies, and defeats radio frequency-dependent Group 1 and Group 2 Unmanned Aerial Systems (UASs),” MARCORSYSCOM wrote in a justification for the sole-source contract, which was also released yesterday. “Additionally, the system provides counter positioning, navigation, and timing capabilities.”

The U.S. military definition of a Group 1 drone is any design weighing up to 20 pounds, that is able to fly up to an altitude of 1,200 feet, and that can reach speeds of up to 100 knots. Group 2 is the next tier up, encompassing types with gross weights between 21 and 55 pounds, that can get up to an altitude of 3,500 feet, and hit top speeds of up to 250 knots. Kamikaze drones and other small weaponized types that fall into Groups 1 and 2 are used on a daily basis in Ukraine to attack armored vehicles, as well as unarmored vehicles and personnel. These are threats that have been steadily expanding to other hotspots globally, and that we will come back to later on.

Furthermore, “the Pulsar-L is the only solution capable of being mounted on the ACV to provide a mobile and organic means to effectively and simultaneously execute the entire kill-chain against hostile UASs in the deployed land and maritime/littoral environment while not exceeding the limited ACV space, weight, and power claim allotted to the SK C-UAS solution,” according to MARCORSYSCOM. “This will provide the ACV with an essential defensive capability, directly contributing to increased survivability and force protection while not sacrificing the mobility and operational tempo of the ACV.”

Pulsar-L is already “in use by the Special Operations Command due to the system’s low weight, proven performance in engaging multiple UASs, and simultaneous execution of the full kill-chain while static or on the move,” the justification document adds. “Additionally, it is the only known commercially available system that meets the minimum requirement to rapidly identify and respond to emerging UAS technologies and tactics without frequent updates to predefined threat data libraries. The Pulsar-L is the only solution that uses machine based learning to continually adapt to these ever-changing threats without requiring vendor updates, allowing the warfighters to continually be effective in the fight.”

The latter point here is a particularly important consideration for electronic warfare systems, in general, which need to be able to accurately detect, categorize, and respond to different waveforms to be most effective. The emergence of new waveforms, as well as changes to how existing ones are emitted, together with new tactics, techniques, and procedures, can all negatively impact a system’s performance. Historically, the process of responding to those developments with updates to built-in threat libraries has been lengthy and complex. The conflict in Ukraine has shown that the cycle of new developments in the electromagnetic spectrum and then the need for new countermeasures can be regularly measured in weeks.

The U.S. military has been heavily investing in so-called cognitive electronic warfare capabilities to help automate and otherwise accelerate various aspects of this process. The ability of a particular electronic warfare suite to adapt autonomously in real-time, even in the middle of operations, has been viewed as the absolute ‘holy grail’ of this concept, which you can read more about here. How exactly Pulsar-L leverages machine-learning and artificial intelligence to this end, and the speed with which it can adapt to changing threats, is still not entirely clear.

Regardless, “there is an unusual and compelling need for the rapid deployment of SK C-UASs to forward-deployed ground units as Marines currently lack the ability to conduct self-defense against emerging UAS threats,” the justification document stresses. “Failure to deliver this capability places Marines at unnecessary risk, potentially leading to mission failure and loss of life, and hampers the Government’s ability to keep them safe during forward deployments.”

MARCORSYSCOM’s justification for the sole-source deal to Anduril does not otherwise elaborate on the urgent requirements that drove the deal, which it says were only formalized on April 7. That is notably roughly a week after the United States and Israel first launched major combat operations against Iran, which is a prolific developer and user of various tiers of weaponized drones. There is no explicit confirmation of any link, but Iranian drones, as well as missiles and other capabilities, have been a real threat to U.S. forces in the region. We have also just gained more insights recently into how forward-deployed Marine Corps elements contributed to those operations. Counter-drone capabilities would also be especially critical in any future amphibious landing operation, wherever it might occur.

All that being said, threats posed by armed Group 1 and 2 drones are not at all limited to Iran and the Middle East, nor are they new. They are only likely to become a more ubiquitous feature in the hands of nation-state armed forces and non-state actors in conflict zones globally as time goes on. The nature of these threats is also expanding significantly in scale and scope, especially when it comes to more automated targeting capabilities, thanks heavily to the increasing democratization of AI-driven technologies, something TWZ has explored in depth in the past.

A number of other significant developments in this arena have emerged from the conflict in Ukraine, where electronic warfare systems are heavily employed against drones. This includes the introduction of physical fiber-optic control links that cannot be jammed, as well as the use of mesh-like and often ad-hoc networks to increase resiliency.

The fighting in Ukraine has also underscored the threat that even small kamikaze drones pose to armored vehicles, including types that are far more heavily protected to start with than the Marine Corps’ ACVs. As mentioned, Ukrainian forces have been sidelining their M1 Abrams and other main battle tanks in the face of constant drone attacks.

MARCORSYSCOM’s justification for the Pulsar-L order makes clear that this is just one part of a larger plan to boost the ACV’s defenses.

“Marine Corps program of record for SK C-UAS is planned to initiate in FY27,” the document mentions toward the very end. “The components of this future program will be procured through full and open competition as it is expected that advanced non-kinetic and SK defeat technologies should be mature by this time.”

Marine Corps officials have also talked in the past about integrating active protection systems (APS), which could be blended together with C-UAS capabilities, and other defensive features to the service’s ACV fleet.

“We’re constantly looking at what the next generation of APS is and how we can get that onto the [ACV] platform in a lightweight form factor,” Chris Melkonian, the Marine Corps’ Program Manager for Advanced Amphibious Assault (PM AAA), told TWZ and other attendees at the annual Modern Day Marine exposition in April.

Improved “situational awareness, that’s kind of a gateway to counter-UAS, in terms of the ability to sense your environment,” Melkonian also highlighted at that time. “Take all that video on board and then be able to feed that into [a] counter-UAS system.”

Additional “overhead protection right now is a critical thing that we’re working on right now for this platform,” he added. The practice of adding on anti-drone armor screens on armored vehicles (and now other platforms), especially to protect against top-down attacks, first emerged in Russia in the lead-up to the all-out invasion of Ukraine in 2022. However, the installation of this kind of so-called ‘cope cage’ type armor has now become a global trend, including in the U.S. military.

The U.S. Marine Corps is also pressing ahead with a larger vision to field several tiers of counter-drone capabilities at all levels of its forces, to better protect everything from static installations at home and abroad right down to individual squads.

When it comes to the Marine Corps ACV fleet, the rush order for Pulsar-Ls is an important new step in boosting those vehicles’ defenses against threats that exist now. At the same time, drones are increasingly calling the role of armored vehicles in future conflicts into question.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The post Marines Rushing To Equip Amphibious Combat Vehicles With New Anti-Drone Jammers appeared first on TWZ.

It’s the dead of night when the buzz of the engines of a series of Shahed-136 one-way attack drones breaks the silence. Carrying their lethal payloads the drones slip into the darkness with a distant supply base as their target. Tracking, identifying, and then destroying this swarm of drones is no easy task.

The unmanned aircraft system (UAS) threat environment is changing rapidly with an increasing variety of killer drones that demand differing methods of tracking and identification to engage and defeat them. Operational users are learning from rapidly-evolving- conflicts, and modern air defense methods increasingly rely on scalable, layered, and persistent sensing teams that can detect and track small, fast, low-altitude, and even swarming, aerial threats in all kinds of complex situations, on land or at sea.

Ray Bischoff served active-duty with the U.S. Army for nearly 25 years, and he’s now the senior director of business development at Leonardo DRS, specialising in evaluating tactical formations and defensive requirements at all operational levels throughout the Department of War and allied nations. He is particularly focused on emerging threats from drones..

Bischoff spoke at length with TWZ’s Jamie Hunter about the use of tactical radar systems as part of a layered counter-drone system that is sufficiently versatile to tackle the toughest drone problems now, and what may come in the near future.

JH: Can you set the scene with regards to how you see the counter-UAS mission right now from a sensing perspective.

RB: The counter-UAS environment is changing and advancing very quickly. At the top level, we need to employ a variety of sensor systems – in this particular case we’re talking about tactical radars – but there are many other types of sensors, and at the highest end of the threat level it’s about connecting these together into a networked architecture.

Layering different systems in depth is vital, both from a communications architecture perspective and physically layering them in different places to protect different routes or avenues of approach, or sensitive facilities.

Look at the Strait of Hormuz, for instance, which is a vast area, with a layered and networked system to maximize the depth of coverage. The primary reason for this is that the biggest enemy in many situations like these is time. That networked architecture and having sensors in depth really gains you time, which gives you opportunities to make a better decision, time to reposition, to better evaluate. You need time to evaluate what different things in space are doing, where they’re going or where they’re coming from.

JH: When you say layered, are you talking about different systems that can look in different ways over different distances and systems in different positions that help you with that time element? What does layered actually mean?

RB: You can layer different types of sensors. Think of baseball. If all your players are home-run hitters, you probably aren’t going to do very well. You need to have different skills across your team to succeed, and it’s the same thing here. Layering of radar sensing bands, different types of technology such as electro-optic and infra-red that “see” in long, short and midwave, acoustic sensors, electronic warfare sensors to look for signals and other types of energy. It’s also about physically layering them in space, or depth.

We often see large exquisite sensors that have a lot of range and cover a large area. But this makes them susceptible to being targeted and destroyed. Layering sensors gives you redundancy, retaining the ability to defend. So, this is layering both in physical location, and in different types of technology.

This way, if one of your sensors is taken down by any means – for example by electronic countermeasures – your other systems can theoretically continue to operate. Just think how you can see, smell, touch, taste – it’s the same concept with layering different types of technologies, which is exactly what we at Leonardo DRS do and we integrate them so we can interact and share information to maximize the benefits of this layered approach. A team ultimately makes the sensors more effective across networks and architectures.

JH: Presumably you get good indicators on developments from the current operations in Ukraine. You already mentioned the Strait of Hormuz as well. What are the big lessons that you’re getting here about different types and sizes of drones?

RB: Without going into the details of combat operations, the bottom line is you have to advance your technologies at the rate or as close to the rate of the advancement of the weapons systems that are being utilized. We’re seeing a mixture of things when it comes to the UASs; that’s larger craft that are getting faster and can carry heavier payloads, or smaller ones with longer ranges that can move through areas almost undetected. 

There’s been so much investment in UAS technology, and they are becoming cheaper and easier to manufacture. People can 3D-print these things in their houses now. So, looking at this from a sensing perspective, that layering is becoming increasingly important.

We are looking to do things to counter these developments, such as maybe elevate the sensors to “see” across the top of the trees or place a sensor down in a valley – so that adds layering in altitude or elevation to remove blind spots. Just like the military, if you’re setting-up a defensive position, you have to cover what we called “dead space” where you can’t see with eyes or sensors from ground level.

JH: Can we dig further into the role of tactical radars in counter-UAS, specifically Leonardo DRS’ 202 Expeditionary Skid, which I believe is based on your Extended Multi-Mission Hemispheric Radar [exMHR].

RB: Radars “see” things that are physically present in space and time, and that’s why they are such great tools in the counter-UAS kit bag of sensors. That said, some radars are affected by weather and other factors, some work better in particular environments.

The 202 Expeditionary Skid is a new system from Leonardo DRS that uses our long-range exMHR, which is a software-defined AESA [Active Electronically Scanned Array] pulse-Doppler radar. It operates in the S-Band and that’s a very reliable band for all weather conditions including strong performance in dust storms and rain. When you get into K, Ku, and X-bands, they typically have smaller beams and therefore greater accuracy, but they suffer in poor weather and can become extremely degraded. S-band radar suffers significantly less degradation in that environment.

The 202 Expeditionary Skid, also known as U-KIT-0091, has a single radar panel that has a search area of 90 degrees by 90 degrees, so we often mount them in groups of four to provide full 360-degree coverage. Each panel has a really fast scan rate, much faster than a traditional spinning radar set. Plus, having multiple radar faces to make up a complete system is much more survivable. They can also overlap their field of regard without impairing each other.

We have sought to provide a solution that marries an appropriate level of range, accuracy, capability, and performance, that can still be very flexible in its ability to relocate or change mission sets. This is designed to be extremely versatile, meaning that it operates in different environments quickly. U-KIT-0091 has been purposefully designed to be mobile in a compact system that can either be used by itself or networked and fused together with other systems. Back to the baseball analogy, this is the kind of guy you really want on your team because you can use them wherever you need them.

The radar or set of radars sit on a small skid system that can slide into the back of a pickup truck, into the back of a tactical vehicle, onto a trailer, you can set it just about anywhere and it occupies a four-by-four-feet position. It has its own power generation, its own positional information that works in denied environments, basically it’s capable of working by itself from the get-go. The best part is that it’s truly mobile – the operator doesn’t have to stop the vehicle to make it work. You can turn it on and set-off. It’s working. If you come to a stop, it’s still working. It can be mounted on a ship, it can be taken airborne by an aircraft, so it’s got land, sea, and air applications. We’ve installed these on all types of ground platforms, water-based platforms, on top of a building or some sort of structure and it’s already in service, but I can’t specify where. It tracks drones very well, but of course it can track just about anything that can exist in that space.

JH: So you could strategically locate several of your radars to look in different directions or be positioned to look in a certain direction if you knew the expected paths that the threats would use?

RB: The system is designed exactly for things like that. Instead of putting all of your eggs in one basket, you disperse your eggs, and focus on different avenues or approach angles so that you can then have sensors strategically located where they can pick up these things and then as long as they’re networked back into weapons systems that have the overlapping fields of fire or bubbles – coverage areas – then you can protect your area. 

Any time you can decouple a sensor from a weapon system or multiple types of sensors from each other, you stand a far greater chance of survivability and optimizing accuracy. If you put all your eggs in one basket, and if you lose that basket, you lose everything. In addition, if you separate sensors, you gain accuracy because you have different angles and you can leverage simple geometry.

JH: Could you depict what an end-to-end engagement might look like using your tactical radar.

RB: The radar sensors will typically be emitting energy as they search for objects in a particular space. If something is detected and determined to be a valid target then the data is sent from the radar to some type of a command and control system, which may well be receiving information from other complementary sensors too. It then fuses that data and passes it to an effector, whether that’s a non-kinetic or a kinetic system, for engagement.

Meanwhile, the radar continues to track and it can determine whether that object was removed or if its path changed, and so on and so forth. But you know, a lot of these radars operate in a way whereby they can be turned on or off by different sensors to avoid them having to constantly transmit energy, they’re very customizable to meet the requirements and the emissions that are needed, whether that’s air defense, counter-drone, etc.

They can operate independently too, maybe covering a small area that needs to be protected, and integrated with a localized weapon system, or, as I already explained, they can be networked into a much larger set-up, they are modular, open system architecture and easily incorporated.

Most customers tend to choose their own command and control systems, which is why the plug-and-play part of our system is so important. It really doesn’t matter what they want to partner it with, what we provide enables that very easily.

JH: To be clear, your tactical radars could be deployed to defend the entire eastern seaboard of the U.S., they could be positioned to defend an air base, or they could be used to defend a ship in the Strait of Hormuz.

RB: The architecture can scale geographically through a distributed, networked sensor approach. The specific coverage area depends on factors including sensor density, the threat environment, command-and-control integration, and the available effectors.

Customers can deploy multiple radars and feed them into a single command-and-control system, positioning sensors to optimize coverage for the operational need. For example, one radar set could cover a valley vulnerable to low-flying drone ingress, while another positioned on higher ground provides longer-range surveillance. The key is a modular capability that enables users to tailor coverage and layer sensors where they are most needed – without relying on one large radar system to see everything from a single location.

JH: I’m keen to know what you consider to be the most challenging drones to detect and track. Is the challenge the speed they’re traveling out at, maybe new low observable designs, or the fact they’re flying very low. What are the big issues you’re seeing?

RB: It’s really all of the above. The other really challenging problem is when something is flying very low to the ground. The lower they bring them in altitude, they are harder to track as an independent target.

The challenge with drone swarms isn’t detection – if you can see the drones, you can track them. The harder problem is managing those tracks, deciding which threats matter most, and assigning the right effector to each one.

If 100 drones are inbound, it’s not just about having 100 weapons available. It’s about coordinating a fast, cost-effective response across a large number of simultaneous threats.

Ultimately, pairing radars and electro-optical/infrared sensors together is the way to go, because each of those have their own strengths. One of those sensors is going to see the drone better than the other, plus you have the redundancy that at least a couple of them will “see” the threat and give you enough information in sufficient time to prosecute it. Fitting into that team, however it is constructed, is exactly how we position our 202 Expeditionary Skid U-KIT-0091 radar.

Contact the write: Jamie.Hunter@teamrecurrent.io

The post How Drone Detection Is Evolving To Counter Smaller, Faster, And Swarm Threats appeared first on TWZ.