news

The U.S. Department of War recently announced a contract with Raytheon for supply of their Coyote jet air-defense drones. The contract also covers mobile and fixed launchers as well as Ku‑band radars. The contract is valued at $5.039 billion. Deliveries are planned to be completed by 28 September 2033 i.e., over eight years. The exact quantity of equipment was not disclosed, but for that sum one could procure a very large number of Coyote interceptors. For context, the unit cost of the Coyote in the 2C variant is $125,000. So, if one imagines that the entire $5.039 billion were spent solely on interceptors, the U.S. could acquire about 40,317 units. Of course, this is only a hypothetical example, because a substantial share of the $5.039 billion will go toward launchers and radars. Still, even so, under this contract the U.S. will receive thousands of Coyote interceptors, which will certainly strengthen their readiness to repel massed drone attacks in a large war scenario for example, with China.

It's worth recalling that the U.S. currently produces about 100 Coyote interceptors per month, which means that, over eight years, they could produce only about 9,600 units assuming production capacity is not expanded, which it likely will be. Under the contract, Coyote interceptors will be supplied in two variants: a single-use version for physical interception of targets, and a reusable version that functions more as an ISR or as a carrier for auxiliary equipment such as EW systems. Also notable the U.S. Navy is experimenting with deploying Coyotes on their destroyers to bolster ship defense against aerial drones and probably on naval vessels generally. The U.S. has also tested mounting these drones on helicopters and even on Bradley IFVs. But that isn't the limit of possible employment. The U.S. is converting KC-135 air tankers into true flying aircraft carriers capable of launching drones directly in flight. It is quite likely that those launched drones will be Coyotes. This rapid expansion of Coyote use began only a few years ago and has accelerated despite the platform's relatively high cost for what’s considered a budget counter‑drone means. The reason is clear: Coyote has already proven itself in combat conditions, having intercepted 170 enemy targets.

After months of pauses and uncertainty, the Army released a request for proposal for its self-propelled howitzer competition, indicating that the service is prepared to launch forward with its mission to modernize its field artillery portfolio. “Over the past 8 months, the US Army has been re-evaluating its objectives for modernization and adjusting those objectives to best support the new Army Transformation Initiative (ATI) strategy. Comprehensive analysis has confirmed the importance of 155mm self-propelled artillery system-of-systems to the Army,” read the request for proposal posted Monday. “Consequently, the US Army is considering opportunities to rapidly conduct soldier experimentation.”

After scrapping development of its Extended Range Cannon Artillery platform, Army officials embarked on a world tour last year searching for existing self-propelled howitzers. After seeing the offering of five companies — BAE Systems, Elbit Systems, General Dynamics, Hanwha and Rheinmetall — the service announced it was launching a competition to pick an existing platform. The competition was planned to kick off with the release of a Phase I request for proposal in mid-February, Breaking Defense reported in January. However, it was one of the programs put on hold as a result of ATI. Monday’s RFI is the first document that the service has published in regards to the long-awaited competition since it was paused earlier this year. The RFI, authored by the Program Executive Officer for Ground Combat Systems, called on vendors to offer solutions that will “likely involve temporarily” providing self-propelled howitzer systems to brigades participating in the Army’s Transformation in Contact (TiC) initiative — the service’s push to rapidly test new equipment with units both inside the US and abroad to understand how that technology will operate in real-world environments.

Though the Army said “the scope and organization of a soldier experiment for self-propelled artillery is still being defined,” the RFI suggests that the service is primarily looking for US-made and -manufactured solutions. For example, the RFI directs respondents to “provide a summary of your current supply chain and current suppliers used in the USA, including a map of major supplier locations. Highlight major supplier locations outside of the USA.” “If not currently produced in the USA, describe how you would onshore production of the proposed system to the USA, including barrel production. Identify current US manufacturing facilities and sources of supply,” it added. The RFI goes on to ask industry how long it would take to deliver one US-produced self-propelled howitzer, and how long for the delivery of six.

One industry source who has been closely following the program as a potential competitor raised his eyebrows at parts of the RFI, including its tight timeline, especially amid foreign conflicts in which the artillery could be put to real-world use. “We are not just sitting around on platforms. … I sell those,” the source said. “Do [companies] do a demo or do [they] supply a war in Ukraine or Israel?” The source continued that it takes about two years to produce something like a howitzer, given the long lead times on parts and forging the barrel. Out of the five companies who participated in last year’s roadshow, several do not currently produce their platforms exclusively in the US. Despite those concerns, the RFI and associated questions in it do not mean the Army will ultimately require interested companies to hand over six howitzers within the next couple of months for a demo. That number and timeframe could shift based on responses that are due back to the Army by Oct. 10. “This RFI is for informational purposes only,” the Army document said. “The information in this notice is subject to change and is not binding on the USG.”

**Following a closed-door briefing today, some Democratic members of the Senate Armed Services Committee are raising concerns about the cost and technical feasibility of the Golden Dome missile shield **— although one Republican lawmaker said the $175 billion cost estimate previously given by President Donald Trump has stayed steady. Space Force Gen. Michael Guetlein, director for the Golden Dome, held a classified briefing today with SASC members on the initial architecture for the sprawling, ambitious system — his first interaction with the committee since being tapped to lead the effort in May. While members were broadly positive about Guetlein’s leadership of the program and the flow of information now coming from the Pentagon, several Democrats coming out of the meeting voiced continued anxieties about whether the project is a wise use of taxpayer funding.

Arizona Democrat Sen. Mark Kelly, a former Navy fighter pilot who is the ranking Democrat on SASC’s tactical air and land subcommittee, said he continues to have “reservations” about the program, as the system will need to prove a high rate of reliability just to meet the basic requirements. “This is an incredibly expensive system. It’s complicated. The physics are really hard, and you’ve got to build something with very high reliability to be effective, and having some experience at this stuff, I’m very skeptical,” he said. “We need a lot more information before we make decisions to spend hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars.” Sen Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., said his anxieties on the program’s cost, timeline and feasibility were not new, noting that independent experts have put out their own estimates that are significantly longer and more expensive than the Pentagon’s projections. “My impression is that we are receiving more information [from the Pentagon], but still additional facts are absolutely necessary to assess the Golden Dome completely and accurately,” he said. Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va, said the program is progressing but Guetlein faced “vigorous and challenging” questions, particularly about the program’s price tag. “I think everybody on both sides of the aisle is still really trying to get their head around that, whether the numbers that have been publicly floated are sufficient,” he said.

Few details have emerged about Golden Dome apart from the vision bestowed by the president earlier this year — that of a comprehensive homeland defense system capable of intercepting cruise, ballistic and hypersonic missiles, which would be operational by the end of the Trump administration. Besides a $25 billion down payment for the effort made in the reconciliation bill, a budget plan for the program has not been made public — although there are signs that industry will have to pony up internal research funding in order to take part. In a statement, a Pentagon official said that the department met its deadline to develop an initial architecture, which is currently under review. “No additional information is available at this time, keeping operational security top of mind,” the official stated. “We continue doing our part to meet the President’s vision as Golden Dome for America remains a strategic imperative to protect our Homeland.”

Lawmakers repeatedly declined to share specifics about the timeline, cost and technologies associated with the Golden Dome effort gleaned from today’s briefing, noting its classification. But asked whether the cost estimate for the effort still coincides with the $175 billion figure shared by Trump, Sen. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D., who leads SASC’s tactical air and land subcommittee, responded that “it does.” Not all lawmakers raised concerns with the program’s cost. Sen. Dan Sullivan, R-Ala., said he pressed Guetlein on the testing schedule for Golden Dome. Sullivan wanted to see a marked departure in approach from the Missile Defense Agency, which he said had a “risk averse culture” that relies predominantly on simulated tests rather than live demonstrations. “I was very, very satisfied with his answer. I think their goal, and it’s a big one, is to be super aggressive on live testing, real testing, not just simulations,” he said, adding that SASC’s version of the fiscal 2026 defense policy bill includes a live fire requirement for Golden Dome. “We say at least once a year; I think he’s going to be way more aggressive than that.”