costing

The U.S. Army is pressing defense contractors to come up with proposals for a new interceptor for the Patriot surface-to-air missile system with a unit cost under $1 million. This is far cheaper — about a fifth of the price — than what the Army is paying for current-generation Patriot PAC-3 Missile Segment Enhancement (MSE) interceptors now.

As a supplement to existing interceptors, a lower-cost alternative would improve Patriot’s cost-per-intercept ratio, especially against lower-tier threats like drones and cruise missiles. The design could also be easier to produce at scale, helping address increasingly worrisome strains on stockpiles and supply chains. These are issues TWZ has been calling attention to for years now, and that have been magnified by Patriot’s heavy use during the latest conflict with Iran.

Last Friday, the Army’s Capability Program Executive (CPE) for Defensive Fires quietly put out a call for information about prospective new low-cost interceptor designs for Patriot.

“We are running a very aggressive Low Cost Interceptor (LCI) missile and missile sub-system competition,” Army Maj. Gen. Frank Lozano, the Army’s Portfolio Acquisition Executive for Fires (PAE Fires), wrote in a post on LinkedIn yesterday, calling attention to the contracting notice. “We will be holding an Industry Day in DC in the very near future. We are looking to generate the greatest amount of interest and participation across the entirety of the missile technology industrial base as possible! This effort is intended to result in multiple awards that can lead to multiple different capable yet affordable missile interceptor solutions!”

The contracting notice itself breaks the $1 million unit price target into four component groups, each of which the Army wants to cost no more than $250,000. These are: Low-Cost Interceptor All-Up Round (AUR) and Fire Control, Low-Cost Rocket Motor, Low-Cost Seeker, and Fire Control and Flight Guidance Implementation. The Army is also seeking information about a potential contractor to serve as the central integrator for all of those “best of breed” elements, which could come from different sources.

When it comes to the complete missile, or AUR, and associated fire control system elements, the Army wants to integrate the missiles into existing M903 trailer-based launchers and leverage the service’s new Integrated Battle Command System (IBCS) network. The M903 is already capable of accommodating newer PAC-3 series interceptors, including the MSE variant, as well as older PAC-2 types that remain in inventory.

Northrop Grumman’s IBCS was designed from the outset with a modular, open-systems approach to make it easier to integrate new systems and functionality as time goes on. You can read more about IBCS in detail in this past TWZ feature.

Northrop Grumman Integrated Air Missile Defense Battle Command System (IBCS) Flight Test

“The Government seeks a component-level solid rocket motor (SRM) capable of meeting the rigorous kinetic and kinematic requirements necessary for an AMD interceptor and capable of being integrated as part of a MOSA AMD interceptor,” according to the contracting notice. “The Government seeks a component-level seeker capable of threat acquisition, tracking, and terminal guidance in support of AMD missions against the stated threat sets within contested and degraded environments (e.g., active electronic warfare, harsh weather, cluttered terrain, etc.).”

“The Government seeks a component-level fire control and flight guidance implementation capable of providing engageability options to the IBCS and providing post-launch management of interceptor flight and communications messaging,” the contracting notice adds.

Overall, the new low-cost interceptors are intended to “serve as supplementals to the Integrated Fires Air and Missile Defense mission against Air Breathing Threats (ABT), Cruise Missiles, Close-Range Ballistic Missiles (CRBM), and Short-Range Ballistic Missiles (SRBM),” per the notice. SRBMs are typically defined as ballistic missiles with maximum ranges under 620 miles. The U.S. military also uses the term CRBM to categorize ballistic threats that can hit targets out to no more than 186 miles.

The Patriot system currently has the ability to engage all of the threats listed above, but that capability comes at a cost. The unit price of each PAC-3 MSE interceptor has risen to approximately $5.3 million, according to the Army’s latest proposed budget for the 2027 Fiscal Year. This is up from a historical average of around $4 million for each one of these missiles. These are also exquisite munitions that take years of lead time to produce, something we will come back to later on.

In 2024, the Army announced that it had axed plans for a new interceptor for Patriot, previously called Lower-Tier Future Interceptor (LTFI), in large part due to projected costs.

“So, right now, the Army has decided that we are not going to move forward on what we were calling a Lower Tier Future Interceptor,” then-Brig. Gen. Lozano said in a live interview with Defense News‘ Jen Judson from the floor of the Association of the U.S. Army’s (AUSA) main annual conference that year. “That was going to be a very expensive endeavor. … Interceptors in that family or class of interceptors are very capable, but also very expensive.”

There had been subsequent signs that a follow-on of some kind to LTFI was in the works. “This year we’re starting a new interceptor program that will have longer range [and] higher altitudes,” Army Lt. Col. Steven Moebes, Product Manager for Lower Tier Interceptors, told Secretary Pete Hegseth during a show-and-tell at the service’s Redstone Arsenal last December, at which media outlets were also present.

War Sec. Pete Hegseth Visits The New Site For U.S. Space Command Headquarters In Huntsville, Alabama

“We want to see if we can bring, from scratch, an interceptor that we can own the IP [intellectual property] for, then go find contract manufacturing,” Secretary of the Army Dan Driscoll also told reporters at the Pentagon just earlier this month, according to The Wall Street Journal.

Driscoll reportedly indicated at that time that the total price point the service was aiming for was $250,000. As mentioned, we now know that this is the cost target for each of the four elements that would combine to form an interceptor costing $1 million or less.

A goal to acquire an anti-air interceptor that is capable of engaging everything from lower-tier air-breathing threats to SRBMs, but does not cost more than $1 million, is still ambitious. It is also in line with Pentagon-wide initiatives to expand the acquisition of lower-cost munitions, including by leveraging new, non-traditional industry partners well beyond established prime defense contractors, and open-architecture approaches. Secretary Driscoll’s mention of Army ownership of the IP also highlights another important aspect of these initiatives, which is aimed at preventing vendor lock, and allows for new competitions to be readily run for AURs and subcomponents.

To reiterate, the new low-cost interceptor is intended to be a supplement to existing options for the Patriot system. At the same time, not all threats require something like a PAC-3 MSE. So, as noted, adding a new relatively cheap alternative to the mix would offer benefits in terms of cost-per-intercept ratio. The price associated with using the system to knock down lower-tier threats, particularly long-range kamikaze drones with unit prices measured in tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars, has become a major talking point in the past decade. Patriot also offers an important layer of defense against shorter-range ballistic missiles in the terminal phases of their flight, which present real threats, as underscored by the latest conflict with Iran, and are increasingly proliferating. As such, being able to provide lower-end terminal ballistic missile defense at a reduced cost point will also be increasingly valuable going forward.

A new, but still capable interceptor for Patriot that is relatively cheap compared to existing types like the PAC-3 MSE could be beneficial when it comes to stockpile management and supply chains, especially if it is also faster to produce at scale. The recent conflict with Iran and other crises in the Middle East in recent years, along with support to allies and partners, particularly Ukraine, have underscored the need for new steps to ensure sufficient numbers of anti-intercepts and other critical munitions remain in U.S. inventory.

Though the Pentagon has insisted that America’s arsenal is still sufficiently stocked to address current and future contingencies, U.S. officials have openly called attention to the potential impacts of high expenditure rates and the importance of diversifying the industrial base that supplies these weapons. The up-front need for a large stockpile of anti-air and other munitions, and the ability to refill it rapidly, not on a timeline measured in years, would only be even pronounced in any future high-end fight, such as one against China in the Pacific.

When it comes to Patriot, there is a separate, but directly related issue of overall capacity. The Army’s Patriot force continues to be inadequate to meet existing demands, let alone what would be required in a future major conflict against an adversary like the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA).

The Army has been working to expand the total size of its Patriot force, as well as improve the capabilities of the system through the addition of new radars and other functionality. The Pentagon has also reached deals with the PAC-3 MSE’s prime contractor, Lockheed Martin, to ramp up production of those interceptors. The service is now looking toward new containerized launchers for the Patriot system, which could be carried by future uncrewed trucks, as well.

The PATRIOT Missile in Action

However, many of these developments are still likely years away from fully materializing and are subject to their own supply chain limitations. The Navy is now working to integrate PAC-3 MSE into the Mk 41 Vertical Launch System (VLS), adding a valuable new anti-air interceptor to its sea-based arsenal, but also further increasing demand. Growing U.S. demand around the Patriot, overall, including as a result of heavy use of the system in the latest conflict with Iran, has had second-order impacts on other customers globally.

Altogether, a new lower-cost interceptor for the Patriot system could be an important, if not increasingly essential, addition to the Army’s arsenal. At the same time, whether the service can meet its goal of finding a missile that meets its significant requirements, but still costs less than $1 million, remains to be seen.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

I WORK in travel and look at holiday pricing data every single day – and there are a few patterns that I see constantly.

Small booking habits that feel completely normal, but quietly push prices up. We’re not talking about a few quid either. Get these wrong, and you can end up paying 20–30 per cent more for the same holiday.

Follow The Sun’s award-winning travel team on Instagram and Tiktok for top holiday tips and inspiration @thesuntravel.

Here are the three biggest mistakes – and exactly how to fix them.

Bad Habit No.1: Booking in the morning rush

This one surprises people the most.

Booking your holiday first thing – on your commute, before work, or when you sit down at your desk – feels productive.

But it’s actually one of the worst times you can choose.

According to the data, the most expensive time to book a holiday is between 9am and 10am.

In fact, booking in that window came in at around 30 per cent more expensive than the cheapest time of day, which is actually 2:47am.

And it makes sense when you think about it – because that’s a peak demand window when everyone is searching at once.

Flight prices react to this demand first, then package holiday prices follow.

So while you think you’re being organised… you’re actually booking at the busiest, and often most expensive, moment of the day.

In one example, I found a 5-night all-inclusive stay at the Catty Cats Garden Hotel in Turkey was priced at £133pp in the early hours – but just a few hours later, that had jumped to £165pp for the exact same holiday.

That’s a 24% increase (£64 more for two people) simply from booking later in the day.

Bad Habit No.2: Waiting after finding a good deal

This is the classic “I’ll just check again later” mistake: you find a good price, but instead of booking it, you leave it.

You come back later. Maybe the next day. Maybe after asking a few people.

It feels like you’re being careful or thrifty, but the data shows the opposite.

Every search feeds demand into the system, demand pushes flight prices up, and flight prices push package prices up.

But the reality is: if you’ve found a good deal, it’s very likely other people have found it too.

So while you’re waiting, those seats and rooms are disappearing, filling up and pushing up the package cost pretty quickly.

In one real example, a luxury all-inclusive stay at the Titanic Deluxe Lara in Antalya,Turkey was priced at £558 per person.

But after waiting just 24 hours, that same holiday increased to £606 per person.

That’s an extra £48pp – or £192 more for a family of four – just for not booking when the price was lower.

Prices change, availability drops, and that deal you liked is gone forever.

Bad Habit No.3: Being too rigid with dates and nights

This is where people leave the biggest savings on the table.

I see it every day: most searches are locked into the same dates, same duration, no flexibility.

But pricing doesn’t work like that – it fluctuates constantly based on demand.

Flight and hotel combinations are constantly shifting, and the price you see is based on very specific availability – not a fixed “cost” for that trip.

That means sticking rigidly to one duration can actually stop you from seeing better-value options.

Sometimes, adding or removing just one night can completely change the price – because it opens up different flight combinations or cheaper room availability.

In one search I did for a Corfu holiday, a 7-night stay was coming in at £874 per person.

But by simply increasing the stay to 8 nights, the price dropped to £720 per person for the same package.

That’s a saving of £154pp – or £308 for two people – just by adding one extra night.

It goes against what most people expect, but it shows how pricing really works.

You’re not just paying for nights – you’re paying for the combination of flights and hotel availability behind them.

Yet most people never check – they search once, see one price, and assume that’s what the holiday costs.

Good Habit No.1: Use price alerts instead of repeatedly searching

One of the easiest ways to save money is to stop manually checking prices over and over again.

Every time you search, you’re adding to demand signals – and you’re far more likely to miss the moment a price drops.

Instead, set up price alerts or track a holiday and let the price come to you.

That way, you’re not feeding the surge – and you’re ready to act when the price is right.

I sometimes see short-term dips of up to £50 per person on the same holiday when demand softens briefly – but these windows can last hours, not days.

The people who catch them aren’t constantly searching – they’re notified. But how do you actually do it?

At On the Beach, if you save a holiday, you’re automatically tracking it, and they’ll email you to let you know when the price changes.

On Google Flights, you can search your route, then just toggle “Track prices” – then you’ll get email alerts whenever fares move up or down.

On Skyscanner, hit the heart or bell icon on a flight, and it’ll notify you when the price changes.

It takes about 10 seconds – and it means you’re not guessing when to book.

Good Habit No.2: The 33-day booking rule

There’s no perfect moment to book – but there is a bit of a sweet spot.

According to the data, booking around 33 days before departure can unlock savings of up to 10%.

That’s because it sits between two high-demand groups: early planners who book far in advance and last-minute bookers chasing limited availability.

In this middle window, demand is lower, and prices often reflect that.

Which means on a £700 holiday, that 10% saving means paying around £630 instead – a £140 saving for a couple without changing anything else.

It’s not about waiting as long as possible. It’s about timing it right.

Good Habit No.3: Switch airports, not just dates

Most people have a “default airport” – the one they always fly from without really thinking about it.

But sticking to the same airport can quietly cost you more than you realise.

Flights to the same destination can vary massively in price depending on where you depart from – even on the exact same day, for the exact same hotel.

And often, the cheaper option is only a short drive or train journey away.

In one search I did this week for a family holiday to Majorca, the same 5-night stay at the Sea Club Mediterranean Resort was priced at £260pp flying from Manchester.

But switching to Liverpool Airport for the exact same trip brought the price down to £235pp.

That’s a saving of £25 per person – or £100 for a family of four – just by changing the departure airport.

It’s a simple check most people skip, but it can make a real difference to the total cost.

A Holiday Expert’s bottom line:

These aren’t big sacrifices, and you’re not downgrading your hotel or cutting your trip short. You’re just booking smarter.

But these small tweaks of timing, confidence and flexibility can easily save you hundreds over time.

And once you see how the pricing actually works, you won’t book the same way again…

THE conflict in Iran has added as much as $100 (£77) per person to the price of long-haul flights from Europe, new figures have revealed.

The Transport & Environment (T&E) said in a statement that disruption to jet fuel supplies is likely to trigger higher ticket prices for passengers.

T&E added that the rise in jet fuel prices has increased the average fuel cost by £77 for each passenger on long-haul flights leaving Europe.

For a family of four heading on a long-haul holiday that’s an increase of £308.

For short-haul flights within Europe, they’ve increased by £25.26 per passenger – or more than £100 per family.

In the report, T&E then predicted that jet fuel for a flight from Barcelona to Berlin would be ⁠€26 (£22.64) more expensive per passenger.

BARGAIN HOL

Travel companies reveal their CHEAPEST spots this summer, with hols from £189pp

SHORE WIN

All the trendy UK seaside towns with huge makeovers and enough to do for a WEEK

Long-haul journeys, for example Paris to New York could even cost €129 (£112.35) more in fuel.

Since the Iran conflict began and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, jet fuel prices have risen to well over $100 (£74) a barrel.

And there are fears that more turmoil is on the cards, as a temporary ceasefire ends tomorrow, with concerns the Middle Eastern conflict could spark back into life – as thousands of US troops are on standby to launch fresh attacks.

A second round of crunch peace talks are due to resume in the Pakistani capital of Islamabad shortly – but they have already been plagued by no show claims.

Iran has refused to confirm if it will attend even after the US delegation, led by JD Vance, prepared to board a jet for the Middle East.

Trump has already said it is “highly unlikely” the two-week ceasefire will be extended past the deadline especially if a permanent end to the fighting can’t be hashed out.

The impact of the rising costs of fuel have been felt everywhere from the petrol pumps to Brits’ summer holidays, as airlines have offset rising costs by increasing ticket fares and adding additional baggage fees.

For example, Virgin Atlantic has added a new fuel surcharge to tickets.

Passengers in economy will pay an extra £50, the Telegraph reported.

However, premium economy passengers will pay an extra £180 while anyone in business class will see flights cost an extra £360.

Air France and KLM, which are part of the same company, are also increasing ticket prices.

In total, Air France and KLM will have increased their round-trip fares by €100 (£87) on most of their long-haul flights.

It comes after the head of the International Energy Agency warned that Europe has just six weeks left of jet fuel.

IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol said mass flight cancellations will begin “soon” if the Strait of Hormuz remains closed.

Airlines including United, Scandinavian Airlines and Lufthansa have already been forced to cancel hundreds of flights in recent weeks due to fears of shortages.

Birol’s deadline means airports could face critical fuel shortages by May, causing travel chaos for Brits heading abroad during the school May half-term holidays.

Despite the chaos, there are still great holiday deals to be made as Egypt tour operators have dropped prices of all-inclusive holidays with thousands in savings.

Sun Travel found some great deals including ones with loveholidays which starts from £239 per person for an all-inclusive holiday for a family of four.