Interceptor

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

Hours after hunkering down during Russia’s most intense Shahed-136 drone barrage of the war, the head of the country’s defense technology incubator spoke with us about the interceptor drones his country developed to defend against them.

Some of these small munitions cost about $1,000 a piece and can reach speeds of nearly 200 miles per hour. Some also have AI-assisted guidance. They have proven to be a far cheaper alternative to effectors like Patriot interceptors – costing more than $5 million a piece – and even far less advanced missiles for downing Shaheds, which have caused widespread destruction across Ukraine for years. In an hour-long interview, Brave1 CEO Andrii Hrytseniuk talked about how Ukraine developed Shahed interceptors, their effectiveness and the growing interest from the U.S. – which produced its own drone-killing interceptor that Ukraine has used – and other allies. He also spoke about Ukraine’s burgeoning uncrewed ground vehicle industry, which we will discuss in the second part of this interview.

Some of the questions and answers have been lightly edited for clarity.

In total, we have more than 150 Ukrainian companies who are producing interceptors. And these are interceptors of different architecture. Some are small rocket type first-person view (FPV) drones. In some cases, they resemble small planes. In some cases, they resemble big planes. Some of them are X wings, like a combination between FPV and fixed wing. We use different varieties in different regions and different conditions. 

Q: How do you determine which interceptors are right for the job?

A: As an example, in case the Shaheds are coming from the Black Sea, where we have Odessa and other cities on the coast, small interceptors are used only in the last kilometers. The planes are used like loitering munitions, flying for hours and when they find a Shahed, they destroy it.

We need some interceptors that are capable of flying for hours and for hundreds of kilometers. For some, we need just a small diameter zone of protection.

Q: Given the success you’ve had with interceptor drones, have the U.S. and allies in the Gulf reached out, considering the death and destruction caused by Shahed drones launched by Iran?

You can see video of one of those attacks below.

A: I am permanently discussing and we are involved in discussion of interceptors and the potential of interceptors. And of course, it’s one of the top priorities for all countries to build the capability to use interceptors.

Ukraine is able to produce more than 2,000 interceptors per day, and this is not a maximum per day, more than 2,000. And for us, this is not a threshold, not a limit. In the case of export contracts and procurements, we can do much more than 2,000 per day. As an example, during the terroristic attack of Russia, they used more than 1,300 Shaheds and this was just during the last 24 hours. So of course, we need to have a huge number of interceptors.

Q:  Did you use more than 1,000 interceptors to defend against them?

A: I will not share details of how many Shaheds were destroyed by interceptors or other types of weapons, but in total, we were able to hit 97% of all Shaheds. This is the public information from our air defense command.

The following video shows some of the aftermath of the recent Russian Shahed barrage.

Search and rescue operations are ongoing in Kyiv following a Russian strike on a residential apartment building.

As of now, five people have been killed by Russia, and more than 10 people remain missing.

Around 40 people were injured in the attack, while 28 have been rescued… pic.twitter.com/n7z2mB42lu

— MFA of Ukraine 🇺🇦 (@MFA_Ukraine) May 14, 2026

Q: So when the U.S. and allies ask for help, what do you tell them and what is the current status of exports? The last time I wrote about this issue, the law prevented exports.

A: Brave1 works with Ukrainian and international companies to build and test solutions. We are not deeply involved in export questions. So I cannot comment here, because I’m not aware of the current status.

Q: The U.S. sent its own interceptor drones, the Merops system, to Ukraine in 2024. It proved so effective that it was sent to the Middle East to protect U.S. assets during the now-paused war against Iran. How much, if anything, did Ukraine learn from it?

A: Most successful defense manufacturers learned from our military and Brave1 – both Ukrainian manufacturers, and Merops. Without the direct input of the Ukrainian military and experts, Merops would never have become such a high-performing system, as it is now.

Q: What can you tell me about the relationship between Ukraine and the U.S. and allies as a result of what’s taking place in the Middle East?

A: It’s extremely interesting, and a lot of questions are coming to us, and we are sharing our experience.

Q: Have you had direct conversations with the U.S. military?

A: We are working with the majority of our allied countries. We have calls, sessions, conferences where we are sharing our experience, and the results of Brave1 transforming and improving the Ukrainian defense industry. Everyone is interested. This is the magic that it’s possible to do in such a short period of time. Right now, in Brave1, we have more than 2,300 different Ukrainian companies that are building weapons. And when the war started, it was a majority of state run companies and a very small number of private companies, and right now there is a huge list of companies.

Ukraine’s $2,000 Drone Is Destroying Russia’s $50,000 Shaheds. And Everyone Wants It

Q: You told me that Ukraine has a wide variety of interceptor drones, from the small ones to the bigger ones. How many different kinds of interceptors do the U.S. and allies need to defend against what Iran was launching?

A: I believe that the minimum is 10.

Q: 10? Why?

A: It takes 10 different types of architecture. For us, it’s important to have more different products, because it creates competition between Ukrainian companies, and they are much quicker, building new innovations, and they run faster to get ahead of the competitors – of their rivals. Also, it’s important to have not only interceptors. Interceptors themselves do nothing. This is the combination of variety of technologies, radars, permanent control system, the navigation systems, the systems for remote control, because the soldiers operating them should be not on the front line. They need to be in shelters. So this is the variety of different sub technologies, and as a whole, this is the segment of drone-based aerial defense.

Q: Wild Hornets, for instance, claims its Sting interceptor can be operated by soldiers from 2,000 kilometers away. How common is that?

A: Right now our pilots are able to manage interceptors from any place in the world.

Wild Hornets 2,000 Km

Q: Could pilots at the Tampa, Florida headquarters of U.S. Central Command, which oversees American military efforts in the Middle East, operate interceptor drones?

A: Let’s imagine I’m sending my pilot to the U.S. on a business trip and something happens, and my pilot will be needed to manage interceptors. He will be able to do it from New York or California.

Q: Getting back to the 10 different kinds of interceptor drones the U.S. and allies need. What different kinds? What are the differences?

A: Interceptors against ISR drones. Interceptors against Shahed heavyweight kamikaze drones. Interceptors against decoys. Interceptors that are capable of flying extremely high. Interceptors that are capable of increasing their speed to catch jet kamikazes. Interceptors that can throttle very quickly. Interceptors that have a long flight time and can fly a long distance. So there are a variety of different interceptors.

Q: How do you use AI?

A: We have a very responsible attitude about the ethical aspects of AI. Human-in-the-loop sometimes is used, but mostly we use human-on-the-loop where it’s a synchronous usage of human to arm, disarm, to cancel decisions, but not the human-in-the-loop where we need to wait for the human decisions, because speed of decisions should be taken into account. The effective hitting of Shahed drones is much higher when the human is not in the loop, but on the loop.

Q: Has Ukraine learned any lessons watching the U.S. and its allies defend against Iranian Shahed drones?

A: That’s the best question from all my interviews, for the last period of time. I can tell this subjectively from myself, not a representative of Brave1 or the country. One of the main lessons is that you should never be sure that you are secure enough and your technologies are perfect, because you don’t know what is in the pocket of your enemy. And you always need to be ready for the worst case scenario and permanently improve the level of readiness to counteract or react to absolutely non-predictable different things. And the speed of your reaction is crucial.

You can see one such Iranian Shahed attack on U.S. forces in the following video.

Video footage filmed by an American servicemember of an Iranian one-way attack drone, likely a Shahed-136, nearly impacting a radar tower at a U.S. military base in the Middle East earlier this week, possibly located at Ali Al Salem Air Base in Kuwait. pic.twitter.com/zsPyuFXK1c

— OSINTdefender (@sentdefender) March 8, 2026

Q: Is there anything in particular you’ve seen about the performance of Iranian drones against the U.S., Israel, the UAE and other countries that surprises you and that you need to develop new ways to defeat them?

A: No. As you know, there is a strong cooperation between Russia and Iran, and Iranian technologies appear to have been used on the battlefield by Russia, and I’m sure vice versa as well.

Q: Have you seen anything different about how Iran is using these drones?

A: I didn’t see anything different. The things that I saw were the same, but I’m not a military expert. We are focusing on technologies.

You can see Iran’s Shahed drone attack on the U.S. Navy’s facility in Bahrain on the opening day of the war below.

Q: What about Ukrainian companies? How closely are they watching this conflict, and when they talk to you, are they saying anything about what they’ve learned and can use to improve Ukrainian weapons?

A: Everyone would like to help. And because we see that Ukraine, this is the only country who knows – and proven for years – how to defend itself against Russian new technologies. And of course, for us, it’s very painful to see because we have this experience. We know what to do, but all these tens of millions [of] people are facing these problems, but we could help.

Q: In March, President Donald Trump said: ‘We don’t need their help in drone defense. We know more about drones than anybody. We have the best drones in the world, actually.’ What do you think about that?

A: I cannot comment.

Q: Would you say there was a difference in the level of interest from the U.S. and allies at the beginning of the war to now? 

A: Of course, absolutely different interest. Previously, it was almost zero interest. And right now, this is number one topic.

Q: What advice would you give to the U.S. about defeating Shaheds?

A: Number one is, do not believe that you have plenty of time, a lot of time for preparation. The time is gone. The second one is cost matters. And the expenses for defense should be less than the expenses of your enemy to attack you. Number three is permanently focus on asymmetrical solutions.

Q: Like what?

A: When Ukraine didn’t have enough air defense missiles, we invented interceptors (drones). When we had a lack of 155mm ammunition, we invented FPV drones. When we had a lack of helicopters, we invented drone bombers. We had a lack of naval fleet, so we invented naval drones. 

And we see that such tremendous change of new technologies on the battlefield posed a lot of different new innovations everywhere, and we are the Ukrainian government cluster that analyzes all military ideas of different industry players. We see that every month the number of ideas is increasing, nothing. This is just opening new doors to a new era of new technologies.

Q: Have interceptor drones been able to replace those fired by high-end systems like the Patriot air defense system and others?

A: No. It’s not about replacement. Interceptors will never replace Patriot. Patriot is a great technology, the best in the world missiles for protection against ballistic missiles, hypersonic missiles. But of course, it absolutely doesn’t make any sense to use it against Shaheds. It’s extremely expensive, extremely it is overkill.

In our next installment, Hrytseniuk talks about how Ukraine plans to meet President Volodymyr Zelensky’s directive to produce 50,000 uncrewed ground vehicles this year.

Contact the author: howard@TWZ.com

Ukraine’s Shahed-killing Antonov An-28 Cash twin-turboprop utility aircraft are now air-launching interceptor drones to provide another means of defeating their targets. This is among the latest developments in Ukraine’s battle against Russian long-range one-way attack drones, one that has seen each side introduce new technologies and countermeasures in what has become one of the fastest-moving aspects of the conflict.

⚡️The legendary civilian Ukrainian An-28, modified into a “Shahed hunter” with over 150 confirmed kills, has now been adapted to launch interceptor drones in flight. pic.twitter.com/aAv3by9gLA

— Special Kherson Cat 🐈🇺🇦 (@bayraktar_1love) April 23, 2026

The video of the An-28 armed with interceptor drones was apparently first published by Ukrainian pilot and volunteer Tymur Fatkullin, who has previously documented other extemporized aviation initiatives, including using the six-barrel Gatling-type M134 Minigun to blast Russian drones out of the air.

In this new iteration, the An-28 has underwing hardpoints mounting two types of Ukrainian-made interceptor drones, the SkyFall P1-Sun and the Merops AS-3 Surveyor. Earlier this month, we wrote about how the Merops drones have been effectively used by the U.S. military to counter Iranian Shahed attacks in the Middle East.

Alongside the video, Fatkullin provided the following account:

“Aircraft-launched P1-Sun interceptor against hostile Shaheds. This method has already proven effective in real combat conditions. We have also tested several other interceptor drones during training flights. You could call it a cheap air-to-air missile.”

Fatkullin also added that, at this point, the An-28 has additionally brought down 222 Russian drones using gun armament.

A passenger An-28 aircraft armed with miniguns is shooting down Russian drones over Ukraine, French TF1 got an inside. The crew consists of civilian volunteers who have already destroyed nearly 150 drones during air defense missions. #Ukraine pic.twitter.com/x1E921TPT2

— NOELREPORTS 🇪🇺 🇺🇦 (@NOELreports) February 5, 2026

As we have previously reported, Ukraine has been successfully using several locally produced drones to counter Russian Shaheds for some time now.

Both the P1-Sun and the AS-3 Surveyor are small, relatively inexpensive drones built specifically to zip through the skies and intercept long-range one-way attack drones.

In the case of the P1-Sun, this uses a modular, 3D-printed airframe, can operate at altitudes up to 16,400 feet (5,000 meters), and reach speeds of up to 280 miles per hour (450 km/h). This is sufficient to intercept jet-powered drones such as the Russian Geran-3, under some circumstances.

Meanwhile, the AS-3 Surveyor is a somewhat more expensive and more capable option, intended for use against higher-end threats. These interceptors can operate autonomously or be remotely piloted and are equipped with onboard sensors for target tracking. The interceptor carries an explosive warhead and destroys targets either through a direct collision or a proximity detonation.

A video shows the AS-3 Surveyor during a live-fire demonstration in Poland in November 2025:

A new system to identify and take down Russian drones is deployed to NATO’s eastern flank

According to the U.S. Army, a single example of the Merops-made drone costs around $15,000, with the potential to reduce this to between $3,000 and $5,000 if production is scaled up. This compares with the estimated cost of between $30,000 and $50,000 for a Shahed. Provided the interceptor drones are effective, the economic case is a very compelling one.

Having interceptor drones launched from aircraft provides a number of advantages. The An-28 is able to bring the interceptor drone closer to the target and to use its own sensors to help locate these. As we have reported in the past, the An-28 crew initially relies on air traffic controllers to guide them to the area where drones are known to be flying. One of the crew is a ‘camera operator,’ monitoring a feed from an infrared camera. Members of the crew are also provided with night-vision goggles (NVGs) for spotting the mainly nocturnal drones.

The turboprop also offers significant loiter time for standing anti-drone patrols, which can be set up as a screen where they are most advantageous. At the same time, having the drone launched from the air reduces the response time. Launching from height gives the interceptor drone additional altitude and range.

There is also the benefit of having a choice of weapons (different types of drones, guns, and potentially also rockets) to respond to various drone threats.

Furthermore, the An-28’s short takeoff and landing (STOL) capability makes it ideal for operating in and out of shorter and more austere airstrips, of the kind that Ukraine makes extensive use of in the conflict with Russia.

This threat is only set to grow. Russia, as we have previously noted, now manufactures Shahed/Geran drones at the rate of 2,000 per month and has announced plans to nearly triple that.

Already, interceptor drones have established themselves as a much more cost-effective option compared to surface-to-air missile interceptors like the Patriot system, and even cheaper, less advanced missiles when it comes to countering Shahed-type drones. Although these drones lack the payload and range of high-end munitions, they can be deployed in large numbers, allowing them to cover broad areas. This, in turn, helps preserve the limited supply of more sophisticated interceptors and reverses the unfavorable cost dynamic between targets and defensive systems. Even so, such solutions are most effective when integrated into a layered defense, particularly for protecting high-value sites and critical infrastructure.

The small size of interceptor drones also makes them suitable for arming lighter aircraft, crewed and uncrewed. Ukraine already makes use of ‘mothership’ drones, while helicopters and even gun-armed Yakovlev Yak-52 prop trainers, also used to hunt drones, could potentially carry them under their wings. Already, light aircraft and helicopters are said to be responsible for downing between 10 and 12 percent of all drones claimed by Ukrainian air defenses of all kinds.

Inside the Cockpit of Ukraine’s Secretive Unit Hunting Russian Drones | WSJ News

It isn’t hard to see how this concept could be rapidly evolved and executed even more effectively and efficiently with better technology. For instance, having MQ-9 Reapers loaded with these drones and equipped with air-to-air radar would allow for a long-range, long-endurance picket aircraft of sorts. In the context of the war in the Middle East, parking these between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran, over the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman, could go a long way to stopping incoming Shahed-136 and other one-way attack drones at a tiny fraction of the cost of surface-to-air missiles.

Arming crewed aircraft with interceptor drones is the latest expression of Ukraine’s fast-developing counter-drone arsenal. If it proves successful, we will likely see its wider adoption. After all, anything that helps change the calculus for Ukraine in the drone war is likely to be enthusiastically adopted.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The Army’s top official pointed to low-cost interceptor drones first sent to Ukraine as one defense against Iranian barrages of Shahed-136 one-way attack munitions. During Congressional testimony on Thursday, Army Secretary Daniel Driscoll lauded the Merops interceptor and the process to get it quickly into the hands of troops in the Middle East.

The Merops is a small, relatively inexpensive drone built specifically to zip through the skies and intercept long-range one-way attack drones. As we have previously reported, Ukraine has been using several locally produced drones, as well as Merops, to counter Russian Shaheds successfully for some time now, proving-out the concept.

“When the conflict kicked off, within about eight days, we were able to purchase…13,000 Merops, which are incredible,” Driscoll exclaimed. “They’re about $15,000 a piece right now. We think as they scale, they’ll get less than [$10,000] and we’re able to take Shaheds down that cost $30,000 to $50,000, which is amazing because that puts us on the right end of the cost curve, and we will make that trade all day long.”

The U.S. has its own interceptors that have been in service for years, such as Raytheon’s Coyote, but they cost roughly 10 times more.

A new system to identify and take down Russian drones is deployed to NATO’s eastern flank

In a recent interview with Bloomberg, Driscoll said that larger orders could drive that to $3,000 to $5,000 per interceptor. Given the success in Ukraine, it is likely that the Pentagon and other customers would see far less risk when it comes to ordering large numbers.

As we noted in a story last month, the Pentagon sent thousands of these drone interceptors to the Middle East. Iranian strikes on U.S. military facilities killed U.S. troops and caused damage to bases and equipment. Driscoll did not offer more specifics about how often they were used, how many Shaheds they downed or exactly where they were deployed.

Merops was “developed as part of the US-backed Project Eagle initiative, which includes contributions from Swift Beat, a company associated with former Google CEO Eric Schmidt,” according to the Ukraine Defense Tech Community (DTC), a marketplace for modern weaponry. “The system is built around Surveyor drones, which act as airborne interceptors capable of destroying enemy UAVs mid-flight.”

Each Merops unit “includes a command station, launch platforms, and a fleet of Surveyor drones,” DTC explained. “These interceptors can operate autonomously or be remotely piloted and are equipped with onboard sensors for target tracking.”

While full technical specifications remain undisclosed, they can reportedly reach speeds of over 280 km/h (175 mph). “The platform is considered fast enough to intercept jet-powered drones such as the Russian Geran-3, which can exceed 300 km/h,” DTC pointed out.

The interceptor can carry an explosive warhead and destroys targets either through a direct collision or a proximity detonation.

Driscoll said the ability to field Merops so quickly is because the Army streamlined its acquisition process.

“Fundamentally, one of the core problems was our own bureaucracy, our own infrastructure, our own decision-making organizations had decayed from any sort of speed and rationality,” he testified. “The reason we’ve been able to move fast since the conflict in Iran started is because of work 10, 12, 14 months ago to reorganize our acquisitions department.”

“And practically,” he added, “what that did is it took us from a 16-step decision-making process – where each of the bodies along those 16 steps could veto it and start it back over, and it could take two to seven years to purchase something.”

“We put everybody into a group who could make decisions on the fly,” the secretary noted. “And so a lot of the things the Army has worked on in the previous year are paying dividends as we try to make decisions quickly.”

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

Budget Hearing – The United States Army

In Ukraine, Merops has proven to be a far cheaper alternative to munitions like Patriot interceptors and even far less advanced missiles for downing Shahed drones which have caused widespread destruction across that country. While these drones have neither the payload nor range of the far more expensive Patriot munitions, they can be deployed in great numbers giving them the ability to cover larger geographical areas. That helps keep the magazine depth of more sophisticated effectors from being quickly depleted and turns the disastrous ‘exchange ratio’ between cost of target versus effector on its head. In many cases, these systems would still need to be part of a layered defense, especially when used as point defense at high value installations and infrastructure.

Now that these weapons have helped save American lives and equipment, Merops success means we will likely be seeing more low-cost drone interceptors like it in the future.

Contact the author: howard@thewarzone.com