patriot

Lockheed Martin has unveiled the PAC-3 Adapted Capability Effector (ACE), a lower-cost interceptor for the Patriot surface-to-air missile system. By leveraging the existing PAC-3 fire-control architecture and Integrated Battle Command System (IBCS), the company says the new interceptor will cost less than half as much as the in-production PAC-3 Missile Segment Enhancement (MSE) while providing a high-volume option for defeating aircraft, cruise missiles, and shorter-range ballistic missile threats. Based on the ballpark figure provided by Lockheed Martin, a single PAC-3 ACE missile would cost around $2.5 million, compared to roughly $5 million for the PAC-3 MSE. The announcement comes as Patriot missile stocks are under immense pressure globally and after the U.S. Army made its hunt for lower cost interceptors official.

“American and allied warfighters need a solution that is battle-tested and budget-smart, and PAC-3 ACE delivers exactly that by building on the unrivaled performance of the PAC-3 MSE,” said Tim Cahill, president, Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control. “As we look to partner with our allies, we can further enhance resiliency and ensure our forces can swiftly counter emerging threats today and tomorrow.”

Lockheed Martin said the PAC-3 ACE is designed to provide allied forces with a “rapidly fielded complement to existing Patriot interceptors.” The company plans to work with U.S. and European industrial partners on development and production, with the goal of expanding manufacturing capacity and strengthening the resilience of the transatlantic defense industrial base. The idea of the new missile as a complementary effector is especially noteworthy, indicating that the PAC-3 MSE would be reserved for the most challenging or high-risk threats, while the PAC-3 ACE can be used for everything else.

Other than the price point, it’s unclear to what degree the PAC-3 ACE missile differs from the PAC-3 MSE. A rendering released by Lockheed Martin — seen at the top of this story — appears to show a shorter, more compact interceptor. Coupled with the substantially lower cost, the new missile will offer a more degraded capability set than the MSE. This could include shorter range, lower ceiling, and a reduced ability to engage the most advanced threats Patriot batteries face. Notably missing in the rendering is the PAC-3 MSE Attitude Control Section — the ring of tiny rocket motors that wraps around its forward section — that gives it enhanced agility. Sacrificing exactly this kind of feature could lower costs in exchange for capability. In addition, the new missile may not feature the PAC-3 MSE’s “Lethality Enhancer” warhead, for instance, and could just provide a strictly hit-to-kill capability or some other warhead solution to save on cost. Using a less advanced seeker is also highly probable. We have reached out to the company for additional details.

It is notable, however, that the ability to engage short-range ballistic missiles, at least to a degree, is inherited from the PAC-3 MSE.

PAC-3 Missile: How The System Works

Patriot’s ability to engage short-range ballistic missiles in their terminal phase has never been more important, particularly in light of the ongoing conflict with Iran, the war in Ukraine, and the continuing spread of those weapons worldwide. A lower-cost interceptor that can perform that mission for at least some threat profiles would help make missile defense more sustainable in future conflicts.

Overall, the concept behind the PAC-3 ACE suggests that Lockheed Martin is looking to offer a missile that’s closer to the PAC-3 Cost Reduction Initiative (CRI), which is no longer in production.

We do know that the PAC-3 ACE will leverage existing Patriot weapon system hardware, including the PAC-3 fire-control system and the IBCS. These measures should ensure that the process of developing, testing, and deploying the new missile can be accelerated considerably. Essentially, PAC-3 ACE will provide existing PAC-3 operators with a new common interceptor that can slot straight into the air defense system.

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

Northrop Grumman’s IBCS was designed from the start 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.

Having access to a significantly cheaper alternative to the PAC-3 MSE effector, while maintaining many of its capabilities in terms of the kinds of threats it can target, is a big deal.

A cheaper effector means the cost-per-kill against man target types can be significantly lower. It also helps increase magazine depth, with operators able to buy larger stocks of missiles, addressing a problem that has been encountered in war zones, in particular Ukraine, where Patriot effectors have been expended at such a rate that the supplies have gotten close to being totally exhausted. Recent operations have reinforced the importance of maintaining sufficient inventories of interceptors and other high-demand munitions to meet both operational and strategic requirements — for example, a future high-intensity conflict against China. Under a contract with the Pentagon inked in January, Lockheed is already committed to boosting annual production of the PAC-3 MSE to 2,000, an increase from roughly 600.

When it comes to the cost of the PAC-3 MSE, each interceptor comes with a price tag of approximately $5.3 million, according to the Army’s latest proposed budget for the 2027 Fiscal Year. In the past, a single missile cost around $4 million.

Just as critical as cost is speed and scalability of production. PAC-3 ACE has been adapted with this in mind, and drawing upon production facilities outside the United States will also help. Having plentiful supplies of Patriot missiles will only become more critical once they are introduced by the U.S. Navy as well as the Army. 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 that the PAC-3 ACE could help meet.

Back in May, TWZ reported on how the U.S. Army’s Low Cost Interceptor (LCI) initiative was looking for proposals for a new effector for the Patriot with a unit cost under $1 million. This amounts to about a fifth of the price of a single PAC-3 MSE missile.

As we described at the time:

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.

Like the PAC-3 ACE, the U.S. Army said it was looking for a missile that can be integrated into existing M903 trailer-based launchers and leverage the service’s 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 use.

As we noted at the time, the goal of acquiring an anti-air interceptor capable of engaging everything from lower-tier air-breathing threats to SRBMs, at no more than $1 million per missile, is ambitious.

The LCI initiative is also consistent with broader Pentagon efforts to expand access to lower-cost munitions through open-architecture designs and by leveraging new, non-traditional industry partners. LCI calls for Army ownership of the intellectual property, reducing vendor lock-in and enabling future competitions for complete rounds and key subcomponents.

The Army has already stated that the LCI missile and missile subsystem competition is intended to result in multiple awards that can lead to multiple different yet affordable missile interceptor solutions. PAC-3 ACE could be part of that equation for the U.S. Army if the higher price point is deemed acceptable, but clearly the concept will have considerable value for any of the more than a dozen Patriot operators, especially those facing the reality of limited magazine depth in conflict situations. Having a lower-cost effector available could also open the PAC-3 up to additional markets, too.

Even if PAC-3 ACE falls short of the Army’s ambitious sub-$1 million interceptor target, it underscores a reality that has become impossible to ignore. The era of relying exclusively on premium, very high-cost interceptors is giving way to a more layered approach, where lower-cost missiles can absorb a significant share of engagements against cruise missiles, drones, and other less demanding targets. If Lockheed Martin can deliver on its roughly half-price Patriot missile offering while still providing highly relevant capabilities, PAC-3 ACE could become an important addition to the growing effort to make high-end air defense more sustainable in prolonged conflicts.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

Raytheon has touted a new domestic order for PAC-2-series interceptors for the Patriot surface-to-air missile system. This is the first time the U.S. military has bought any new PAC-2s in more than 30 years, according to the company. This comes amid persistent concerns about the sufficiency of American stockpiles of high-end anti-air interceptors and other critical munitions, with alarm bells now ringing very loudly due to the conflict with Iran. Global demand for Patriot systems and interceptors for them, in general, is at a high point, driven heavily by fighting in the Middle East and the ongoing war in Ukraine. Patriot has been seeing a broader renaissance in recent years amid an evolving threat ecosystem, emanating especially from Russia and China.

Patriot was an important topic of discussion during a Raytheon quarterly earnings call this morning. Raytheon is the prime contractor for the Patriot system and the PAC-2 interceptor. Lockheed Martin is the prime contractor for the separate PAC-3 family of interceptors for Patriot.

“Raytheon booked nearly $20 billion of awards, resulting in a book-to-bill [ratio] in Q2 [second quarter of the 2026 fiscal year] of 2.4[%],” Christopher Calio, President and CEO of Raytheon (now formally called RTX), said on today’s call. “These bookings included over $5 billion of GEM-T Patriot effectors, driven by international customers, and our first domestic GEM-T production order in over 30 years.”

Calio did not elaborate on the domestic order, but this appears to be a reference to a contract the U.S. Army quietly awarded back in April. That deal was valued at $441.6 million and was said to be in support of Operation Epic Fury against Iran.

GEM-T stands for Guidance Enhanced Missile-Tactical. The GEM-T configuration, which has received various upgrades over the years, is the only version of PAC-2 still in production today.

Before the contract in April, it’s not entirely clear when the U.S. Army last ordered any new-production PAC-2 series interceptors, and the nomenclature here can be a little confusing. Raytheon began production of the baseline Guidance Enhanced Missile (GEM) variant, also designated the MIM-104D, in the mid-1990s. Compared to earlier versions of the PAC-2, GEM had improved engagement capability against smaller targets or ones otherwise with smaller radar cross-sections thanks to a new seeker. Changes were also made to the missile’s fuze to improve effectiveness against fast-moving ballistic missiles. A GEM+ configuration was subsequently developed, offering even better accuracy, performance, and reliability.

The U.S. Army subsequently sent stocks of baseline GEM and other older PAC-2 interceptors back to Raytheon to be brought up to the GEM+ standard. The resulting missiles were collectively designated MIM-104Es, with deliveries starting in the early 2000s. The GEM-T moniker was originally applied to MIM-104Es rebuilt from MIM-104Ds, which were further optimized against tactical ballistic missiles in the process. You can read more in detail about the PAC-2 lineage, as well as that of the separate PAC-3 series, in this previous TWZ piece.

Whether or not the new U.S. order for GEM-T interceptors is entirely for American military use, or includes purchases on behalf of allies and partners, is unclear. GEM-T remains in active U.S. Army service, as well as with other Patriot operators globally, even as newer PAC-3 interceptors have arrived. Current-generation trailer-mounted Patriot launchers can be loaded with mixtures of PAC-2 and PAC-3-series missiles at the same time, increasing their flexibility against different threats. PAC-2 missiles are distinctly larger than PAC-3 types.

However, as Raytheon has highlighted today, the U.S. military had not placed any orders for new-production GEM-Ts in decades. Members of the House Armed Services Committee notably questioned this logic just in June, in a report accompanying a draft of the annual defense policy bill, or National Defense Authorization Act, for Fiscal Year 2027.

“The committee supports the Army’s continued investment in Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD) to address the spectrum of current and future aerial threats and notes the ongoing efforts to address munitions production capacity within the domestic defense industrial base,” per that report. “The committee further notes that the Army’s procurement of Patriot interceptors in recent budget requests has been for the Patriot Advanced Capability-3 Missile Segment Enhancement (PAC-3 MSE), and not for the PAC-2 Guided Enhanced Missile-Tactical (GEM-T), which has complemented the MSE in real-world engagements.”

At that time, the House Armed Services Committee also asked for the Secretary of the Army to provide a briefing, no later than March 1, 2027, on Patriot interceptor inventories. Lawmakers specifically asked for the briefing to include the following:

• “An overview of the capabilities and limitations of both PAC-2 and PAC-3 interceptors against current and emerging theater ballistic missile and air breathing threats.”
• “Current stockpile levels for PAC-2 and PAC-3 interceptors, planned deliveries of both types across the Future Years Defense Plan (FYDP), and an assessment of inventory sufficiency relative to approved force growth, and remaining shelf-life.”
• “A description of the Army’s Total Munitions Requirement for the Patriot family of interceptors.”
• “Any recommendations to address shortfalls in inventory, to include additional procurement of PAC-2 interceptors, modernization of the PAC-2 missile, and development of a new interceptor for the Patriot system.”

Whether or not the committee was aware at that time of the GEM-T contract earlier this year is unclear. When missiles from that order are expected to start arriving is also unknown. PAC-2 and PAC-3 interceptors are long-lead-time items, and it typically takes years for deliveries to come after a contract award.

All of this speaks to the larger issues around Patriot interceptor stockpiles, which become something of a poster child for munitions supply chain concerns more broadly. Questions surrounding munitions expenditures in the course of fighting against Iran this year were front and center at a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing just yesterday. The Trump administration is currently seeking $67.1 billion in supplemental funding to help cover the costs of the conflict, including replenishing stockpiles of critical munitions.

Just how many Patriot interceptors the U.S. Army has expended in the course of operations related to Iran this year is unknown. A detailed report the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) think tank published in May estimated the figure to be somewhere between 1,060 and 1,430. Those numbers were not further broken down between PAC-2 and PAC-3 variants.

US President Donald Trump gave his blessing earlier this week to domestic Ukrainian production of the missiles.

Ukraine must make every effort to start domestic production of desperately needed Patriot interceptor missiles as soon as possible, now that Washington has agreed to grant Kyiv the necessary licences, President Volodymyr ⁠Zelenskyy has said.

Speaking to reporters on Thursday after returning from this week’s NATO summit in Turkiye, Zelenskyy said that political approval had been obtained from US President Donald Trump when they met in Ankara and the challenge now was to quickly take the practical steps needed to begin production.

“We resolved this issue ‌politically,” he said. “It’s now very important that our technical teams, all our representatives from different ministries, representatives of the executive branch, start working on this without delay, so that we can get licences very quickly and start production in Ukraine as soon as possible.”

Although Kyiv has received regular donations of Patriot missiles from its allies for its defence against Russia’s invasion, global supplies are running low, and Ukraine is using the interceptors at a faster rate than they can be produced in the US.

Zelenskyy has been pressing the US to allow Ukraine to start producing the missiles itself to overcome the supply shortage.

At a joint news conference with Zelenskyy in Ankara on Wednesday, Trump told him: “We’re going to give a licence to you to make Patriots. This way, you can’t complain that we’re not giving them enough.”

The Patriot is a US-made air defence system. Its PAC-3 interceptor – short for Patriot Advanced Capability-3 – is one of the few Western weapons capable of shooting down the ballistic missiles Russia has ⁠increasingly fired at Ukrainian cities.

Zelenskyy said his meeting with Trump had been a success, and he had also reached agreements with European allies.

“I believe this was a productive summit for Ukraine. In the coming days, we’ll receive a package from the United States, and there were also some separate agreements,” he said, referring to securing more PAC-3 interceptors.

“President Trump has repeatedly emphasised that today, only two to three countries in the world can produce Patriots, because the others are not technologically ready. Ukraine is recognised by America as a country that is ready to do this,” Zelenskyy said.

“Now, after our agreement with the president, our teams, our diplomats, the foreign ministries and defence ministries need to agree on all the remaining technical details. The sooner we reach those agreements, the sooner we will be able to produce Patriots.”

Patriot production will take months

However, Serhii Beskrestnov, an adviser to Ukraine’s defence minister, warned that setting up domestic production of the mobile, surface-to-air systems will take many months.

On his Telegram channel, Beskrestnov said a production licence would typically come with technical process documentation, training for specialists, supplier contacts and foreign consultants to help launch manufacturing.

The main obstacle would be time, rather than Ukraine’s technical or organisational capacity, he said, due to bottlenecks, including the long production cycle for some subcontracted components, which could take 12 to 24 months.

During the NATO summit, Trump praised Zelenskyy for doing “an amazing job”, a sharp change in tone from past criticisms of the Ukrainian leader.

Trump insisted that he remained determined to facilitate a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine.

“It’s not the easiest; not the easiest thing,” the US president said of an eventual peace settlement. “There’s a lot of commitment, and there’s a lot of love of the countries and everything else. But I think we’ve made a lot of progress in the last couple of weeks.”

Two days after Ukraine said it couldn’t down any Russian ballistic missiles because of a dearth of Patriot surface-to-air missile (SAM) interceptors, President Donald Trump on Wednesday told Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that he would provide Kyiv with a license to build its own. 

The vow, made during a bilateral meeting at the NATO Summit in Ankara, Turkey, was a rare feel-good moment between two world leaders who have frequently butted heads. However, turning that offer into a reality that can help Ukraine in the near-term isn’t realistic. It would take many months, at least, for the first missiles to roll off the production line for a whole host of reasons we will delve into later in this story.

“That’s pretty cool,” Trump told Zelensky after making his license offer. “This way, you can’t complain that we’re not giving them enough. I said, ‘Make them yourself.’”

Trump added a telling caveat.

“We haven’t informed the company of that yet, but that’ll work out all right,” he said. We’ve reached out to Lockheed Martin and Raytheon, which make variants of these weapons, for more details.

“We don’t have an immediate comment on the president’s announcement,” a spokesperson for RTX, Raytheon’s parent company told us. However, the spokesperson noted that RTX “has a long history of co-producing critical defense systems in Europe, with major suppliers in Poland, Germany, Switzerland and Greece to name a few.”

The American leader also suggested that Ukraine would not need much time before it is able to place domestically produced Patriot interceptors into launchers.

“I think they can produce them pretty quickly,” Trump posited. “They have a great ability to produce weapons.”

As we noted earlier in this piece, that’s unlikely at best, even though Ukraine has been at the forefront of weapons production dating back to when it was part of the Soviet Union.

First of all, such a deal could face bureaucratic and regulatory hurdles, like getting Congressional approval. That’s the least of the issues, however.

For instance, even Lockheed Martin, one of the world’s biggest arms makers, currently produces only about 650 PAC-3 MSE interceptors a year, or just shy of two per day. However, under a contract with the Pentagon inked in January, Lockheed is committed to boosting Patriot annual production to 2,000 in the years to come.

Lockheed Martin Receives Contract to Accelerate PAC-3® MSE Production

“Every PAC-3 MSE interceptor carries a production lead time of 24 months for the missile and 30 months for the solid rocket motor,” the Foreign Policy Research Institute (FPRI) explained in a recent analysis. “Such timelines are due to physical industrial constraints, such as the lengthy curing time required for solid rocket motors and the complex, multi-year process of qualifying any new component supplier.”

The primary bottleneck “sits one level below the prime contractor,” FPRI added. “Boeing produces the active radar seeker for every PAC-3 MSE from a single facility in Huntsville, Alabama, and in 2025 it delivered only around 650 to 700 seekers. Recognizing this choke point, the Pentagon signed a framework in April 2026 to triple seeker production, an admission that final assembly capacity is irrelevant if the sub-tier cannot keep up. The same logic applies to the missile’s solid rocket motor, manufactured by L3Harris’s Aerojet Rocketdyne.”

Leaders celebrate groundbreaking of Boeing’s PAC-3 Seeker Factory

Given those issues, whether Ukraine can obtain these components even if it does have a license to build the interceptors is a huge question. It is one that Kyiv is trying to answer for the line of interceptors it is trying to produce at home. 

Fire Point, the Ukrainian company that makes several drones as well as the FP-5 Flamingo cruise missile, is working on a domestically designed and produced “anti-ballistic shield.” The backbone of this system is the company’s FP-7.x interceptor missile. In February, the company demonstrated tests of the weapon, which is based on its FP-7 ballistic missile.

That shield “is aerodynamically ready, but still not combat-capable without full integration,” the Kyiv Post noted earlier this month. “Chief designer Denys Shtilerman said the system depends on radars, command centers, a secure data link, and a European-developed seeker head. The company is working with partners to combine these elements into a functioning missile defense network.”

You can see the FP-7 missile in the following video.

As we have previously noted, between U.S. usage in recent Middle East conflicts, sustained consumption by Ukraine and commitments to nearly 20 other nations that are facing increasing threats, the supply of Patriot interceptors is a major problem. Even before Ukraine gained the system and the multiple flare-ups in the Middle East, the depth of the global Patriot missile arsenal and the ability to build enough interceptors in a crisis was concerning. Now demand has exploded and rationing is occurring, with some customers being told their orders are going to be diverted to replenish U.S. stocks. This practice even predates the second Trump administration, with the Biden White House telling allies their orders will be diverted to Taiwan and Ukraine.

All of these interceptors for various buyers will need the same long-lead, highly specialized components that Ukraine would need for domestic production of these weapons.

Even if Ukraine can round up all the components, it still needs a place to put them all together into a workable weapon. Given that it faces constant missile and drone barrages from Russia, Ukraine disperses a lot of its weapons production to avoid having one point of failure in the event of a devastating attack. However, that might not be optimal for the production of enough Patriot interceptors to provide an adequate defense against these threats. Any large facility purpose-built or converted for this effort — which could take years — would be a prime target and likely attacked very quickly.

Should Ukraine find a suitable, secure location, perhaps underground, it still needs people to do the work. That raises another level of concern, according to David Shank, a retired Army colonel who served as Commandant of the Air Defense Artillery School at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, and as the 10th Army Air Missile Defense Commander in Europe.

“From my perspective, I am absolutely 100% concerned about the Ukrainians and anyone they let in those facilities,” Shank noted. “And of course that brings into play how much information and capability we are willing to share for the Ukrainians to build Patriot interceptors.”

Shank’s concerns are well-founded. Security around these weapons and their components is very high. The chances that data or hardware could find its way into enemy hands is a problem in a country at war with its neighbor, and those risks are greater with the more advanced variants of these weapons like the PAC-3 family.

As Raytheon noted in its response to our inquiry, licensed production of Patriot interceptors is a concept not without precedent. Japan also has a contract with Lockheed Martin to produce about 30 Patriot interceptors per year. Plans to boost that number hit a snag in 2024 over supply chain issues, Reuters reported at the time. Meanwhile, a new MBDA-Raytheon facility in Europe built to make GEM-T Patriot missiles is due to open later this year, according to the Financial Times.

In addition to that, plans were announced during the NATO Summit to build a European Patriot PAC-3 maintenance facility.

Also unknown is how Ukraine will pay for all this, though it is likely European nations will help foot the bill.

All things considered, it will be a while before Ukraine can defend its skies with homegrown Patriot interceptors.

“I do think there will be bureaucratic hurdles to get over,” Shank surmised. “But ultimately I believe the tech transfer and supply chain will drive the pace. I am sure Ukraine has already identified the big ticket items needed to make this happen. I believe the supply chain of the intricate components, chips, and circuit cards could slow the process.”

In addition to promising he would give Ukraine a license to build Patriot, Trump also said he would provide an undisclosed number of additional ones from existing U.S. stocks.

There’s a long way to go before Ukraine can procure the Patriot interceptors it needs.

According to Ukraine’s Defense Intelligence Directorate (GUR), “Russia’s military-industrial complex plans to deliver up to 700 9M723 ballistic missiles for the Iskander operational-tactical missile system in 2026, the same number as last year,” Ukrainska Pravda reported. “Monthly production rates remain at 55-60 missiles.”

In addition, “the Russians have more than doubled production of RM-48U missiles for S-300PM and S-400 air defense systems, which they use to strike ground targets,” the publication added. “Over 480 such missiles are planned to be delivered in 2026, compared with more than 200 in 2025. The current monthly production rate is up to 50 missiles.”

The number of ballistic missiles Russia builds per year exceeds the current pace of high-end Patriot interceptor production, which is telling when it comes to how many interceptors the U.S. can supply Ukraine on a sustained basis under the current production rates.

So, Trump’s offer, if it comes through, won’t solve Ukraine’s urgent need for interceptors. However, becoming a Patriot producer, even after the war, would be a huge win for Kyiv. Developing its own stockpile would give Ukraine a level of security it does not currently enjoy. Being able to potentially co-export some of the interceptors it assembles would also add a boost to its economy that Ukraine badly needs. In addition, it would cement Ukraine further as a high-end weapons manufacturer. Considering the voracious global appetite for these weapons, there would be no shortage of customers.

Contact the author: howard@twz.com

ANKARA, Turkey — President Trump said Wednesday that the U.S. will give a license to Ukraine to manufacture Patriot air defense systems to help counter Russian missile attacks, a huge coup for Ukraine which has badly needed the technology for the war now in its fifth year.

“We’ll give them the right to make Patriots. We’ll show them how to do it,” Trump said as he met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky at a NATO summit in Turkey. “I think they can produce them pretty quickly.”

Patriots are expensive, in high demand and take a long time to produce. Zelensky has for years been asking for more of them, and more recently for a license so that Ukraine can manufacture its own.

The tone of Trump’s meeting with the Ukrainian leader was a break from earlier encounters which ended in acrimony, and Trump praised Zelensky’s willingness to reach a deal on ending the fighting in Ukraine.

He said the Ukrainian president has “done an amazing job” and “been very effective” in the war.

“We’ve actually developed a good relationship. It’s hard to believe,” Trump said, adding he believed a deal on ending the war was on the horizon and that the U.S. would “work on some kind of security package” to provide to Ukraine.

Trump takes aim at NATO partners

Trump wasn’t as friendly, however, with some his NATO partners, saying he was unhappy with the alliance for pushing back against his efforts to take control of Greenland and for not supporting his war in Iran.

NATO’s European members plus Canada have scrambled to meet the increased defense spending targets Trump has demanded, as the U.S. draws down the number of troops it has in Europe and insists that the continent take more responsibility for its own security.

But Trump reopened old wounds as he arrived at the meeting of 32 NATO leaders by insisting again that the United States should control Greenland, a semiautonomous Danish territory. He blasted some European countries for refusing to participate in the Iran campaign, singling out Spain as “a terrible partner in NATO” and renewing his threats to cut off trade.

Ahead of the summit, Trump said Greenland “is very important” for the U.S. but not for Denmark, declaring, “We need it for protection of the world, not just the United States.”

But Denmark’s Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said her country is “ready to defend every inch of NATO including our own territory” in the event of an attack, and would rely on NATO allies to honor their commitment to defend each other.

Trump’s criticisms have in the past drawn European countries closer together as they confront wars in Ukraine and Iran, a ballooning trade deficit with China, and threats from Russia.

The president’s renewed interest in Greenland could put at risk the entire future of NATO, which was founded in 1949 to counter the threat to European security posed by the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte sought to tamp down the president’s ire by giving him credit for recent increases in defense spending from NATO allies.

“Grab the win. It’s there,” Rutte told Trump on Wednesday.

NATO chief backs latest U.S. strikes on Iran

Ahead of the summit, Rutte praised Trump for the series of U.S. strikes on Iran overnight, after Tehran struck three merchant ships in the Strait of Hormuz.

“I think what you did last night was absolutely necessary,” Rutte said to Trump. “It was a very strong response, and I’m with you on this.”

The U.S. strikes, as well as the revoking of a license allowing Iran to sell its oil on global markets, underscored the fragility of an interim deal to end months of fighting.

Trump said of the interim agreement with Iran: “For me, I think it’s over” — but added he will allow talks to continue.

“It’s just a waste of time dealing with them,” he said.

NATO leaders sought to show Trump they were boosting defense

Rutte has dedicated a huge amount of energy to keeping Trump’s support for NATO and to holding the summit together.

The NATO chief pointed to countries including Estonia, Latvia, Poland and Denmark that are investing more in defense, but noted the Trump administration expects “the Europeans and Canadians will equalize their spending with the United States.”

Last month Rutte went to Washington to hail the “Trump Trillion” — the $1.2 trillion that European allies and Canada have added to defense spending since Trump came to power in 2017.

As leaders converged on Ankara, Rutte hosted a “big reveal” event to showcase the many deals planned for the increased spending — much of it to be spent on U.S. companies, creating thousands of jobs for Americans.

At last year’s summit, the allies agreed to invest 5% of their gross domestic product on defense — 3.5% on their defense budgets and 1.5% on infrastructure so troops and equipment can move faster in times of conflict.

Yet figures released by NATO on Tuesday showed that Slovenia, Belgium, Spain and the Czech Republic have struggled to meet the alliance’s old spending target of 2% of GDP.

The Trump administration wants to see a leaner “NATO 3.0,” with Europe taking responsibility for its own security, including Ukraine, with conventional weapons while America would continue to provide its nuclear umbrella.

The Pentagon has launched a six-month review of U.S. military presence in Europe, leaving allies to seek clarity on just how deeply Trump intends to cut U.S. force numbers.

Ukraine’s Zelensky pushes for NATO entry

Zelensky made a fresh appeal Tuesday for Ukraine to be allowed to join the alliance, saying Ukrainian armed forces are highly experienced and would only boost NATO’s defense capabilities.

He’s highlighted Ukraine’s adaptability and its ability to strike deep inside Russia. He said Ukraine’s armed forces are “eliminating” on average 30,000 Russian troops every month.

Concern has been mounting among some countries with borders near Russia that Moscow might be preparing a hybrid attack — a combination of conventional warfare with tactics like cyberattacks — on the continent as President Vladimir Putin struggles to secure victory in Ukraine.

Trump will also meet with Syrian President Ahmad al-Sharaa, a former insurgent who led the offensive that unseated autocrat Bashar Assad in December 2024. Despite having once been an al-Qaida fighter, al-Sharaa has won Trump’s backing as he seeks to rebuild Syria and restore its shattered ties with the West.

Cook, Kim and Fraser write for the Associated Press. AP journalists Collin Binkley and Michelle L. Price in Washington contributed to this report.

In the future, the iconic image of the commander-in-chief strolling through the grass of the White House South Lawn onto the Marine One helicopter will be a faded memory. President Donald Trump today said he had ordered a granite helipad be built on the South Lawn to protect it from the intense exhaust heat and rotor wash generated by the new VH-92A Patriot helicopter that will shuttle him, the vice president, their families, and their closest advisors, around, both at home and abroad. Based on imagery of the White House from satellite and far close to the ground, the helipad is already deeply under construction.

The helipad, he added, will be paid for by Sikorsky, the Lockheed Martin subsidiary that makes the VH-92A. The Wall Street Journal was the first to report that the White House building a helipad on the South Lawn.

“For 50 years we’ve been landing helicopters on grass,” Trump told reporters at the White House today. “The grass is wet, soggy, and our other Marine Ones are about 40 years old.”

Aging VH-3Ds currently used for the mission are set to be retired completely sometime this year. However, the Marines expect to keep flying their VH-60Ns through at least 2030 because of their particular ability to operate in hot and/or high-altitude environments. 

The VH-92As “are about two and a half times more powerful than the old ones,” the American leader explained. “And when you land on the grass, it’s not that the grass gets discolored, it gets ripped out.”

The problem, as we reported on for years, led to a delays in the operational deployment of the VH-92A.

“This was a little bit of a planning mistake,” Trump explained. “So they landed the helicopter, and half of the grass was sitting in front of the Oval Office front door. The rest, it was scattered all over.”

The grass was also singed, Trump added.

“Everybody said, ‘well, we’ll keep using the old helicopters when we have to land at the White House, and for everything else we use the new helicopters.’ That’s a pretty expensive deal, you wouldn’t do that for your company.” 

Trump proffered that Sikorsky, who makes the new VH-92, is going to pick up estimated $5 million to $6 million construction costs.

“You know why?” Trump exclaimed, answering his own question. “Because they didn’t tell us how powerful these helicopters were, and they felt a little bit guilty.”

It isn’t clear how the same issue will impact how the VH-92s will be used when flying abroad, as using large fields as landing zones is not uncommon for such trips.

Trump didn’t offer a timeline for this project or name the company doing the construction work. Lockheed confirmed ⁠the contribution range shared by Trump.

“This specific contribution was made to the Trust for the National Mall, the National Park Service’s non-profit organization,” a ​Lockheed Martin spokesperson ​said in ⁠a statement.

“Our engagement with the federal government is guided by rigorous ethics and compliance standards and ​conducted in full accordance with all applicable laws ​and regulations.”

The “VH‑92A Patriot is a recognizable patriotic asset known around the globe for safety, security and reliability,” a Sikorsky spokesperson said. “It brings increased capabilities for the no‑fail mission supporting the Commander‑in‑Chief around the world. The helicopter delivers increased performance and reduced maintenance costs and time over the current fleet of presidential helicopters.”

It’s worth noting that Trump has been a corporate customer of Sikorsky helicopters for decades and has lauded their capabilities and reliability, having multiple S-76s in his corporate fleet.

Upon learning that Sikorsky was footing the bill, Trump said he decided to go for granite.

“Let’s do a beauty, let’s not just do a piece of concrete and paint it white,” he proclaimed. “This one is a beauty. It’s got the seal of the White House, it’s beautiful, the eagle, and it’s carved out of granite stone by some of the most talented people you’ll ever meet. And you’re landing on granite, which is the strongest stone that we can like.”

Trump suggested that when the helipad isn’t being used for Marine One, it can be used for events or even press conferences. The president also stated that once the helipad is finished, “we’ll be able to finally retire 45-year-old helicopters.”

The destruction of the White House lawn wasn’t the only issue delaying the use of the VH-92A as the only presidential helicopter. Communications systems problems were one of the hurdles these helicopters had overcome on its long road to reaching operational service, which was supposed to occur years ago.

Sikorsky, which won a $1.24 billion contract, delivered the 23rd and final VH-92A Patriot to the Marines on Aug. 19, 2024. That same day, then-President Joe Biden took the first presidential trip on one of those aircraft.

The U.S. Marine Corps achieved Initial Operational Capability (IOC) for the VH-92A in December 2021, and HMX-1 commenced operational missions with the new aircraft in 2022.

Trump’s helipad declaration comes as he is already turning the former East Wing into a new ballroom/military center. It should be noted that while Trump initially said the project would cost $400 million and be paid for by private donors, the administration wound up seeking a billion dollars in new funding from Congress for the U.S. Secret Service. Of that money, $220 million would go toward the facility, while the rest would go to other efforts to enhance security around the complex. The spending plan is now caught up in a legal battle.

In our story about that project, we raised the question about whether Trump would use the roof of that building as a new helipad.

From that story: “Not long after the East Wing was torn down, we inquired with the White House if the ballroom’s roof would work as a helipad for Marine One. This inquiry was spurred by the chronic landing area issues with the new VH-92A Marine One helicopters. We never got a response, but the news hit this weekthat the White House is now looking to build a helicopter landing pad due to this issue. It isn’t perfectly clear if the ballroom could serve in this role or at least be used as an alternative landing site.”

It’s also worth noting that the manicured grass where the helipad is going was already damaged by the temporarily set up for UFC fight on Trump’s 80th birthday, so the timing for the helipad install does make sense.

We don’t know exactly when the new granite helipad will come online, but it will likely be this summer. And while it is yet be another way Trump has put his mark on the White House grounds, above all else, it will finally usher in the VH-92 as the primary Marine One helicopter and will allow the long-serving VH-3D Sea Kings to fly off into retirement once and for all.

Contact the author: howard@twz.com

Concerned with Ukraine’s ability to protect itself from the onslaught of Russian missile and drone attacks, the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) is demanding to know if the Pentagon can increase deliveries of Patriot air defense system interceptors to that war-torn nation. This comes against the backdrop of extreme U.S. and allied demand on dwindling supplies of these weapons. 

As we have previously noted, between U.S. usage in recent Middle East conflicts and commitments to Ukraine and nearly 20 other nations, there have long been concerns about the supply of Patriot interceptors. Still, the Pentagon has maintained that it has sufficient supplies.

It is hard to say precisely how many Patriot interceptors remain in Ukraine’s stockpile, The New York Times recently noted. 

“The number is classified. At the end of June last year, there were as few as 16 in Ukraine’s arsenal,” the publication stated. Given the low supplies and constant Russian bombardment, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has frequently requested additional interceptors from the U.S. and allies.

SASC said it “recognizes the importance of Patriot air defense systems and Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) interceptors in supporting Ukraine’s self-defense and notes continued concerns regarding interceptor availability, production capacity, and the impact of transfers on United States military readiness.”

“Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, to submit a report to the congressional defense committees, not later than October 1, 2026, assessing the feasibility of increasing deliveries of PAC-3 interceptors to Ukraine,” its directive states.

We have reached out to the committee to find out which variant of the PAC-3 they are referring to. Lockheed Martin is boosting production of the more advanced current-generation Patriot PAC-3 Missile Segment Enhancement (MSE) interceptors and it is unclear how many of the other variants are still being made or are in U.S. stockpiles.

SASC wants the following information from the Pentagon:

• “An assessment of current and projected Ukrainian requirements for PAC-3 interceptors over the next 12 months;”

• “An assessment of the availability of PAC-3 interceptors from existing Department of Defense inventories for transfer to Ukraine and the impact of such transfers on United States military readiness and operational plans;”

• “An evaluation of options to accelerate production of PAC-3 interceptors, including through multiyear procurement authorities, advance procurement, expanded supplier capacity, and other industrial-base investments;”

• “An assessment of the feasibility of increasing annual PAC-3 interceptor production and the anticipated timeline for achieving such increases;”

• “An identification of any statutory, regulatory, contractual, or supply-chain barriers to increasing interceptor deliveries to Ukraine;”

• “An assessment of opportunities for allied and partner nations operating Patriot systems to contribute additional PAC-3 interceptors to Ukraine, including options for United States backfill arrangements;” and

• “Recommendations for legislative or administrative actions that would enable increased interceptor deliveries to Ukraine while maintaining acceptable levels of U.S. military readiness.”

In addition, the committee said the secretary should “brief the congressional defense committees on the findings of the report, not later than 15 days after its submission.”

The Pentagon on Wednesday declined comment on the committee’s report, how many interceptors it has provided to Ukraine or whether it has the ability to increase that supply. We have reached out to Lockheed Martin as well and are awaiting a response.

TWZ recently addressed the supply of these munitions in a story about a new report from the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).

The report, on the severity of the depletion of U.S. advanced weapons stockpiles, found that current production PAC-3 MSE “is around the baseline rate of 650 interceptors per year, with half the deliveries going to the United States and the rest to allies and partners.” 

Under a contract with the Pentagon inked in January, Lockheed is committed to boosting Patriot annual production to 2,000.

“Because U.S. procurement in the last decade has averaged 225 missiles per year, deliveries from prior years will not be enough to fully replace expenditures,” CSIS cautioned. “For that, the United States will need to wait for the 3,203 Patriot missiles requested in the Army’s FY 2027 budget. These are projected to start delivery in May 2029.”

As we noted earlier in this story, in addition to the Patriot interceptors already provided to Ukraine, the U.S. used a large amount during the conflict with Iran defending its assets, as well as those of allies.

The CSIS report found that at the start of the war with Iran, “there were about 2,500 Patriot interceptors in the U.S. inventory,” though its accompanying chart does not specify which variant. “During the course of the conflict, between 1,060 and 1,430 Patriots were fired.” We don’t know what that tally includes, but we do know that PAC-2 and PAC-3 series interceptors have been employed in the latest conflict with Iran.

Adding to questions about the ability to supply Ukraine with more Patriots, a top official from Lockheed Martin recently warned that the company cannot give U.S. allies any certainty over when they will receive interceptors despite plans to triple capacity, according to Financial Times.

Brian Dunn, vice president for strategy and business development of missiles and fire control, recently said that the company was working hard to scale up production of critical PAC-3 interceptor missiles amid a supply crunch exacerbated by the war in Iran. 

But in remarks to journalists at the ILA Berlin Air Show, “he sent a sobering message to American allies including Germany, Japan, Poland, the UAE and Saudi Arabia that operate the Patriot air defense system,” the publication reported.

Dunn said the extra capacity “is obviously going to be able to satisfy multiple user requirements in a faster timeline.” However, he added that Lockheed Martin does not “control what the allocation of those missiles is going to be. We can’t tell anybody where you’re going to be on that [priority list].

“Obviously there’s a lot of rhetoric coming right now from the Department of War . . . about how they’re going to reorder, reorganize, who’s going to get missiles first,” he continued. “We don’t control any of that.”

Dunn’s statements highlight concerns we raised long before and during Operation Epic Fury about the rapid expenditure of critical munitions and how that could affect a potential future fight against China. It also goes along with our reporting about the overall inadequacy of the U.S. Patriot force, an issue we have been highlighting for years.

Meanwhile, for Ukraine, the influx of new Patriot interceptors cannot come soon enough. Two nights ago, for instance, Russian forces launched 70 missiles and over 600 drones in a mass assault, according to the Kyiv Independent.

“Of the 34 ballistic missiles fired, 19 were aimed at the capital,” the publication noted.

You can see a video of one of those strikes below.

“Kyiv’s beleaguered Patriot batteries did a valiant job, intercepting 15 of them, along with five of the six 3M22 Zircon hypersonic cruise missiles launched in the attack,” the news outlet added. “Still, even layered defenses were stretched beyond the limit.”

Contact the author: howard@twz.com

Tests of Ukraine’s new FP-7.X missile could pave the way to a cheaper and more plentiful, albeit far less capable, alternative to the U.S.-made Patriot air defense system effectors. A recent uptick in Russian missile and drone attacks against Ukraine, combined with a critical shortage of Patriot interceptors, underscores the need for more robust air defenses, especially with anti-ballistic missile capabilities. The development parallels a similar program in the United States, which seeks a drastically lower-cost interceptor for the Patriot system.

A video showing a test launch of an FP-7.X missile was published yesterday by its manufacturer, Fire Point, also responsible for the FP-5 Flamingo cruise missile and a series of long-range one-way attack drones. Fire Point’s chief technology officer Iryna Terekh described the depicted test as a “fully controlled maneuvering flight” conducted “just the other day.” The pink-painted missile recalls the early Flamingoes, and now seems to have been adopted as something of a company trademark.

The FP-7.X missile is planned as the stepping-stone toward the productionized Freyja missile, which is primarily intended to provide Ukraine with its first homegrown anti-ballistic missile defense system. While ballistic missile threats are being prioritized here, the system would be equally able to defend against a variety of crewed aircraft threats, as well as drones and cruise missiles.

“No matter how unrealistic and ambitious this goal may sound today, we are exerting all possible and impossible efforts to make it a reality as soon as possible, so that Ukraine can close its skies on its own,” Terekh wrote.

Back in April, Fire Point’s co-founder and chief designer Denys Shtilierman told Reuters that the company was aiming to develop an anti-ballistic missile with a unit cost of less than $1 million.

“If we can decrease it to less than $1 million, it will be … a game changer in air defense solutions,” Shtilierman said. “We plan to intercept the first ballistic missile at the end of 2027,” he added, apparently referring to the aim to field the Freyja system by that date.

This compares to a unit price of approximately $5.3 million for each example of the most modern and highly capable PAC-3 MSE variant, which is one of the types provided to Ukraine. This figure comes from 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 munitions also take years of lead time to produce, meaning that managing limited stocks is a big challenge.

Fire Point has developed the FP-7.X missile on the basis of the previous FP-7 surface-to-surface ballistic missile, a weapon with a range of around 124 miles, and a warhead of approximately 331 pounds. Deriving an anti-ballistic missile from a ballistic missile is an unusual move, but Fire Point will hope that the commonality should accelerate the process.

As it stands, Ukraine’s anti-ballistic missile capabilities are strictly limited. It relies heavily upon the Patriot, batteries and components of which have been provided by Germany, the Netherlands, and the United States.

When the Patriot began to arrive in 2023, it provided Ukraine with an enhanced long-range, high-altitude engagement capability that was previously only offered, to a lesser degree, by Ukraine’s S-300s, with their depleting stocks of missiles. Importantly, the Patriot also brought an anti-ballistic missile capability, something that was previously only provided by the small number of Ukrainian S-300V1 systems, and even those don’t come anywhere close to the Patriot in this regard.

And another S-300V engagement, released as part of the same video.

From what I have seen, these are the third and fourth Ukrainian S-300V engagement videos released since the start of the war. pic.twitter.com/wPHnYbCQKP

— OSINTtechnical (@Osinttechnical) February 9, 2025

Providing somewhat similar capabilities to the Patriot is the SAMP/T, a joint Franco-Italian SAM system, which has also been supplied to Ukraine, but only in limited numbers. Overall, the SAMP/T is limited simply by the fact that it is produced in relatively small numbers.

As for the Patriot, this has claimed notable successes and high-profile victims in Ukrainian hands. However, as Russia has adapted its ballistic missiles, specifically adding enhanced maneuvering capabilities, the effectiveness of the U.S.-made system has been reduced.

According to Shtilierman, the Patriot system often requires two or three air defence missiles, each costing several million ​dollars, to bring down a ballistic projectile. This is a mismatch that Fire Point also hopes to address with the Freyja.

It is notable that the U.S. Army is currently also pressing defense contractors to come up with proposals for a new interceptor for the Patriot system with a unit cost under $1 million, as you can read more about here. Whether by design or coincidence, U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Frank Lozano, the Army’s Portfolio Acquisition Executive for Fires (PAE Fires), included a rendering of the FP-7.X in a recent LinkedIn post, as seen below, to illustrate a notional low-cost interceptor.

hahah look at that! Good find!

— Tyler Rogoway (@Aviation_Intel) May 18, 2026

The latest development comes as Ukraine’s political and military leaders continue to warn about critical shortcomings in the country’s air defense capabilities. As well as expending the missiles it already has, the United States has reportedly suspended further Patriot deliveries to Ukraine because of concerns over the state of its own stockpile.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has repeatedly urged U.S. President Donald Trump and members of Congress to provide additional missiles for its Patriot systems, warning that Ukraine faces a severe air defense shortfall.

We were receiving PAC-3 missiles from our partners in certain quantities, but later that monthly volume was cut several times over. It wasn’t due to a lack of funding, but because of the war in the Middle East. This affected different types of weapons. Whatever we could, we… pic.twitter.com/qwPFydwAzC

— Volodymyr Zelenskyy / Володимир Зеленський (@ZelenskyyUa) June 3, 2026

Yesterday, Zelensky said that Ukrainian officials have one week to finalize outstanding legal, financial, and technical issues related to the purchase of additional Patriot systems.

Zelensky said that a political agreement to buy the systems has already been reached, but the process has stalled.

Ukraine’s ambassador to the United States, Olha Stefanishyna, added that Kyiv is prepared to finance additional Patriot systems and interceptor missiles if Washington agrees to deliver them.

Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine Oleksandr Syrsky also recently pointed to Ukraine’s lack of sufficient modern air defense systems and interceptor missiles.

Clearly, continued Russian missile and drone strikes are putting a heavy strain on Ukraine’s air defenses.

Plugging the gaps with the Freyja system would make a lot of sense, providing a locally developed and manufactured solution to the problem, provided that the technical hurdles can be overcome.

Even so, the deadline of the end of 2027 is very ambitious for such a project.

With that in mind, Ukraine is also looking to foreign support for the Freyja program.

Earlier this year, Fire Point confirmed it was in talks to get European and Middle Eastern companies onboard the program. With various nations struggling to meet their air defense needs amid the demands of the conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East, investing here could also bring dividends.

Shtilierman told Reuters in April that he was awaiting government approval for an investment in Fire Point by a Middle Eastern conglomerate, which would provide a major boost to Freyja and other programs, including longer-reaching ballistic missiles.

In terms of European companies, Shtilierman mentioned his interest in collaborating on radar, missile target-seeking, and communications systems. He named Hensoldt, Saab, and Thales as potential suppliers of radar solutions, an area where Fire Point lacks expertise.

Fire Point has also previously described the Freyja interceptor being fitted with an infrared imaging seeker for the terminal phase, as well as a semi-active radar homing seeker from Diehl Defence of Germany.

Few details are available about the launch system, other than reports of a lightweight, mobile launcher of domestic origin.

Globally, there is a clear demand for alternatives to the increasingly hard-to-source Patriot, especially for anti-ballistic missile defense.

A video shows a PAC-2 in a test against a Lance ballistic missile:

MIM-104C Patriot PAC-2 vs. Lance TBM

Ukraine’s combination of battlefield experience, rapid innovation, and low-cost defense technologies could put it in a good position to fill the gap. Even if the Freyja ends up with a significantly lower kill rate per missile than the Patriot, if it is far cheaper, that would be less of a problem.

At the same time, it remains unclear if Fire Point is able to fulfil the promises it has made in terms of output. In the past, the company has said it aims to build at least seven of its Flamingo cruise missiles per day, for a total of 2,555 built annually. To reach this target, the firm might need to call upon foreign partnerships to help expand its production capacity. The same would likely be the case for Freyja. By way of comparison, in 2024, Lockheed Martin produced more than 500 PAC-3 MSEs, with a plan to increase this to 600 in 2025.

A video of the Flamingo cruise missile in action:

Випробувальний пуск ракети “Фламінго”

One unknown factor in this is the possibility that Ukraine and/or NATO allies in Europe might obtain additional licenses for local production of Patriot missiles. Zelensky wants Patriot production in Ukraine and has said he has been discussing it with the United States. Still, while these might address the production capacity issues for the weapons, it would still be a more expensive solution than what Fire Point is proposing and it would take years to realize any output.

For now, the FP-7.X appears to be an early-stage technology demonstrator, and turning it into the operational Freyja interceptor by 2027 will require overcoming massive technical and logistical hurdles — as well as holding off Russian air attacks in the meantime.

However, the program reflects a broader trend in Ukraine’s wartime defense sector: rapidly developing indigenous capabilities to fill critical gaps left by limited and/or unreliable foreign supplies. If Fire Point can translate its ambitions into a viable anti-ballistic missile system, Ukraine could gain not only a more sustainable means of defending its skies, but also a potentially attractive export alternative in a global market increasingly hungry for affordable air defense solutions.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

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