Boeing’s BSU-111/B Payload Delivery Unit is a wing-and-turbojet engine kit that converts a 500-pound Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) into a long-range JDAM (JDAM LR) dubbed the GBU-75. The result is a gravity bomb with the reach of a cruise missile.

Boeing said it has spent nearly $100 million of its own money on the program.

“Scaling production of the GBU-75 will provide the fleet with an affordable, sustainable solution designed to eliminate long-range land and sea-based threats to U.S. and international forces,” said Bob Ciesla, vice president of Boeing Precision Engagement Systems.

The BSU-111/B wing-and-engine kit is the latest modification to the JDAM family, which has previously seen the gravity bomb receive a tail kit that steered it roughly 15 nautical miles and a wing kit that further stretched that distance to 40.

The Kratos-designed TDI-J85 engine pushes that past 300.

The JDAM LR’s capabilities go beyond land strikes. The QuickStrike Long Range mining variant pairs it with a bomb carrying a ship-tracking sensor. Boeing has shown concepts loading large numbers onto Air Force bombers, though no Air Force buy has been announced.

The Air Force Life Cycle Management Center at Hill Air Force Base, Utah, buys JDAM for both the Air Force and U.S. Navy. The first GBU-75s are bound for the Navy.

The Navy demonstrated the weapon back in April, when Super Hornets released two JDAM LRs over the Point Mugu Sea Range off California.

The April 1 round separated cleanly, fired up its engine and flew 34 minutes before landing within meters of its target. The April 3 round added altitude changes and maneuvering. Each covered roughly 200 nautical miles.

When announcing those tests in April, Capt. Sarah Abbott, the Navy’s Precision Strike Weapons program manager, emphasized the need to give the fleet’s JDAMs greater standoff range.

“As Naval Air Forces in theater continue to rely heavily on JDAM systems, the program recognizes a critical need to provide the fleet with greater standoff range,” she said. “This new capability allows pilots to engage targets from significantly safer distances, maintaining a tactical advantage in contested environments.”

Reusing existing infrastructure is a key aspect of the program’s appeal.

Navy budget documents describe JDAM LR as a modification to the baseline program, built on the existing production line and guidance hardware. Any jet that can drop a conventional JDAM can carry the new variant without modification, according to Boeing’s release.

The award, which had not appeared in the Pentagon’s daily contract announcements as of Aug. 5, is an undefinitized action, meaning Boeing began work before the two sides agreed on a price. The Government Accountability Office has long called these contracts risky because contractors are reimbursed for allowable costs, regardless.

Boeing’s release did not say how many GBU-75s the contract buys, how much they cost or when deliveries begin.

The warning envisaged attacks on the energy facilities, oil fields, refineries, electricity grids, water infrastructure, transport networks and other strategic assets of Washington’s closest Arab allies, according to a senior Iranian official.

The message, part of a broader Iranian effort to deter further U.S. military action by raising the prospect of severe economic disruption across the Gulf, was delivered through a flurry of high-level diplomatic contacts after Trump threatened on July 28 to strike Iran’s energy network and infrastructure, the sources said.

Two senior Iranian officials, two Gulf sources and a senior regional diplomat with knowledge of the discussions said Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi spoke with his Saudi, Turkish and Qatari counterparts, as well as Pakistan’s army chief. All spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter.

Araqchi urged Washington’s Gulf allies to use their influence with Trump to dissuade him from launching renewed strikes, the senior diplomat said, warning that any attack on Iran would prompt retaliation against U.S. assets and critical infrastructure across the Gulf.

His message was consistent in every conversation, the diplomat said: “We’re ready to retaliate, but finding a diplomatic solution is the best way to avoid wider escalation and destruction across the region.”

“The Iranian warning was unequivocal: if America targeted Iran’s infrastructure, they would retaliate by striking Gulf energy facilities and other regional targets,” one Gulf source said.

The diplomatic campaign underscores how Iran is seeking to turn Gulf vulnerability into leverage, confronting regional governments with the prospect that any renewed U.S.-Iran confrontation could place the infrastructure underpinning their economies directly in the firing line.

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman subsequently spoke with Trump, urging him to delay military action, return to negotiations, secure a ceasefire and pursue a diplomatic settlement, the senior diplomat and Gulf sources said.

The warning was intended for every Gulf state, another Gulf source said, but was conveyed primarily through Saudi Arabia and Qatar. In recent years, Iran has repaired ties with its Gulf neighbours, including its former regional rival, Saudi Arabia.

Qatar, Oman and Saudi Arabia have all urged Washington to resume talks with Tehran and avert renewed conflict amid Iranian warnings that another round of U.S. strikes could “turn the region into a fireball,” the second Iranian official said.

On Aug. 2, Trump said he agreed to cancel the attack on Iran “subject to being able to rapidly make a deal”.

THREATS OF WIDER REGIONAL ESCALATION

“Saudi Arabia believes further escalation will only bring more destruction,” the first Gulf source said. “That is why it urged Trump to give diplomacy a chance.”

While urging Washington to pursue diplomacy, Riyadh also made clear it would defend itself if threatened. The second Gulf source said Saudi Arabia warned that any attack on its territory would be met with a military response.

Ali Shihabi, a Saudi analyst close to the Royal Court, said the kingdom’s assessment is that further escalation is unlikely to achieve the desired result.

“The Kingdom believes a combination of proportionate military responses and sustained pressure on Iran in the Strait of Hormuz offers the strongest path toward a practical diplomatic settlement,” Shihabi said.

Iran’s clerical leadership has repeatedly demanded the closure of U.S. military bases in the Gulf and called on Gulf Arab states to stop sharing intelligence with Washington, which Tehran believes has been used to facilitate attacks against it.

“They still remember Saudi Arabia’s Aramco,” he added, referring to the September 2019 drone and missile attacks on the Abqaiq and Khurais facilities that temporarily knocked out more than half the kingdom’s crude oil production and exposed the vulnerability of Gulf energy infrastructure.

“The enemy continues to threaten Iranian infrastructure. If Iran suffers damage, it will inflict far greater damage in return,” added the Iranian official who cited the target list including power grids and refineries.

From Tehran’s perspective, Trump now faces two unpalatable choices, the senior Iranian official said: escalate a conflict that could engulf the Gulf and disrupt global energy supplies, or accept a negotiated outcome that falls short of the decisive victory Washington seeks.

One of the principal obstacles to an agreement, the senior regional diplomat said, is Washington’s reluctance to allow Tehran to emerge claiming victory.

“The United States wants something it can present as proof that it won the war,” the diplomat said.

Rheinmetall now expects sales in the range of €13.7 billion to €14.2 billion ($15.8 billion to $16.4 billion), down from €14.0 billion to €14.5 billion previously, based on a €300 million hit to its naval division.

It also cut its order book guidance to more than €100 billion, from roughly €135 billion previously, and lowered its capital expenditure target to 8%-9% of sales from 16%.

The company left its free cash flow conversion ratio and margin targets unchanged and said it remained on track for record growth.

JPMorgan analysts said they had expected the canceled frigate program to have made more of an impact beyond 2026 and said the downgrades could signal slower growth in 2027-28.

Rheinmetall had reported a nearly 70% jump in second-quarter sales to about €3.3 billion, with all business segments contributing to the rise, in an unscheduled release last month.

Its shares fell as much as 4% in early trading before paring losses to trade 1.2% down by 0745 GMT.

DENTED AMBITIONS

Rheinmetall has seen its fortunes soar with Europe’s renewed interest in building up its defenses after Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, with Europe’s largest ammunition maker targeting annual sales of up to €50 billion by 2030.

The company completed the acquisition in March of the warship division of German shipbuilder Luerssen as part of its ambitions to become a bigger player in the naval sector.

It has also been considering acquiring German Naval Yards Kiel and promised to reach a final decision within weeks after a rival bidder withdrew from the process last month.

The German government’s decision in June to scrap a delayed frigate program for which Rheinmetall had looked likely to secure the contract tempered the company’s upward momentum.

“In the naval business, too, we are looking to the future and are working hard to fulfil our current maritime orders as a reliable partner with a high level of expertise, and to secure new ones on the international stage as well,” said Chief Executive Armin Papperger on Thursday.

The Trump administration in December announced its intention to build a new class of large surface combatants, designated as the Trump-class guided missile battleship.

If built, the 35,000-ton nuclear battleship, according to the report, will be the most heavily armed surface vessel the U.S. Navy has ever built, possessing anti-air, land-attack and anti-ship missiles, hypersonic missiles, nuclear cruise missiles, large lasers and a rail gun.

“If built to those specifications, the ship would be the largest surface combatant in the world and larger than any surface combatant built for the Navy since World War II,” according to the report. “It would be more than three and a half times the size of the Navy’s Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer and more than twice the size of the Zumwalt-class guided missile destroyer.”

The Navy projects that between 2028 and 2056 it will build 15 Trump-class guided missile battleships, with the subsequent 14 costing $18 billion each. By contrast, the USS Gerald R. Ford, the U.S. Navy’s premier nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, cost approximately $13.3 billion.

By 2058, the total tonnage of “large surface combatants to be constructed would need to increase by 60 percent,” which the report notes “could be a challenge for the shipbuilding industry.”

The shift away from small surface combatants would mean that by 2035, shipyards would need to produce 12% greater tonnage under the 2027 plan than under the 2025 version, according to CBO’s estimation.

To keep pace with the service’s aims, the Navy would need to build a battleship about every other year from 2028 to 2056, the report notes, while continuing to produce two DDG-51 destroyers per year.

Last March, the Government Accountability Office released a report detailing nearly two decades of lackluster progress in U.S. shipbuilding. According to the GAO, not enough ships have been built, newly constructed ships are failing to function as expected and ships are being delivered up to three years later than ordered.

In a statement to the Senate Armed Services Committee, Shelby S. Oakley, a director at GAO, said that unrealistic expectations of costs and timing have diverted resources and introduced delays in shipbuilding, with the result that Navy programs and shipbuilders have been “effectively made to operate in a perpetual state of triage.”

The report also notes that while the price tag will be immense up front, over time, by switching to nuclear power, it would reduce the battleship’s operating costs by eliminating the need to purchase fuel. The GAO did not provide an estimate of possible savings.

Since the December announcement, the cost of Trump-class battleships has been a moving target, with the updated $23.4 billion roughly six billion more than the initial Navy projection.

Firestorm Labs manufactured more than 1,000 parts and 12 of its proprietary 3D-printable first-person view Squall drones aboard the Wasp-class amphibious assault ship USS Essex as it transited toward RIMPAC 2026 in Hawaii, according to a release.

“Every part xCell printed on deck is one that doesn’t need to be flown or shipped across contested waters — cutting the fuel, aircraft hours, and personnel it takes to keep a ship operational,” a social media release said. “Repairs that once meant days or weeks waiting on a resupply run can now happen in hours, on station.”

Firestorm Labs created the xCell as a factory-in-a-box that can be deployed aboard U.S. Navy vessels to churn out unmanned aerial systems and spare parts for expeditionary warfare.

As waves as high as 12 feet crashed against the ship, service members assembled drones that were later flown as adversary aircraft during a counter-drone exercise at RIMPAC 2026 in Hawaii.

The service members also helped print mechanical test components that assessed the efficacy of the 3D printer used for drone production and fabricated military repair parts that crew members of the USS Essex needed.

The Defense Department, and Navy in particular, is laser-focused on building out modular payload capabilities that can deliver mission-ready assets for the service.

Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Daryl Caudle announced the “containerized capability campaign plan” in March at the McAleese Defense Programs conference.

Caudle outlined a vision in which transportable containers housing defense capabilities such as drones and weapons can be deployed to any region in the world.

In May, the Pentagon announced framework agreements with defense companies Anduril, CoAspire, Leidos and Zone 5 to acquire more than 10,000 containerized missiles over three years beginning in 2027.

The move signaled the launch of the “Low‑Cost Containerized Munitions (LCCM) program."

The extension is in line with the Trump administration’s efforts to curb illicit narcotics flowing into the United States via alleged drug-carrying vessels in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean.

Since 2023, Saildrone’s USVs have worked in coordination with the U.S. Navy, supporting the Joint Interagency Task Force South (JIATF-S) and U.S. Naval Forces Southern Command/U.S. Navy Fourth Fleet, per the release.

“The continuity of Saildrone’s presence along the southern border for nearly three years demonstrates the strategic value we bring as the world’s most experienced operators of unmanned surface vehicles,” said Saildrone President VADM (ret.) John Mustin. “Our unmatched ability to remain on station and on mission in critical regions for months at a time is why our fleet serves as a powerful deterrent to bad actors. We look forward to continuing to partner with the Navy in its mission to secure the country’s maritime approaches and southern border.”

The 33-foot-long Voyager is designed for persistent surface and subsurface surveillance and can also conduct nearshore mapping missions and seafloor characterization, the release states.

Able to remain “on mission and on station” for months at a time, the USVs are “both a deterrent and an alarm” along the U.S.’s expansive southern maritime border, according to the company.

Since September 2025, the U.S. military has conducted strikes against alleged drug-carrying vessels in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean in support of what the Pentagon has called continued counternarcotics efforts.

As of June 22, the Trump administration and U.S. military have disclosed 66 strikes, killing at least 196 people.

The 10-day annual Han Kuang exercise began early in the morning after an underground command center in Taipei issued the drill order, triggering combat-readiness moves that will include fighter-jet dispersals and emergency naval deployments, two senior Taiwan officials briefed on the matter told Reuters.

Taiwan will also incorporate for the first time a so-called “backbrief” approach modeled on U.S. military practice, in which junior officers receiving orders restate mission details to commanders — a move aimed at improving coordination, the officials added, requesting anonymity due to the sensitivity of the matter.

The move, one of the officials said, is to “ensure commanders and subordinates are in sync on operational intent.”

The drill will also focus on a key wartime concern: that China, which claims Taiwan as its own despite the island’s objections, would try to paralyze command centers, ports, logistics and defense industry sites early in an attack.

China’s defense ministry did not respond to a request for comment. China has never renounced the use of force to bring Taiwan under its control.

Wartime Relocation

Held annually since 1984, the drills will include for the first time the deliberate slowing of mobile internet speeds to test how civilians would communicate if bandwidth became scarce.

The military will simulate the wartime relocation of a major arsenal, mobilize civilian factories and run escort drills off Taiwan’s Pacific coast, as concern grows that Beijing may be rehearsing how to sever the island’s Pacific supply lines from allies as Chinese military pressure intensifies.

“These are all part of a series of toughening exercises — this is no longer a laboratory-like exercise in a vacuum,” said a third senior official, speaking on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the operation.

“You are entering a real field environment, facing real bottom-line conditions. We hope the final phase of training reaches that state,” the defense official said.

That is part of Taiwan’s ongoing effort to make its exercises more realistic, following past criticism that some drills were too highly staged.

Resilience Drills

The effort has included resilience drills testing how local officials would keep the government running during cascading crises, from earthquakes to a Chinese invasion.

“If the situation does not match the original enemy scenario, what should he do? How should he reassess, readjust, and quickly issue orders?” the defense official said, referring to field commanders who will be tested with “unexpected scenarios” during the drills, which end on Aug. 14.

The drills will also mobilize more than 20,000 reservists.

On the sports field of a Taipei high school on Wednesday, dozens of reservists gathered to practice using mortars and taking up rifle positions.

The military will also introduce an “embedded reporter” mechanism to assess wartime frontline news releases and efforts to counter enemy disinformation, the officials said.

“The emphasis will be on how our entire population, the Republic of China as a whole — especially our citizens — should face war,” the defense official said, using Taiwan’s official name.

Since the start of the year, at least six defense-automotive tie-ups have been announced, as President Emmanuel Macron’s government seeks to combine the scale, automation and cost discipline of France’s car sector with one of the fastest-growing segments of military technology.

Ukraine and Russia’s use of drones has reshaped warfare, and that has prompted France and its European allies to prioritise drone production, as pressure from Washington on Europe to boost its military capabilities has added urgency.

The projects indicate France is building an industrial base capable of producing tens of thousands of drones a year — a scale difficult for defense startups to achieve alone, albeit one still dwarfed by Ukrainian and Russian efforts.

FRANCE AIMS FOR SCALABLE DRONE PRODUCTION

“Why now? Because the need is now, drones are now,” Christophe Périllat, chief executive of auto parts supplier Valeo, told reporters at the end of July. “And why in France? Because we’re being asked to guarantee our sovereignty.”

French defense officials do not anticipate a near-term need to deploy a large number of drones in the skies above France, but say it must be prepared for conflict.

The goal is to give France the ability to produce drones quickly and ramp up output should a crisis arise, they say. A July report by the French Senate’s defense committee described France’s stock of just a few thousand drones as “insufficient to achieve a critical mass.”

Valeo has said it will manufacture electric drone motors in France for defense technology firm Harmattan AI. Meanwhile, Forvia unveiled a partnership last week with a European defense company specialising in AI-powered counter-drone systems and is weighing plans to build capacity in France to manufacture 1,000 interceptor drones each month.

Renault, already working with Turgis & Gaillard to develop a long-range drone, partnered with Thales in June to industrialise production of the Toutatis kamikaze drone, targeting up to 1,000 units per month from 2027.

French drone maker Delair teamed up with German automotive supplier Schaeffler the same month to establish a French production line capable of producing around 100 drones per day by November.

SIMPLIFYING DRONE PRODUCTION FOR SCALE

If the plans announced by Renault, Schaeffler and Forvia are realized, combined output could reach 60,000 units per year. In a conflict, many more would be needed.

Drones have been used in warfare for decades, but the war in Ukraine has seen an explosion in scale.

Drones now dictate the flow of the battlefield, notching up the vast majority of kills. The front line has turned into a “kill zone,” with soldiers hiding underground from the constant aerial threat.

After Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022, Ukraine quickly accelerated its use of drones for reconnaissance, battlefield combat and long-range strikes. President Volodymyr Zelenskiy said in July that it will produce 10 million in 2026.

Ukraine now has hundreds of drone makers, big and small. Some even produce more than Ukraine’s military can buy, and the government has cautiously moved towards allowing them to export some excess production.

Patrick Pailloux, head of France’s defense procurement agency, said he was working in particular with auto subcontractors to design drones that France will be able to produce in large quantities.

“It’s not the same: producing a drone in a defense start-up and making something that can be reproduced in very large volumes using production-line robots,” he said.

Renault CEO François Provost said in June the Toutatis kamikaze drone was being redesigned with fewer components and from injection-moulded plastic, enabling cheaper, higher-volume production than the current 3D-printed model.

ENOUGH DRONES TO TRAIN ON, BUT NOT MILLIONS

Defense officials say the challenge is scaling up production capacity while not building stockpiles that could soon become obsolete.

Patrice Caine, CEO of French defense technology group Thales, said this summer that drones were “objects that evolve quickly” under the impetus of technological advances.

Pailloux said France needed “enough so that we can train, and (the production capacity) to be able to withstand a shock”.

Prime Minister Sebastien Lecornu pledged a €150 million ($175 million) investment to develop a dedicated drone sector last December.

But Antoine Level, head of France’s drone industry association, said Germany was ahead of France in funding short-range drones, and that there were still “not enough orders to truly stimulate the industry.”

The world’s largest defense contractor is negotiating with NioCorp Developments for the supply of scandium, and Teck Resources and 5N Plus for the supply of germanium, both of which are used in military equipment ranging from aircraft components to infrared sensors, the sources said.

The deals would mark a significant step in the U.S. push to build domestic mineral supply chains, but face hurdles: Chinese suppliers have long offered lower prices, and U.S. mining and processing capacity remains limited.

Lockheed makes the F-35 Lightning II fighter jet, Patriot interceptor missiles and other weaponry for the U.S. government. As China has tightened controls on critical minerals exports in recent years, Trump has pressured Lockheed and its peers to support U.S. mines with long-term supply deals.

Last month, he signed an executive order making it harder for defense contractors to obtain waivers that had allowed them for years to buy minerals from China and other prohibited foreign suppliers.

That order has highlighted how far behind U.S. miners and processors are in their race to match China’s market dominance, even as dozens of U.S. projects for a range of minerals are under development, Reuters reported last week.

Colorado-based NioCorp Developments has signed a preliminary deal to supply Lockheed with 15 metric tons per year of scandium, one of the 17 rare earths that can be used to make lightweight, corrosion-resistant alloys for aircraft, according to a source familiar with the agreement and details seen by Reuters. These have not been previously reported.

NioCorp will supply the metal from its Nebraska mine, slated to open by 2028 with annual production of 100 metric tons.

The agreement would need to be finalized, although the two companies have an existing relationship as part of a Pentagon-funded research program.

The contracted volume would be roughly a quarter of global scandium demand, which the U.S. Geological Survey estimates at about 60 metric tons and rising.

“Both companies recognize how important scandium has become to the future of American defense technology,” said Mark Smith, NioCorp’s CEO.

Lockheed said it appreciated “the work NioCorp is doing to establish a domestic source of scandium.”

The U.S. has not mined scandium since 1969. Rio Tinto is the only North American scandium producer, with capacity to produce roughly nine metric tons annually.

Germanium negotiations

Separately, Lockheed is in talks with Teck Resources for a supply of germanium, used to make infrared sensors and other military equipment, a second person familiar with those negotiations said.

Teck mines and produces a zinc and germanium concentrate from its Red Dog mine in Alaska. That concentrate is then smelted in British Columbia and the two metals are separated.

Teck does not break out its annual germanium production but has called itself the largest North American producer and fourth-largest globally. The USGS estimates that global germanium consumption is roughly 60 metric tons annually and rising.

The U.S. imports more than half of its germanium needs.

Lockheed is also in germanium supply talks with Quebec-based 5N Plus, which earlier this year received Pentagon funding to process the metal from recycled feedstock in Utah, the second source added.

“What Lockheed basically wants is a long-term supply chain security,” according to the second source. “Because they are under pressure, so they really want to know if the supply is coming from China or elsewhere.”

Negotiations with both Teck and 5N have been going on for more than a year. Pricing and the length of the contracts have been sticking points, according to the source.

Representatives for 5N were not immediately available to comment. Teck declined to comment on specific commercial agreements, but said it has agreed to work with the Canadian government to increase germanium processing in British Columbia.

Asked about the germanium discussions, Lockheed said it continuously assesses “the global critical minerals supply chain to ensure access to materials that support our customers’ missions.”

Chinese critical minerals prices have for years been cheaper than those from Western sources due to differences in mining practices, regulatory standards and other factors. Reuters reported earlier this year that Western governments are trying to set regional minerals prices free from Chinese interference.

The Next Generation C-sUAS Missile project comes as the U.S. and other nations are pursuing lasers, microwaves and other alternatives to kinetic anti-drone weapons, such as missiles and cannon, which are seen as too expensive and in short supply.

The Army wants to quickly develop an “extended-range, quick-response missile to defeat Group 2 and Group 3 small Unmanned Aircraft System (sUAS) threats,” according to the Army’s Sources Sought notice. The deadline is August 20.

The initial specifications are for a missile that can intercept a drone flying at 6 kilometers altitude, at a range of more than 16 kilometers. The ultimate goal is to destroy drones flying 8 kilometers high, at a range of more than 25 kilometers. Missile guidance would be via a radar seeker.

NGCM appears intended as a step up — but still compatible — with the Army’s Coyote C-UAS missile system.

“The Army is looking for NGCM to be produced and integrated into the existing Coyote Launch System to provide extended range, rapid launch time, and reduced time-to-target over current effectors,” the notice said.

The weapon is intended to stop Group 2 and 3 drones. Group 2 drones have a maximum gross takeoff weight of 21 to 55 pounds, fly below 3,500 feet and have a speed of less than 250 knots, according to the Department of Defense’s UAV classification system. This includes models such as Boeing’s ScanEagle. Group 3 drones, such as Insitu’s RQ-21 Blackjack, have a takeoff weight under 1,320 pounds and fly below 18,000 feet at a speed of less than 250 knots.

The NGCM missile should take less than five seconds to leave the launcher after the operator gives the fire command.

“The missile must be compatible with the Coyote Launcher with minimal to no modifications,” the notice said.

In addition, the missile must also fit with existing air defense systems, including the Sentinel A3/A4, LTAMDS and TPQ-53 radars.

The Army envisions the NGCM missile system in two versions. The fixed-site version would be equipped with a variety of sensors. A mobile version would be “mounted on tactical vehicles for employment at the halt and on-the-move, providing a scalable capability at the tactical edge.”

The Army is aiming for Technology Readiness Level 7 — prototype testing in the field — by the end of fiscal 2027. Contractors will need to have 50 missiles ready for operational assessment by the beginning of 2028.

Significantly, the Army desires missiles costing less than $150,000 apiece as part of a bulk purchase of 5,000 missiles. While that’s a bargain compared to a $4 million Patriot air-defense missile, critics may still question the economics: An Iranian Shahed-136 drone costs around $35,000.

That’s one reason for the drive to develop anti-drone lasers that, theoretically, cost only pennies per shot. On the other hand, missiles can function in bad weather that disrupts laser beams.

As the mission approaches the conclusion of its first year — with at least two more to go, unless the president says otherwise — its measure of success depends on whom you ask. In a round-table discussion with reporters Monday, Brig. Gen. Leland Blanchard, the D.C. National Guard’s interim commanding general, suggested the impact of the Guard’s presence was as much about an increased feeling of safety as it was about the number of interventions.

Those numbers, in the context of the size of the Guard deployment, are modest. Blanchard said Guardsmen had provided 788 medical assists, “ranging from administering CPR to applying tourniquets for gunshot victims;” reunited 43 lost children, intervened in 262 fights to prevent further escalation; and administered the overdose reversal drug Narcan to 325 people. Guard members supported law enforcement 479 times, he said, or a little more than once per day over the course of a year-long deployment.

“Those are not simply numbers. Those are not just data points,” Blanchard said. “Each of those represents fathers, mothers, children, people who have received emergency care, been returned to parents, and families, had their lives saved from opioid overdoses, or were involved in violent situations brought under control before further harm was done.”

He added that a Guard team on a “ride the rail” mission on the D.C. Metro had stopped a sexual assault in progress and recently intervened to stop a knife-wielding would-be assailant.

Blanchard said the Guard members’ presence was having its own impact. Guard troops recently began patrolling Starburst Plaza, a well-known hub for drug activity in northeast D.C. During a visit to the area Aug. 1, he said, he observed an Air National Guard member administering Narcan and “saving a life on the scene.”

“A few minutes later, a young teenager rode by on his scooter, stopped, and said, ‘I’ve never seen this place so clean,’” Blanchard said.

It remains unclear, however, how lasting those changes will be - or whether the impact justifies the missions’s cost. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated the cost of the D.C. deployment to be $55 million per month. Based on the Guard’s reported Narcan administrations, that amounts to more than $2 million in costs for every overdose reversal. A new estimate provided this week to the office of Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., estimates the mission will cost another $1.4 billion through its expected conclusion in January 2029, when Trump is slated to leave office.

Plans to move the Guard members from hotels into apartments via a $292 million contract awarded in July to corporate lodging company Placemakr are set to save the Guard about $90 million, Blanchard said, adding that they’ll also allow troops to be “closer and more responsive” to their mission areas.

There are currently just over 4,600 Guard troops in D.C., Blanchard said, and that number is expected to decrease somewhat as summer and 250th anniversary events come to a close.

A May study from the nonpartisan think tank Niskanen Center found that the Guard deployment correlated with a sharp decrease in specific kinds of crime, including vehicle theft and other opportunistic property crime in high-visibility spaces. But robberies and other violent crime trends stayed constant, it showed.

“The implication is sharp,” the study found. “The National Guard deployment appears to have deterred opportunistic property offending, exactly the category of crime most sensitive to visible, high-presence enforcement on the street. Violent crime was unmoved.”

Asked about recent reports, Blanchard said the report showed “there’s a positive impact where the Guard is on crime,” though the study authors “disagree with some of the locations” where the Guard has spent its time.

“As we move forward, what we’ll do is bring the same impact that we’re seeing,” he said, citing the recent move into Starburst Plaza.

“We have definitely seen a significant impact there,” Blanchard added. “I think we’re going to continue to bring that impact across the city as we expand.”

The Guard is now moving into its next phase of the D.C. mission, Blanchard said. While he provided few details about what the phase would entail, he mentioned specific higher-crime metro areas, including D.C.’s Ward 8 and Trinidad neighborhood.

“We’ll still be downtown, and we’ll still be in the neighborhoods that we’re in right now,” he said. “We’ll just shift some of those resources, and again, working in coordination with federal law enforcement and the Metropolitan Police Department, reallocate and repurpose some of those personnel.”

Called the Guardian Angel, the four-wheeled UGV has already completed live-fire testing.

Thales Australia worked with two other Australian firms to create the new system. One was Chaos 1, which specializes in rapid assessments, prototyping and autonomous-system experimentation.

The second company was W&E Platt, which makes weapon mounts. Indeed, the Guardian Angel features its low-cost Remote Operated Weapon PLATTform, with an image showing the ROWP mounting a Dillon M134D Minigun.

Thales Australia said in a statement that this project showcases its “sovereign industrial strength, ability to meet the nation’s defense and security needs, and capacity to deliver and manufacture autonomous systems and solutions”.

The company said the project was driven by one aim: to keep Australian troops safe.

However, a spokesperson explained to Defense News, “The Guardian Angel is a prototype and wasn’t specifically built for market. It’s part of a program to test and strengthen our capability in autonomous systems and solutions.”

Nonetheless, its completion paves the way for future platforms, in which a containerized mission system could offer capabilities such as medical evacuation, troop support, cargo transport and fire support.

“UGVs can preserve soldiers by operating in high-risk environments while providing a clear tactical advantage, assisting operations on the battlefield,” Andrew Downes, vice president of Land Thales Australia, commented. “They offer scalable, agile, cost-effective capability that can increase operational reach without increasing risk to personnel.”

Meanwhile, Benny Johanson, Founder and CEO of Chaos 1, described the process as “rapid prototyping in true form — little time, extremely chaotic and high risk.“

“In just six weeks we moved from a concept graphic to live-fire demonstration, and many said it couldn’t be done,” Johanson said, adding that the Guardian Angel “proved the sheer horsepower industry can generate for the warfighter at speed.”

Australian industry has developed a number of UGV designs, and the army is actively experimenting with some of them. For instance, it is trialing M113AS4 armored personnel carriers converted into modular robotic vehicles by BAE Systems Australia.

BAE Systems Australia’s largest platform is the ATLAS 8x8, fitted with an unmanned turret and 25mm Bushmaster cannon. It is currently in a prototype demonstrator status.

The Australian Army has also tested the tracked Warfighter UGV from Cyborg Dynamics Engineering. The army is already using the Ground Uncrewed System, affectionately known as GUS and produced by Outlook Industries, for remote coastal surveillance.

A couple of attritable UGV platforms also being tested are GaardTech’s Jaegar-C and DefendTex’s Banshee, small vehicles that can carry kinetic payloads.

“We’re about to bring into the next exercise UGVs. We can practice breaching minefields, for example, with sacrificial UGVs that might drag a tube full of explosives across a minefield — and we can detonate that,” Brigadier Ben McLennan, commander of the Australian Army’s 3rd Brigade, recently told Defense News. “That’s just one application. There’s a raft of other applications we’re making.”

Ukraine had urgently sought partners to develop a weapon capable of stopping Russia’s ballistic missiles. The pan-European project was launched officially in Paris last month by 10 governments and 12 defense firms - including Eurosam, Leonardo, Thales and SAAB.

Kyiv currently relies on the U.S.-made Patriot system to down ballistic missiles that fly at several times the speed of sound, but global shortages of its interceptor missiles, exacerbated by the war in Iran, have left Ukraine exposed.

“Pretty much everything is agreed,” CEO Iryna Terekh told Reuters, saying 13 industrial partners had already joined. Fire Point aims to achieve its first successful interception by mid-2027, she added.

Ukraine’s Fire Point builds pan European Freyja missile

The Ukrainian company is providing the FP7.X – a faster version of its FP7 ballistic missile – as the interceptor and is now integrating that with the guidance system, known as a seeker.

“Right now we are in the most intense and also in the most complicated stage of finally assembling everything together with surveillance radars, with tracking radars, with the seekers,” Terekh said.

Norway’s Kongsberg is working on the command center integrating the various systems. The company did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Industry publications have reported that Germany’s Diehl Defence — which produces a seeker for its own IRIS-T air defense system — will provide the guidance system.

A Diehl spokesperson confirmed the firm was in talks with Fire Point but declined to discuss details. Terekh declined to comment.

Fire Point aims to produce a ballistic interceptor for less than €1 million ($1.2 million) per missile, Terekh said — a quarter to a sixth of the cost of a Patriot.

“We’re trying to squeeze a program that usually takes 20 or 30 years into a matter of a couple of years,” Terekh said, adding that there had been at least five tests of the interceptor missile.

The project would use open-source architecture and allow different options to be swapped in and out — such as a Weibel radar for one made by Saab, according to Ukrainian officials.

The number of industrial partners could rise to around 20, increasing production capacity, Terekh said. She added Fire Point was in talks with Ukrainian state-owned missile makers, but declined to name them.

Terekh said the participating companies would finance research and development until a minimum viable product (MVP) was reached — which she said would mean the successful interception of a ballistic missile.

Attack missiles nearly ready for combat

“We expect the launcher to have from four to six missiles. So if from one batch there was an interception of a ballistic missile for MVP, this would be a wonderful result,” Terekh said.

A missile gets through only if all the interceptors in a launcher miss. Keeping the probability of six misses in a row below 5% — an industry standard — requires each interceptor to hit roughly 40% of the time, according to Fabian Hoffmann, missile expert at the Norwegian Institute for Defence Studies.

If it could really be done for €1 million, it would be “pretty impressive,” and “very cheap,” Hoffmann said.

The FP7 missile has an attack variant that can be used to strike ground targets. This has undergone about 15 test launches and is now being certified by the Ukrainian Defence Ministry, which she expected to take two to four more weeks.

Fire Point aims for first combat use of this version in early autumn, and late autumn for the much larger FP9 ballistic missile, which it says will be able to reach Moscow.

Terekh said the FP7’s architecture was based on Soviet-era designs for the S300 and S400 interceptors, but that Fire Point’s missile now shared only 20% similarity with those weapons.

In a recent interview, Fire Point co-founder Denys Shtilierman said the Soviet plans had been procured as a favor by Timur Mindich, a former business associate of President Volodymyr Zelenskiy who faces charges of corruption and is now a fugitive in Israel.

Fire Point says it declined an offer from Mindich to buy a stake in the company.

Fire Point is pressing ahead with building its own engine for its FP5 cruise missile, known as the Flamingo, which has hit several prominent military targets in Russia this year.

It had been using second-hand jet engines — “digging through the cemetery of the engines ... like in a thrift store,” Terekh said.

But these are getting harder and harder to find, so Fire Point is assembling the first 10 units of its own prototype.

“As soon as we’re happy with the results of tests of these test engines, there’ll definitely be many more Flamingos,” Terekh said.

The missiles are principally the Army’s surface-to-surface weapons, known as Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS) and Precision Strike Missiles (PrSM). The U.S. has used “virtually all” of these weapons, according to two of the sources.

The degree to which the military is running out of ATACMS and Precision Strike Missiles has not been previously reported.

The long-range munitions are an important part of the military’s arsenal, allowing accurate strikes from a safe distance. U.S.-supplied ATACMS have played a key role in the war in Ukraine, allowing Ukrainian forces to attack targets inside Russia. The PrSM is a newer, more advanced generation that will replace the ATACMS, which have a shorter range.

Analysts say such weapons — which cost over $1 million each — would also be important in any conflict with China.

The sources declined to say how many of each munition the U.S. had left.

President Donald Trump launched the Iran war jointly with Israel in February, predicting that the conflict would last a short time.

But as the war drags on, the three people familiar with the matter expressed worry that the falling missile supplies could limit the U.S. ability to deter adversaries, including Russia and China.

A fourth person familiar with the matter said that while Central Command — which oversees U.S. forces in the Middle East — has nearly used up the land-based missiles it had before the war began, it has been able to reload from U.S. military supplies elsewhere in the world.

The sources interviewed for this story spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Asked for comment on the stockpile data, the White House issued a statement from Trump, saying the U.S. had “far more munitions than anyone in the world” and “far more than we need.”

“Our defense companies are, at this moment, making more munitions than they have ever made before, in addition to expanding their plants and equipment at record levels,” Trump said.

Analysts agree that certain munitions, including artillery shells and several types of missiles, are being produced at record levels but caution that supplies might far short of what is needed for a prolonged war.

Lockheed Martin, which makes the ATACMs and PrSMs, along with the anti-ballistic missile THAAD system, did not immediately respond to questions about Trump’s statements or about supply levels.

Raytheon, which makes Tomahawk missiles and Patriot interceptors, two important U.S. weapons, also did not immediately respond.

Responding to a request for comment, chief Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell said: “America’s military is the most powerful in the world and has everything it needs to execute at the time and place of the President’s choosing. We have executed multiple successful operations across combatant commands while ensuring the U.S. military possesses a deep arsenal of capabilities to protect our people and our interests.”

The supply figures have circulated inside the federal government over the last week during tense conversations inside the Trump administration about how much longer the U.S. can continue striking Iran without drawing down the stockpile to levels that would limit the military’s ability to respond to crises elsewhere.

WARNINGS OVER WEAPONS SUPPLIES

One of the sources said the drawdown of the ATACMS and PrSM stockpiles reflected a decision by the Trump administration to avoid riskier ways of attacking Iranian targets, such as by using piloted aircraft to drop bombs.

Because these weapons allow the military to attack targets from a distance, analysts say they would be valuable in a war against an adversary with strong air defenses, such as China.

They have been used to strike targets inside Iran, according to a March report by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).

According to the report, PrSM stockpiles were low to start with, since it is a relatively new munition, but the U.S. military has ordered a large number of them for 2027. The Army has said that ATACMS are being phased out and that production is shifting to the newer PrSM missiles.

Military leaders have for weeks warned the president that stockpiles of defensive weapons — including Patriot interceptors, which are effective against ballistic missiles — were dwindling, said two of the sources.

Last week, several media outlets reported Trump had decided not to launch another massive offensive inside Iran in part because his military advisers had warned about the U.S. stockpile.

A U.S. official disputed those accounts, saying Trump chose not to move forward with another attack because of pressure from Gulf states.

The Middle East conflict has sparked intense debate about Trump’s authority to prosecute hostilities against Iran without congressional authorization. No request for a declaration of war or an authorization to use military force has been submitted to Congress.

DEFENSIVE WEAPON STOCKS ARE ALSO DIMINISHED

Last week, CSIS published a report estimating that between February and July about 65% of Patriot interceptors had been expended and that the number of THAAD ballistic missile interceptors in U.S. stockpiles was at least 38% lower than at the start of the war.

Patriots and THAADs are systems that detect and destroy incoming missiles and are among the most effective in the country’s arsenal.

While Reuters has not seen the supply figures, those numbers match internal U.S. data, two of the sources said.

The U.S. also burned through a little less than half of its global supply of Tomahawk cruise missiles, which are generally launched from ships, since the start of the war, one of the sources said.

Reuters could not independently verify that number.

The Tomahawk is a Navy weapon, launched from destroyers, cruisers and submarines, and has long served as the sea service’s principal means of striking heavily defended targets without risking pilots.

Raytheon, a unit of RTX, has reached a tentative multi-year agreement with the Pentagon aimed at boosting Tomahawk production, alongside increases in other munitions, as Washington races to rebuild stockpiles.

“The current industrial base has demonstrated significant challenges, including production delays, quality control issues, and critical obsolescence (i.e., diminishing manufacturing sources and material shortages) across key engine components,” warned the Air Force’s Request for Information. The deadline is Aug. 28.

“The government will pursue a strategic competition requiring industry to innovate manufacturing and guarantee supply chain resiliency,” the RFI said.

The initiative comes as the Air Force struggles with its jet engines.

For example, F-35 fighter deliveries and upgrades have been delayed by engine issues, with a Government Accountability Office report noting last year that “the engine contractor is still not delivering engines to contract specifications after 20 years of production.”

Meanwhile, B-52 modernization has been stalled in part by engine issues that have raised costs by $3 billion and delayed initial operational capability by 15 months, according to GAO.

In turn, the Air Force is now embarking on a multiyear fighter engine procurement project that envisions more than 180 engines per year by 2034. The RFI specifically cites engines for the F-15EX and F-16.

The RFI promises “five foundational pillars designed to drive a paradigm shift in engine procurement and sustainment,” as the government shifts from “legacy procurement toward incentivizing industry-led technological evolution and capacity expansion.” These include “holding vendors accountable” for delivering new engines that are more capable, reliable and cheaper.

The Air Force will focus “on the total lifecycle cost of the engine, not just the initial purchase price.”

Contractors are also responsible for ensuring reliable supply chains.

“We will implement an acquisition strategy that prioritizes ease of maintenance and establishes a resilient, sustainable supply chain from day one,” the Air Force said. “This effort is designed to solve key fleet-level issues by requiring a newer engine with improved supportability.”

“The result is a streamlined logistics footprint that reduces downtime, lowers the burden on our maintainers, and ensures the continuous flow of parts and support to maximize flightline readiness.”

Ultimately, the question is whether the U.S. defense industrial base can deliver. The Air Force intends to “enforce stringent producibility requirements.”

“We will select a partner capable of scaling production to meet surge requirements, guaranteeing a steady and uninterrupted supply of engines for USAF/FMS [Foreign Military Sales] aircraft (e.g. F-15EX and F-16) programs,” the RFI reads.

Companies responding to the RFI are asked to provide a variety of details, such as a timeline for developing and manufacturing an engine. They should also specify “at what minimum volume your supply chain can justify private capital investments (such as facility expansion, tooling modernization, or advanced automation) and how those investments will structurally lower your long-term unit costs.”

With nations competing to obtain raw materials — and China restricting sales of rare earths — the Air Force wants to be certain manufacturers can find the raw materials they need.

“From your company’s market perspective, what are the primary raw material constraints (e.g., specialized titanium/nickel alloys) or manufacturing process bottlenecks (e.g., advanced casting or forging capacity) that pose the highest risk to scaling up fighter engine production?” the RFI asks.

The agreements come as demand for Patriot and THAAD interceptors has increased following conflicts in Iran and Ukraine that strained U.S. missile inventories. They also come days after a Center for Strategic and International Studies analysis estimated the United States had depleted roughly two-thirds of its pre-war Patriot interceptor inventory during the conflict with Iran.

Defense officials said the agreements are intended to support the department’s long-term procurement objective of nearly 14,000 Patriot and THAAD interceptors by providing sustained demand signals to critical suppliers throughout the defense industrial base. The initiative is designed to triple production capacity for Patriot Advanced Capability-3, or PAC-3, Missile Segment Enhancement interceptors and quadruple production capacity for THAAD interceptors.

DoD said it will work directly with key component suppliers instead of relying solely on prime contractors, encouraging investment in advanced tooling, facility modernization and workforce development needed to sustain higher production rates.

“Building the Arsenal of Freedom requires robust, dynamic supply chains at every level of the industrial base,” Michael P. Duffey, under secretary of defense for acquisition and sustainment, said in a statement. “Framework agreements with munition components suppliers like Northrop Grumman are vital to accelerating the tripling of PAC-3 and quadrupling of THAAD interceptor production.”

The agreements establish a second source for Patriot solid rocket motors, expand production of ignition safety devices for PAC-3 interceptors and increase manufacturing capacity for key THAAD structural components, including mid-body shells, muzzle covers and rail car assemblies.

The initiative is part of the Defense Department’s Acquisition Transformation Strategy and was developed in coordination with the Missile Defense Agency, the Munitions Acceleration Council and the Economic Defense Unit to strengthen the resilience of the missile production supply chain.

Meanwhile, the Polish military is strengthening cooperation with Germany’s Bundeswehr under the East Shield project to boost the resilience of its eastern borders to attacks and hybrid warfare from Russia and Belarus, while negotiating with the United States, France and the United Kingdom to also involve their forces.

A spokesperson for the Polish Ministry of National Defence told Defense News that the military exercise, which is scheduled to be held this fall, is part of the group’s preparations for the post-war reality in Ukraine. Before the conflict ends, coalition nations want to reach a higher level of force coordination, and the drills are expected to contribute to their increased interoperability.

“The exercise planned on the territory of Poland is part of the preparatory activities of the Coalition of the Willing as part of future security guarantees for Ukraine. Its objectives include testing the command-and-control system, the organization of logistical support, and the deployment of troops, thereby confirming the force’s ability to operate once hostilities have ended,” the spokesperson said.

The decision to hold the forthcoming exercise in Poland reflects the country’s particular role as the logistical and infrastructure hub for the Multinational Force Ukraine (MNF-U), according to the Polish ministry representative.

“The core participants in the exercise on Polish territory will be France and the United Kingdom, acting as the framework nations of the Coalition of the Willing,” the spokesperson said.

The coalition is an informal group of nations led by London and Paris, established in 2025 to coordinate military and political support for Kyiv. While coordinating efforts with its French and British counterparts, the Polish ministry is also negotiating the participation of further allies in the fall drills.

“At the same time, military-to-military discussions are underway regarding the participation of other countries that are members of the Coalition of the Willing,” according to the spokesperson.

Under the country’s 10 billion zloty ($2.6 billion) East Shield initiative, the Polish military is advancing projects to bolster defensive infrastructure, including fortifications and natural terrain obstacles along the roughly 800 km (497 miles) of border with Russia’s Kaliningrad exclave and Belarus.

In a statement, the Polish military said that rather than a single continuous line of trenches, bunkers and reinforced concrete anti-tank obstacles, the East Shield is a diversified defensive infrastructure system that incorporates the lessons learned from the war in Ukraine, including the rapid increase in the use of drones and other unmanned systems.

“Depending on operational requirements, the project will also include the construction of logistics hubs, material storage facilities, fortification elements and shelters, as well as drone detection and tracking systems using radar, thermal imaging and acoustic sensors,” the statement said. “These capabilities will help effectively counter unmanned aerial systems, which, as the war in Ukraine has demonstrated, are being used with increasing frequency.”

Poland is seeking to make East Shield a priority project for NATO, and, as part of its discussions with allies, the nation’s military has established cooperation with Germany’s Bundeswehr.

In July 2026, the Polish Army said that a German military engineering unit had been deployed to Poland on a rotational basis to participate in developing the infrastructure.

“At the invitation of the Polish side, German soldiers are supporting the Polish Armed Forces in expanding defensive infrastructure on NATO’s north-eastern flank,” said Colonel Marek Pietrzak, a spokesperson for the General Staff of the Polish Armed Forces. “The involvement of the German contingent is a practical demonstration of Allied solidarity and the result of the steadily expanding military cooperation between Poland and Germany. The initiative forms part of NATO’s broader efforts to strengthen deterrence and defense capabilities on the Alliance’s eastern flank.”

Meanwhile, Polish defense officials say they are in talks with Baltic and Nordic states, including Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Finland, to exchange experiences and join forces on border strengthening efforts.

Deputy Prime Minister and National Defence Minister Władysław Kosiniak-Kamysz says that Poland also wants to strengthen its cooperation with the United States, the UK and France.

“Polish and German soldiers are working side by side to strengthen defensive infrastructure along the border and reinforce deterrence on NATO’s eastern flank,” Kosiniak-Kamysz said in a July 22 social media post. “This is only the beginning. Reconnaissance is underway ahead of support from French troops, and in September, reconnaissance involving American soldiers will begin.”

Denmark said in 2024 it would extend conscription to include women for the first time and increase standard service time to 11 months from four, while the number of conscripts is set to increase to 7,500 annually by 2033 from 5,000.

The new intake arrives as Denmark prepares to deploy conscripts to Greenland for the first time later this month, with a company of more than 100 soldiers set to serve for one month, taking over operational tasks from professional troops.

The deployment carries added political weight as U.S. President Donald Trump has repeatedly sought to annex the semi-autonomous Danish territory, citing national security, a demand firmly rejected by the governments of Greenland and Denmark.

Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen at last month’s NATO summit in Ankara said her nation was ready to defend every inch of territory in the military alliance, “including our own”.

Silas Nohr, a 19-year-old first-day conscript from the town of Varde in western Denmark, said he welcomed the longer service period.

“Now we have 11 months, and I feel like you can really get into it, really experience it and get a lot deeper into the military,” he said.

The new recruits face five months of basic training followed by six months of operational service. The Danish Armed Forces are also introducing new conscription tracks, including a drone platoon at the Special Operations Command.

The Nordic country’s program operates as a ballot system for all healthy young adults who turn 18, but has for many years consisted almost entirely of volunteers, with the lottery used only to fill remaining quotas.

Nordic neighbors Sweden, Finland and Norway also have a conscription-based military service, as does the Baltic region of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.

Although its mandate expires at the end of the year, the future of the security arrangements in southern Lebanon remains highly uncertain, with multiple options still under consideration.

Part of UNIFIL’s international civilian staff was evacuated during the escalation of the conflict that reignited on March 2, while military personnel remained on the ground and continued operations.

“UNIFIL has a mandate until Dec. 31, 2026, and our mission will continue until then,” UNIFIL spokesperson Kandice Ardiel said.

While rumors, public statements and various proposals have emerged about next steps, no clear plan has taken shape.

On June 2, UN Secretary-General António Guterres submitted three options to the UN Security Council, all of which would significantly reduce the number of peacekeepers deployed in southern Lebanon.

Guterres outlined scenarios that would see a light, medium or more substantial presence, with troop numbers ranging from 900 to 1,500 or 3,000, alongside varying numbers of military observers and reserve forces.

However, the UN Security Council has yet to reach a decision and could ultimately opt for a course of action different from the three proposed alternatives.

“The Security Council is currently examining the options. We will wait and see what decision it makes,” Ardiel said. “For us, the priority remains continuing to implement our mandate, and creating the conditions for a smooth handover to whatever comes next.”

There is no timeline yet, but as the end date nears, the risk is that southern Lebanon will be left with a security vacuum.

The three options, meanwhile, are not the only proposals on the table. Over the past few months, several countries have expressed interest in maintaining an international presence in southern Lebanon.

Following a proposal by Italy and France to form a post-UNIFIL multinational coalition — put forward during the bilateral summit held in Antibes in late June — Germany was the last EU country to join the call for an EU force to replace UN peacekeepers in the border area.

The European External Action Service also proposed a three-year civilian and military mission, not as a replacement for UNIFIL but to strengthen the Lebanese authorities and the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) in enhancing territorial control and border security.

However, any scenario is further complicated by Israel’s continued presence in Lebanese territory and its ongoing military operations in border villages, despite the ceasefire currently in place.

UNIFIL and Resolution 1701, which brought an end to the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war, have been largely absent from both the initial and now-defunct U.S.-Iran agreement, which included a ceasefire in Lebanon, and the security arrangements outlined in the framework agreement signed between Lebanon and Israel in Washington.

The framework agreement foresees the implementation of “pilot zones” in southern Lebanon that would be placed under LAF control and cleared of Hezbollah presence and weapons before the Israeli withdrawal, which would take place upon verification.

How such verification should be carried out remains unclear, while UNIFIL has not been brought into the discussion. So far, Israel has withdrawn from only one of the two agreed pilot zones. Israeli and Lebanese representatives are set to meet again in Rome on Aug. 4.

Regardless of outcomes, UNIFIL will cease operations on Dec. 31. As the mission’s mandate expires, the tasks outlined under Resolution 1701, including monitoring the cessation of hostilities and supporting the deployment of the Lebanese army south of the Litani River, will come to an end, even though the UN Security Council resolutions would technically remain in place.

On a practical level, this means UNIFIL will no longer be on the ground to monitor, report and coordinate daily between the parties, but will instead dismantle its bases and withdraw after nearly five decades of operations.

The Lebanese government has made no secret of its preference for maintaining an international presence along the border.

Officer-in-charge of the United Nations Special Coordinator to Lebanon (UNSCOL) Jean Arnault recently received a delegation representing 86 members of the Lebanese Parliament who signed a petition addressed to the UN secretary-general for the renewal of UNIFIL’s mandate, expressing their concerns about the consequences of the withdrawal.

According to Paul Salem, a non-resident senior associate at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and former president and CEO of the Middle East Institute, the Lebanese state and the LAF should be able to assume full responsibility instead of relying on an additional international force.

“The time to rely on others is over,” he said. “The LAF should be supported in gradually assuming full responsibility for security, not by bringing in another international force. They are certainly not ready yet, but that should be the end goal, rather than perpetuating the current model.”

According to Salem, from a realpolitik perspective, UNIFIL has not been particularly effective. At least half of the mission’s positions are currently located in areas occupied by Israel, affecting peacekeepers on the ground and delaying or blocking freedom of movement.

“Other countries should step in to support Lebanese authorities, not only the United States, but also the Gulf states, Turkey and Europe,” he concluded. “Everyone should help the LAF through training, resources, equipment and recruitment, rather than by maintaining a presence on the ground.”

The poll, conducted Friday through Sunday, also showed the Republican president’s approval rating ticking higher to 37%, up 3 points from last month when his rating tied the lowest of his presidency.

Trump has offered shifting objectives for the conflict such as aiding Iranians to topple their leaders, taking out Iran’s ballistic-missile capabilities and preventing it from obtaining a nuclear weapon. The poll found that 69% of Americans — including four in 10 Republicans — think Trump has not “clearly explained the goals of U.S. military involvement in Iran.”

White House spokeswoman Olivia Wales said Trump will not make decisions based on “fluid opinion polls” and reiterated the president’s resolve to prevent Iran from ever acquiring a nuclear weapon.

“What matters most to the American people is having a commander in chief who takes bold action to keep them safe,” Wales said.

Approval of the conflict has been below 40% since the U.S. and Israel launched strikes on February 28 — a stark contrast to the opening months of other recent conflicts.

While each had different context, the Iraq War from 2003 to 2011 had the support of about 70% of Americans in its early months. During the early days of the Afghanistan War, which lasted from 2001 to 2021, about 90% of the country backed the war, according to polling by Gallup.

‘No idea’ why US at war

Public disapproval of the war is weighing on Trump and his Republican Party ahead of the November midterm elections when the president’s allies will defend slim majorities in the U.S. Congress.

“It’s not clear why we started a war with them. I have no idea,” said Alex Womack, a retired turbine repair specialist from Stockbridge, Georgia, who became a Republican in part because he liked how Republican President George H.W. Bush handled the Gulf War in 1991.

Womack, who served in the U.S. Marine Corps during that conflict, said his support for Trump has ebbed because of the war. “I don’t think he’s doing very well, personally,” he said.

To date, 18 American soldiers have died in the conflict while thousands have died in Iran and in Lebanon, where Iran-allied fighters have battled Israeli forces.

The war has pushed gasoline prices sharply higher, a blow to the finances of many Americans. Gasoline prices are averaging just over $4 a gallon nationwide, up from about $3 a gallon just before the war started on February 28.

“This puts pressure on the party in a myriad of ways, all of them bad,” said Alex Conant, a Republican political strategist and a White House spokesman during the presidency of George W. Bush. “The White House officials have been saying since January that they need to win economic arguments. It’s hard to win the economic arguments when you’re clearly focused on foreign policy.”

Independent registered voters in the latest Reuters/Ipsos poll said they were favoring the Democratic congressional candidate over the Republican by 36% to 20%. Independent voters also favored Democrats over Republicans on economic policy, the poll found.

Trump vowed to stay out of wars

In campaigning for the 2024 presidential election, Trump said he would keep the U.S. out of enduring conflicts. He initially estimated the Iran war would last four to five weeks. He has bristled over comparisons to other wars, including the Vietnam War, which lasted two decades and claimed the lives of more than 58,000 U.S. soldiers.

Rhyan Anderson, an independent from Fairburn, Georgia, who voted for Trump in 2024, said he thinks Trump should focus on domestic problems rather than on helping Israel or other allies.

“My biggest thing is just focus on the people who are actually in the country,” said Anderson, who works two jobs in security and data collection and said he voted for Democrat Joe Biden in 2020. “I know we have allies and things like that, but there’s a lot of people here that really need help.”

Since mid-March, the Reuters/Ipsos survey has asked respondents whether they support or oppose military strikes on Iran. At that time, 37% said they supported the war.

That compared to 27% approval on the day the war began, when the Reuters/Ipsos survey also gave respondents the option to choose unsure, which 29% did.

The latest Reuters/Ipsos survey, which was conducted online and nationwide, gathered responses from 1,246 U.S. adults and had a margin of error of 3 percentage points in either direction.

The previously unreported findings offer a rare glimpse into how military and security-linked institutions in China are leveraging cutting-edge U.S. AI models as a shortcut to developing specialised systems of their own, despite Washington’s efforts to restrict Beijing’s access to advanced chips and other strategic technologies.

The documents show widespread use of a technique known as “model distillation,” in which outputs from a powerful AI system are used to train smaller, specialised models that can be deployed locally without the enormous computing requirements needed to build frontier AI systems from scratch.

Reuters’ review, which included research compiled by the Washington-based Jamestown Foundation and shared exclusively with the news agency, showed distillation is widely used by researchers linked to the People’s Liberation Army and other military institutions.

The papers suggest Chinese defense institutions see leading U.S. AI models as both a source of technical insight and a way to close the gap with American rivals.

The dispute centres on unauthorised extraction, not distillation itself, a widely used industry practice.

The issue has emerged as a major flashpoint ahead of U.S.-China talks on AI governance and safety. U.S. officials have accused some Chinese entities of using distillation to extract capabilities from American AI models, potentially undermining export controls and infringing intellectual property rights.

China has rejected the accusations, saying Washington is pursuing AI “hegemonism” while arguing that U.S. firms have engaged in similar practices.

Chinese developers have also disputed claims that their AI advances rely on foreign models. AI startup Moonshot last week denied allegations by the Trump administration that its Kimi K3 model was built using distillation, saying it was driven by proprietary innovations.

Sunny Cheung, a Jamestown fellow who analysed over 60 of the papers, said Chinese military scientists are systematically capturing the reasoning steps of Western models to adapt them for surveillance, cyber warfare and tactical decision-making.

“Teaching a model the right answer is one thing but teaching it the reasoning behind the answer is much harder,” said Cheung.

“These papers show Chinese military-linked researchers are trying to transfer that expensive, proprietary reasoning from Western models into smaller systems they can control and deploy locally.”

Reuters verified the academic literature and identified an additional two dozen military-linked case studies.

One paper published last year by researchers in PLA Unit 96941, a military intelligence and cyber-warfare unit in Beijing, described using OpenAI’s GPT-3.5 to process sensitive military source code.

The researchers said third-party models were unsuitable for handling classified information. To overcome that limitation, they used GPT-3.5 to summarize software code and trained a domestic model on those summaries to run entirely within Chinese military networks.

The White House, Pentagon, China’s foreign ministry, the PLA and OpenAI did not respond to requests for comment.

WIDE USE, FROM MONITORING TO MILITARY

Chinese researchers have used distillation for purposes ranging from content monitoring to military deployment, Reuters’ and Jamestown’s review of the papers showed.

At the North University of China, which has close links to the country’s weapons industry, researchers used Anthropic’s Claude 3 Haiku to generate synthetic training data for a text classification model for social media monitoring and content moderation.

Anthropic said it does not provide commercial access to Claude in China or to Beijing-controlled firms and uses monitoring systems to detect policy violations.

The company added that distilled models may lose the original systems’ safety safeguards, potentially allowing sensitive capabilities to be transferred to models beyond its control.

A 2024 paper from the PLA’s National University of Defense Technology described using distillation to shrink an image-processing model for deployment on unmanned aerial vehicles, allowing drones to analyse live video and support navigation and targeting decisions in real time even when communications are cut.

Similarly, researchers at China’s Academy of Military Sciences used distillation to run a target-recognition model on tactical hardware during simulated maritime operations involving drones, ships and unmanned submarines, a study published earlier this year showed.

BENEFITS AND LIMITS

China has embraced distillation as it seeks to compete with the U.S. in frontier AI while facing constraints on advanced computing resources due to Washington’s export controls on high-end chips.

Central and local governments have promoted “model lightweighting” and edge computing, directing subsidies and research funding toward technologies that enable AI models to run on drones, satellites and other devices with limited processing power.

Experts caution, however, that distillation has significant limitations.

As Chinese AI models close the gap with their U.S. counterparts, military researchers are also examining distillation as a potential security risk.

In January, researchers at the Army Engineering University published a paper on the threat of “data-free distillation,” a method of reverse-engineering a model’s capabilities without direct access to its core parameters.

To counter that vulnerability, they proposed defense mechanisms designed to mask the hidden logical information exposed in a model’s public outputs.

Distilled models also inherit only selected capabilities and cannot fully replicate the broad intelligence of frontier systems.

Trevor Koverko, co-founder of AI data company Sapien, said distilled models remain less capable than their teacher models.

“It is best understood as transferring selected capabilities into a cheaper, locally controlled system, not achieving independence from frontier AI.”

After decades of relying on the U.S.-made Patriot interceptor system and its hit-to-kill PAC-3 munition as the most proven air defense against ballistic missiles, three new tracks are now leveraging international cooperation and a dire global need to develop and manufacture cheaper interceptor platforms.

Some officials, meanwhile, are hoping the sense of urgency leads to the fielding of the first new prototypes by the end of 2026 — years faster than today’s Patriots can be made.

It’s an ambitious ask.

The missile defense world has long described the mechanics behind anti-ballistic defense as akin to hitting a bullet out of the sky with another bullet, multiplied in difficulty by the number of simultaneous air threats coming in — a stark reminder of the mass air raids seen today in Iran and Ukraine that stretch air defenses to the breaking point.

Today’s anti-ballistic momentum began with U.S. President Donald Trump’s seemingly off-the-cuff comment at the NATO summit in Ankara earlier this month, when he pledged to grant Ukraine permission to produce Patriot missiles for the first time.

“We’re going to give a license to you to make Patriots. That’s pretty cool. This way, you can’t complain that we’re not giving ‘em enough,” Trump said, adding that the companies that make the system’s components, primarily Lockheed Martin, had not yet been consulted on the plan.

Five days later, Ukraine and nine European countries launched a coalition in Paris to field Freyja, an entirely new anti-ballistic system centered on a Ukrainian interceptor priced at roughly one-fifth of a Patriot round.

A week after that, Lockheed Martin unveiled a cheaper, faster-to-produce Patriot missile of its own. And on Wednesday, the company announced the Pentagon had awarded it another $53.86 billion for PAC-3 production, bringing its multiyear deal up to $58.62 billion and aiming to triple production capacity by the end of 2030.

The new anti-ballistics arms race has manifested largely as a result of the munitions shortage created by the U.S.-Israeli war with Iran, during which American forces have fired at least 1,060 to 1,430 Patriots at roughly $3.9 million apiece, draining an estimated two-thirds of America’s pre-war Patriot inventory, according to a new analysis by the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

The diminished stockpile is compounded by the ongoing war in Ukraine, where ballistic missiles are the only threat Kyiv still needs help taking down and the one munition it has completely run out of.

With three new anti-ballistic tracks opened in July alone, NATO and its allies are aiming to shore up air defenses as quickly as possible.

Here is where the primary Patriot interceptor stands, and how the three new alternative pathways in the arms race stack up.

The standard: The Patriot interceptor

The Patriot, the U.S.-made gold standard of ground-based air defense, pairs a radar, a command post and launchers with two families of interceptor missiles, each fielded in several variants.

Lockheed Martin builds the PAC-3 MSE, the hit-to-kill round that rams ballistic missiles out of the sky, while Raytheon, which also makes the Patriot’s radars and ground systems, builds the older PAC-2 GEM-T, a round that explodes near its target and works best against aircraft and cruise missiles.

The MSE is the only Western munition that has reliably killed Russian ballistic missiles — from Iskanders to modified S-300s — in Ukrainian service. It has even downed the air-launched Kinzhal, which flies at hypersonic speeds.

That record is why the Pentagon on Wednesday awarded Lockheed a multiyear deal now worth up to $58.62 billion to triple production capacity by the end of 2030. Today, each round costs roughly $3.9 million.

“This is a once-in-a-generation moment, and we are moving with wartime urgency to deliver the Arsenal of Freedom,” Lockheed chairman and CEO Jim Taiclet said in a statement.

The grant: Ukrainian PAC-3s under US license

Trump’s pledge in Turkey would make Ukraine only the second country outside the U.S. licensed to build Patriot missiles, after Japan, which has produced them under license for decades.

Germany, the Netherlands and Spain are only now standing up a joint production line. Berlin is negotiating a license of its own and Germany’s existing GEM-T work runs through a joint venture with Raytheon rather than a national license, according to The Associated Press.

The license under discussion for Kyiv would likely cover the missiles — rather than complete batteries — and could mean final assembly from imported component kits instead of production from scratch, the AP reported.

Poland has offered to host the joint production on its territory for safety and security reasons, according to Polish news agency PAP.

“It is about securing this production, so that this production takes place in a safe location,” Polish Deputy Defense Minister Magdalena Sobkowiak-Czarnecka said in Washington on July 23.

Zelenskyy said he met with Lockheed Martin representatives while visiting the U.S. for Sen. Lindsey Graham’s funeral on July 28, posting on Telegram that “Our teams are already working on specific solutions to move to joint production as soon as possible.”

The cost of the licensed PAC-3, meanwhile, would stay the same at close $4 million per round.

Yehor Chernev, deputy chairman of the Rada’s committee on national security, defense and intelligence, estimates Ukraine needs at least 18 to 24 months to launch a first pilot production line, “followed by more time to complete the first weapons,” per The Associated Press.

Zelenskyy is pushing for even faster joint production.

“We expect that by the end of 2026, our Ukrainian team will have the technical capability to produce U.S. missiles,” he said on July 15.

The analogue: Freyja

Freyja is a full Patriot-style anti-ballistic system that includes an interceptor, launcher, radar and command-and-control network.

The system, designed by Kyiv startup Fire Point, is built around its FP-7.X interceptor missile and various capabilities supplied by European partners.

Zelenskyy called Freyja “an analogue of Patriot, but a system for more mass production and a cheaper system.”

His comments came as he formally launched the Integrated Anti-Ballistic Missile Coalition in Paris on July 13 alongside nine other countries, including Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom.

The FP-7.X flew for the first time in early June and is built to kill ballistic targets at roughly 15 miles up using a high-explosive fragmentation warhead rather than the PAC-3’s hit-to-kill collision — which may come in later versions — at a target price of approximately $700,000 per interceptor, or roughly one-fifth the price of a PAC-3.

The company says it will build three interceptors a day starting in August. Zelenskyy wants the system up and running within 12 months, and the coalition is targeting its first real ballistic intercept for the end of 2027.

“We have an ambitious goal: to have an MVP ready by the first half of next year,” Davyd Aloian, deputy secretary of Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council, told Reuters on July 27. “That is a prototype that can already demonstrate its first practical results.”

The Lockheed cost-cutter: PAC-3 ACE

Lockheed unveiled the PAC-3 Adapted Capability Effector, or ACE, at the Farnborough International Airshow on July 20.

Built on the PAC-3’s fire-control system and fully linked to the Patriot and the Integrated Battle Command System that allied air defenders already run, it is designed to counter airbreathing threats — meaning weapons that rely on oxygen for propulsion — along with cruise missiles and close- and short-range ballistic missiles, a tier below the high-end targets the MSE was built to counter.

“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,” Tim Cahill, president of Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control, said in the announcement.

Lockheed says it will develop and produce the round jointly with American and European industry partners.

International manufacturing is also under consideration, with the munition’s first flight expected in early 2028.

The company advertises ACE at less than half the price of an MSE, or roughly $2 million a round, without disclosing an exact figure.

The program, described as “extreme teaming” with industry partners, entered the phase with “unprecedented maturity,” Gen. Dale White, director of Critical Major Weapon Systems, said in a Wednesday keynote address at an event in Dayton, Ohio.

The engineering and manufacturing phase includes maturing, integrating and testing all parts of the F-47. It will produce a small number of test aircraft for evaluation and includes priced options for low-rate initial production. White did not specify the number of test aircraft being produced.

The first Boeing F-47 is on track for its first flight in 2028. The Air Force plans to buy at least 185 F-47s, matching the size of the F-22 Raptor fleet it intends to replace.

“The F-47 will fly in this administration,” White said during his speech at the Life Cycle Industry Days, hosted by the Air Force Life Cycle Management Center.

White, who also acts as direct reporting portfolio manager to the deputy defense secretary, is tasked with managing weapons systems, such as the F-47 and B-21 programs.

In March 2025, President Donald Trump announced that the force will proceed with development of sixth-generation Boeing F-47s under the Next Generation Air Dominance program, or NGAD, intended to replace the F-22 Raptor.

“In terms of all of the attributes of a fighter jet, there’s never been anything even close to it, from speed to maneuverability, to what it can have, to payload,” Trump said at the time, insisting that the aircraft will be built and in the air during his administration.

“And this has been in the works for a long period of time,” he continued. “America’s enemies will never see it coming.”

NGAD is a “family of systems” that includes the F-47 and Collaborative Combat Aircraft designed to achieve air superiority. The F-47’s modular design is intended to accommodate emerging technology and integrate long-range strike capabilities to counter threats in contested environments.

The F-47 program was allotted $3.45 billion in fiscal year 2026 funding and over $5 billion in the fiscal 2027 budget request.

The Defense Department is granting a collective $76.6 billion to General Dynamics Electric Boat for five Columbia-class submarines and to both General Dynamics Electric Boat and Huntington Ingalls Industries-Newport News Shipbuilding for nine Virginia-class submarines to be built in the coming years.

“This historic investment underscores the department’s continued commitment to undersea superiority and the recapitalization of our nuclear triad,” said Vice Adm. Robert Gaucher, director of submarine programs. “By securing the continuous production of both the Columbia and Virginia classes, we ensure we will continue to deliver the world’s most lethal, survivable and resilient combat platform.”

The contract includes $29.5 billion for Columbia-class Build II submarines, $42.1 billion for Virginia-class Block VI submarines and $5 billion for investments in nuclear shipbuilding programs and shipbuilding infrastructure for both shipbuilders.

The Navy currently has seven Columbia-class submarines under contract, 26 active Virginia-class submarines and 23 more Virginia-class submarines in the pipeline for future construction, the service said.

The Navy has made its newest submarine class a top priority over the last several years.

The Columbia-class has big shoes to fill: the boats are being built to replace Ohio-class submarines as they phase out of service.

The latter continues to play a big part in underwater military operations. An Ohio-class submarine participated in military strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities during Operation Midnight Hammer on June 22, 2025.

The Columbia-class is expected to surpass the missile payload and stealth capabilities of the Ohio-class, as well as harness the Trident II D5 Strategic Weapons System and hypersonic missiles.

While construction began on the Columbia-class in 2020, the Virginia class has been around for some time, with the launch of its lead boat in 2003.

Virginia-class submarines, which were designed to replace Los Angeles-class submarines, can host special operation forces undergoing long deployments onboard in a reconfigurable torpedo room.

Despite Columbia-class fabrication beginning six years ago, the program has faced delays.

The lead submarine in its class was originally slated for a 2027 delivery but has since been pushed back to 2028 after delivery postponement involving steam turbines and the submarine’s bow and stern, according to USNI News.

Government watchdogs initially predicted a rocky construction timeline for the newest addition to the silent service.

A U.S. Government Accountability Office report from January 2023 expressed concern that the building process would encounter hiccups because the submarine’s contractor, General Dynamics Electric Boat, hadn’t conducted a “schedule risk analysis.”

The latter practice, which is recommended by the GAO and is part of the Defense Department’s guidelines for large acquisition programs, helps set expectations for a program’s completion.

The Navy’s fiscal 2027 budget request for $378 billion includes money for the purchase of one Columbia-class submarine and two Virginia-class submarines.

Using publicly available information on missile expenditures, production rates and estimated U.S. inventories, the Washington-based think tank estimates the U.S. has expended about 65% of its Patriot inventory, leaving fewer than 1,000 interceptors remaining. The analysis also estimates U.S. inventories of Terminal High Altitude Area Defense, or THAAD, interceptors have declined by about 38%, leaving an estimated 234 to 278 interceptors.

CSIS concluded the greater strategic risk is not sustaining the current conflict but responding to another high-intensity contingency before Patriot and THAAD inventories can be rebuilt. According to the analysis, depleted inventories could force the U.S. and its coalition partners to accept greater operational risk during air-defense operations by conserving interceptors or prioritizing only the highest-value threats.

Patriot interceptors are among the U.S. military’s primary defenses against ballistic missiles and are used to protect troops, military installations and allied populations from incoming attacks. During the Iran conflict, Patriot and THAAD systems helped defend U.S. forces and partner nations against ballistic missile attacks, although some missiles penetrated air defenses and caused casualties and damage.

Patriot air defense interception is costly: Here’s how it works

In the assessment, CSIS analysts Mark Cancian and Chris Park wrote that U.S. forces expended large quantities of air-defense interceptors during the initial phase of Operation Epic Fury, leaving significantly fewer missiles available as operations resumed.

“There are no good alternatives to Patriot and THAAD for ballistic missile defense,” the duo concluded in their report.

Their findings further detail that rebuilding depleted interceptor inventories will take multiple years, raising readiness concerns for other theaters.

The Pentagon has not publicly confirmed the inventory estimates contained in the CSIS analysis and did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The Army this week awarded Lockheed Martin a contract worth up to $58.6 billion to produce Patriot Advanced Capability-3 Missile Segment Enhancement, or PAC-3 MSE, interceptors through fiscal 2032. The multiyear agreement is intended to expand production capacity as demand for the air-defense missile continues to grow.

“It takes several years to produce a missile. If you put money into the system today, you wouldn’t get a missile for three or four years. Sometimes even five,” Cancian told the BBC. “What we’re getting now are missiles that were funded in 2023.”

That production timeline, CSIS said, leaves a near- to medium-term window of risk if the U.S. is forced to respond to another major conflict before interceptor stockpiles are restored.