Pentagon names 4 directed-energy weapons for counter-drone program at US bases

Defense News | Michael Scanlon

The U.S. Defense Department selected four directed-energy systems for a yearlong counter-drone pilot across five domestic military installations, advancing efforts to shield homeland infrastructure against unmanned aerial threats. Managed by Joint Interagency Task Force 401, the program fields AeroVironment’s Palletized High-Energy Laser, Epirus’ Leonidas high-powered microwave, Kord’s Firefly laser, and Boeing’s Compact Laser Weapon System.

Initial deployments target Fort Huachuca, Fort Bliss, Naval Base Kitsap, Grand Forks Air Force Base, and Whiteman Air Force Base. Cost remains a primary variable. The trial measures real-time performance, maintenance overhead, and per-shot expenses against cheap aerial platforms. High-energy lasers neutralize individual targets through thermal dwell, whereas high-powered microwaves disrupt electronics across whole swarms. Operational testing follows a safety protocol established with the Federal Aviation Administration after early airspace disruptions near El Paso. The initiative directly complements $4.15 billion in contract awards for domestic air defense.

Comment

Accounting for directed-energy weapons in domestic site defence exposes a distinct divergence between unit acquisition capital expenditure and operational engagement costs. While marketing focused on sub-dollar per-shot figures for systems like the 30-kilowatt LOCUST X3, the true economic metric rests on life-cycle sustainment and initial capital outlay. A single multi-million-dollar capital investment amortised over limited peacetime domestic drone incursions yields a remarkably high per-engagement cost.

This expenditure profile forces military planners at Whiteman Air Force Base and Grand Forks Air Force Base to recalculate how operational budgets are allocated between fixed directed-energy emplacements and mobile kinetic interceptors. Downstream sustainment demands—specifically power supply infrastructure, specialised thermal cooling systems, and technician training—shift long-term budgetary weight from munitions stockpiles to base facility overhead. Consequently, base operating support funds, rather than traditional missile procurement accounts, will absorb the recurring costs of maintaining the Epirus Leonidas array in continuous domestic readiness.

Strategic Question for Discussion

If base operating support funds are required to sustain complex hardware like the Epirus Leonidas array at sites like Whiteman Air Force Base, how will military branches balance routine facility maintenance against counter-drone operational readiness during prolonged peacetime deployments?

The available evidence points toward an operational tension between installation maintenance budgets and the high lifecycle costs of directed-energy assets. My assessment is that installations hosting systems like the Epirus Leonidas array will be forced to centralise support funding under joint commands like JIATF-401 rather than relying on standard service-level base operating funds. This trajectory indicates a structural shift toward service-agnostic funding pools for permanent domestic air defence infrastructure.

Share your assessment in the comments below.

To read in details click here