"You could never have enough": Militaries scramble for air defense interceptors
The big picture: Militaries are burning through interceptors, and everyone wants more. But demand outstrips production.
Ukraine bats down Russian salvos. Israel counters Iranian barrages. The U.S. and allies such as France swat away bombardments from Yemen.
Meanwhile, worries about stateside stashes were apparently so severe that they necessitated a review of weapons deliveries worldwide.
The Pentagon recently froze shipments of Patriot interceptors to Ukraine, citing inventory concerns, before Trump at least partially reversed that move.
Driving the news: The U.S. Army in its fiscal 2026 budget blueprint increased its acquisition goal for the most advanced variant of Patriot interceptors to almost 14,000.
That's quadruple the previous level for those interceptors, the Lockheed Martin-made PAC-3 Missile Segment Enhancement.
What they're saying: " The Biden administration was doing way too much 'playing catch' with the Houthis, and now the Trump administration is doing the same thing," Tom Karako, an expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told Axios.
"It's a bipartisan sin to treat our missile-defense interceptors as expendable and attritable assets," he added. "These are scarce national resources. We need to treat them as such."
Friction point: Industry can only pump out so many interceptors annually.
"Part of the bad news is that we're not going to be able to flip a switch and get all of this overnight," Karako said.
Specialty munitions like PAC-3 MSE, Israel Aerospace Industries' Arrow 3 and RTX's Standard Missiles (proving popular in Red Sea and Gulf of Aden battles) cost millions of dollars a pop.
Large exchanges can burn through weeks of work. The U.S. reportedly used 30 interceptors in one night shielding Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar from an Iranian attack. Ukraine typically uses multiple countermeasures for each incoming Russian ballistic missile.
Yes, but: Lockheed is on track to produce more than 600 PAC-3 MSEs this year, a first for the world's largest defense contractor, and is eyeing 650 annually by 2027.
"Demand for PAC-3 MSE has surged following its proven performance in real-world operations," a spokesperson told Axios.
"Our new Camden facility, built in 2022, has capacity to increase production rates and enable the program to continue its critical production ramp-up."
Lockheed last year signed a $4.5 billion contract with the Army for interceptors and associated hardware. Then-Army acquisition chief Doug Bush described the deal as "vital" to equipping the service "along with Ukraine and other allies around the world."
The bottom line: " It seems like the [combatant commands] line up outside the factory doors when PAC-3 MSEs are being produced," retired Army Lt. Gen. Daniel Karbler said at a CSIS event Tuesday. "They're stealing them and they're grabbing them to get them out into their particular areas of responsibility."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Intercept
9 minutes ago
- The Intercept
Can Congress Stop Trump From Starting a War in Mexico?
More than 30 humanitarian, public interest, immigrant rights, faith-based, veterans' advocacy, and drug policy reform groups are calling on Congress to oppose the use of military force against drug cartels in Latin America by the Trump administration. Melding two failed American wars — the war on drugs and the war on terror — would 'put people at risk of violence and destabilize hemispheric relations while hindering, not helping, efforts to protect communities from drug trafficking and other crime,' according to the organizations, which include the Alianza Americas, Center for Civilians in Conflict, Drug Policy Alliance, Public Citizen, and Win Without War. President Donald Trump has secretly signed a directive to the Pentagon to begin using military force against select Latin American drug cartels that his administration has deemed terrorist organizations, according to an Intercept interview with a U.S. official who was not authorized to speak to the media. The authorization was first reported by the New York Times. The decision to involve the American military in what has previously been considered a law enforcement effort comes as Trump has increasingly turned to U.S. troops for law enforcement purposes on American soil and taken over the D.C. police. These efforts are seen as dangerous escalations of the use of military force and violations of long-held norms. The letter, sent to top congressional leaders on Friday, urges lawmakers 'to use the full slate of its powers to prevent the administration from launching a new war in Latin America without democratic debate or public accountability' by 'organiz[ing] hearings to assess the scope of the administration's envisioned use-of-force policy and its likely diplomatic, economic, and human impacts' and 'withhold[ing] funding for unauthorized, undebated, and unaccountable military action.' In January, the State Department declared eight Mexican drug cartels — the Sinaloa cartel, CJNG, the Northeast cartel, the Michoacán family, the United Cartels, and the Gulf Cartel — to be foreign terrorist organizations. The Salvadoran MS-13 and the Venezuelan Tren de Aragua gang were also named. That designation activates U.S. sanctions, including restrictions on financial transactions and bans on U.S. citizens from providing support to the groups. That same month, Trump mused that he might send U.S. commandos into Mexico to battle cartels. 'Could happen,' he said. 'Stranger things have happened.' Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth also threatened military action on Mexican soil. And a Justice Department guidance document urged employees to work toward the 'total elimination of cartels.' The coalition of groups pointed to the potential blowback of expanding the forever wars to Mexico and beyond. 'Unilateral and hastily conceived military action could contribute to the considerable human rights abuses, criminal violence, and forced displacement already harming communities in Latin America,' reads the letter. 'Militarized approaches to countering narcotics trafficking have often backfired. They have inadvertently incentivized criminal groups to traffic smaller and more potent drugs to evade interdiction, acquire deadlier weapons, and expand their networks of corruption to protect their profits.' Mexico's President Claudia Sheinbaum last week rejected the use of U.S. troops in her country. But earlier this week, Mexico extradited 26 alleged cartel members to the United States. Attorney General Pam Bondi hailed the cooperation. 'These 26 men have all played a role in bringing violence and drugs to American shores — under this Department of Justice, they will face severe consequences for their crimes against this country,' she said. 'We are grateful to Mexico's National Security team for their collaboration in this matter.' The U.S. war on drugs, first declared by Richard Nixon in 1971, has been an abject failure. It's estimated that the United States has spent more than $1 trillion battling the drug trade and drug use with dismal results. Nearly 1 million arrests are made for drug law violations in the U.S. each year, according to FBI statistics, making it the leading cause of arrest in the United States. One in 3 people in the U.S. has lost someone they know to a drug overdose. In 2024, U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk called the worldwide war on drugs a 'clear failure' and called out 'militarized law enforcement responses' around the world. 'Overseas military strikes certainly won't solve drug overdose deaths in the U.S., which are far better addressed through public health measures,' said Stephanie Brewer, the director for Mexico at the Washington Office on Latin America or WOLA, another signatory of the letter. 'What military action abroad would do is open the door to increased violence, forced migration, and incalculable damage to U.S. relations with neighboring countries.' Trump has already sent thousands of National Guard and active-duty troops to the southern border to ostensibly halt the flow of drugs as well as immigrants. More than 10,000 troops are deploying or have deployed there, according to Northern Command. Under the direction of NORTHCOM, military personnel have deployed under the moniker Joint Task Force-Southern Border since March, bolstering approximately 2,500 service members who were already supporting U.S. Customs and Border Protection's border security mission. One-third of the U.S. border is now completely militarized due to the creation of four new national defense areas, or NDAs: sprawling extensions of U.S. military bases patrolled by troops who can detain immigrants until they can be handed over to Border Patrol agents. 'Launching military action in Latin America without congressional authorization would be illegal, reckless, and a betrayal of our democratic process — and Congress must intervene to stop it,' Sara Haghdoosti, the executive director of Win Without War, told The Intercept. 'We've seen this 'war on drugs' playbook before in the region, and it has failed time and again — fueling violence, displacing communities, and doing nothing to address the root causes of drug trafficking.' Haghdoosti added, 'What makes this even more egregious is that the Trump administration is pushing for war while slashing the very public health programs that save lives. People need healthcare, treatment, and support — not military posturing and strikes.'
Los Angeles Times
9 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Trump, en route to Alaska, hints at tougher line with Putin on Ukraine
ANCHORAGE — President Trump is on his way to Alaska for a high-stakes summit with Vladimir Putin, indicating he will take a tougher line with the Russian leader over a ceasefire in Ukraine after three brutal years of war. Speaking with reporters aboard Air Force One, Trump said Putin would face 'economically severe' consequences if negotiations in Anchorage today fail to yield progress toward peace. He said that only Ukraine could decide whether to cede territory to Moscow. And he expressed support for U.S. security guarantees for Ukraine in any future peace agreement, so long as they fall short of NATO membership for the beleaguered nation. 'Yes, it would be very severe,' Trump said. 'Very severe.' Traveling from Moscow, Putin is bringing along several Russian business leaders, according to the Kremlin, a sign he hopes to begin discussions on normalizing relations with Washington. But Trump said he would not discuss business opportunities until the war is settled. It's a position that will relieve allies in Europe that have been hoping Trump would approach Putin with a firm hand, after months of applying pressure on Ukraine's president, Volodymyr Zelensky, to prepare to make concessions to Moscow. Zelensky was not invited to the Alaska negotiations. But Trump said he hoped his meeting on Friday would lead to direct talks 'very shortly.' Trump had said in recent days that a peace deal would include the 'swapping' of land, a prospect roundly rejected in Kyiv. The Ukrainian constitution prohibits territorial concessions without the support of a public referendum. 'They'll be discussed, but I've got to let Ukraine make that decision,' the president said of land swaps. 'I'm not here to negotiate for Ukraine. I'm here to get them to the table.' Trump will host Putin at the Elmendorf Air Force Base in Anchorage later on Friday, the first meeting between a U.S. and Russian president since 2021. Russian Foreign Ministry officials said Wednesday that Putin's war aims remain 'unchanged.' And an aggressive Russian advance along the front lines this week provided evidence to military analysts that Moscow has no plans to implement a ceasefire. The two leaders are expected to greet one another on the tarmac before meeting privately. Afterward, they will take an expanded lunch meeting with their aides, followed by a news conference, according to the White House.
Buzz Feed
9 minutes ago
- Buzz Feed
Trump's Smithsonian Order Sparks Backlash
It's true — as a part of his "Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History" executive order, the White House will be reviewing exhibits in Smithsonian museums to fit Donald Trump's interpretation of American history. In an open letter to the Smithsonian, the White House wrote that officials will conduct a "comprehensive internal review of selected Smithsonian museums and exhibitions. This initiative aims to ensure alignment with the President's directive to celebrate American exceptionalism, remove divisive or partisan narratives, and restore confidence in our shared cultural institutions." Online, people have compared the Trump administration's actions to those of nazis in the 1930s, when Adolf Hitler organized the removal of about 20,000 works of art from museums and private collections in an effort to align "German politics, society, and culture with Nazi goals," according to the Holocaust Memorial Museum. This comparison is not the only way the Trump administration's museum audit has appeared controversial online. There's a wide range of dissenting opinions. Here's what people are saying: What are your thoughts? Let us know in the comments.
