The $994 Million Map: Where the Army's FY27 Counter-UAS Budget Actually Lands.

The largest single allocation in the request is $414 million for operational c-UAS batteries and expeditionary mobile platforms and sensors. A further $165 million is allocated to fixed-site capabilities for installation and base defence. Combined, $579 million, more than half the total request, funds the transition of counter-drone from a deployed retrofit programme to a formation-organic and installation-organic capability category with its own production cadence. The line funds both the procurement of new fixed batteries for permanent installations and the conversion of mobile platforms (primarily M-LIDS and similar truck-mounted systems) into capabilities organic to brigade and division-level combat teams.

The contracting architecture for this layer sits on top of the Anduril enterprise contract awarded by US Army Contracting Command in March 2026. The award, reported at up to $20 billion in cumulative value across a five-year base period plus a five-year option, replaces more than 120 separate procurement actions for Anduril commercial solutions and consolidates them into a single firm-fixed-price vehicle. The first task order, valued at $87 million, designates Anduril's Lattice platform as the government's tactical C2 solution for counter-drone capabilities. Underneath that integration layer, the production pool for fixed and mobile platforms includes Northrop Grumman (M-LIDS), Leonardo DRS (Maneuver-SHORAD variants), and a tier of mid-sized integrators whose Ukraine-tested hardware is now reaching productionised maturity.

The implication for vendors outside the Anduril integration umbrella is that capability fit must be demonstrated against the Lattice operating environment rather than against discrete Army requirements. That shift compresses business-development cycles and rewards software-defined interoperability. Vendors whose products are difficult to integrate with the Anduril stack will find revenue concentrated in non-Army accounts (Air Force base defence, allied foreign military sales) rather than in the FY27 contract pipeline.

The $132 million effector line is the request's most specific procurement disclosure. It funds 800 kinetic capabilities, 29 non-kinetic capabilities, and 24 of the Next Generation cUAS Missile (NGCM). The 800-unit kinetic figure is itself a category-defining number. It places kinetic counter-drone interception, until recently dominated by improvised solutions such as small-arms fire and modified man-portable systems, into the same production-volume regime as conventional small munitions. The 24 NGCM is a smaller but more strategically loaded figure, reflecting a slower, higher-cost, longer-range capability intended for Group 3 and larger threats rather than the consumer-grade quadcopters that dominate the operational threat profile.

The kinetic vendor pool is concentrated. Raytheon's Coyote and APKWS variants account for a majority of the production base, with AeroVironment's Switchblade family and BAE Systems' APKWS-derivative work filling the remainder. The 29 non-kinetic systems sit in the electromagnetic-defeat category, including the gun-mounted and platform-mounted variants of RF and jamming capabilities that have matured rapidly across allied procurement programmes over the past 24 months. Notably absent from the $132 million effector line is any meaningful funding for laser or microwave systems, which sit in the separate $66 million directed-energy line described below.

The Army's implicit doctrine is that kinetic remains the default solution for Group 1 and Group 2 UAS at unit level, with directed energy reserved for fixed-site protection of high-value assets rather than for maneuver formations. The disclosed 800-unit production target is a buy signal for the kinetic effector primes and a clarifying signal for non-kinetic vendors: cost per engagement, magazine depth, and platform integration are now the variables on which procurement decisions will be made, not capability demonstrations.

The $108 million allocation for squad and individual-soldier counter-UAS systems funds dismounted, handheld, and wearable systems capable of detecting and defeating Group 1 and Group 2 UAS at the squad and individual soldier level. A separate $80 million line funds small c-UAS for brigade-and-below elements, including the squad-organic platforms designed to scale up to small-unit and brigade defence missions. Together, the two lines, $188 million, establish a discrete tactical-edge capability layer that did not previously have its own production funding line at meaningful volume.

The category, often described as the soldier-borne electromagnetic defeat or directed-energy carbine class for the squad-level systems, has been the subject of demonstration programmes since 2022. The FY27 allocation marks its transition from experimentation to fielded capability. Vendors positioned for the squad-level line include DroneShield, the Australian-listed C-UAS specialist that has shipped DroneGun handheld systems to multiple NATO members and has demonstrated production capacity in the relevant volume range. Smaller US-domestic vendors including Citadel Defense and Liteye have pursued similar capability profiles.

The category's structural challenge is that handheld electromagnetic defeat systems compete against kinetic alternatives (rifle-mounted shotgun ammunition, anti-drone net launchers) that are simpler, cheaper, and require no battery management. The brigade-and-below line is, by extension, the line where small organic platforms (drone-on-drone interceptors, micro-effector platforms) will be tested at scale. Whether the combined $188 million drives a single-vendor consolidation or sustains a multi-vendor portfolio will depend on how the Army defines the threshold mission requirements over the next contracting cycle.

The $66 million directed-energy allocation funds two Enduring High Energy Laser (E-HEL) systems alongside continuing rapid prototyping for adjacent capabilities. The two-system production volume is small by procurement standards but materially significant for the directed-energy industrial base, which has been organised around demonstration programmes (Stryker-based DE M-SHORAD, IFPC-HEL) rather than recurring production for more than a decade. The Enduring line, descended from the IFPC-HEL programme of record, is the first directed-energy capability in the US inventory designed for fielded, persistent operation rather than experimentation.

Alongside directed energy, the $24 million launcher line funds 12 expeditionary launcher systems and 10 mobile launcher systems, the small but tightly specified infrastructure that distinguishes the Army's deployment model from earlier fixed-site-only doctrine. Mobile and expeditionary launchers are the connective tissue between the operational $414 million line and the effector $132 million line, allowing the kinetic and non-kinetic inventory to be repositioned with manoeuvre formations rather than left tethered to fixed installations.

The vendor base for the laser line is concentrated on Lockheed Martin, with Northrop Grumman participating through subsystem contributions. The microwave alternative, principally Epirus's Leonidas, sits outside the laser line but is in active consideration as a fixed-site complement at lower per-system cost. The strategic question for the directed-energy category is not whether it will be funded at this level (the FY27 request settles that), but whether the per-system cost trajectory can decline rapidly enough for directed energy to displace kinetic interception as the unit-cost-of-engagement leader at Group 1 and Group 2 UAS targets. If Lockheed and Epirus can drive per-system costs below $5 million each over the FY27 to FY29 cycle, directed energy becomes structurally favoured for fixed-site protection roles. If they cannot, kinetic effectors retain that role into the next decade.