How existing systems are being shaped to shoot at tiny targets.
HUNTSVILLE, Alabama—Army leaders often say they want to stop using million-dollar missiles to shoot down thousand-dollar drones. One of the solutions may be cheap munitions the service already has.
While the Army is leading an interagency task force to source dedicated counter-drone systems, the Capability Program Executive for ammunition and energetics is taking a look at the Army’s existing rounds to make them capable of shooting down much smaller targets.
“We all know how important missiles are to the fight. We see it in the news. But there's also a point where missiles can't get after every munition, every threat, so we need to supplement that with something that we already have within our formations,” Kaitlyn Tani, deputy project manager at Maneuver Ammunition systems, said Wednesday at the AUSA Global Force Symposium.
There has already been demonstrated success in using bullets against drones, she said, particularly ones like the XM121 High Explosive Proximity round, a 30mm bullet that only needs to get near a target to take it out with its blast radius.
There are a handful of other systems that can use this proximity fuze technology and put it into weapon systems that aren’t made to shoot tiny quadcopters in the sky, but could do it with a round that only needs to get close.
“We're taking your Bradley fighting vehicle and [making it] counter-UAS capable by using the armament that is already on the system,” Tani said. “We're taking the infantry soldiers who already have Mk-19s within their squad and providing them with counter-UAS capability.”
There’s also the potential to take some larger rounds, like indirect fire munitions designed to be launched at coordinates rather than targeted using the sight of a gun, and strapping them onto drones.
“So we're definitely looking at all of our legacy munitions,” said Col. Vinson Morris, project manager for Close Combat Systems.
To do that, Morris said, they have to tweak the rounds to use them with a UAS, as they’re designed to be fired from a ground-based launcher that does the propelling toward a target.
“We see the first iteration of this potentially being a legacy mortar or legacy artillery [round] dropped from a UAS,” he said.
Help us report on the future of national security. Contact Meghann Myers: mmyers@defenseone.com, meghannmyers.55 on Signal.
NEXT STORY: The real danger of military AI isn’t killer robots; it’s worse human judgement
Facts Only
The U.S. Army is developing methods to use existing bullets, mortars, and artillery to counter small drones.
Army leaders have expressed concern about the high cost of using million-dollar missiles against thousand-dollar drones.
The Capability Program Executive for ammunition and energetics is evaluating how to adapt current rounds for smaller targets.
The XM121 High Explosive Proximity round, a 30mm bullet, has demonstrated success in neutralizing drones without requiring a direct hit.
Proximity fuze technology is being considered for integration into other weapon systems to enhance counter-drone capabilities.
The Army plans to modify Bradley fighting vehicles and Mk-19 grenade launchers to make them capable of countering drones.
Larger indirect fire munitions, such as mortars and artillery rounds, are being explored for potential drone-based delivery.
Col. Vinson Morris mentioned that legacy munitions may be adapted for use with drones, though modifications are required.
The first iteration of this concept could involve dropping legacy mortar or artillery rounds from drones.
The discussion took place at the AUSA Global Force Symposium in Huntsville, Alabama.
Kaitlyn Tani, deputy project manager at Maneuver Ammunition Systems, spoke about these efforts on Wednesday.
The Army is leading an interagency task force to source dedicated counter-drone systems while also adapting existing munitions.
Executive Summary
Full Take
The Army’s push to repurpose existing munitions for counter-drone operations reflects a pragmatic response to the asymmetry of modern warfare, where low-cost drones pose significant threats to expensive defense systems. The strongest version of this narrative is that it represents a necessary adaptation—leveraging proximity fuzes and legacy rounds to create scalable, cost-effective solutions without over-reliance on high-tech (and high-cost) alternatives. This approach acknowledges the limitations of missile-based defenses while maximizing the utility of current inventory.
However, the pattern scan reveals potential risks of **ARC-0024 Ambiguity** in how these adaptations are framed. The article emphasizes the cost-saving benefits but does not address potential trade-offs, such as the accuracy or collateral damage risks of repurposed munitions. There’s also an implicit assumption that proximity fuzes and drone-dropped artillery will be as effective as dedicated systems—a claim that warrants scrutiny. The focus on "cheap" solutions might also obscure deeper questions about the sustainability of drone warfare and the escalation risks of proliferating counter-drone capabilities.
Root cause: This narrative is driven by the paradigm of cost-efficiency in defense procurement, where budget constraints and operational demands collide. The unstated assumption is that technological adaptation alone can solve the drone threat, without addressing the broader strategic implications of drone proliferation or the ethical concerns of using explosive rounds in populated areas.
Implications: If successful, this approach could democratize counter-drone capabilities across Army units, reducing reliance on specialized (and often overburdened) air defense systems. However, it may also normalize the use of explosive munitions against small targets, lowering the threshold for kinetic responses in future conflicts. The second-order consequences could include accelerated drone innovation by adversaries, further escalating the arms race.
Bridge questions: How might adversaries adapt if the Army successfully deploys these low-cost counter-drone measures? What are the ethical and operational risks of using proximity fuzes in urban or civilian-adjacent environments? Would a shift toward repurposed munitions divert resources from developing more precise, non-kinetic counter-drone technologies?
Counterstrike scan: A coordinated influence campaign pushing this narrative might emphasize the "wastefulness" of current missile-based defenses while downplaying the risks of collateral damage or escalation. The actual content does not fully align with this pattern, as it presents the Army’s efforts as a practical adaptation rather than a critique of existing systems. However, the framing could be exploited to justify reduced investment in more advanced (and potentially safer) counter-drone technologies.
Patterns detected: **ARC-0024 Ambiguity**