With the U.S. running low on expensive guided munitions, the Pentagon is pushing yet another project to develop cheap, long-range weapons that can be mass produced.
But this time, the Pentagon is in a hurry. The Iran war has exposed the problem of relying on costly long-range missiles such as the Tomahawk. To remedy that, DoD is putting out a call for long-range, autonomously guided Ground-Based Affordable Mass, or GBAM, weapons that cost less than $250,000 apiece.
The Pentagon also wants the GBAM munitions to be ready for demonstration within three months, and full-scale production within 18 months.
The goal of the GBAM initiative is to supplement expensive smart munitions with “affordable, scalable long-range effects, and “enable commanders to service a broader target set, preserve exquisite munitions for their intended purpose, and sustain operational tempo throughout a prolonged conflict.”
To facilitate that, the Defense Innovation Unit has created the GBAM Challenge. Contestants will pitch ideas in the form of a pitch deck or white paper, with a deadline of Aug. 5.
Winning teams will be invited to a Phase II flight demonstration at a government test site in early November, where they will give a 30-minute presentation — and get a $250,000 cash prize.
The top Phase II contenders may receive up to $5 million “to immediately deliver operational test quantities to units.” They may also be eligible for other funds, including Prototype Other Transaction agreements, follow-on production contracts and Small Business Innovation Research awards.
“In total, the government has budgeted up to $250 million to support prize execution and follow-on transition activities associated with this effort,” DIU pointed out.
However, grabbing that pot of gold will require much work. For starters, the timeline is tight. The Pentagon wants “mature, affordable, long-range precision strike systems that can be demonstrated within 60 to 90 days, certified, and scaled into production within 12 to 18 months.”
DIU doesn’t specify whether GBAM will be a missile or a drone, though it does say GBAM will be “aligned with the Direct Reporting Portfolio Manager for Unmanned Systems (DRPM-UxS) mandate to field low-cost autonomous capabilities at scale.”
Either way, the U.S. military wants a “favorable cost-per-effect at operationally relevant ranges while minimizing the logistical, training, and sustainment burden on employing units.” This means a ground-launched weapon with a range of at least 600 nautical miles, and a minimum payload of 35 pounds while ideally allowing for 100 pounds.
It should have automatic target recognition and autonomous terminal guidance, and be “ideally mission-proven” to function in jamming and GPS-denied environments. This includes “Alternative Position, Navigation, and Timing (PNT) or redundant navigation capabilities suitable for GPS/GNSS-denied operations in maritime and other ‘feature-poor’ environments.”
DIU is also looking for a weapon that doesn’t require any proprietary launch equipment, with “remote and low-signature launch methods strongly preferred.”
Companies should have an “existing production capacity or credible path to producing 100+ systems monthly.” And with a price tag of “cost-per-effect below $500,000 based on system reliability and mission success rate, with a sub-$250,000 all-up flyaway cost at scale.”
In addition to GBAM, the U.S. military is pursuing other strike weapons that don’t cost as much as traditional missiles, and can be mass produced as needed. They include the Family of Affordable Mass Missiles, or FAMM-BAR, program to launch cruise missiles from cargo planes, as well as the Low-Cost Containerized Missiles hypersonic weapons program.
Michael Peck is a correspondent for Defense News and a columnist for the Center for European Policy Analysis. He holds an M.A. in political science from Rutgers University. Find him at theuncommondefense.com. His email is mikedefense1@gmail.com.
Facts Only
* The Pentagon is developing cheap, long-range weapons that can be mass produced due to running low on expensive guided munitions.
* A call was issued for long-range, autonomously guided Ground-Based Affordable Mass (GBAM) weapons costing less than $250,000 apiece.
* The GBAM initiative requires demonstration within three months and full-scale production within 18 months.
* The goal of GBAM is to supplement smart munitions with affordable, scalable long-range effects, enable broader target sets, preserve munitions, and sustain operational tempo.
* GBAM weapons require a range of at least 600 nautical miles and a minimum payload of 35 pounds, ideally up to 100 pounds.
* The system must have automatic target recognition and autonomous terminal guidance.
* It needs navigation capabilities suitable for GPS/GNSS-denied operations in maritime and other feature-poor environments.
* Launch methods should be remote and low-signature; proprietary launch equipment should be avoided.
* Companies must have existing production capacity or a path to producing 100+ systems monthly.
* The cost-per-effect must be below $500,000, with an all-up flyaway cost under $250,000 at scale.
* Other pursued weapons include the Family of Affordable Mass Missiles (FAMM-BAR) and the Low-Cost Containerized Missiles hypersonic weapons program.
Executive Summary
The Pentagon is seeking to develop long-range, affordable, autonomously guided Ground-Based Affordable Mass (GBAM) weapons to address the reliance on costly missiles like the Tomahawk, especially following the Iran war. The program calls for GBAM munitions to cost less than $250,000 each. The initiative aims to supplement expensive smart munitions by providing scalable long-range effects, allowing commanders to service broader target sets and sustain operations during prolonged conflicts.
The goal is to achieve mature, affordable precision strike systems that can be demonstrated within 60 to 90 days and scaled into production within 12 to 18 months. The required weapon system must have a range of at least 600 nautical miles and a payload of at least 35 pounds, ideally allowing for 100 pounds. It needs automatic target recognition, autonomous terminal guidance, and the ability to operate effectively in jamming or GPS-denied environments using redundant navigation capabilities. Furthermore, the system should favor remote and low-signature launch methods, avoid proprietary launch equipment, and require existing production capacity to yield 100+ systems monthly at a cost-per-effect below $500,000 with an all-up flyaway cost under $250,000.
The initiative is being driven by the Defense Innovation Unit's GBAM Challenge, which offers teams a prize and potential follow-on funding to develop these systems. Additionally, the military is pursuing other low-cost, mass-producible strike weapons, including the FAMM-BAR program and the Low-Cost Containerized Missiles hypersonic weapons program.
Full Take
The pursuit of GBAM highlights a fundamental tension in military procurement: balancing mission effectiveness with fiscal and logistical realities in an environment demanding speed. The push to develop autonomous, low-cost long-range systems suggests an acknowledgement that current reliance on expensive assets creates operational inflexibility during protracted conflicts. The demands for rapid demonstration (within 60-90 days) followed by scaled production (12-18 months) set an extremely aggressive timeline that compresses innovation, testing, and manufacturing development simultaneously.
The requirements detail a specific technological convergence: autonomous terminal guidance coupled with robust navigation independent of standard GPS, combined with low-observable launch capabilities. This pushes the required solution beyond incremental improvements on existing missile technology into novel areas of autonomy and sensor fusion in contested electromagnetic environments. The focus on minimizing logistical and training burden suggests an underlying concern about the sustainability of protracted engagements where high-end munitions become liabilities rather than assets.
The structure of the challenge—offering significant financial incentives tied to operational testing—functions as a mechanism to bypass traditional, slow procurement cycles, injecting risk capital directly into nascent technologies. However, the inherent trade-off is ensuring that the pursuit of "affordable" and "autonomous" does not compromise mission success or introduce unforeseen sustainment burdens down the line. The explicit focus on cost-per-effect and minimizing operational burden underscores a systemic recognition that the high price of warfare often dictates strategic outcomes more than technological capability alone.
What assumptions underlie the insistence on extreme speed? If the timeline forces solutions, are there opportunities to develop incremental capabilities now while waiting for full autonomy, rather than waiting for mature autonomous systems to be fully integrated into the operational framework? Does prioritizing low launch signature inherently conflict with the need for robust, rapid responsiveness in dynamic theaters?
Sentinel — Human
The text reads like a standard defense news report detailing a specific government initiative, characterized by factual reporting and defined parameters rather than speculative synthesis.