“The challenge there is straightforward: high cost, complex manufacturing, limited capacity, and in some areas, constrained resources,” Brig. Gen. Robert Mikesh said, describing the Army’s propulsion and energetics problem to an audience in Huntsville, Ala.
Brig. Gen. Robert Mikesh frames four capability gaps for the Army’s Fires portfolio
Speaking at the Space and Missile Defense Symposium, the one‑star general who leads offensive fires work under the Army’s Portfolio Acquisition Executive (PAE) said the office is managing 62 programs while trying to close “four key ‘capability gaps.’” Mikesh listed those gaps as: energetics and propulsion; targeting and seekers; the industrial base; and “munitions breadth and depth.” His remarks placed the PAE’s work squarely at the intersection of technical constraints, acquisition choices, and operational demand.
Energetics and propulsion: cost, complexity, and constrained capacity
Mikesh characterized propulsion as “foundational to almost everything we do in the missile business,” then summarized the problem in blunt terms: high cost, complex manufacturing, limited capacity, and constrained resources in some areas. That combination, he said, threatens the supply and speed at which the Army can field or replenish munitions. The implication in his account is that without addressing manufacturing bottlenecks and cost drivers, other technical improvements will be difficult to exploit at scale.
This site is the portfolio.
OSINTSights runs on Cloudflare Workers, D1, R2, and Vectorize, with an AI pipeline on Hetzner ARM. Nubivance designed, built, and operates it. We do the same for clients.
See what we buildTargeting and seekers: preparing for contested electromagnetic environments
On targeting and seekers, Mikesh argued the service must expect “future conflicts” to occur in “heavily contested electromagnetic environments” where GPS and networks may be degraded or denied. To cope, he said, the Army is seeking weapons that are “hardened” through a “multi‑mode approach” that reduces dependency on any single information source. That approach, he added, requires “bringing together data from multiple sensors and domains to move data rapidly, and give the soldier the confidence that that weapon will reach its intended target, even if an adversary is going to do everything possible to prevent that from happening.”
Industry and open architecture: preventing single‑solution lock
Mikesh moved from technical to acquisition issues by pressing companies to stop offering systems that lock the government into a single solution. He insisted the Army needs “open architecture and multiple sources,” arguing for modularity that allows upgrades and competition over time. That message targets suppliers whose designs could constrain future modification or limit the Army’s ability to adapt to new threats or production realities.
Munitions breadth and depth, stockpile concerns, and the push for magazine depth
Mikesh called munitions breadth and depth “one of the defining problems of modern warfare,” a theme that recurred across the conference amid reported stockpile concerns connected, in part, to ongoing military operations against Iran. The point he emphasized: “Not every target requires the most exquisite munition, and not every threat should be defeated with our most expensive interceptor. We need a balanced mix of affordable mass and exquisite capability.”
Lt. Gen. John Rafferty, head of Army Space and Missile Defense Command (SMDC), told Breaking Defense that the future force will combine “high‑end interceptors that can take down threats like maneuverable ballistic missiles” with “lower‑cost, less capable interceptors” for targets such as “non‑turbo Shahed drones.” He argued there is a spectrum of threats — “from fixed‑wing to rotary‑wing to other unmanned systems to cruise missiles” — and that “each one of those threats has an optimized effector, and the limiting factor is not having that full range of effectors from cheap and easily produced to very sophisticated and hard to make.”
Rafferty also noted that services have been requesting “low cost” options through efforts like the Army’s low cost interceptor program, and he reported industry’s response at the conference was positive: “They heard it loud and clear. I think we're moving in the right direction for magazine depth.”
How weapons manufacturers, Army acquisition leaders, and frontline soldiers will respond
- Weapons manufacturers: Will face explicit pressure to adopt open architectures and offer modular, producible options that avoid single‑vendor lock, or risk losing competitive programs the PAE is managing.
- Army acquisition leaders (PAE and SMDC): Must balance investment across propulsion, seekers, and industrial base expansion while shepherding 62 programs toward fieldable results that address magazine depth.
- Frontline soldiers: Stand to gain a broader palette of effectors — from cheaper interceptors for routine threats to exquisite munitions for high‑value targets — if the Army converts the stated priorities into procurement and production.
The Army’s message in Huntsville was straightforward and interconnected: technical advances in energetics and seekers will be of limited value if production capacity and acquisition practices do not change. With 62 programs under the PAE’s Fires portfolio and senior leaders publicly urging open architectures and a wider, cheaper range of munitions, the question that remains is operational as much as industrial — can the service translate those priorities into the magazine depth and hardened seekers it says it needs while supply and cost pressures persist?
