Raytheon has secured a $282,343,991 contract from the Department of Defense to produce the next batch of StormBreaker smart bombs, a precision weapon built to track and destroy moving targets through rain, fog, dust, and electronic jamming. The deal covers Production Lot 11 of the Small Diameter Bomb Increment II, designated GBU-53/B, and draws funding from both Air Force and Navy procurement budgets. That dual-service funding split signals the Navy’s deepening investment in a weapon originally developed for Air Force fighter jets, a shift that could reshape how the sea service plans for contested strikes in the years ahead.
$282 Million for All-Up Rounds and Containers
The contract, announced in a December Defense Department release on new awards, covers all-up rounds and containers for the GBU-53/B, with work expected to wrap up by March 19, 2029. Funding comes from fiscal year 2025 Air Force missile procurement and FY25 Navy weapons procurement, meaning both branches are paying into the same production line. That arrangement is not cosmetic. It ties the Navy’s strike planning directly to a weapon that has spent years proving itself in Air Force testing and integration.
The $282,343,991 figure for Lot 11 represents a significant jump from earlier production runs. A previous Pentagon contract for StormBreaker Lot 7 was valued at $212,701,232, with an expected completion date of Feb. 28, 2025. That earlier award also included Air Force and Navy weapons procurement contributions, along with foreign military sales funding. The steady increase in contract value across lots suggests either growing unit orders, rising production costs, or both, though the DoD announcements do not break down per-unit pricing. For Congress and budget analysts, the comparison underscores how munitions programs can become more expensive over time even when they are considered mature.
Why a Tri-Mode Seeker Changes the Calculus
What separates StormBreaker from older precision munitions is its tri-mode seeker, which combines millimeter wave radar, infrared imaging, and semi-active laser guidance into a single package. That combination allows the weapon to acquire and track targets that are moving at speed, even when clouds, heavy rain, or battlefield smoke would blind a conventional laser-guided bomb. For a Navy operating in the western Pacific or the North Atlantic, where weather and electronic warfare are constant factors, that capability fills a gap that GPS-guided weapons alone cannot cover.
Most conventional precision munitions rely on a single guidance method or a two-mode combination. A weapon that depends solely on GPS can be spoofed or jammed. One that relies only on infrared cannot see through thick cloud cover. StormBreaker’s three-sensor approach gives the weapon redundancy: if one mode is degraded, the others can still guide it to a moving vehicle, small boat, or armored target. The practical effect is that pilots can release the bomb from standoff range and let it sort through bad conditions on its own, reducing the time an aircraft spends exposed to enemy air defenses. In a conflict where adversaries field dense surface-to-air missile networks and sophisticated electronic warfare tools, that margin of survivability is not a luxury; it becomes central to how strike missions are planned.
Navy Integration and the Cross-Branch Funding Model
The inclusion of Navy weapons procurement funding in both the Lot 7 and Lot 11 contracts points to a deliberate, sustained effort to bring StormBreaker onto naval platforms. The Air Force has already integrated the weapon on the F-15E Strike Eagle, and testing has been conducted with the F-35A, though the contract notices themselves do not go into integration detail. For the Navy, the most likely carrier-based platform is the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, with the F-35C as another candidate. Neither the Lot 7 nor Lot 11 announcements specify which naval aircraft will carry the weapon, and official Navy statements on specific integration timelines are not included in the available documentation, leaving the exact schedule and platform mix an open question.
The cross-branch funding model itself deserves attention. When two services invest in the same munition production line, they share development risk and can potentially drive down per-unit costs through higher volume. But they also create dependencies. If the Air Force scales back orders in a future budget cycle, the Navy’s per-unit price could climb, or vice versa. Conversely, Navy demand could sustain the production line even if Air Force priorities shift toward other weapons. This kind of joint procurement is not new, but it carries real consequences for how each service plans its weapons inventory over a production timeline that now stretches to 2029. It also complicates any future decision to pivot away from StormBreaker toward a successor system, because unwinding a shared program can be politically and logistically difficult.
Foreign Buyers and the Expanding Customer Base
The Lot 7 contract explicitly included foreign military sales funding, which means allied nations were already buying into the StormBreaker program several years ago. The Lot 11 announcement, by contrast, lists only Air Force missile procurement and Navy weapons procurement as funding sources, with no FMS component identified. That difference could reflect a shift in how foreign orders are structured, or it could simply mean allied purchases for this particular lot are being handled under a separate contract vehicle. Without additional DoD documentation, the distinction remains unclear, and the Pentagon has not publicly detailed which specific countries are tied to each production lot.
Still, the presence of foreign funding in earlier lots matters for the weapon’s long-term viability. Export customers help sustain production lines, keep unit costs competitive, and create interoperability between U.S. forces and allied militaries. If a coalition operation requires precision strikes against moving targets in poor weather, having multiple air forces equipped with the same munition simplifies logistics, target development, and rules-of-engagement planning. It also allows allies to share lessons learned about employment tactics and maintenance. Whether the customer base continues to grow as the weapon matures, or whether the program settles into a primarily domestic procurement effort, will influence how long the line can run and how much flexibility the Pentagon has to adjust annual buy quantities without triggering cost spikes.
What the Contract Timeline Reveals
The gap between Lot 7 and Lot 11 tells a story about production tempo and planning. Lot 7 was expected to be completed by Feb. 28, 2025, while Lot 11 carries a completion date of March 19, 2029. That four-year window between a mid-cycle lot and a later one suggests Raytheon is running multiple lots in overlapping phases, a common pattern for mature munitions programs where the Pentagon wants to build up stockpiles without overwhelming the production line. The steady cadence also indicates that the Defense Department views StormBreaker as a long-term program rather than a one-off buy, aligning with broader efforts to replenish and expand precision-guided weapon inventories after years of high operational use.
One assumption that deserves scrutiny is the idea that StormBreaker is a finished product simply being mass-produced. Weapons programs at this stage often incorporate incremental upgrades between lots, refining seeker software, improving fuze reliability, or extending shelf life. The DoD contract announcements do not specify whether Lot 11 includes any engineering changes compared with earlier lots, so it is not possible from these notices alone to say how much the weapon’s design has evolved. Even so, the long production horizon out to 2029 gives the services room to introduce improvements while maintaining a predictable procurement rhythm. For planners, that combination of stability and potential growth makes StormBreaker a central piece of the future strike portfolio, one that both the Air Force and Navy now appear committed to fielding in larger numbers.
More from Morning Overview
*This article was researched with the help of AI, with human editors creating the final content.
