Somewhere on Fort Bliss, Texas, a Stryker armored vehicle sits in a defensive position that looks nothing like a traditional air-defense battery. There is no rack of missiles on its roof. Instead, a compact turret houses a 50-kilowatt-class solid-state laser capable of burning through a small drone’s airframe in seconds. When the beam connects, there is no explosion, no smoke trail, no six-figure missile leaving the rail. The target simply falls from the sky, and the weapon is ready to fire again almost immediately.
That Stryker is part of the Army’s Directed Energy Maneuver Short-Range Air Defense system, known as DE M-SHORAD, and it represents the Pentagon’s most concrete answer yet to a problem that has vexed base commanders for years: how to stop cheap, commercially available drones from buzzing sensitive military installations without spending hundreds of thousands of dollars per intercept. According to defense-trade reporting and Army program documents, DE M-SHORAD prototypes are now operating at as many as five stateside bases, with Fort Bliss and Whiteman Air Force Base among the locations identified in published accounts.
Why lasers, and why now
The math behind directed energy is brutally simple. A DJI-style quadcopter costs a few hundred dollars. A Stinger missile, the Army’s workhorse short-range interceptor, costs roughly $400,000 per round. Even a burst of 30mm cannon fire runs into the thousands. A laser shot, by contrast, draws its energy from the vehicle’s power supply. The Army’s own Directed Energy Project Office and multiple defense officials have described the marginal cost of a single laser engagement as pennies to a few dollars, a figure that tracks with the physics: electricity is cheap, and the weapon does not consume ammunition in the traditional sense.
That cost asymmetry matters because the drone threat is not a one-off event. Military installations across the country have reported repeated incursions by small unmanned aircraft, some likely hobbyist, others unexplained. In late 2024, a wave of mysterious drone sightings over New Jersey and several East Coast military facilities pushed the issue into national headlines and forced Congress to act. Defending against persistent, low-cost threats with high-cost interceptors is a losing proposition over time, and senior Pentagon leaders have said as much publicly.
The hardware on the Stryker
DE M-SHORAD mounts its laser and associated sensors on a Stryker A1 eight-wheeled armored vehicle, the same chassis the Army uses across its brigade combat teams. A Congressional Research Service report (IF12397) outlines the program’s structure within the Army’s broader air-defense modernization effort. The laser is designed to acquire, track, and destroy Group 1 and Group 2 unmanned aircraft, the small and medium drones that make up the bulk of the commercial and improvised threat. A crew of four operates the system, which can slew rapidly between targets without the reload delay inherent in missile-based interceptors.
The weapon works by focusing a concentrated beam of light on a target long enough to damage or destroy critical components: control surfaces, batteries, sensors, or structural material. Against a lightweight plastic-and-carbon-fiber drone, a 50-kilowatt beam needs only a few seconds of sustained contact. The engagement is silent from the operator’s perspective and nearly invisible to bystanders, a significant advantage on domestic installations where noise, debris, and collateral-damage concerns constrain the use of kinetic weapons.
A new task force and new legal authority
The systems did not arrive at these bases by accident. In 2024, the Pentagon stood up Joint Interagency Task Force 401 (JIATF-401) with a specific mandate: accelerate the testing, evaluation, and fielding of affordable counter-small-UAS capabilities. The task force coordinates across the Defense Department, the Federal Aviation Administration, and other agencies to clear the legal and logistical hurdles that have historically slowed the deployment of new weapons on American soil.
Congress reinforced that effort with Section 130i of Title 10, U.S. Code, titled “Protection of certain facilities and assets from unmanned aircraft.” The statute spells out the conditions under which the military can take action against drones near covered facilities, including requirements for interagency coordination and personnel training. A pilot-program provision in the law sets a 180-day timeline for certain milestones, a compressed schedule that reflects congressional impatience with the traditional decade-long acquisition cycle.
Together, JIATF-401 and Section 130i solved two problems that had stalled counter-drone efforts for years. The task force provided institutional focus, and the statute provided legal clarity. Before Section 130i, the question of whether a soldier at a stateside base could lawfully disable or destroy a drone overhead was murky, tangled in overlapping FAA airspace rules, posse comitatus concerns, and gaps in existing defense authorities. The new law carved out specific permissions tied to designated facilities.
Early results from White Sands
The first public evidence that the technology works under realistic conditions came from White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico. In early 2025, AV Inc. demonstrated its LOCUST counter-drone system, which incorporates directed-energy and advanced sensing, in a test coordinated with JIATF-401 and the FAA. A company press release distributed through Business Wire described the demonstration as successful, though it did not include independent performance data or third-party evaluation.
That distinction is worth noting. A vendor announcing a successful test is standard practice in the defense industry, and it confirms that the event occurred and that government agencies participated. It is not the same as a formal operational assessment from the Army’s Test and Evaluation Command declaring the system ready for sustained field use. Questions about reliability over thousands of engagements, maintenance burden in dusty or humid environments, and performance in rain, fog, or heavy dust remain open in the public record.
What the laser cannot do yet
Directed energy is not a silver bullet, and the Army knows it. Atmospheric conditions degrade laser performance: moisture, dust, and turbulence scatter the beam and reduce the energy delivered to the target. A 50-kilowatt laser that burns through a drone in three seconds on a clear New Mexico afternoon may need significantly longer in a Gulf Coast rainstorm, if it can engage at all. The physics are well understood, but the operational implications for a weapon that must work 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, at bases from the Arizona desert to the Virginia tidewater, have not been publicly validated.
There is also the question of saturation. A single laser engages one target at a time. A coordinated swarm of dozens of cheap drones, the scenario that keeps base-defense planners up at night, could overwhelm a single DE M-SHORAD by presenting more targets than the beam can service before they reach their objective. The Army’s broader counter-UAS architecture includes radars, electronic-warfare jammers, and kinetic interceptors precisely because no single system handles every threat. Where the laser fits in that layered defense, whether as a primary shooter, a last-ditch backstop, or something in between, has not been detailed in any publicly available concept-of-operations document.
How this compares to other laser programs
The Army is not working in isolation. The Navy has tested its High Energy Laser with Integrated Optical-dazzler and Surveillance (HELIOS) system aboard the destroyer USS Preble, aiming to give surface combatants a similar low-cost-per-shot option against drones and small boats. Israel has developed Iron Beam, a ground-based laser interceptor designed to complement the Iron Dome missile system against rockets and drones, with operational deployment reported in 2025. The convergence of multiple nations and services on directed energy reflects a shared conclusion: the proliferation of cheap unmanned threats has made traditional missile-based air defense economically unsustainable as the sole solution.
What sets DE M-SHORAD apart is its mobility and its domestic mission. Iron Beam is a fixed-site system designed for a country under persistent rocket threat. HELIOS is bolted to a warship. The Stryker-mounted laser can drive to wherever the threat emerges, and its current deployment at stateside bases puts it in a legal and operational context that is unique among Western directed-energy programs. Shooting down a drone over a U.S. military installation involves coordination with the FAA, compliance with domestic law, and sensitivity to civilian privacy that do not apply on a foreign battlefield or in international waters.
Where the program goes from here
The 180-day pilot window written into Section 130i creates a built-in decision point. Once that clock expires, Congress and the Pentagon will have to assess whether the combination of JIATF-401 coordination, DE M-SHORAD hardware, and base-level procedures has produced a repeatable, reliable capability or merely a promising experiment. If the pilot succeeds, expect pressure to expand the deployment beyond the initial handful of installations. If it stumbles, the debate will shift to whether the technology needs more development time or whether the institutional and legal framework needs adjustment.
Budget dynamics will also shape the trajectory. The Army’s fiscal year 2026 budget request includes continued funding for directed-energy programs, but competition for dollars within the air-and-missile-defense portfolio is fierce. Every dollar spent on lasers is a dollar not spent on the next-generation Stinger replacement or on additional Patriot batteries for overseas deployments. Advocates for DE M-SHORAD argue that the cost-per-shot economics make the investment self-justifying over time, but that argument depends on the systems performing as advertised outside the controlled conditions of a test range.
For the soldiers at Fort Bliss and the other bases now hosting these Strykers, the calculus is more immediate. They have a new tool that, if it works as designed, lets them neutralize a $500 drone without expending a $400,000 missile. The laser does not care whether the threat is a hobbyist’s lost quadcopter or something more deliberate. It just needs a clear line of sight and a few seconds of dwell time. Whether that simplicity holds up under the full range of real-world conditions is the question the next year of operations will answer.
More from Morning Overview
*This article was researched with the help of AI, with human editors creating the final content.
