L3Harris Develops New Long-Range Ramjet Missile for U.S. Army to Intercept Drones.

The U.S. Army is advancing a new ramjet-powered missile designed to intercept drones at greater distances, potentially allowing air-defense units to engage threats farther from troops, command posts, and logistics sites. The interceptor has entered the second phase of the Extended Range Counter-UAS Missile program, known as XRC, moving toward flight-performance testing of an integrated weapon.

Artist’s rendering of L3Harris’ proposed ramjet-powered interceptor, under development to extend the U.S. Army’s engagement range against drones. (Image credit: L3Harris)

The intended advantage is a wider engagement window against unmanned aircraft before they approach protected forces. Greater reach could give defenders more time to respond and additional opportunities to fire if an initial engagement fails. These remain prospective benefits: no successful XRC interception, verified engagement range, or operational deployment has been disclosed.

L3Harris Technologies received a three-year contract valued at up to $60 million to advance the interceptor for the U.S. Army Combat Capabilities Development Command Aviation & Missile Center. The funding supports development rather than a disclosed production order, and the contract ceiling does not establish how many missiles the U.S. Army could eventually purchase.

Related Topic: U.S. Marines Deploy L-MADIS Counter-Drone System in Middle East to Shield Dispersed Forces From Drones

In its October 23, 2026, announcement, L3Harris described a design that combines advanced seeker technologies with innovative propulsion to counter small- and medium-sized unmanned aircraft, as well as traditional short-range air-defense threats. The company identifies greater range, speed, and operational flexibility as intended improvements, but has not released numerical specifications or comparative test results.

The central technical feature is an air-breathing ramjet approach intended to improve fuel efficiency and extend engagement range. A conventional rocket motor carries both fuel and oxidizer, while a ramjet burns fuel using oxygen drawn from the surrounding atmosphere. Once it reaches sufficient forward speed, the engine compresses incoming air through its inlet before combustion produces thrust.

Using atmospheric oxygen can reduce the need to carry onboard oxidizer, potentially supporting sustained propulsion and greater reach within a given missile size. However, the practical advantage depends on initial acceleration, operating altitude, aerodynamic drag, and maneuvering demands. L3Harris has not disclosed the interceptor’s detailed propulsion arrangement or demonstrated flight envelope, so testing must establish its actual performance.

For U.S. Army air-defense units, the operational question is whether this propulsion approach can preserve enough speed and maneuverability to defeat drones farther from defended positions. Reaching a distant target is only part of the challenge: the missile must also acquire or receive accurate target information and retain sufficient energy to complete the interception. Propulsion, guidance and targeting performance will therefore determine whether additional reach translates into stronger protection.

Stinger provides one reference point because it gives troops and vehicle-mounted air-defense units an established infrared-guided weapon for close-range engagements. XRC’s intended advantage would be the ability to engage threats farther out, potentially adding depth to defenses that rely on shorter-range weapons. However, no published XRC data supports a numerical range advantage over Stinger or confirms that the new missile would replace it.

Coyote offers a different comparison as a purpose-built counter-drone interceptor integrated into fixed-site and mobile defenses. RTX describes the established kinetic Block 2 design as combining a boost rocket with a turbine engine, while newer rocket-motor upgrades are undergoing development. XRC’s ramjet approach represents a different propulsion path, but available information does not establish superior range, reaction time, interception probability or engagement cost compared with Coyote.

The growing importance of counter-drone defense makes these distinctions operationally significant. Reconnaissance drones can locate troops and support targeting, while attack drones threaten maneuvering formations and fixed installations. An interceptor that can engage suitable targets at greater distances could add another defensive layer for U.S. Army units, complementing guns, electronic warfare equipment, and other missiles.

That additional reach would still depend on the surrounding sensor and command network. Low-flying aircraft, terrain masking and small target signatures can limit detection and tracking, preventing defenders from exploiting a missile’s full engagement envelope. Longer missile range therefore delivers meaningful protection only when supported by timely identification, reliable targeting information and effective fire control.

L3Harris is also pursuing compatibility with existing military launchers, which could reduce the equipment changes required to introduce the interceptor. The announcement does not identify a final launcher configuration or confirm integration with a particular Stryker air-defense vehicle. Compatibility with existing launch equipment remains a development objective, not a demonstrated fielding arrangement.

Affordability and ammunition availability will also shape the weapon’s military value. A longer-range interceptor could justify its cost against a drone threatening a critical asset, but repeated attacks require sufficient stocks and a sustainable cost per engagement. The development contract does not disclose a missile unit price or provide enough information to assess the manufacturer’s affordability claims.

The next decisive evidence will come from flight testing of the integrated airframe, propulsion, and guidance system. If XRC demonstrates useful reach, effective interception performance, and practical launcher integration, it could give the U.S. Army another means of engaging drones before they close on protected forces. Until then, it remains a development effort to extend counter-drone coverage rather than a proven addition to the U.S. Army’s operational arsenal.

Explore More Defense News

• Land Defense News
• Naval Defense News
• Defense Aerospace News

Written by Alain Servaes – Chief Editor, Army Recognition Group
Alain Servaes is a former infantry non-commissioned officer and the founder of Army Recognition. With over 20 years in defense journalism, he provides expert analysis on military equipment, NATO operations, and the global defense industry.