U.S. ships have begun installing the Coyote and Roadrunner-M anti-drone systems. What exactly are these weapons?

Some interesting news has come in from across the ocean: the U.S. Navy has begun equipping itself with the latest weapons to combat unmanned aerial vehicles. Evidently, the clashes with the Houthis in the Red Sea have not gone unnoticed, and U.S. ships have begun rearming at an accelerated pace.

In a recently published image of the Arleigh Burke-class destroyer *Bainbridge*, the new launchers for the Coyote drone interceptors mounted on board are clearly visible. Earlier this year, the U.S. Navy announced plans to equip the destroyers escorting the aircraft carrier Gerald R. Ford with Raytheon’s Coyote and/or Anduril’s Roadrunner-M counter-UAV systems.

The advantage of the Coyote and Roadrunner-M lies not only in their lower cost compared to traditional surface-to-air missiles, but also in their ability to loiter, which increases the effectiveness of intercepting approaching drones. The concept appears to be quite promising: countering an enemy drone as it approaches its target is an effective method, even upon critical examination.

The U.S. Navy has released a photograph of the destroyer *Bainbridge*, taken in the Ionian Sea between Italy and Greece on July 27, 2025. This ship is one of three Arleigh Burke-class destroyers assigned to the USS Gerald R. Ford aircraft carrier strike group, along with the similarly classed USS Winston S. Churchill and the “Mitchner.” The destroyer “Winston S. Churchill is responsible for the strike group’s air defense—a role that Arleigh Burke-class destroyers are increasingly fulfilling due to the phasing out of the aging Ticonderoga-class cruisers.

New launchers for intercepting drones have been installed on the port side of the Bainbridge’s aft superstructure, next to the aft Mk 41 Vertical Launching System (VLS).

In this photo of the ship leaving port in June 2025, the Bainbridge’s new drone-interception launchers are visible, but they are partially obscured by personnel on deck.

Upon further examination of other photographs of the USS Gerald R. Ford aircraft carrier strike group published by the Navy since the start of its current deployment in June, one can see the same launch system aboard the USS Winston S. Churchill.” It is likely that such launchers are also present aboard the “Mitchner,” even though it is an older “Arleigh Burke” Class I variant, while the “Beanbridge” and “Winston S. Churchill are newer IIA variants; however, it appears that the implementation of new counter-drone capabilities extends to all variants of the Arleigh Burke-class destroyers.

All Arleigh Burke-class destroyers are equipped with Mk 41 VLS launchers, though the number of cells varies depending on the variant. They can carry various surface-to-air and surface-to-surface missiles, including Standard Missile (SM) series missiles, Enhanced Sea Sparrow Missiles (ESSM), and Tomahawk missiles.

Some variants are equipped with additional launchers for Harpoon anti-ship cruise missiles or Naval Strike Missiles (NSM). Depending on the version, the Arleigh Burke-class destroyer may be equipped with RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM) launchers or 20-mm Vulcan cannons mounted on the Mk 15 Phalanx (CIWS), or both, to defend against air threats, including drones.

The U.S. Navy is currently replacing the Phalanx system on all of its destroyers with RAM launchers. The 5-inch gun, located in a turret at the bow of each destroyer, can also be used against air and surface targets; however, the effectiveness of large-caliber guns in this regard is increasingly being called into question.

The launchers shown in the photographs of the *Bainbridge* and the *Winston S. Churchill* clearly resemble the existing shore-based launchers for the Coyote Block 2.

Компания Anduril продемонстрировала только «гнездо» коробчатого типа для Roadrunner-M, который запускает перехватчик вертикально, как показано на видео. Пусковые установки, соответствующие этой конструкции, не видны, по крайней мере на первый взгляд, на доступных фотографиях ни одного из эсминцев, приписанных к авианосной ударной группе «Джеральд Р. Форд». Однако это не исключает их присутствия на борту.

So what’s inside those launchers?

Coyote Block 2 and Roadrunner-M are drone-like jet interceptors with varying degrees of autonomy. Both interceptors must be guided toward the target or a general strike area (in the case of detonation at a certain distance from the target) using external sensors before their onboard guidance systems are activated.

The U.S. Army has been using Coyote Block 2 for several years as part of its integrated system for countering low-flying, slow-moving, and unmanned aerial vehicles (LIDS), in both mobile and stationary configurations. LIDS systems are deployed in the Middle East, Africa, and Europe and have been used in combat operations in at least some of these regions. Recently published photographs indicate that the U.S. Air Force has also begun operating a stationary version of the LIDS.

It is important to note that the U.S. Army and the Marine Corps are satisfied with the results of deploying anti-drone systems and plan to significantly expand their arsenal of Coyote interceptor drones, launchers, and radars over the next five years. According to department officials, there are plans to procure 6,000 Block 2 jet-powered drones equipped with high-explosive fragmentation warheads and 700 Block 3 drones carrying a “non-kinetic” payload, the details of which have not yet been disclosed.

The U.S. Army has disclosed details of its Coyote procurement for fiscal years 2025–2029 in a notice of contract award to sole-source contractor Raytheon. In addition to Block 2 and Block 3 interceptors, the plan is to procure 252 fixed launchers, 52 mobile launchers, 118 fixed Ku-band radars, and 33 mobile radars mounted on vehicle chassis. Raytheon will also provide maintenance and repair support for the Coyote systems both in the United States and overseas.

It is known that U.S. special operations units use the Roadrunner-M in a ground-based configuration, although details regarding its use remain limited at this time. A large order placed by the U.S. military last year for additional Roadrunner-M systems indicates that the use of this system is expanding.

As previously mentioned, a key advantage of the Coyote and Roadrunner-M is their ability to remain in standby mode during flight. This provides additional flexibility for real-time deployment, cancellation, and re-targeting in response to changes in the tactical situation. They can also be launched in a preemptive mode to counter potential threats.

The Roadrunner-M was specifically designed for this type of operation and is capable of returning, refueling, and relaunching. These capabilities are not available to traditional surface-to-air missiles and are currently unavailable to naval crews.

The capabilities offered by Coyote Block 2 and Roadrunner-M are important for warships, given the limitations on the size of the carried warhead load (not critical, since modern ships have many launch cells) and the ability to reload quickly during combat operations (very critical). The latter, as demonstrated by the hostilities with the Houthis, is indeed crucial for ships. By overloading and exhausting the air defense systems of the ships participating in the operation, the Houthis were able to strike a tanker and dry cargo ships with missiles.

The Navy is also working to implement new methods for resupplying ammunition at sea, largely thanks to lessons learned from intercepting Houthi drones and missiles in and around the Red Sea, as well as from destroying Iranian missiles aimed at Israel. The experience of countering Houthi drones was the primary reason for installing new anti-UAV systems on the destroyers of the Gerald R. Ford aircraft carrier strike group.

UAVs have long existed as a new type of weapon. However, there has been a significant leap in their development in recent years, so the U.S. Navy’s recognition of the threat and the development of countermeasures are a natural process.

The Coyote Block 2 and Roadrunner-M have another important advantage: they are a more cost-effective means of defense against drones compared to existing ship-based surface-to-air missiles.

According to available data, the cost of a single Coyote Block 2 is approximately $100,000. Anduril reports that the price of each Roadrunner-M ranges from $150,000 to $250,000, depending on the configuration. By comparison, the SM-2 Block IIIC, the primary air defense weapon for Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, has an average cost of about $2 million per unit, according to the budget request for fiscal year 2026. The estimated price of a single ESSM, another air defense system on U.S. warships, is about $1.65 million.

The need to add various types of drones—including those capable of operating in groups—to the arsenals of Navy ships to provide additional layers of protection, as well as to expand strike capabilities, conducting electronic warfare, gathering intelligence, and enabling networked operations, has been the subject of very active discussion in recent years.

In reality, no country in the world can afford to destroy drones costing $50,000–$100,000 on a large scale using missiles that cost 10–20 times as much. Given that missiles tend to miss low-profile plastic drones, the cost of destroying them could increase significantly.

It is not yet known whether the launchers for the Coyote Block 2 and/or Roadrunner-M will become standard armament on Arleigh Burke-class destroyers or other Navy ships, although there is confidence that they will. The U.S. Navy has tested at least one, if not both, of these systems on two other Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, the Jason Dunham and The Sullivans, after which the installation of the launchers began—if not on a large scale—but, according to Naval News, the work will continue.

The U.S. Navy is separately developing a number of other capabilities to enhance the air and missile defense of its surface ships, including new directed-energy weapons, electronic warfare systems, and advanced networked decoys. The key issue is the speed and effectiveness of the systems under development.

Lockheed Martin also offers launchers for the AGM-179 (JAGM) air-to-ground missile, which can be used as anti-aircraft missiles to supplement the destroyers’ arsenal. The company has demonstrated models with JAGM launchers located in the same area on the stern superstructure where the Bainbridge and Winston S. Churchill now have new anti-drone capabilities. At least some of the U.S. Navy’s Freedom-class littoral combat ships (LCS) are now capable of engaging drones, as well as surface threats, using the AGM-114L Longbow Hellfire millimeter-wave radar-guided missiles—one of the weapons that the JAGM is ultimately intended to replace in the ships’ arsenals.

Indeed, who else but the U.S. would start a new round of the arms race? Basically, it’s a classic scenario—the U.S. comes up with something new, and the rest of the world starts studying it and developing its own versions. That’s how it was with atomic and nuclear weapons, missiles, nuclear submarines, and so on.

But when it comes to attack drones and countermeasures against them, things haven’t gone very well so far, even though U.S. sailors have gained excellent experience in dealing with various types of drones. Hundreds of them took off into the scorching skies over the Red Sea—and ultimately vanished. And the ships returned to their bases. Admittedly, the standoff with the Houthis didn’t do much to appease the latter, but it certainly put the “peacekeepers” from European NATO countries in their place. At the very least, the Germans and the Danes—whose ships returned from the mission with their ammunition stores depleted—will certainly not be rushing to send their ships back to that region anytime soon. There’s no money.

Of course, sooner or later, virtually any country planning military operations was bound to face a cheap adversary equipped with cheap weapons. We’re not talking about Russia here; our development efforts are actually quite solid—we have inexpensive, compact missiles, and interceptor drones have begun mass production. It’s clear that all of this will also find its way into our navy and become part of its arsenal.

All in all, a new phase in the development of unmanned weapons has begun. The only question is one of effectiveness and cost; after all, while the Americans are doing more or less decently when it comes to the former, they consistently lose out when it comes to the latter.