INDUSTRY UPDATE / RECORD 47
U.S. names four directed-energy systems for the JIATF 401 counter-drone pilot.
The U.S. Department of War named four laser and high-powered microwave systems for a Joint Interagency Task Force 401 counter-drone pilot intended to gather operational, cost, and sustainment data. A May announcement named five installations, while later Army remarks described a different four-base list; the current system allocations and pilot results are not disclosed.
PUBLIC RECORD / 01
The official release identifies four systems for an evaluation programme, not completed performance results, production procurement, routine deployment, or a confirmed allocation to every announced installation.
The U.S. Department of War named four laser and high-powered microwave systems for a Joint Interagency Task Force 401 counter-drone pilot intended to gather operational, cost, and sustainment data. A May announcement named five installations, while later Army remarks described a different four-base list; the current system allocations and pilot results are not disclosed.
RECORDQUALIFIED REVIEW · NO EXTERNAL LINKS
WHAT THE PUBLIC RECORD SAYS / 02
Keep stated facts, attribution and evidence limits distinct.
The official release identifies four systems for an evaluation programme, not completed performance results, production procurement, routine deployment, or a confirmed allocation to every announced installation.
Named pilot systems
The Department of War named AeroVironment's Palletized High-Energy Laser, Epirus Leonidas High-Powered Microwave, Kord Firefly High-Energy Laser, and Boeing Compact Laser Weapon for the JIATF 401 pilot.
Stated evaluation purpose
The department said the pilot will test capabilities in an operational environment and collect real-time information on performance, requirements, costs, and operating practices. That is an evaluation purpose, not a published result.
Installation-list discrepancy
A May department announcement identified five installations. A later Army roundtable described a tentative four-base list that differs from it. The 5 October system-selection release does not resolve the discrepancy or identify system-to-site allocations.
PROJECT READING / 03
Use the record to frame evidence questions, not to infer outcomes.
Keep selection separate from results
Naming systems for a pilot is distinct from independently measured performance, an acceptance decision, production procurement, or routine operational fielding.
Keep system roles evidence-led
A layered architecture can involve multiple information and response roles, but a public pilot list does not establish interfaces, readiness, safety, or transferability to another site.
Review governed arrangements locally
Any project involving directed-energy or other governed equipment requires applicable authority, protected-service safeguards, accountable roles, and written site validation.
SOURCE & PROJECT BOUNDARY / 04
What this source-qualified record does not establish.
01The reviewed sources do not establish system-to-base allocations, quantities, cost, completed pilot findings, comparative results, production awards, or routine operational deployment.
02The official records contain a five-installation announcement and a later different four-base description; this article does not resolve that discrepancy by inference.
03This article provides no placement, configuration, targeting, weapons-employment, signal-control, or performance guidance.
SOURCE ATTRIBUTION
Public material retained for this site-hosted review.
Publisher names and publication context are kept for attribution. This article intentionally does not link readers to external websites.
NEWS FAQ / SOURCE BOUNDARY
Questions on this source-qualified industry record.
These answers preserve the difference between stated public records, attribution, assessment context, project evidence, procurement and operational results.
RECORDINDUSTRY RECORD / EVIDENCE BOUNDARY FAQ
NEXT REFERENCE

