Cheaper & more plentiful: ERAM
by Benjamin Cook
The U.S. appears to be developing a new weapon for Ukraine—the Extended Range Attack Missile (ERAM). Reports suggest this system was initially designed as a ship-killer, possibly linked to the Pentagon’s Quicksink program, which aims to turn air-dropped munitions into precision-guided, anti-ship weapons. But in Ukraine’s war, naval targets are a secondary concern. The country’s priority now is striking Russia’s economic and military infrastructure—oil refineries, weapons depots, troop concentrations, and command centers—rather than engaging the, already in retreat, Black Sea Fleet directly.
Worthy of note, most information on ERAM was reported widely back in July of 2024. Now the same info with few new details is being reported again. Why? Coincidence or is something actually happening? Or is this another GLSDB debacle?
The Quicksink program, developed by the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL), has focused on adapting plentiful dumb-bombs to target and sink ships at a fraction of the cost of traditional naval missiles like Harpoon or LRASM. If ERAM is indeed derived from this project, it likely represents a ground-launched adaptation of a system originally intended for air deployment. That would make it a relatively inexpensive yet effective long-range strike weapon—exactly what Ukraine needs to keep pressure on Russia’s war economy.
So far, Ukraine has relied on ATACMS, Storm Shadow, and domestically modified drones to strike deep into Russian territory. ERAM, if delivered, would add another layer to this campaign. Reports indicate that it is a cheaper alternative to traditional cruise missiles, suggesting that it could be produced and used in larger numbers. That would be critical for Ukraine, which needs both quality and quantity in its long-range strike arsenal.
As I've editorialized many times, Ukraine has championed the importance of cheap, plentiful, good-enough weapons. This is in stark contrast to the US military that stands on the shoulders of very expensive, rare, exquisite weapons. The US often finds itself scared to use, or allow to be used, its best weapons for fear that the technology will fall into the wrong hands. Because of this the US’s useful magazine depth in many conflicts is very limited. Projects like the ERAM are supposed to address this problem.
The full capabilities of ERAM remain unclear, but if it is connected to Quicksink, it might have advanced guidance or terminal attack features suited for high-value targets. Whether its original ship-killing design translates to battlefield effectiveness against ground-based infrastructure remains to be seen. But if it can strike at the depth and scale suggested, it could help push Russia closer to the negotiating table.
(Sources: The War Zone, Forbes, Defense One, Air Force Research Laboratory)
Benjamin Cook is the co-founder of the Ukraine Assistance Organization. He has a Masters in International Security and Conflict Studies. Most importantly, he has either been visiting, working in, or living in Ukraine for the past 15 years. As an independent journalist Mr. Cook requires your support. Your monetary support. Please support independent voices by becoming a paid member of his Substack. Or, make a one time contribution at Buy Me a Coffee. https://buymeacoffee.com/researchukraine
The US keeps using Ukraine as a weapons testing ground.
Everyone is getting something out of this war, except Ukraine.
"GLSDB debacle?"
Was/is it a debacle. As I recall the GLSDB was a not playing with house money project run by industry thus with limited testing under its belt. Really more a solution looking for NATO countries and or the US to notice they had thin production chains and very small stockpiles or precision strike weapons and even say back in the day Libya could stain those. I don't in principle recall it claimed to equivalent to say the ATACMS replacement PrSM or say a ground launched SM-6. I know it rolled out to Ukraine slow (-er than expected) and seeming below the highest expectations but debacle? Could somebody clarify that. I mean if you really want something to everything you ask well and than everything else well you really are kinda stuck paying for the SM-6 and I can't imagine you are going to get a cheap fast good enough solution to do the same. My understanding is some of the Franken-SAMs have worked out well. Overall I would expect some such good enough fast things to be underwhelming and some to be successful with caveats. I mean really we are talking several years of high intensity war and WW2 produced a lot no good stuff in the same time - as well as good stuff. Even the vaunted and very expensive B-29 was kind of of failure and really only successful in the very particular situation in the Pacific.