NextFin News - A two-year-old defense startup backed by Andreessen Horowitz and Founders Fund emerged from stealth on Wednesday with a long-range cruise missile built for mass production and a war chest of more than $250 million - a direct bet that the Pentagon's shortage of affordable deep-strike weapons is a structural flaw in the defense-industrial model, not a temporary procurement gap. Covenant, founded in 2024 by Michael Kaufman and Ofir Dayan, unveiled Anthem, a ground-launched cruise missile carrying a payload of more than 200 kg (441 pounds), and said it has already booked roughly $150 million in orders with deliveries set to begin in 2027.
The combination is the story. Anthem is not merely another missile; it is a manufacturing proposition. Covenant is targeting a mid-six-figure unit cost at full-rate production, opening a 105,000-square-foot factory in Dallas, and promising 1,000 units a year from Texas within 12 months plus another 1,000 from its German line. Compare that with the incumbent benchmark: the Tomahawk Block V is priced at about $2.5 million per missile in current U.S. budgets, and the Center for Strategic and International Studies reports that Tomahawk procurement averaged just 86 missiles a year over fiscal 2015-2026, with recent annual production under 200 even as more than 1,000 were expended in recent conflicts. The question Covenant is asking the defense market to answer is whether venture-backed startups can industrialize faster than legacy contractors can retool.
The Weapon and the Factory: What Covenant Actually Built
Anthem is a hybrid-propulsion cruise missile: a solid rocket motor boosts it off the launcher, and a heavy-fuel jet engine takes over for the cruise phase. The company says it has flown the missile more than 200 times over the past year, including tests with the U.S. military, a live-fire demonstration at the Army's Project Convergence Capstone 6 this summer, and a first public live-fire at a U.S.-Moroccan range. Executives declined to disclose a specific range, positioning Anthem instead to operate alongside the 1,000-mile Tomahawk from RTX's Raytheon unit and the 600-mile JASSM-ER from Lockheed Martin.
The design choices read like a response to a procurement checklist. Most of Anthem's parts are commercially available items, with long-term supply agreements covering the remaining key components; production is spread across suppliers in several countries so that output can continue even in wartime. The system bundles not just the missile but storage, transport, launch and reloading equipment, plus proprietary mission-planning and command-and-control software for synchronized, high-density salvo launches.
"Comparable weapons from the biggest defense contractors are being built in small quantities at really high prices. And so we set out to change that," Michael Kaufman, Covenant's co-founder and chief executive, said in an interview.
The capital behind the company is as telling as the hardware. Covenant has raised just over $250 million across three rounds from Andreessen Horowitz, Founders Fund, Lux Capital, 8VC, Aleph and Lightspeed Venture Partners, with strategic participation from defense-technology names including Palantir, Anduril and Kela. It now employs more than 200 people across the United States, Germany and Israel. That roster of backers matters: these are the same firms that have been remaking the defense-industrial base from the outside, and they are now writing checks for the deepest, most capital-intensive layer of it - long-range strike.
Why the Pentagon Wants Cheap Missiles by the Thousands
The market Covenant is entering did not appear by accident. The wars in Ukraine and against Iran exposed a brutal arithmetic: modern long-range missiles are consumed faster than the defense industry can rebuild them. The Center for Strategic and International Studies reports that more than 1,000 Tomahawks were expended during the Iran conflict, while the recent annual production rate has been under 200 missiles a year. Raytheon has a framework to scale toward 1,000 per year, but that capacity is still being built, and deliveries were re-sequenced during the shortfall to prioritize U.S. needs over those of allies and partners.
Washington's response has been to lower the cost bar and shorten the clock. In July, the Defense Innovation Unit launched the Ground-Based Affordable Mass, or GBAM, challenge: ground-launched strike systems that can hit targets beyond 600 nautical miles, cost less than $250,000 apiece, carry at least a 35-pound payload - with a preference for more than 100 pounds - and be demonstrated within three months and ready for production within 12 to 18 months. A companion effort, the Family of Affordable Mass Missiles program, is designed to launch cruise missiles from cargo aircraft. Covenant did not say whether it would compete in GBAM, but its stated price target and timeline track the program's requirements closely.
"When you look at our adversaries, you see thousands of hardened targets, beyond the range of current capabilities," Kaufman said. "Anthem was built to credibly hold those targets at risk in a prolonged conflict. If our stockpiles run thin, so does our deterrence."
The geography is explicit. "We were designed for the China fight," Covenant President Abby Denburg said. Military planners envision ground-launched weapons fired from allied islands such as the Philippines - roughly 2,000 miles of water that would put Chinese targets within reach without depending on manned aircraft or naval strike groups. That is the strategic gap Anthem is meant to fill: not replacing the Tomahawk, but sitting beside it as a cheaper, more numerous complement that can be fired in volume from dispersed, austere locations.
The Structural Read: A Capital Shift, Not a Procurement Cycle
It is tempting to read Covenant's debut as a cyclical event - a startup catching a temporary surge in defense spending driven by active conflicts. That reading underestimates what is happening. The shift is structural, and it rests on three pieces of evidence.
First, the demand driver is not a single procurement cycle but a sustained inventory deficit. The United States is not topping up stockpiles; it is trying to rebuild them while still drawing them down. When consumption outpaces production year after year, the shortage becomes a permanent feature of force planning rather than a spike to be smoothed over.
Second, the economics of the weapon class have changed. Legacy long-range cruise missiles were optimized for performance, not unit cost or production rate. The Pentagon's new requirement set - sub-$250,000 flyaway cost, hundreds of units per month, demonstration in months rather than years - is a specification for a different kind of industrial model. A startup that builds around commercial components and distributed manufacturing is not competing on the legacy contractors' terms; it is competing on an axis the incumbents were never designed to win.
Third, the capital is durable. Defense-technology venture funding reached roughly $3 billion in 2024, up 11 percent from the prior year, and the sector's flagship private company, Anduril Industries, raised $5 billion in May 2026 at a $61 billion valuation after more than doubling revenue to $2.2 billion in 2025. That is not speculative money chasing a theme; it is patient capital underwriting a multi-decade reconfiguration of the defense-industrial base, with investors willing to keep companies private while they scale factories and qualify systems.
The mechanism runs like this: depleted inventories force the Pentagon to rewrite its requirements around cost and production rate; rewritten requirements open a design space that favors startups; venture capital fills the gap between contract awards and revenue, letting those startups build factories before the government pays for them. The second-order consequence is a repricing of risk across the whole defense supply chain. If a startup can deliver a long-range strike capability at roughly one-fifth the unit cost of a Tomahawk and at five times the current production rate, the incumbents' pricing power on legacy systems erodes - and the contractors that survive will be the ones that can match the new cadence, not the ones with the longest backlog.
There is also a cross-border dimension. Covenant is producing in Germany and Israel as well as the United States, and an international customer is due to begin taking delivery of German-built Anthems by the end of this year, ahead of U.S. Army deliveries in 2027. That sequencing - export first, domestic fielding second - is unusual for a U.S.-focused defense startup and signals that allied demand for alternatives to American-made systems is itself a structural force. Germany's defense ministry has been evaluating lower-cost, long-range strike options that would reduce reliance on U.S.-built Tomahawks.
The Counter-Thesis: Why the Startups Could Still Lose
The strongest case against Covenant is not about the missile; it is about the industrial base. A cruise missile is not software. Even with commercial components, scaling to 1,000 units a year from a new factory requires propulsion supply, explosives handling, flight-safety certification, and a qualified workforce - none of which can be compressed by venture capital alone. The incumbents' advantage is not just technology; it is decades of certified production lines, security clearances, and relationships that survive changes in administration.
There is also a procurement-risk argument. Covenant's roughly $150 million in booked orders spans qualification, research and development, and production contracts - but the company does not expect to begin generating revenue until 2027. Between now and then, every milestone - the accelerated test-and-qualification program with the Army, the approximately $70 million Navy agreement to develop a maritime variant, the German production ramp - is a point of failure. A single slip in certification can push deliveries into a budget cycle where the money has already been spent elsewhere.
The counter-thesis has a named advocate in the procurement establishment itself. The GBAM challenge's three-month demonstration window and 12-to-18-month production target are deliberately aggressive - and the Pentagon has run aggressive prototype programs before that never became programs of record. If Congress funds the legacy industrial base to scale instead - Raytheon's path to 1,000 Tomahawks a year, Lockheed's JASSM lines - the niche for a startup-built deep-strike missile narrows to export markets and specialized missions.
The signal that would prove the structural thesis wrong is specific and observable: if, by the end of 2027, the prime contractors have restored annual long-range cruise-missile production to more than 1,000 units at unit costs below $1 million while Covenant has not delivered an operational squadron to a U.S. service, then the startup model has failed to displace the incumbents and the moment was cyclical after all. Conversely, if Covenant hits its 2027 delivery dates and the German line is running at scale, the structural call is confirmed.
What Comes Next: Three Horizons
In the short term, the story is about milestones, not revenue. Watch the accelerated Army test-and-qualification program, the Navy's maritime variant, and whether the German factory actually ships to its international customer before year-end. Any slip here is a sentiment event before it is a financial one.
In the medium term, the question is whether Covenant converts its $150 million backlog into recurring production contracts. The company expects to start generating revenue in 2027; the size and cadence of those first awards will tell investors whether Anthem is a niche product or a new procurement category.
In the long term, the outcome is decided on the factory floor. If Covenant reaches its 5,000-units-a-year target in Dallas and proves a mid-six-figure unit cost at scale, it will have demonstrated that venture-backed companies can industrialize deep-strike weapons - and the defense primes will face a competitor that prices on a different curve. If the production math does not hold, Covenant becomes a capable subcontractor rather than a category creator.
The base case is that Covenant delivers on its German commitments and wins a sustained U.S. production award by 2028, carving out a complement - not a replacement - to the Tomahawk and JASSM-ER. The upside case is that GBAM-style requirements become the default for long-range strike, and Covenant's distributed, commercial-component model becomes the template for a new class of Pentagon buys. The downside case is that certification delays push revenue past 2027 and the primes recapture the volume with scaled-up legacy lines.
Covenant's bet is that the Pentagon's missile shortage is a design flaw in the defense-industrial model, not a purchasing problem - and that a startup with venture capital can fix a gap the primes could not close. The missiles have flown more than 200 times. The factories are opening. The next two years will show whether mass production at a mass-market price is a business model or just a pitch deck.
Explore more exclusive insights at nextfin.ai.
