Aside from moral grounds, given that the Iranian drones have "for Belogrod" written on their fins, to me, expanding strikes into Russian civilian centers will would just galvanize their resolve to sacrifice Russian blood for conquest. But on a deeper level, it is important for Ukraine to maintain the moral high ground which coupled with their bravery and military skill, is providing for such massive military support from virtually all western countries.
What about the civilians killed in the Donbas since 2014, thouasands per the UN? Are those ok?
Hard to believe this was ever a controversial take - unmanned has been the future of the air for awhile. Its a major component of the NGAD programHow it Started:
2020
How it’s Going:
2022
Explainer: Killer drones vie for supremacy over Ukraine
They are precise, small in size and able to engage a target in relatively large numberswww.independent.co.uk
And you have proof this was done unilaterally before Russia started shit in Ukraine about that time comrade?
Also, it is freakin amazing that the woke Democrats are on the side of fighting Russian Hitler, and the Party of Reagan....not so much. Also part of the strategy and why state TV talks about pushing on through the mid terms. They are hoping the Senate and Congress flip Republican and we stop aiding Ukraine. Incredible.
www.defensenews.com
I would love to see the US and NATO publicly state our end goal is regime change in Russia…
Good time to be in ITA, PPA, etcThese may be same thing and I hope will prevent the Putinites in Congress from stopping our support of Ukraine.
WASHINGTON ― Bipartisan legislation introduced in the Senate would grant the Pentagon wartime procurement powers, allowing it to buy massive amounts high-priority munitions using multi-year contracts to help Ukraine fight Russia and to refill U.S. stockpiles.
The Senate Armed Services Committee’s chairman, Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., and ranking member, Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., proposed the legislation as an amendment to the annual defense authorization bill, which the Senate is expected to vote on in November. It was offered instead of the critical munitions acquisition fund that the Pentagon and some lawmakers sought for the same purposes, before Senate appropriators rejected it.
The amendment, the text of which was released last week, offers multi-year contracting authorities typically reserved for Navy vessels and major aircraft. As drafted, it would let the Pentagon lock in purchases of certain munitions made by Lockheed Martin, Raytheon Technologies, BAE Systems and Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace over fiscal 2023 and 2024, a step aimed at encouraging manufacturers to expand production lines for sought-after munitions.
The Pentagon would also be permitted to team with NATO to buy weapons for its members in mass quantities, and for Ukraine-related contracts, the legislation would ease several key legal restrictions on Pentagon procurement through fiscal 2024 ― a sign lawmakers see the war dragging on.
The intent of the legislation is to spur the Pentagon and industry to move more aggressively by removing bureaucratic barriers, with an eye not only on Russia but the potential for a confrontation with China over Taiwan, according to a senior congressional aide who spoke to Defense News on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak with the press.
“Whether you want to call it wartime contracting or emergency contracting, we can’t play around anymore,” the aide said. “We can’t pussyfoot around with minimum-sustaining-rate buys of these munitions. It’s hard to think of something as high on everybody’s list as buying a ton of munitions for the next few years, for our operational plans against China and continuing to supply Ukraine.”
If the language becomes law, the Department of Defense would be allowed to make non-competitive awards to arms manufacturers for Ukraine-related contracts, an idea spearheaded in legislation from Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., and 13 other senators.
The Inhofe-Reed amendment would also grant special emergency procurement authorities reserved for contingency operations and waive a requirement that contractors provide certified cost and pricing data, a safeguard intended to help ensure the Pentagon is paying reasonable prices.
Criticism from Capitol Hill
The move comes amid criticism from Capitol Hill and the defense industry that the Pentagon is moving too slowly. Of the $6 billion Congress appropriated this year to buy equipment for Ukraine, DoD has awarded $1.2 billion, and of $12.5 billion appropriated to replace U.S. stockpiles of weapons sent to Ukraine, just $1.5 billion has been awarded, the Pentagon said Sept. 20.
“This is an effort to speed up contracting,” said Mark Cancian, a defense budget analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “We’ve been hearing from industry, when we talk to them about this issue, that they want to see a demand signal. DoD has been saying the right things but they haven’t been providing that demand signal. And when you look at the amount of money actually obligated, it’s very low.”
One aim of the amendment is to signal to the defense industry that it’s time to restart or to re-energize dormant supply lines. Lockheed CEO Jim Taiclet said during a July earnings call that the Pentagon had yet to put the contracts in place or coordinate with industry to buy more supplies, a process that could take two to three years. “And I can tell you the clutch isn’t engaged yet,” Taiclet said.
While the legislation will likely be welcomed by the defense industry, Julia Gledhill, a defense analyst in the Center for Defense Information at the non-partisan watchdog group Project on Government Oversight, said Monday that Congress should leave protections against defense spending bloat in place.
“Ukraine aid shouldn’t be another way for contractors to nickel and dime the Pentagon, wasting taxpayer dollars and undermining the purpose of assistance: to support the Ukrainian people,” Gledhill said. “But the amendment further deteriorates already weak guardrails in place to prevent corporate price gouging of the military.”
RELATED
Ukraine invasion prompts congressional push for a new look at Patriot missile defense needs
Lawmakers are pushing for the Army to re-examine its Patriot battery and interceptor requirements amid the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
By Jen Judson
Mobilizing munitions manufacturing
Concerned about constraints on the U.S. defense industrial base’s ability to produce munitions to resupply U.S. stocks transferred to Ukraine, Congress this year appropriated $600 million in Defense Production Act funding. Some of the money is to expand domestic capacity and invest in domestic production of strategic and critical materials.
The Senate Armed Services Committee authorized $2.7 billion for future munitions production when it advanced the FY23 NDAA in June. And while multi-year contract authorities could save the Defense Department money on munitions procurement over annual contracts, they could also add several billion dollars more per year in non-discretionary spending to the defense budget topline – an annual, contentious debate in Congress.
The House NDAA, which passed 329-101 in July, contains a more limited critical munitions acquisition fund offered as an amendment from the House Armed Services Committee’s chairman, Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash. That amendment would apply only to high-demand munitions transferred to Ukraine and its European neighbors.
The sheer volumes of weapons that the legislation authorizes contracts for equipment sent to Ukraine includes 750,000 XM1128 and XM1123 rounds for 155mm artillery; 1,000 M777 Howitzers; 700 M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems and 100,000 Guided Multiple Launch Rocket Systems.
But it extends far beyond what the U.S. needs to replenish stocks sent to Ukraine. For instance, it authorizes contracts to procure up to 20,000 Stinger anti-aircraft missiles and 25,000 Javelin anti-tank missiles. That far exceeds the approximately 1,400 Stingers and 5,500 Javelins that the U.S. has sent to Ukraine from its stocks.
“These numbers are much larger than just replenishing stocks,” said Cancian. “These are huge numbers. They are not driven by what we’ve given to Ukraine, but sort of related to what we’ve given to Ukraine.”
“This isn’t replacing what we’ve given them,” he added. “It’s building stockpiles for a major ground war in the future. This is not the list you would use for China. For China we’d have a very different list.”
The amendment also authorizes buying up to 30,000 AGM-114 Hellfire missiles; 36,000 AGM-179 Joint Air-to-Ground Missiles; 1,000 Harpoon missiles; 800 Naval Strike Missiles; and 10,000 Patriot Advanced Capability - 3 air defense system and 6,000 MGM-140 Army Tactical Missile Systems.
The proposed legislation also authorizes contracts for 20,000 AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air missiles, which Ukraine has not fired extensively – if at all. Britain announced last week that it would donate these AMRAAM rockets to Kyiv for its use in the Norwegian Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile System, which the United States has pledged to provide in the future via the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative.
Lawmakers seek emergency powers for Pentagon’s Ukraine war contracting
Proposal aims at ramp up the U.S. defense industrial base and helping European allies arm up.
You didn't answer my question. It is funny though no one asks who done it. 3600+ civilians killed in the Donbas and no 60 minutes special. There are thousands of interviews on youtube of people from Donetsk etc. Does that count as evidence?
Theres a level b/w "open checkbook" and "cutoff" that the voting majority has shown they will support. Just like anything else, people only look at the binary, when truth/best option is somewhere in between.
Russian troll, go f---- yourself.
The U.S. Army and Marines combined don’t have 700 HIMARS.
Looks like there are 57 (5.4%) Russians on active NHL rosters currently. Why can’t they be deported? I would think all of them and their families would then be advocates for ending the war. Especially after they got back on Russian soil and their lives changed a bit. It would also open up the rosters to more players from non-terrorist nations.
Aside from the uniforms those old men have nothing that is standard. All have different belts, most have slightly different weapons.
“The Russian military leadership is continuing to compromise the future reconstitution of the force by prioritizing the immediate mobilization of as many bodies as possible for ongoing fighting in Ukraine,” the Washington-based Institute for the Study of War said in a recent assessment. A report from Britain’s Ministry of Defense seconded that evaluation, stating, “The failure of Russian crews to destroy intact equipment before withdrawing or surrendering highlights their poor state of training and low levels of battle discipline.”
Not surprisingly, Russian officials are seeking to put a positive spin on the call-up. Russia’s defense minister, Sergei K. Shoigu, announced that 200,000 recruits were preparing at some 80 training grounds and six educational centers. Mr. Putin called a halt to the unpopular mobilization, saying 220,000 conscripts would be enough, rather than the initially announced target of 300,000.
The number of Russian troops in Ukraine remains murky. An estimated 200,000 soldiers were deployed for the invasion, but Western intelligence agencies say that anywhere from a third to one half have been killed or wounded.
The Defense Ministry has pumped out a stream of videos showing happy “mobiks,” as the recruits are known in Russian slang, learning to shoot, attack tanks, tie a tourniquet, plant a land mine and other military tasks.
“In general, the personnel are fully equipped, ready for combat operations and eager to join the ranks of combat units and to destroy the enemy,” said a soldier identified only by his first name, Magomed, in a Ministry of Defense video shot at a training ground somewhere in or near eastern Ukraine.
An injection of hundreds of thousands of draftees might stop Ukrainian advances in the short term, but military analysts said Russia would struggle to reverse its fortunes in the months ahead. “The Russians will have to make a choice — build a unit properly over time and then risk losing the war, or using that unit now because the war demands it, but the unit will be half ready,” said Johan Norberg, a Russia analyst at the Swedish Defense Research Agency.
Russia’s lines in eastern Ukraine have collapsed repeatedly under the onslaught of better trained, better motivated soldiers. Analysts say the Russian military has a glaring lack of cohesive units where infantry, artillery and air power are trained to work together.
Andrei Gurulev, a hard-line deputy in the federal Parliament and a senior officer in the reserves, wrote on Telegram that it would take at least one or two months before Russia could deploy trained units. Others suggested it would take until the winter. Some Russian military cadets are being released early to become officers, the Ukrainian general staff reported.
The Soviet Union maintained a permanent military training infrastructure, which was dismantled after its collapse in 1991. With the start of the war, military trainers were shipped to Ukraine, leaving units struggling to fill the gap with veterans or teachers from military academies.
“They have lost a lot of military specialists,” said Gleb Irisov, a Russian Air Force veteran and former analyst for the state-run news agency TASS. “There is nobody to train these new people.”
Even before the war, Mr. Irisov and others noted, Russia struggled to train its two classes of about 100,000 conscripts every spring and fall, with reports of problems like ill-fed troops.
“The system of military training is very weak and has been that way for a long time,” Mr. Irisov said. Much of the training appeared only on paper, he said. “They could not manage to do this in peacetime, so in wartime it is even more difficult.”
Unexpectedly, some of the most concentrated training is happening in the Donbas, the area of eastern Ukraine that has been inflamed by war since Russia ignited a separatist movement there in 2014.
Last spring, men in the Donbas were being snatched off the streets and dispatched directly to the front lines. But amid the carnage, attitudes shifted, said Kirill Mikhailov, a researcher at the Conflict Intelligence Team, an organization founded in Russia to track conflicts involving Russian troops. Officials in the region realized that they had “squandered their manpower for little gain,” he said, and so they knew they would need to make better soldiers out of the Russian recruits.
For the moment, however, with thousands of recruits pouring into Ukraine, it appears that the Kremlin is emphasizing quantity over quality. Or, as Mr. Norberg put it, citing a Russian expression, “Not with skill, but with numbers.”
Those 1920’s football helmets would make Halas proud.
Oh it's something I'm advocating for loudly. Of course my thoughts don't matter. Republicans hate alternative energy and Democrats hate using our own oil supply. So we'll of course not do either very effectively.
But that's not what he said. He said "the fighter jet era has passed". Fighter jets are here and now, and will be for the foreseeable future, as are and will be drones.
Drones can't run bombing runs, can't provide proper air support for troop infantry movements, they can't provide the type of air presence you need to truly protect ships and the like. Drones certainly have their place and over time will become more and more of the weaponry we use in the skies, but to say the time of fighter jets is over is a bit silly.
