[Goose]

Pentagon finally gave a timeline for the first to NASAMS, they say they will be delivered within 2 months.  I'm guessing it'll be a little bit till the next 6 arrive though.

After seeing the events today, this initial delivery of NASAMS can't come fast enough.  The Biden Administration has already said that it will deliver this weapons system, so the delay is just manufacturing, not hesitancy about escalation.  In that context, I wonder whether the DoD would consider leaving its NASAMS cupboard a little bare for a few months to deliver the remaining six to Ukraine faster.

The US doesn't have many NASAMS. They were not a weapons system we chose to pursue. The only few we have "defend" Andrews AFB and "High Value" targets in Washington DC. I strongly suspect that originally when we promised to send two the thought was to send the two at Andrews. However, when that was actually examined, it was determined (by somebody) that we couldn't/shouldn't do that. So, we ended up with a procurement that will undoubtedly delay things at least six months and probably longer. IMHO every single person who works in the USAF procurement chain should be given a rifle and sent to Ukraine. They will be told the ammunition for the rifle is "being procured". I admit I am biased.

Realistically speaking, the NASAMS is a medium altitude point defense weapon. It will be useful in Ukraine, but far from a country-wide or city wide panacea. Ukraine's S-300s are arguably just as effective. In both cases the problem is detecting the threat in a geometry that the SAM has the kinetics and quality of track to be effective.

[Goose]

Pentagon finally gave a timeline for the first to NASAMS, they say they will be delivered within 2 months.  I'm guessing it'll be a little bit till the next 6 arrive though.

After seeing the events today, this initial delivery of NASAMS can't come fast enough.  The Biden Administration has already said that it will deliver this weapons system, so the delay is just manufacturing, not hesitancy about escalation.  In that context, I wonder whether the DoD would consider leaving its NASAMS cupboard a little bare for a few months to deliver the remaining six to Ukraine faster.

The US doesn't have many NASAMS. They were not a weapons system we chose to pursue. The only few we have "defend" Andrews AFB and "High Value" targets in Washington DC. I strongly suspect that originally when we promised to send two the thought was to send the two at Andrews. However, when that was actually examined, it was determined (by somebody) that we couldn't/shouldn't do that. So, we ended up with a procurement that will undoubtedly delay things at least six months and probably longer. IMHO every single person who works in the USAF procurement chain should be given a rifle and sent to Ukraine. They will be told the ammunition for the rifle is "being procured". I admit I am biased.

Realistically speaking, the NASAMS is a medium altitude point defense weapon. It will be useful in Ukraine, but far from a country-wide or city wide panacea. Ukraine's S-300s are arguably just as effective. In both cases the problem is detecting the threat in a geometry that the SAM has the kinetics and quality of track to be effective.