Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 05/02/2025 7:25:59 AM PDT by RoosterRedux
Citing the hundreds of drones that flew around military sites last year, defense officials warn that the Pentagon is still unprepared to defend its installations—but say a new standard operating procedure, and expanded authorities, could help.
“Mass drone incursions over Joint Base Langley-Eustis in December 2023 reminded us that the homeland is no longer a sanctuary, and should our adversary choose to employ drones for surveillance or even attack, we would not be prepared to adequately defend our homeland and only marginally capable to defend our military installations,” Rear Adm. Paul Spedero, vice director for operations for the Joint Staff, said Tuesday during a House oversight subcommittee on military and foreign affairs hearing.
The mysterious drone swarms over Langley Air Force Base in Virginia in 2023 raised questions about when base commanders can legally take down drones, and how the military should coordinate with the various agencies that oversee U.S. airspace.
In addition to Langley, Spedero cited drone incursions at Plant 42 in California and Picatinny Arsenal and Naval Weapons Station Earle in New Jersey. The Pentagon reported 350 drone detected last year over 100 different military installations—a number that continues to rise, Spedero said.
...
Rep. William Timmons, R-S.C., the chairman of the subcommittee, called the drone incursions “a coordinated effort by our adversaries to collect valuable intelligence and surveillance of some of our most sensitive military equipment.”
While Spedero stopped short of naming specific instances of adversarial spying, he agreed that U.S. adversaries have “demonstrated that they will use this type of activity, for unauthorized surveillance, for espionage.”
Part of the Pentagon’s struggle to respond to these incidents lies in “challenges” with “our ability to implement a relatively untested interagency coordination process,” Mark Ditlevson, acting assistant secretary of defense for homeland defense and hemispheric affairs, said [during hearing].
(Excerpt) Read more at defenseone.com ...
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Unidentified drone hearing last Tuesday - Ping.
Thanks for posting.
Article:
“a coordinated effort by our adversaries to collect valuable intelligence and surveillance of some of our most sensitive military equipment.”
They need to prove it or sit down and shut up.
Still no answer as to who was operating those drones and why they were not shot down for violating restricted airspace over military bases.
The administration has spoken very clearly on this topic.
According to them all of these drones were FAA approved.
(Of course they were lying....)
Didn’t they tell us that these drones were ours?
If they were not ours, and if this was a real “drone incursion” then whose drones were they?
And if they were our drones, then are we panicking because we cannot defend ourselves from ourselves? Are we inventing problems to justify spending trillions?
UAP Hearing: Unauthorized drone activity over U.S. military sites examined in CongressBTW, the FAA backed out of the hearing.
“Are we inventing problems to justify spending trillions?”
In DC no matter what the question is the answer is always bigger budgets.
Pentagon warns it needs even more money
“the FAA backed out of the hearing”
Very wise move on their part—they probably had no clue they “approved” the drones.
Lol.
> They need to prove it or sit down and shut up. <
Right. When the Pentagon warns of a threat, it could mean either (or both):
A. There really is a threat.
B. The Pentagon just wants more money.
Ike was right. Be wary of anything the military–industrial complex says.
“and should our adversary choose to employ drones for
surveillance or even attack, we would not be
prepared to adequately defend our homeland and
only marginally capable to defend our military
installations,” Rear Adm. Paul Spedero, vice
director for operations for the Joint Staff,
said Tuesday during a House oversight subcommittee
on military and foreign affairs hearing.”
Oh, great. Thanks for sharing.
The FAA’s absence from such a high-stakes hearing, especially after previously asserting that the New Jersey drone swarm was authorized, raises serious questions about transparency and accountability.
In fact, the FAA's only contribution to this hearing was a promise to answer written questions after the fact, which left defense officials to field inquiries outside their direct purview.
The FAA absence only reinforced the conclusion: no agency is clearly in charge and the statement from the White House that the drones were FAA approved was BS.
Exactly right. Yet the Epstein list seems to be of greater interest
The Italian military were carrying anti-drone rifles around St’ Peter’s square during the Pope’s funeral. Big, bulky looking things.
The Senate took a good droning with Cory Booker.
The administration has been amazing—getting so much right.
However—they have chosen to go full DC Swampland on this issue.
As I often remind folks there was a 1947 Majestic 12 document which gave the exact date for government disclosure of NHI activities on this planet....
Never.
You have all the laws you need. Deal with it. Quit trying to get more laws to strengthen your tyranny.
a coordinated effort by our adversaries to collect valuable intelligence and surveillance of some of our most sensitive military equipment.
“They need to prove it or sit down and shut up.”
I agree. I think they are diverting from the truth or Trump would have absolutely done something about it day one. No way would he have stood for “adversaries” invading his own personal airspace at Mar a Lago let alone our city civilian air spaces and military installations.
I think it was a military contractor “testing” our defenses for vulnerabilities and they are telling us half truths. They were learning what adversaries “could/might do” not “what they did do”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.