US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

News outlets broadly reject Pentagon rules before deadline for signing​

The Washington Post joined the New York Times, Newsmax and CNN in refusing to sign the restrictive new policy.

Click to expand...

Secretary of War Pete Hegseth wants to force media outlets to sign a set of rules that, among other things, will prohibit any website or newspaper from obtaining, requesting, or publishing information that has not been authorized by the Pentagon. Essentially, the Pentagon wants media outlets to publish only previously authorized news. Anyone who violates this rule will have their credentials revoked.

Some media outlets have signed, but several others, such as the Washington Post, CNN, and the New York Times, have refused, claiming it violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Furthermore, they also claim that if this rule is enforced, media outlets will be unable to conduct investigative journalism.

The deadline is this Tuesday. Media outlets that do not sign the new rules will be required to leave Pentagon facilities.

What do you call this? Military censorship?

It is. You typically only do this kind of censorship while in an actual war.

qwerty3173 said:

Bullet resistance face masks already exist, by the way. They don't cover the eyes but they are already heavy and unbearably sweaty to wear. Making a fully enclosed helmet will weigh even more and allow even less air in.

Click to expand...

This sort of equipment could only be adopted in conjunction with some sort of power-hungry suit-based climate control system that ventilates across the neck and face as well. Otherwise the users will quickly collapse from heat.

Sinnavuuty said:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Secretary of War Pete Hegseth wants to force media outlets to sign a set of rules that, among other things, will prohibit any website or newspaper from obtaining, requesting, or publishing information that has not been authorized by the Pentagon. Essentially, the Pentagon wants media outlets to publish only previously authorized news. Anyone who violates this rule will have their credentials revoked.

Some media outlets have signed, but several others, such as the Washington Post, CNN, and the New York Times, have refused, claiming it violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Furthermore, they also claim that if this rule is enforced, media outlets will be unable to conduct investigative journalism.

The deadline is this Tuesday. Media outlets that do not sign the new rules will be required to leave Pentagon facilities.

What do you call this? Military censorship?

Click to expand...

Things are looking grim for the Portland furries.

siegecrossbow said:

Things are looking grim for the Portland furries.
View attachment 162535

Click to expand...

Agree with you. They don't look happy at all.

sanctionsevader said:

3 is very cool looking but seems wildly impractical, if your helmet actually gets shot at and has to do its job protecting your head, can they guarentee that the screen+cameras and sensors wouldn't be damaged leaving you potentially blinded or partially blinded in combat?

Click to expand...

With the amount of bb flying in Ukraine, having a full face protection would be nice even if it stop working after some hits. Durability of high tech systems is always a problem, they tend to stop functioning rapidly in bad field conditions. Receiving damage is just on of the different ways to make them stop working.

johncliu88 said:

Agree with you. They don't look happy at all.

Click to expand...

Who, the protlanders, furries, or the military?

Lockheed Martin Reveals Ramjet-Powered Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile at AUSA 2025

Lockheed Martin’s family of tested Precision Strike Missile (PrSM) variants will expand through 2026 as the company begins testing both the PrSM Increment 2 anti-ship ballistic missile variant and the PrSM Increment 4 long-range maneuvering fire variant. The company is also exploring ship-launched PrSM capability from Mark 41 VLS cells on U.S. Navy warships.

Increment 4 uses advanced propulsion methods to reach ranges that previous variants of the Precision Strike Missile can’t achieve, hitting ranges over 800 kilometers away, including moving targets. This is in contrast to the previously reported requirement of 1,000 kilometers.

It's worth noting that:

PrSM Increment 1: range > 500 km
PrSM Increment 2: multi-mode anti-ship seeker, designated as Land-Based Anti-Ship Missile (LBASM)
PrSM Increment 3: integration of new payloads
PrSM Increment 4: double the target range of Increment 1 -> 1,000 km, designated as Long-Range Maneuverable Missile (LRMF)

The US Army is deeply committed to increasing the range of its offensive operations, which is currently limited to 300 km for ATACMS and a similar distance if using the Apache.

The US is seeking to increase the range of 155mm artillery to 70 km and will introduce a GMLRS guided rocket with a range of 200 km. Currently, the GMLRS is limited to 80 km.

It has also introduced the PrSM to replace the ATACMS, which will have a range of at least 500 km, but with a terminal guidance version and extended range (700 km) and a stretched version with a range of >1,000 km.

The Tomahawk Block V (1,800/2,000 km) and the Block IB version of the SM-6, a hypersonic missile with at least a 1,000 km range against ground targets, will also operate from truck launches.

DARPA's advanced missile program, OpFire, could result in a hypersonic missile with a range of up to 2,000 km.

And here comes the LRHW with a range that could reach 4,000 km.

The list is long:
GMLRS-ER: 200 km range
PrSM: 500/700 km range
PrSM-ER: 1,000 km
OpFires: 1,500/2,000 km
SM-6 Block IB: 1,000 km
Tomahawk Block V: 1,800 km
LRHW: 3,000/4,000 km

U.S. Criticizes low Combat Readiness of F-35A: Half of Jets Unable to Fly​

American senators are demanding that the U.S. Air Force command immediately addressed the critical situation regarding the technical condition and maintenance costs of F-35A fighter jets.

Defence One

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

on this.

According to a government audit, the senators expressed dissatisfaction with the low combat readiness of F-35A fighters, which ranges from 51% to 71% depending on the year, as well as significant issues with their technical support.

In March 2023, the F-35 fleet had 55% mission-capable aircraft. In 2024, this figure increased to 67.1%, but by 2025, it had dropped again to around 51–52%.

The Senate placed primary blame for the decline in readiness on the Air Combat Command and the Pacific Air Forces, which, according to lawmakers, have failed to properly coordinate with the Pentagon and the manufacturer to address the issue of grounded aircraft.

Click to expand...

Oh my goodness!!!!!