The suggestion to sell or send new air defense systems to Kiev would likely increase tensions with Moscow, which since 2014 has been waging a power war in eastern Ukraine and would consider a transfer as close to the border as a provocation. Russia has long complained about an American missile defense system in Romania, claiming it could be used for offensive purposes, an accusation the U.S. and NATO have dismissed.
Since it was deployed in Israel in 2011, the system, built by Israeli defense company Rafael in collaboration with Raytheon, has proven to be one of the most effective short-range missile killers in the world. The Israeli military has said Iron Dome has shot down about 90 percent of the missiles fired at Israel in recent years.
As it stands, the United States does not have much excess missile and air defense batteries ready to be transferred. But the military has been trying to figure out how to operate two Iron Dome systems that Congress ordered it to buy in 2019 as a starting point for the service’s delayed efforts to launch its own anti-aircraft and anti-missile defense systems.
The service acquired two batteries that are being prepared to be put into operation next year. But the military has struggled to integrate missile defense: Iron Dome was not designed to operate within the army’s new command and control system, a problem that limits its usefulness if deployed overseas.
Join the Armed Services Committee of the House.
HASC’s version of the tax defense bill 2022 which was passed on September 2 with a margin of 57-2 does not specify any particular weapons system to deliver to the Ukrainians. But a member of Congress said the language on the transfer of current systems is revealing and that the two batteries of the Army Iron Dome are the main candidates because there are few relevant systems the army has that they can defeat. the threat that Ukraine faces Russia.
The military has long been at the forefront of surface-to-air missile defense, but the past two decades of conflict with groups lacking sophisticated missile or drone capabilities has led to insufficient investment in short-range anti-aircraft weapons. This, in turn, has made the small number of Patriot and Terminal high-altitude area defense batteries some of the most frequently deployed army units in recent years in the Middle East.
However, the Kiev government has suggested in recent months that they are looking for more. Following the May announcement that Ukraine would begin increasing annual defense budgets, Ukrainian Defense Minister Andriy Taran said he would like to spend part of them on new air defense systems, pointing to Iron Dome as a possibility.
These messages were heard in Washington and members of Congress took note.
“Given the desire and bipartisan recognition that more needs to be done on the integrated air defense front for Ukrainians, and given some of the administration’s political decisions towards Ukraine recently, there is a desire to try to do more to help them than what the Biden team is doing, ”said the staff, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the bill is still pending on the floor of the House.
But there are questions about the effectiveness of a limited Iron Dome system in Ukraine.
“Tactically it would not be effective in the short range or on the line of contact, because this system would be quickly removed by Russian multi-launch rocket systems,” said Michael Kofman, director of the CNA tank’s Russia Studies program. “But it may be able to intercept more powerful rockets, which could allow the battery to defend a critical location or command center” in eastern Ukraine.
Ukraine’s air defense amendment was tabled by Rep. Scott Franklin (R-Fla.) And approved by a bipartisan vote.
The House bill already provides for $ 275 million in military aid to Ukraine even before any new transfer of a missile defense system, but any transfer would not add significantly to the total, as Iron Dome already has been paid.
Several Ukrainian and Israeli news outlets this spring suggested that Kiev wanted to buy the iron dome from Israel, but that purchase could be tricky. The Israeli government would need Washington’s approval to sell it to a third country, given the US-based co-development agreement with Raytheon, and there are sensitivities in Tel Aviv about its relationship with Moscow. The two countries have agreed not to sell weapons to third parties, such as Ukraine and Iran, and have forged an awkward understanding of Syria in recent years.
However, there are also disadvantages to the US military removing it from the Iron Dome, even if the service is not able to integrate it into its command and control system.
After two decades of facing few sophisticated missile threats by insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan, the military “faces a significant shortage in defense capability against rocket artillery, mortars and missiles. cruise, ”said Tom Karako, director of the Strategic and International Security Missile Center. Defense Project. “And the reason they adopted Iron Dome – in the spirit of Congress – was really a reflection of that capacity gap.”
An Army official who spoke about the background to discuss the sensitive issue said that while Iron Dome cannot work with other systems, the service is available, many other current weapons and sensors cannot “talk” to each other either. . But this is a problem that the Army did not want to aggravate by buying more equipment that would only make the problem worse.
The amendment that includes Ukraine’s missile defense language is within the $ 24 billion increase of HASC ranking member Mike Rogers to Biden’s defense policy bill. The package also includes a $ 25 million increase to the $ 250 million Ukrainian Security Assistance Initiative, which will bring it back to the 2021 level of $ 275 million.
In June, POLITICO reported that the Biden administration had prepared a new $ 100 million package of military aid to Ukraine, only to suspend the plan after Russian troops moved away from the border with Ukraine. spring after a series of exercises. The package included short-range air defense systems, small arms and anti-tank weapons, marking an exit from the non-lethal weapons the Biden administration provided this year under two separate packages, one announced in March and a second. in June.
It is unclear what the eventual destination of funding increases in Ukraine will be once the bill goes to the full Parliament and then is taken up by the committees of the House and Senate conference later this year to draft a final bill.
In July, the Senate Armed Services Committee approved a $ 25-100 million increase in the defense budget by a margin of 25-1, suggesting that both houses of Congress agree in general terms. that the president’s $ 715 billion Pentagon spending plan didn’t make the note.