14 hours ago14 hr 3 hours ago, Sua Sponte said:Pentagon - “Aircraft was damaged.”Don't worry we've got the replacement coming off the line any day now! Oh wait I forgot we decided we didn't want or need the E-7.Total USAF airframe losses or significantly damaged as a result of Iran as of 3/28/26:*{3) F-15E fighters - $300M* (11) MQ-9 Reapers - $330M* (1) KC-135 crashed, 6 crew killed - $240M, priceless*(6) KC-135 damaged - $1.44B*(1) F-35 damaged - $135M* (1) E-3 AWACS - $700MCost to replace: $3.145B Edited 13 hours ago13 hr by No One
11 hours ago11 hr 10 hours ago, frog said:What is the desired end state? No one seems to be able to explain it. If no one knows what the desired end state is, how can the American people define the cost they are willing to pay?Take away (or at least reduce to max extent feasible) Iran’s ability to project any kind of influence, power, and/or destruction outside of their own borders.
9 hours ago9 hr 4 hours ago, No One said:Don't worry we've got the replacement coming off the line any day now! Oh wait I forgot we decided we didn't want or need the E-7.Incorrect - Air Force to Buy Developmental E-7s With $2.4B Contract Modifications
4 hours ago4 hr Great. With Boeing’s track record for on-time success, they’ll be here any day now!@No One , you could probably add between 1-3 destroyed KC-135s to that list, same attack as that E-3 that suffered a mere flesh wound.
4 hours ago4 hr 10 hours ago, No One said:Don't worry we've got the replacement coming off the line any day now! Oh wait I forgot we decided we didn't want or need the E-7.Total USAF airframe losses or significantly damaged as a result of Iran as of 3/28/26:*{3) F-15E fighters - $300M* (11) MQ-9 Reapers - $330M* (1) KC-135 crashed, 6 crew killed - $240M, priceless*(6) KC-135 damaged - $1.44B*(1) F-35 damaged - $135M* (1) E-3 AWACS - $700MCost to replace: $3.145BI can promise you one KC-135 is not $240M.
4 hours ago4 hr 36 minutes ago, Clayton Bigsby said:Great. With Boeing’s track record for on-time success, they’ll be here any day now!@No One , you could probably add between 1-3 destroyed KC-135s to that list, same attack as that E-3 that suffered a mere flesh wound.-46 was damaged as well
2 hours ago2 hr 12 hours ago, No One said:Don't worry we've got the replacement coming off the line any day now! Oh wait I forgot we decided we didn't want or need the E-7.Total USAF airframe losses or significantly damaged as a result of Iran as of 3/28/26:*{3) F-15E fighters - $300M* (11) MQ-9 Reapers - $330M* (1) KC-135 crashed, 6 crew killed - $240M, priceless*(6) KC-135 damaged - $1.44B*(1) F-35 damaged - $135M* (1) E-3 AWACS - $700MCost to replace: $3.145BNow do Iran...
52 minutes ago52 min 23 hours ago, brabus said:Bottom line: it’s a lot better than the MSM and you would like it to be. The red line for me would be mass ground invasion for longterm “nation building” (aka the last 25 years). I don’t support that one bit, and would view it as a leadership failure.Appreciate this input. Legit question for all following: This has been framed as a limited engagement, therefore not requiring Congressional approval. Trump's made some comments on why that phrasing has been used, but I do wonder from the members of this board:When, in your opinion, does the timing under "limited operation" exceed executive authority and need to require Congressional approval? Would it be a time period (ex. >2 months), funding amount, assets utilized (ex. # of troops, or x number of MEFs/squadrons/carrier groups)?And/or is there a operation type (ground invasion, targeting power generation, etc.) which also leads this to requiring Congressional approval? Would a Kharg island invasion be a crossed line? For my part, this already exceeds a limited operation (I would consider Venezuela that), funding is well beyond what I consider within the bounds of law (not a lawyer). I could see a week as a limited operation as well, but would want more Congressional involvement even at that level.
Create an account or sign in to comment