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 - $700M

Cost to replace: $3.145B

Edited 14 hours ago14 hr by No One

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.

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

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.

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 - $700M

Cost to replace: $3.145B

I can promise you one KC-135 is not $240M.

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

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 - $700M

Cost to replace: $3.145B

Now do Iran...

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.

1 hour ago, ViperMan said:

Now do Iran...

59 minutes ago, 17D_guy said:

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.

Aside from the college-essay-esqe nature of your question and the interesting philosophical debate it could engender: why do you feel you have any legitimacy in questioning the legality of this conflict as an officer? I mean I get the rules of war and not violating clearly illegal bounds ala My Lai massacre, but in sooooooo, soo many cases in the modern era, this is how "war" is fought. WTF is "congressional approval" for anyway? Funding, right? Congress gets to declare war - which they don't do - so you and I know that in the real, modern world, the President has full and complete executive authority to launch whatever type of operation he deems serves our national security, Congress be damned. That's it. ROE is determined by government / military lawyers - not Congress. So, why do you think you have any legitimate basis upon which to question this operation vs any of the others you've been fine carrying out?

Congress doesn't get any say whatsoever in what the scope of an operation is, whatever the label is you want to apply to it, be it 'limited,' 'temporary,' no 'boots on ground,' etc. So your question is inherently a red-herring. If you have (or had) a serious personal issue with how military operations have been conducted since WWII and Congress' (lack of) authorization, then you should have resigned your commission and stopped collecting retirement pay a long time ago.