Middle East Defence & Security

MARKMILES77

Well-Known Member
Congressional Research Services best estimate of US Aircraft losses in Operation Epic Fury.
Clearly an underestimation as
1: They have not included many known losses such as 4 Little Birds in Iran and a Blackhawk in Iraq.
2: Did not get formal figures from the US Department of War of all losses and
depended upon public sources for much of the information.


Screenshot 2026-05-20 at 09.14.53.png
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Congressional Research Services best estimate of US Aircraft losses in Operation Epic Fury.
Clearly an underestimation as
1: They have not included many known losses such as 4 Little Birds in Iran and a Blackhawk in Iraq.
2: Did not get formal figures from the US Department of War of all losses and
depended upon public sources for much of the information.


View attachment 54860
The two significant loses are the F-15s and tankers, especially the latter as the former were friendly fire incidents (would love to see the classified info on this). IIRC tankers some were lost on the ground which mirrors the Russian losses on parked jets at airfields in the missile/drone age..
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
The two significant loses are the F-15s and tankers, especially the latter as the former were friendly fire incidents (would love to see the classified info on this). IIRC tankers some were lost on the ground which mirrors the Russian losses on parked jets at airfields in the missile/drone age..
I think the AEW loss is probably significant too, and didn't a substantial portion of the Reaper fleet go down as well?
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
I think the AEW loss is probably significant too, and didn't a substantial portion of the Reaper fleet go down as well?
Correct,, I forgot about the AEW. As for the Reapers, quite a few were lost but they are semi-disposable (sort of) and can be replaced faster unlike KC-135s which can only be replaced by expensive semi-functional KC-46s.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
Correct,, I forgot about the AEW. As for the Reapers, quite a few were lost but they are semi-disposable (sort of) and can be replaced faster unlike KC-135s which can only be replaced by expensive semi-functional KC-46s.
Faster sure, but how quickly? They're UAVs but not the cheap ones. They're big and expensive, with iirc an 8-figure price tag.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Faster sure, but how quickly? They're UAVs but not the cheap ones. They're big and expensive, with iirc an 8-figure price tag.
For the drone only, the cost is $16 million, a significant amount times 24 but a a small number compared the overall cost of this Trump C-F.
 

Hoover

Member
For the drone only, the cost is $16 million, a significant amount times 24 but a a small number compared the overall cost of this Trump C-F.
A fully equipped MQ-9 costs 20 Million $ a piece (some sources say up to 50 Mio $) in the latest version. And the US Army had 160 MQ-9 in service (in all versions).
So 24 MQ-9 are a significant loss because the Reaper are distributed all over the world.

It is said the US lost 51 MQ-9 drones since 2024 in Yemen and Iran.
 
Last edited:

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
A fully equipped MQ-9 costs 20 Million $ a piece (some sources say up to 50 Mio $) in the latest version. And the US Army had 160 MQ-9 in service (in all versions).
So 24 MQ-9 are a significant loss because the Reaper are distributed all over the world.

It is said the US lost 51 MQ-9 drones since 2024 in Yemen and Iran.
The control station adds to the cost. Not sure how many Reapers are controlled by the control station. Three F-15EXs have roughly the price as 24 Reapers. That’s a 600 million dollar loss in total. The current defence budget is just over 1 trillion. Last week two Growlers were lost in a frigging air show for another $200 million. Replacement time may be a problem but apparently cost doesn’t seem to be.
 

KipPotapych

Well-Known Member
IMG_5203.jpeg

I like the framing “a longtime goal of the United States”… As if it was not already achieved over a decade ago and turned again into reality by the very current president.

Edit: premature, but

IMG_5204.jpeg

Likely worse though.
 
Last edited:

KipPotapych

Well-Known Member
I see a lot of people commenting that Russia should not be the place where the Iranian HEU goes because… they will give it back to Iran. Isn’t it complete nonsense? Russia has as much interest as the US or anyone else in the Iranians developing nuclear weapons. Moreover, their own stockpiles are enormous in comparison, so there should be no concerns going that way. The main issue is to have it verified and done.
 

rsemmes

Active Member
Now Trump threatens to blow up Oman.
I guess there is a "truce" just in order to avoid Trump to be accountable to his own country, if he could just get another Tonkin Gulf Resolution... Everything would be perfect.

Let's oppose Russia because Russian ambitions are a danger to our interests and the world peace. Or something like that.
 

Redshift

Active Member
I see a lot of people commenting that Russia should not be the place where the Iranian HEU goes because… they will give it back to Iran. Isn’t it complete nonsense? Russia has as much interest as the US or anyone else in the Iranians developing nuclear weapons. Moreover, their own stockpiles are enormous in comparison, so there should be no concerns going that way. The main issue is to have it verified and done.
It clearly isn't of any use to Russia, because as you say their own stockpiles and nuclear arsenal is enormous but, unlike mose nuclear powers, they constantly talk of increasing it, and potentially actually using it.

Russia could easily supply Iran with weapons grade material if it wanted to anyway so it's all a moot point iny opinion.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Russia could easily supply Iran with weapons grade material if it wanted to anyway so it's all a moot point iny opinion.
Agree, I don't think Russia would ever supply HEU to Iran. That could open the door for others to supply HEU to countries Russia doesn't like.
 

KipPotapych

Well-Known Member
It clearly isn't of any use to Russia, because as you say their own stockpiles and nuclear arsenal is enormous but, unlike mose nuclear powers, they constantly talk of increasing it, and potentially actually using it.

Russia could easily supply Iran with weapons grade material if it wanted to anyway so it's all a moot point iny opinion.
Anyone who has nuclear weapons will potentially use them, as this is the point of nuclear weapons, no? Some suggest, as I previously posted here, nuking Iran, for instance.

As for increasing stockpiles, they certainly do not need (or want?) the Iranian HEU, I don’t think. They want it gone, just like most of anyone else. Remember the very first (I think it was first, fairly certain, but it has been a while) long-range radar Ukraine hit in Russia way back when, do you remember where it was pointed to? Iran. Russians have zero illusions about nuclear proliferation. Governing parties come and go, especially in the long run; nuclear programs and, more importantly, obtained knowledge remain (and so do nuclear weapons, accompanied by further developments in “rocket science”, etc). Which is also why Trump’s decision to unilaterally exit the JCPOA was, to say politely, extremely shortsighted.

So yeah, if Iran were willing to send their HEU to Russia as part of some deal, I would say farewell and shake hands, if that becomes an obstacle. I see zero issues with it.


Agree, I don't think Russia would ever supply HEU to Iran. That could open the door for others to supply HEU to countries Russia doesn't like.
The thing is, and to add to what I wrote above, once there is an established knowledge base, as is the case with Iran, they do not need the uranium in question. They can always make more. They can also threaten to do so, which was their leverage prior to Trump 1.0, who didn’t buy the bluff and escalated things beyond the point of return. They lost that leverage, but it is being restored as we speak. Which is fine, really. As long as the “terms of trade” are reasonable.

As for opening the door, I am not sure that would be the case. The only country in the region who would be supplied with nukes or technology has already gotten them, whether by themselves or with external help (which did not open that door). History does not support this train of thought. Overall, those with advanced enrichment programs and knowledge base are relatively reasonable players, some (past and) recent developments aside:


That ^, by the way, is another example of Trump and his influencers (and US in general, but to a lesser degree) being completely unreasonable with Iran.


As a side note, the approach to the Iranian issue has been… poor, to say the least. Trying to strangle the regime (which on its own is (at least) a partial creation of the major player(s) involved) by strangling the population is completely unproductive. Especially given that the said regime has considerable resources, sufficient support base, and moderate propensity to “dispose” of their own citizens it is not happy (slash overly unhappy) with. It will never work (has it ever?). It has never worked with North Korea, it does not work with Russia (different universe example though), etc and not with Iran, neither in the past, nor present/future. Why does anyone think that the -insert people- think that the sanctions are to punish the regime in place and not the people themselves. Like back in the day, when the UA-RU war broke out, Biden and Euros were talking about the sanctions on the Russian government and explicitly stating that they are not targeting the people (laughing here). Remember the comedy? Ask those people what they think about the subject matter. At least now there is despair of honesty about that (that is, it’s the people and they will be punished until we are satisfied with our completely unreasonable expectations). It is basically the same as saying that people are happy to be bombed because it is against the regime they do not particularly like, so they welcome it. Sure, the latter is the next level of stupid, but not all that far from the former, really. Anyway, I am going to have a beer and watch something meaningless (Turning Point documentary series has been on the least for an eternity, it seems).
 

Sandhi Yudha

Well-Known Member
Now Trump threatens to blow up Oman.
I guess there is a "truce" just in order to avoid Trump to be accountable to his own country, if he could just get another Tonkin Gulf Resolution... Everything would be perfect.

Let's oppose Russia because Russian ambitions are a danger to our interests and the world peace. Or something like that.
Once again the US shows the world that it is such a reliable ally where you can count on.
 

rsemmes

Active Member
Iran said that it has stopped exchanging messages with Washington through mediators following the strike on Lebanon.

I don't think Trump can go full gear without missiles, even if he wants, but we just got another layer of uncertainty.
 
Top