2026 Israeli–United States strikes on Iran and elsewhere in region - News and Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
Iran’s hackers go to war (Financial Times)

Extract:
Iran has three different levels of cyber operators, whose boundaries are often blurry, analysts and former officials said.

The most experienced are run directly by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence. They maintain a dizzying array of front organisations, used to introduce plausible deniability for attacks and issue public threats.

Iran also hires semi-autonomous hacking proxies, cybercriminals and contractors. Finally, volunteer hacktivists have also regularly mobilised behind Tehran.
Click to expand...

Via the Drudge Report, an archived link:
archive.is

Iran’s hackers go to war

archived 31 Mar 2026 15:49:41 UTC
archive.is archive.is
 
Iran is focused on defending its territory and believes the U.S. “isn’t serious about diplomacy,” a spokesman for the country's Foreign Ministry said, after President Trump said the U.S. would leave Iran in two to three weeks with or without a deal.
Click to expand...

(Subscription or registration may be required)

(Subscription or registration may be required)

(Subscription or registration may be required)
 
Stocks fell heavily and oil prices surged after Donald Trump said other countries would have to “take the lead” in reopening the Strait of Hormuz.

UK, European and Asian markets plunged after the US president failed in his address to the nation to set out a clear timeline for the end of the war, adding he would continue to hit Iran “extremely hard”.

He told the American people that countries struggling to get fuel should “just take” the Strait of Hormuz shipping route and “use it for yourselves”.

He also urged foreign governments to buy oil from the US until they can reopen the waterway, where a fifth of the world’s oil and gas exports pass.

“The countries of the world that do receive oil through the Hormuz Strait must take care of that passage,” he said.

“They must cherish it. They must grab it and cherish it, they can do it easily.”

Shares had risen sharply and oil had fallen on Tuesday and Wednesday over hopes that the US and Iran were close to ending the Middle East conflict, which has left the shipping route effectively closed.

“Those moves are now revealed as an April Fool’s rally,” said Rabobank analyst Benjamin Picton.

On Wednesday, the main stock markets in Japan and South Korea plunged by more than 2pc and 4pc, respectively, as oil prices leapt by 6pc to around $108 a barrel.

The FTSE 100 opened down 0.7pc while the mid-cap FTSE 250, which is more focused on the British economy, dropped 1.4pc.

Mr Picton added: “The market optimism of the last 24 hours was always likely to be misplaced.

“The subtext of Trump’s remarks is that Nato and the Gulf states must get involved in the war to re-open the Strait, or else suffer the consequences of US withdrawal for the world economy.”
Click to expand...

8:41AM

European stocks plunge as Iran war continues​

European shares sank as Donald Trump did not get markets the clear timeline to end the war that had been craved by traders.

The Dax in Frankfurt dropped by 1.5pc while the Cac 40 in Paris fell 1.2pc as the US president said he would hit Iran “extremely hard”.

The Stoxx 600, which covers stocks across the Continent, fell 1.2pc to end a three-day rally as Mr Trump signalled other countries would need to manage the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz.

Laurent Lamagnere of Alphavalue said: “This market just isn’t manageable.

“Without regime change in Iran, we just don’t see how oil would flow freely through the Strait of Hormuz, so we don’t see any short-term solution to this crisis.”
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
9:02AM

Iran boasts that US ‘knows nothing’ of its secret capabilities​

Ebrahim Zolfaqari, a spokesperson for the Iranian military, has claimed that US information about Iran’s capabilities is “incomplete.”

“You know nothing about our vast and strategic capabilities,” Mr Zolfaqari said in a statement carried by PressTV.

He added that the country’s military production “takes place in places that you have no knowledge of at all and will never be able to reach” and that “more crushing, wider and destructive actions” await.
Click to expand...
 
(Registration or subscription may be required)
Iran is using a secret network of front companies to dodge international sanctions and rebuild its army of kamikaze drones, an intelligence firm has revealed.

The scale of Tehran’s covert operation is exposed in a new report that says the Islamic regime is “systematically” exploiting global supply chains to circumvent trade restrictions.

It claims that an Iranian company acts as a “dealer” for firms linked to China’s People’s Liberation Army and Russian organised crime to ship parts for Iran’s Shahed drones. The unmanned aircraft have caused chaos in Ukraine and across the Gulf in recent weeks.

The operation is believed to have evaded scrutiny by Western governments, with the companies involved in Iran, China and Hong Kong not yet sanctioned.

The report by Strider Technologies, an intelligence firm known to employ former security services staff, also exposes how Iran uses a network of “transhipment hubs” across Turkey, India, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Vietnam, Costa Rica and the United Arab Emirates to “obscure” the final destination of its smuggled parts.

Sanctions from numerous countries aim to limit Tehran’s ability to produce drones by targeting most of the regime’s primary drone manufacturers: Shahed Aviation Industries, Qods Aviation Industries and HESA.

Despite this, Iran has still been able to fire an estimated 3,600 drones at countries across the Gulf since Israel and the US began strikes at the end of February. The Shahed-136 loitering munition has become the “signature system” of Tehran’s arsenal.

“Even under sweeping international sanctions, Iran sustains its drone production through a global network of front companies and commercial intermediaries procuring dual-use foreign components,” Strider’s report said.

Researchers from the intelligence group identified Pars Aero Institute Kerman, an Iranian drone supplier with documented ties to the Islamic Republic’s military, as key to supplying Tehran with unmanned war machines.

The firm operates as a drone “dealer” for Foxtech Hobby Co, which is based in Hong Kong. It also uses Huixinghai Technology (Tianjin) Co in China to source other key parts. None of the three is sanctioned by the West.

Pars Aero previously supplied spy drones to the Iranian army and has ties to Iran Aviation Industries, which was sanctioned by the US in 2013.

Huixinghai Technology, which ships drones to Pars, is deeply ingrained within the Chinese military and law enforcement.

It has links to the Chinese army, having aided in the regime’s drone programme and is partnered with Beihang University, which the US department of commerce has outlawed because of its previous involvement in developing Chinese rockets and drones.

Foxtech shares its Hong Kong address with three companies previously sanctioned by the US, including two barred in 2023 for acting as shell firms with “suspected links to Russian organised crime and money laundering” and a third for “facilitating international transactions on behalf of Iranian entities”.

Together, the two companies provide commercial drone parts for Pars, which then distributes them globally, effectively evading Western sanctions.

According to Strider, the network is so effective that it has sourced foreign parts from unwitting companies worldwide.

One South Korean component, recovered from a Houthi unmanned aerial vehicle recently fired from Yemen, was traced back to a Tehran toy shop selling remote-controlled planes.

Greg Levesque, Strider’s co-founder and chief executive, said: “Iran has sustained and scaled its drone programme through the systematic use of global commercial supply chains.

“Simply complying with sanctions does not eliminate exposure to risk through indirect relationships embedded deep within supply chains.”
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
 
Financial Times on Trump threatening to cut aid to Ukraine if the rest of NATO doesn't agree to support the US led Initiative to open the Strait of Hormuz forcefully:


Donald Trump threatened to stop supplying weapons for Ukraine in order to pressure European allies to join a “coalition of the willing” to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, according to people briefed on the discussions.
Click to expand...
The strait has been in effect closed by Iran after the US and Israel attacked the Islamic republic in late February, choking a route through which a fifth of the world’s oil typically passes.
The US president demanded Nato navies help him reopen the narrow waterway last month, but was rebuffed by European capitals which said it would be impossible while the conflict was ongoing, with several also pointing out that this was “not our war”.
Click to expand...
Three officials familiar with the discussions said that Trump responded by threatening to stop supplies to Purl, Nato’s weapons procurement initiative for Ukraine funded by European countries.
As a result, and at the urging of Nato secretary-general Mark Rutte, a group of countries including key alliance members France, Germany and the UK issued a hastily agreed statement on March 19 which said: “We express our readiness to contribute to appropriate efforts to ensure safe passage through the Strait [of Hormuz].”
Click to expand...
 
https://twitter.com/x/status/2039470091763392709
View: https://x.com/i/status/2039470091763392709

[Timestamp: 36:50]

Trump says americans don't have the patience to just take Iran's oil.

"We could just take their oil. But, you know, I'm not sure that the people in our country have the patience to do that, which is unfortunate. You know, they want to see it end. If we stayed there, I, you know, I'd prefer just to take the oil. We could do it so easily. I would prefer that, but people in the country sort of say, just win, you're winning so big. Just win, come home.'"
Click to expand...
 
Some footage of the aftermath of the combat debut of the PrSM (Precision Strike Missile), which resulted in the death of 21 people and killed several teenage girls attending Volleyball practice. It occurs the weapon system may need a new name.

Since the weapon is so new, it’s more difficult to assess whether the PrSM strikes in Lamerd were intentional, stemmed from a design flaw or manufacturing defect, or were the result of improper target selection.

It’s unclear if or how the school or sports hall might be affiliated with the I.R.G.C. compound, but according to archival satellite imagery, they have been walled off from the compound for at least 15 years.
Click to expand...
The sports hall, at the time of the strikes, was being used by a female volleyball team, according to Amir Saeid Iravani, Iran’s representative to the United Nations. Photos and videos posted to a social media account linked to the school show the premises were regularly used by children. The sports hall has also for years been publicly identified as a civilian-use facility on readily available digital mapping platforms, including Google Maps, Apple Maps and Wikimapia, according to a review by The Times.
Click to expand...

Pictures of some of the damage:
https://twitter.com/x/status/2039003818008989881
View: https://x.com/i/status/2039003818008989881


Article regarding the matter:
 
archive.ph

Strait of Hormuz: Ships Paying Iran Yuan and Crypto Tolls For Safe Pa…

archived 2 Apr 2026 12:10:11 UTC
archive.ph archive.ph

Bloomberg:
In recent days, the operator of an oil tanker stuck in the Persian Gulf received a compelling proposal. After weeks at anchor with missiles and drones passing overhead, it could finally sail safely out through the Strait of Hormuz and into the open ocean — escorted by the Iranian Navy. But first it would need to change its registration and raise the flag of Pakistan, according to a company executive, speaking on condition of anonymity in order to discuss sensitive conversations.
Click to expand...
Ship operators have to contact an intermediary company linked to the IRGC, and provide information about their vessel’s ownership, flag, the cargo manifest, destination, crew list, and data from its automated identification system, or AIS — a transponder that ships use to record and broadcast their position.
Click to expand...
The intermediary passes the file onto the IRGC Navy’s Hormozgan Provincial Command for background checks on the ship to make sure that it has no links to Israel or the US, or other states that Iran considers to be enemies
Click to expand...
If a vessel makes the cut then discussions over the toll begin. The people said that the Iranians have a ranking system of one to five for nations, with ships from countries that are seen as friendly more likely to get better terms. For oil tankers, the starting price in the negotiations is typically around $1 per barrel of oil, paid in yuan, or stablecoins — cryptocurrencies pegged to the value of hard currency.
Click to expand...
Once the toll is paid, the IRGC issues a permit code and route instructions. Ships are expected to raise the flag of the nation that negotiated the passage agreements, and in some instances, to change their official registration to that country. As it approaches the Strait of Hormuz, the ship broadcasts its passcode over its very high frequency radio, and is met by a patrol boat that escorts it through the passage, close to the coast between a group of islands that has already been dubbed “the Iranian tollbooth” by people in the industry.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
lmaoxd said:
While multiple chinese 6th gen prototypes are alr flying. A chinese invasion of taiwan is looking a lot easier in the near future
Click to expand...
It has already become evident that it would be a walk in the park for the PLA as soon as it became evident this year that the US military at large is all show and no go. Losing most of their bases in the middle east, several high value or outright irreplaceable assets and being unable to conduct carrier ops without grave mishaps and issues against a far less sophisticated and far less numerously equipped fighting force.

Even if F-47 would go into service in 2029 and not the mid to late 2030s, it wouldn't transform the notion of a paper tiger that's unable to protect their infrastructure and interests against even the most simplest of drones. And that's not something the F-47 would alleviate anyway.
 
Cerberus21 said:
As much as I want to see a 6th gen fighter for the technology and childhood fascination, I’m not sure how relevant it will be in future conflicts. Iran and Ukraine is showing them to be almost irrelevant. Going head to head with an equivalent force would only be a disastrous outcome.

The only real benefit becomes projection of power or a true defense posture but, the USA doesn’t play defense….
Click to expand...
The sixth generation of jet fighters will most likely be remembered mostly as the transition point from manned to unmanned. In an age of large arsenals of missiles and drones (ranging across the entire range of price, number and capabilities) it's certainly not unfounded to ask for the reason to sink several billions in an asset that's unlikely to contribute meaningfully to the conflicts of today or tomorrow.

But we shouldn't forget that these types of programs are about more than just the manned fighter component. And a lot of the focus should be on the sensor, software, manufacturing, propulsion, datafusion and unmanned side of things. Which in turn has a firm place in the battlefields of today and tomorrow.

And the fact that the US couldn't hope to even dream about taking on the PLA in their own backyard shouldn't distract from these developments. Especially as that notion has always been firmly in the realm of fantasy for at least 20 years now and is only held on by the most diehard MIC shills.
 
EmoBirb said:
It has already become evident that it would be a walk in the park for the PLA as soon as it became evident this year that the US military at large is all show and no go. Losing most of their bases in the middle east, several high value or outright irreplaceable assets and being unable to conduct carrier ops without grave mishaps and issues against a far less sophisticated and far less numerously equipped fighting force.

Even if F-47 would go into service in 2029 and not the mid to late 2030s, it wouldn't transform the notion of a paper tiger that's unable to protect their infrastructure and interests against even the most simplest of drones. And that's not something the F-47 would alleviate anyway.
Click to expand...
respectfully, this possibly the most out of touch opinion posted on this forum. Lol
 
Cerberus21 said:
As much as I want to see a 6th gen fighter for the technology and childhood fascination, I’m not sure how relevant it will be in future conflicts. Iran and Ukraine is showing them to be almost irrelevant. Going head to head with an equivalent force would only be a disastrous outcome.

The only real benefit becomes projection of power or a true defense posture but, the USA doesn’t play defense….
Click to expand...
Air supremacy wins wars. Thats the way it will always be, until a larger transition to space dominance occurs. Which it already is, but space and air dominance go hand in hand. The reason Ukraine is a trench war is because the VKS lacks the necessary technology, training, and even basic competence to overcome the thin Ukrainian IADS and third rate air force. If Russia had air superiority like in Iran, the Ukrainian government would be long gone and they would be fighting a counter insurgency.

These S-UAS systems that are taking everyones attention have a place but by no means will it replace large fighter aircraft, whether they be manned or unmanned.

But this is the F-47 speculation thread, not doctrine one.
 
EmoBirb said:
It has already become evident that it would be a walk in the park for the PLA as soon as it became evident this year that the US military at large is all show and no go.
Click to expand...
I just have to ask...What is your expectation then?

You lose things during war. Thats just how things are. You can never find a hard counter for ever single threat the enemy fields. Nothing ever goes exactly the way you want it to.

Boxers, martial artists from every discipline will train and train for years on forms, practicing techniques individually and sparring. It still wont stop them from being hit in the ring does it?

Which brings me to my final point. Had the PLA been in the exact same situation, I highly doubt they would do any better. Maybe they wouldnt run out of interceptors against an Iran tier military, but thats about it. The only way to not lose stuff in a war is to have never started in the first place, but thats a different discussion altogether.

The only fair assessment you can honestly draw here is that the same issues plaguing the navy and the industrial base as a whole are still not fixed. That and maybe fighting a war without any immediately identifiable goals or outcomes. The real out rage shouldnt be xyz asset got destroyed but rather why more of said asset wasnt produced and replaceable in the first place.
 
Last edited:
Reddington777 said:
I just have to ask...What is your expectation then?

You lose things during war. Thats just how things are. You can never find a hard counter for ever single threat the enemy fields. Nothing ever goes exactly the way you want it to.

Boxers, martial artists from every discipline will train and train for years on forms, practicing techniques individually and sparring. It still wont stop them from being hit in the ring does it?

Which brings me to my final point. Had the PLA been in the exact same situation, I highly doubt they would do any better. The only way to not lose stuff in a war is to have never started in the first place, but thats a different discussion altogether.
Click to expand...
I could say a lot here, but there isn’t a suitable thread and I think it would cause too much friction. TLDR, some people hold extreme biases. Often times posting or believing things that are not true in order to affirm their world view.

Cough iran war threads infinite list of a gazzilion “losses”

While simultaneously justifying the hundreds of visually confirmed air frame losses of a country facing….Mig-29s and S-300s. Lol
 
Reddington777 said:
I just have to ask...What is your expectation then?

You lose things during war. Thats just how things are. You can never find a hard counter for ever single threat the enemy fields. Nothing ever goes exactly the way you want it to.

Which brings me to my final point. Had the PLA been in the exact same situation, I highly doubt they would do any better. The only way to not lose stuff in a war is to have never started in the first place, but thats a different discussion altogether.
Click to expand...
The PLA would not have ended up in the same Situation. The catastrophic failure of the US in Iran mostly stems from the fact that this operation was haphazardly put into motion, according to many in the US government on the behalf of Israel who was planning to attack anyway (Iran-Israel War News thread has all the links). This left US assets in the region completely open and vulnerable. What followed was a series of strikes that took out government officials, for the most part, as well as elements of the IRIAF. This proved not all that effective as neither of these are truly relevant for the fighting force of Iran, which hinges on IRGC structure and the vast arsenal of drones and missiles. Then the Iranians launched in retaliation, hitting every major US base in the region, this eventually led us to where we are today with the US having to steal from NATO and planned Ukrainian supplies to keep their SAM interceptors from running out, the Iron Dome has been broken (as missiles fall freely on the entirety of Israel) and refineries across the entire region have been hit and on fire.

Neither the US, Israel nor Iran can be particularly satisfied with the situation. Just that Iran inflicted far more severe damage across the Middle Eastern presence on two adversaries which cannot take large amount of casualties or financial losses. That's the current status quo. The USAF has proven incapable of stopping missile and drone attacks hitting American assets while the USN has proven incapable of opening the Strait of Hormuz. The biggest headlines for both were the losses of AWACS, Tankers and jets, as well as USS Gerald R. Ford having a huge 30 hour fire, being out of action for possibly over a year and the plumbing flooding the ship in, excuse my expression, literal shit.

Now, what would the PLA have done differently? Probably what they've been doing for the last couple decades, nothing. They would not have gotten involved and the PRC soft power would have done the talking.
 
Hull down said:
Air supremacy wins wars.
Click to expand...
It clearly doesn't.

Air supremacy or air superiority didn't win Vietnam, they didn't win Afghanistan and are right now not winning in Iran. Missiles and drones are the superior form of inflicting damage and hitting targets in this day and age. Aircraft mostly serve as launch platforms. An F-15 won't help you when your IADS has been overwhelmed by ballistic missiles. Or your tankers and AWACS being blown up on the ground by drones.

The 20th Century is over and the 21st Century strongly favors offensive means that inflict as much damage as possible for the least amount of cost.
 
“this operation was haphazardly put into motion, according to many in the US government on the behalf of Israel who was planning to attack anyway (Iran-Israel War News thread has all the links). This left US assets in the region completely open and vulnerable”

This is true, but calling it a “catastrophic failure” is comedy. I won’t touch the political aspect of the war, but the military aspect isn’t anywhere near as bad as you describe.

The air war in ‘91 was ~ a month long before ground operations began. Taking this into account, they have done quite well degrading Iranian military capabilities. Especially considering this was done a whim, and with significantly less (albeit more advanced) assets than ‘91.
 
Last edited:
EmoBirb said:
It clearly doesn't.

Air supremacy or air superiority didn't win Vietnam, they didn't win Afghanistan and are right now not winning in Iran. Missiles and drones are the superior form of inflicting damage and hitting targets in this day and age. Aircraft mostly serve as launch platforms. An F-15 won't help you when your IADS has been overwhelmed by ballistic missiles. Or your tankers and AWACS being blown up on the ground by drones.

The 20th Century is over and the 21st Century strongly favors offensive means that inflict as much damage as possible for the least amount of cost.
Click to expand...
Vietnam was largely a counter insurgency, with elements of peer warfare sprinkled in. Afghanistan…. A nation building “war”. Do you think thats a fair argument or are you arguing out of bad faith?

Lets also take into a account technology advancements, you don’t think air craft are capable of inflicting more damage now, then they were in the 60s?….

And accounting for the tech difference , air supremacy played a massive part in the second world war. Look at iraq in 1991 or 2003. Do those massed armored formations hold up against a sky full of PGMs?

Now lets take a look at Ukraine. Do you think Russians would prefer to have their aircraft reigning freely over Ukrainian positions? Or limited to moderately effective stand off strikes.

Why do you think china is investing so heavily into their Air Forces? Is that for fun? Why don’t they buy drones! Or do those systems perform different roles?

This argument could go on and on for hundreds of messages.
 
Hull down said:
This is true, but calling it a “catastrophic failure” is comedy. I won’t touch the political aspect of the war, but the military aspect isn’t anywhere near as bad as you describe.

The air war in ‘91 was ~ a month long before ground operations began. Taking this into account, they have done quite well degrading Iranian military capabilities
Click to expand...
What else would one call American forces deserting their bases across an entire region, having to sleep in hotels and warehouses while their bases are pummeled by missiles and drones, their aircraft hit on the ground, early warning capabilities significantly degraded, diverting assets to European bases because of the ongoing attacks.

The degradation of Iranian military capabilities must consist mostly about them empyting their missile stockpiles into targets in Tel Aviv, Dimona, Abu Dhabi, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the likes. Because they're still happily firing missiles and launching drones as if it was day one. I'm sure these F-4s that were in non-flyable condition that got destroyed really hurt them!

Air Power is wholly ineffective against a sufficiently prepared adversary. And to come back to your question regarding the PLA. How is the USAF supposed to contest the PLAAF and PLA IADS when they cannot even inflict sufficient damage on an adversary with virtually no air force?
 
EmoBirb said:
The PLA would not have ended up in the same Situation.

Now, what would the PLA have done differently? Probably what they've been doing for the last couple decades, nothing. They would not have gotten involved and the PRC soft power would have done the talking.
Click to expand...
That's a political decision. That speaks nothing of how well the PLA would fair when faced against similar threats.

It's a fair assessment to say that this operation may or may not have been poorly planned from the get go. History shows that when you try to force a war into being through politics, it tends to go very poorly.
EmoBirb said:
Just that Iran inflicted far more severe damage across the Middle Eastern presence on two adversaries which cannot take large amount of casualties or financial losses.
Click to expand...
EmoBirb said:
The USAF has proven incapable of stopping missile and drone attacks hitting American assets
Click to expand...
EmoBirb said:
USN has proven incapable of opening the Strait of Hormuz.
Click to expand...
EmoBirb said:
The biggest headlines for both were the losses of AWACS, Tankers and jets, as well as USS Gerald R. Ford having a huge 30 hour fire, being out of action for possibly over a year and the plumbing flooding the ship in, excuse my expression, literal shit.
Click to expand...
I guess I'm missing the point. For anyone whose watched the technical side of warfare for the past 5 or so years and/or followed the war in Ukraine, none of this should be surprising at all. It was the same way with Scud sites in 1991, or moving TELs, or even guerilla warfare and counter insurgency - some problems simply can't be solved by technology to guarantee no losses taken. Again - put the PLA as it is now in the same war and see if they can guarantee no losses of their early warning radars and no impacts on their bases.

And no - I wouldn't expect any military that isn't facing a dire and current conflict to have somehow transformed their military in the past 4 years to perform well against sophisticated drone warfare. Whether it's the bureaucratic momentum, R&D process, procurement and funding or development of tactics, none of that happens quickly unless you are fighting a war right now.

Ukraine should, in theory, be entirely overrun by now given how much overwhelming on paper military prowess Russia could bring to bear. The Russian air force should have, in theory, been able to overrun and suppress all of Ukraine's counter air capabilities. Yet here we are some 4 years later, with neither side able to completely counter the other's drones attacks.

Maybe I'm just dumb, but I don't understand what the western media or people in the west (or anywhere really) expect. It's as if people removed from the day to day operations of warfare forget that war isn't magic. When you say you have a capability to defend against something, it's not a lie to have a bunch of caveats behind that statement. If you bought into marketing language, that's entirely on you.

If anything, I'm impressed that Iran hasn't destroyed more aircraft on the ground with their missiles.

EmoBirb said:
What else would one call American forces deserting their bases across an entire region, having to sleep in hotels and warehouses while their bases are pummeled by missiles and drones, their aircraft hit on the ground, early warning capabilities significantly degraded, diverting assets to European bases because of the ongoing attacks.
Click to expand...
And why in the world wouldn't they lol?

If the fighter squadrons dispersed from anderson AFB and dropped in on bumfucknowhere island, is that desertion? Pretty sure that's not at all what that word means.
EmoBirb said:
Air Power is wholly ineffective against a sufficiently prepared adversary. And to come back to your question regarding the PLA. How is the USAF supposed to contest the PLAAF and PLA IADS when they cannot even inflict sufficient damage on an adversary with virtually no air force?
Click to expand...
And how is the PLA IADS comparable highly mobile, and difficult to locate drone launchers and missile launchers again?

If anything, those are the kind of assets that conventional forces have better tools to deal with.

Can a mod please move these comments to the Iran thread?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom