[Goose]

Ukraine leaks some Shaheds, true. But their air defenses are extremely depleted compared to what the US and allies have in theater.

Embarassing for the US to leak multiple Shaheds at a main USN base imho.

Not "optimal", that's for sure :-). However the enemy gets a vote. The distance from Iran to Bahrain is about 160 miles, allowing for some depth in launcher position.  That mandates a flight time of 1hr, 24 minutes at 115 mph. That should undoubtedly give plenty of time to detect the target. That is question 1. Did we see the Shahed? If not, quite embarrassing. Once we saw it, was it assigned to an aircraft to intercept? If not, why? The answer could be that Iran intentionally fires drones in waves hoping to overload the defense. Possibly they succeeded. Some aircraft might be going off station and not yet replaced, they may be geographically in poor positions because they were engaging other targets (intentionally flown that way by Iran), etc. The US probably doesn't want to be flying its interceptors too close to Iran in order to avoid these Gen 4 aircraft being shot down. Thus there probably is only one layer of air defense occupying the last 100 miles or so of the flight path. If the interceptor fails, there is no second line. This is a big difference between Israel as a target and Bahrain as a target. Israel also has it's "Iron Dome" third level air defense system that can cope with leakers. Bahrain does not.
 
It also may be that the target was assigned to Bahrain's air defense system (if not officially, by default when it became a "leaker"). They have one. https://www.instagram.com/reel/DVTPMbyCEKM/ They also have F-16s. They didn't shoot it down either.

[Goose]

Ukraine leaks some Shaheds, true. But their air defenses are extremely depleted compared to what the US and allies have in theater.

Embarassing for the US to leak multiple Shaheds at a main USN base imho.

Not "optimal", that's for sure :-). However the enemy gets a vote. The distance from Iran to Bahrain is about 160 miles, allowing for some depth in launcher position.  That mandates a flight time of 1hr, 24 minutes at 115 mph. That should undoubtedly give plenty of time to detect the target. That is question 1. Did we see the Shahed? If not, quite embarrassing. Once we saw it, was it assigned to an aircraft to intercept? If not, why? The answer could be that Iran intentionally fires drones in waves hoping to overload the defense. Possibly they succeeded. Some aircraft might be going off station and not yet replaced, they may be geographically in poor positions because they were engaging other targets (intentionally flown that way by Iran), etc. The US probably doesn't want to be flying its interceptors too close to Iran in order to avoid these Gen 4 aircraft being shot down. Thus there probably is only one layer of air defense occupying the last 100 miles or so of the flight path. If the interceptor fails, there is no second line. This is a big difference between Israel as a target and Bahrain as a target. Israel also has it's "Iron Dome" third level air defense system that can cope with leakers. Bahrain does not.
 
It also may be that the target was assigned to Bahrain's air defense system (if not officially, by default when it became a "leaker"). They have one. https://www.instagram.com/reel/DVTPMbyCEKM/ They also have F-16s. They didn't shoot it down either.

[Hurlburt88]

to all, thanks for these interesting and informative posts.   Goose, I found this quote particularly interesting:  " The US has nothing like that kind of footprint in the "host nations" along the Persian Gulf. We would never be allowed by the host country to deploy that kind of an anti-drone force even if we had one."   Can you elaborate on that?  To me, seems like in mutual best interest to have some machine guns or similar short range final anti-drone options for BOTH host countries and us.   WHat specifically are the concerns, particularly in a sutuation like right now where I assume a populace would be interested in more protection and less concerned about appearances.

[Hurlburt88]

to all, thanks for these interesting and informative posts.   Goose, I found this quote particularly interesting:  " The US has nothing like that kind of footprint in the "host nations" along the Persian Gulf. We would never be allowed by the host country to deploy that kind of an anti-drone force even if we had one."   Can you elaborate on that?  To me, seems like in mutual best interest to have some machine guns or similar short range final anti-drone options for BOTH host countries and us.   WHat specifically are the concerns, particularly in a sutuation like right now where I assume a populace would be interested in more protection and less concerned about appearances.

[Goose]

to all, thanks for these interesting and informative posts.   Goose, I found this quote particularly interesting:  " The US has nothing like that kind of footprint in the "host nations" along the Persian Gulf. We would never be allowed by the host country to deploy that kind of an anti-drone force even if we had one."   Can you elaborate on that?  To me, seems like in mutual best interest to have some machine guns or similar short range final anti-drone options for BOTH host countries and us.   WHat specifically are the concerns, particularly in a sutuation like right now where I assume a populace would be interested in more protection and less concerned about appearances.

Actually, the populace would much rather we not be there at all. In their mind, Iran wouldn't be shooting at them if we were not. The powers that be in these countries have reluctantly, after much persuasion by many US administrations over the years, agreed to host US forces in their countries. We are accommodated because the powers that be also fear Iran (and to some large extent each other). However they are still Muslim states that don't generally "like" Israel and are still xenophobic. They don't like us. The rulers know this.
 
Bahrain is a particular problem because it is very small, only 800 square km of land area. The population is about 1.6 million people. As a calibration, Bahrain is about four times the land area of Washington DC. The Washington-Arlington-Alexandria metropolitan area has a population density of 368 people per square km. The population density of Bahrain is about 2000 people per square km. 80% (about) are Muslim. However, there are lots of expats in Bahrain. Only 46% of the residents are citizens. Most of the rest are guest workers from India, Pakistan, and the Philippines. Obviously most of these guest workers are Muslim. The Muslim citizens of Bahrain are therefore even more concerned about adding non-Muslim westerners to the mix, especially Americans.
 
The Ukrainian anti-drone defenses are manpower intensive. Machine guns and FPV drones require operators and support personnel, and lots of them. As a result, the US would need to send a relatively large force in order to implement this type of defense, something on the order of two companies minimum. These people would need to be housed somewhere. To be effective they would need to spread out a bit. This would allow them to engage the Iranian drones as far away from the target as possible and possibly allow for a second line of defense. There is no way these "grunts" would "blend in" with the public. The public would see them in their neighborhoods daily. They definitely very much would not like it. It is also unrealistic to think that such a force could be rushed to Bahrain at the last minute and be effective. It would need to be stationed there to get the "lay of the land" and participate in practice exercises even when there was no war going on at the moment.
 
As it is right now, every time the US wants to station more people at our bases in these states they have to get permission from the local authorities. We have to justify the need in a manner the host country will accept. IMO the addition of several hundred "grunts" that would be spread out through the area, not just on the base itself, would be a very hard no.

[Goose]

to all, thanks for these interesting and informative posts.   Goose, I found this quote particularly interesting:  " The US has nothing like that kind of footprint in the "host nations" along the Persian Gulf. We would never be allowed by the host country to deploy that kind of an anti-drone force even if we had one."   Can you elaborate on that?  To me, seems like in mutual best interest to have some machine guns or similar short range final anti-drone options for BOTH host countries and us.   WHat specifically are the concerns, particularly in a sutuation like right now where I assume a populace would be interested in more protection and less concerned about appearances.

Actually, the populace would much rather we not be there at all. In their mind, Iran wouldn't be shooting at them if we were not. The powers that be in these countries have reluctantly, after much persuasion by many US administrations over the years, agreed to host US forces in their countries. We are accommodated because the powers that be also fear Iran (and to some large extent each other). However they are still Muslim states that don't generally "like" Israel and are still xenophobic. They don't like us. The rulers know this.
 
Bahrain is a particular problem because it is very small, only 800 square km of land area. The population is about 1.6 million people. As a calibration, Bahrain is about four times the land area of Washington DC. The Washington-Arlington-Alexandria metropolitan area has a population density of 368 people per square km. The population density of Bahrain is about 2000 people per square km. 80% (about) are Muslim. However, there are lots of expats in Bahrain. Only 46% of the residents are citizens. Most of the rest are guest workers from India, Pakistan, and the Philippines. Obviously most of these guest workers are Muslim. The Muslim citizens of Bahrain are therefore even more concerned about adding non-Muslim westerners to the mix, especially Americans.
 
The Ukrainian anti-drone defenses are manpower intensive. Machine guns and FPV drones require operators and support personnel, and lots of them. As a result, the US would need to send a relatively large force in order to implement this type of defense, something on the order of two companies minimum. These people would need to be housed somewhere. To be effective they would need to spread out a bit. This would allow them to engage the Iranian drones as far away from the target as possible and possibly allow for a second line of defense. There is no way these "grunts" would "blend in" with the public. The public would see them in their neighborhoods daily. They definitely very much would not like it. It is also unrealistic to think that such a force could be rushed to Bahrain at the last minute and be effective. It would need to be stationed there to get the "lay of the land" and participate in practice exercises even when there was no war going on at the moment.
 
As it is right now, every time the US wants to station more people at our bases in these states they have to get permission from the local authorities. We have to justify the need in a manner the host country will accept. IMO the addition of several hundred "grunts" that would be spread out through the area, not just on the base itself, would be a very hard no.

[BostonCard]

Per Reuters “Vladimir Putin described the killing of Ayatollah Khamenei as murder and said it violated all the norms of human morality and international law” https://reut.rs/4cSIObM

I’m not going to comment on what Iran except to say that maybe Putin should sit this one out.  Like, I think he’s probably more pissed that he went after Zelenskyy and missed than that Khamenei was killed.



BC

[BostonCard]

Per Reuters “Vladimir Putin described the killing of Ayatollah Khamenei as murder and said it violated all the norms of human morality and international law” https://reut.rs/4cSIObM

I’m not going to comment on what Iran except to say that maybe Putin should sit this one out.  Like, I think he’s probably more pissed that he went after Zelenskyy and missed than that Khamenei was killed.



BC

[dabigv13]

Multiple US bases with hits from Shahed drones. A startling failure imho. There seems to be no point defense systems active in all the strikes I have seen. A CIWS doesn't require a lot of troops on the ground. A helicopter with a side mount 50 cal could handle these.

I'm not saying the US can or should exactly adopt the Ukrainian system for dealing with these. There are unique factors to each conflict, and the US has much, much more money to throw at this problem than Ukraine. But the US should have effective ways of dealing with these and they are not being used, or used effectively. Not using proven effective methods, and not using cutting edge defense like laser based systems.

https://x.com/Faytuks/status/2028142344202031390?s=20

Footage of Iranian drone hitting US base in Kuwait.

[dabigv13]

Multiple US bases with hits from Shahed drones. A startling failure imho. There seems to be no point defense systems active in all the strikes I have seen. A CIWS doesn't require a lot of troops on the ground. A helicopter with a side mount 50 cal could handle these.

I'm not saying the US can or should exactly adopt the Ukrainian system for dealing with these. There are unique factors to each conflict, and the US has much, much more money to throw at this problem than Ukraine. But the US should have effective ways of dealing with these and they are not being used, or used effectively. Not using proven effective methods, and not using cutting edge defense like laser based systems.

https://x.com/Faytuks/status/2028142344202031390?s=20

Footage of Iranian drone hitting US base in Kuwait.

[dabigv13]

https://www.twz.com/land/americas-new-pr...an-strikes

US now using PrSM missiles for the first time in combat, the successor to the ATACMS. They have ~ double the range, 310+ miles. A good weapon to target time sensitive targets like launchers or mobile air defense in western Iran or along the Gulf.

[dabigv13]

https://www.twz.com/land/americas-new-pr...an-strikes

US now using PrSM missiles for the first time in combat, the successor to the ATACMS. They have ~ double the range, 310+ miles. A good weapon to target time sensitive targets like launchers or mobile air defense in western Iran or along the Gulf.

[dabigv13]

https://x.com/Osinttechnical/status/2028...96147?s=20

UK PM Keir Starmer says in an address that they will "send experts from Ukraine" to help Gulf states intercept drones. Presumably he means UK personnel who have been embedded in Ukraine and involved in their air defense.

Would probably be a good move for Zelensky to also offer Ukrainian personnel, at least what they can spare.

[dabigv13]

https://x.com/Osinttechnical/status/2028...96147?s=20

UK PM Keir Starmer says in an address that they will "send experts from Ukraine" to help Gulf states intercept drones. Presumably he means UK personnel who have been embedded in Ukraine and involved in their air defense.

Would probably be a good move for Zelensky to also offer Ukrainian personnel, at least what they can spare.

[Goose]

Multiple US bases with hits from Shahed drones. A startling failure imho. There seems to be no point defense systems active in all the strikes I have seen.

I agree that the US has no point defense systems installed on the ground at these bases. A 20mm Phalanx has a maximum range of 2000 meters. NSA Bahrain covers 152 acres. If it were a square (which obviously it isn't) it would be about 9670 meters on a side. Thus, to defend the entire base one would need about 8 CIWS. Obviously defending the entire base may be unnecessary. One could choose the "important" facilities and position the CIWS appropriately. This of course assumes the CWIS could "see" the slow drone at a range of 2000 meters. I don't know if it can or can't. I do know that there were several studies done to investigate its effectiveness against "small" drones and the results were not encouraging. The Shahed is larger, so it might work. In any case, as you point out, there are none installed. As with all point defense systems, particularly short range ones, they can be easily defeated by the simultaneous arrival of multiple targets. There simply isn't time to engage all the targets.

A CIWS doesn't require a lot of troops on the ground.

Agree, but since it is an "automatic" system care must be taken to de-conflict and identify "friendly" aircraft. Given that Bahrain is not a NATO member, IFF could be a real problem :-).

A helicopter with a side mount 50 cal could handle these.

How do they acquire the target? Helicopters don't have an appropriate radar. Visually? If so, it would be very, very easy to not see the target until it was way too late, or not at all, particularly at night. What if there are two missiles approaching from significantly different directions? I doubt very much that such a system would be effective.

I'm not saying the US can or should exactly adopt the Ukrainian system for dealing with these. There are unique factors to each conflict, and the US has much, much more money to throw at this problem than Ukraine. But the US should have effective ways of dealing with these and they are not being used, or used effectively.

In this we agree. In the past we have demonstrated that our AWACS plus fighters based system worked pretty well. The shorter range is problematic but not insurmountable. Even the "best" systems will have "leakers", but the number of leakers getting through is way, way too high. I am not privy to the causes of the problem. I suspect it may be assigning an inadequate number of fighters to the task. The controllers may be running out of assets and some Shaheds may get through without being engaged at all. The other problem could be detection, but since that hasn't been an issue in the past I can't imagine it is now.
 
IMO the "best" approach to a barrier defense system for this conflict would be small (300 tons or so) combatants carrying cheap short range APKWS missiles stationed about 30 miles into the Gulf. The would get tasking from the AWACS for targets that couldn't be engaged by fighters or that were but got through anyway. They would carry an appropriate radar. Of course, we don't have such an option. We do have the option of installing APKWS missiles in a point defense role, but acquisition would be a problem. They are a "last ditch" system at that point and they have a very short engagement window. The 30 miles into the Gulf gives the shipboard systems a larger window.

[Goose]

Multiple US bases with hits from Shahed drones. A startling failure imho. There seems to be no point defense systems active in all the strikes I have seen.

I agree that the US has no point defense systems installed on the ground at these bases. A 20mm Phalanx has a maximum range of 2000 meters. NSA Bahrain covers 152 acres. If it were a square (which obviously it isn't) it would be about 9670 meters on a side. Thus, to defend the entire base one would need about 8 CIWS. Obviously defending the entire base may be unnecessary. One could choose the "important" facilities and position the CIWS appropriately. This of course assumes the CWIS could "see" the slow drone at a range of 2000 meters. I don't know if it can or can't. I do know that there were several studies done to investigate its effectiveness against "small" drones and the results were not encouraging. The Shahed is larger, so it might work. In any case, as you point out, there are none installed. As with all point defense systems, particularly short range ones, they can be easily defeated by the simultaneous arrival of multiple targets. There simply isn't time to engage all the targets.

A CIWS doesn't require a lot of troops on the ground.

Agree, but since it is an "automatic" system care must be taken to de-conflict and identify "friendly" aircraft. Given that Bahrain is not a NATO member, IFF could be a real problem :-).

A helicopter with a side mount 50 cal could handle these.

How do they acquire the target? Helicopters don't have an appropriate radar. Visually? If so, it would be very, very easy to not see the target until it was way too late, or not at all, particularly at night. What if there are two missiles approaching from significantly different directions? I doubt very much that such a system would be effective.

I'm not saying the US can or should exactly adopt the Ukrainian system for dealing with these. There are unique factors to each conflict, and the US has much, much more money to throw at this problem than Ukraine. But the US should have effective ways of dealing with these and they are not being used, or used effectively.

In this we agree. In the past we have demonstrated that our AWACS plus fighters based system worked pretty well. The shorter range is problematic but not insurmountable. Even the "best" systems will have "leakers", but the number of leakers getting through is way, way too high. I am not privy to the causes of the problem. I suspect it may be assigning an inadequate number of fighters to the task. The controllers may be running out of assets and some Shaheds may get through without being engaged at all. The other problem could be detection, but since that hasn't been an issue in the past I can't imagine it is now.
 
IMO the "best" approach to a barrier defense system for this conflict would be small (300 tons or so) combatants carrying cheap short range APKWS missiles stationed about 30 miles into the Gulf. The would get tasking from the AWACS for targets that couldn't be engaged by fighters or that were but got through anyway. They would carry an appropriate radar. Of course, we don't have such an option. We do have the option of installing APKWS missiles in a point defense role, but acquisition would be a problem. They are a "last ditch" system at that point and they have a very short engagement window. The 30 miles into the Gulf gives the shipboard systems a larger window.

[BostonCard]

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail...ed_article

Per the (gifted) Economist article, Russia captured 0.83% of Ukranian territory in 2025.  Since they have just about 20% of Ukranian territory, at this pace they should control all of Ukraine in 96 years. Yeah, I know it doesn’t work that way, but it does suggest that they can hold out longer than 73 year old Vladimir Putin.

BC

[BostonCard]

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail...ed_article

Per the (gifted) Economist article, Russia captured 0.83% of Ukranian territory in 2025.  Since they have just about 20% of Ukranian territory, at this pace they should control all of Ukraine in 96 years. Yeah, I know it doesn’t work that way, but it does suggest that they can hold out longer than 73 year old Vladimir Putin.

BC

[Goose]

In order to get a sense of what Ukraine has to deal with it is IMO helpful to compare the Ukrainian situation to what we see in the Iran-US conflict so far. According to many reports, Russia is building about 5,000 Shahed-136 (Geran-2) drones per month. https://understandingwar.org/research/ad...leets%20of Presumably Russia fires about that number into Ukraine each month. That requires Ukraine to defend against 166 drones per day. Of course, Russia may concentrate a weeks supply of drones into on attack, resulting in a 1167 drone strike arriving as near simultaneously as Russia can manage.
 
So far, if one believes Google AI, in the current war Iran has fired over 1000 drones into Israel. It is unclear that any hits have been achieved by these drones. The damage done to Israel so far has been done by ballistic missiles that got through.

[*]Direct Attacks on Israel: According to the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), Iran launched approximately 1,000 drones and 550 ballistic missiles at Israel during the ongoing escalation.
[*]Regional Attacks: In addition to the strikes on Israel, Iran has fired hundreds of drones across the region, including over 541 at the U.A.E., 283 at Kuwait, 136 at Bahrain, and 12 at Qatar.

[*] 

[*]I am guessing that the US and Israel have greatly prioritized Israel's defense over that of the Gulf states. The Gulf states are also much harder to defend because the Time of Flight (TOF) for the drones is much shorter than the trip to Israel. Supposedly 35 drones got through the UAE defenses, for a "leaker" rate of 6.5%. That isn't very good, especially compared to the Israel statistics. There is a major USAF base in Qatar. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Udeid_Air_Base I would expect a better performance going forward, but who knows what compromises the operational requirements are forcing on the USAF? That said, I expect better.

[Goose]

In order to get a sense of what Ukraine has to deal with it is IMO helpful to compare the Ukrainian situation to what we see in the Iran-US conflict so far. According to many reports, Russia is building about 5,000 Shahed-136 (Geran-2) drones per month. https://understandingwar.org/research/ad...leets%20of Presumably Russia fires about that number into Ukraine each month. That requires Ukraine to defend against 166 drones per day. Of course, Russia may concentrate a weeks supply of drones into on attack, resulting in a 1167 drone strike arriving as near simultaneously as Russia can manage.
 
So far, if one believes Google AI, in the current war Iran has fired over 1000 drones into Israel. It is unclear that any hits have been achieved by these drones. The damage done to Israel so far has been done by ballistic missiles that got through.

[*]Direct Attacks on Israel: According to the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), Iran launched approximately 1,000 drones and 550 ballistic missiles at Israel during the ongoing escalation.
[*]Regional Attacks: In addition to the strikes on Israel, Iran has fired hundreds of drones across the region, including over 541 at the U.A.E., 283 at Kuwait, 136 at Bahrain, and 12 at Qatar.

[*] 

[*]I am guessing that the US and Israel have greatly prioritized Israel's defense over that of the Gulf states. The Gulf states are also much harder to defend because the Time of Flight (TOF) for the drones is much shorter than the trip to Israel. Supposedly 35 drones got through the UAE defenses, for a "leaker" rate of 6.5%. That isn't very good, especially compared to the Israel statistics. There is a major USAF base in Qatar. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Udeid_Air_Base I would expect a better performance going forward, but who knows what compromises the operational requirements are forcing on the USAF? That said, I expect better.

[dabigv13]

Wow

"U.S. fighter jet pilot whose plane crashed in Kuwait was transported to safety by local residents, who placed him in the trunk of a car"

https://x.com/vvanwilgenburg/status/2028...01630?s=20

F15 shot down over Kuwait, presumed friendly fire.

https://x.com/anadoluagency/status/20283...68759?s=20

Gotta say, it's a different feeling seeing an F15 spinning down like that as compared to a Sukhoi.

I think most USAF F15s have two crew. Glad at least one of them seems alright.
.....


Oh and we haven't even mentioned but Pakistan is prosecuting a miniature version of this war in Afghanistan. Crazy times.

.....

Latest from Kuwaiti Army says several US aircraft crashed. Yikes. Sounds like all crew safe

https://x.com/KuwaitArmyGHQ/status/2028374052260245633

[dabigv13]

Wow

"U.S. fighter jet pilot whose plane crashed in Kuwait was transported to safety by local residents, who placed him in the trunk of a car"

https://x.com/vvanwilgenburg/status/2028...01630?s=20

F15 shot down over Kuwait, presumed friendly fire.

https://x.com/anadoluagency/status/20283...68759?s=20

Gotta say, it's a different feeling seeing an F15 spinning down like that as compared to a Sukhoi.

I think most USAF F15s have two crew. Glad at least one of them seems alright.
.....


Oh and we haven't even mentioned but Pakistan is prosecuting a miniature version of this war in Afghanistan. Crazy times.

.....

Latest from Kuwaiti Army says several US aircraft crashed. Yikes. Sounds like all crew safe

https://x.com/KuwaitArmyGHQ/status/2028374052260245633

[BostonCard]

Oh and we haven't even mentioned but Pakistan is prosecuting a miniature version of this war in Afghanistan. Crazy times.

The irony of Pakistan being betrayed by an erstwhile ally is thick.

BC

[BostonCard]

Oh and we haven't even mentioned but Pakistan is prosecuting a miniature version of this war in Afghanistan. Crazy times.

The irony of Pakistan being betrayed by an erstwhile ally is thick.

BC

[Goose]

Wow

"U.S. fighter jet pilot whose plane crashed in Kuwait was transported to safety by local residents, who placed him in the trunk of a car"

https://x.com/vvanwilgenburg/status/2028...01630?s=20

F15 shot down over Kuwait, presumed friendly fire.

https://x.com/anadoluagency/status/20283...68759?s=20

Gotta say, it's a different feeling seeing an F15 spinning down like that as compared to a Sukhoi.

Yep.

I think most USAF F15s have two crew. Glad at least one of them seems alright.

F-15Es do, and are primarily air to ground platforms. All other versions of the F-15 are single-seat. What these platforms were doing is a bit of a mystery to me. Perhaps they were engaged in some kind of anti-drone activity because there were no single-seat F-15s available and/or they were using the WSO to acquire targets visually. If the latter, Yikes! AFAIK Iran still has enough air defense capability that it is unlikely F-15Es are being allowed to operate there in daylight, and the plane pictured doesn't seem to be carrying a heavy load of external stores. Could have been on the way home though. That would make it look more like an aircraft coming from Iran to attack.
 
As I said above, IFF in the Gulf state area can be a problem. It would be interesting to hear the radio calls before the incident. It would also be interesting to know what hit the F-15s. The missile was obviously big enough to take it down, but not big enough to cause a "unplanned disassembly". Perhaps a MANPADS?????

UPDATE: The US has announced they have local air superiority in some areas of Iran. These F-15EXs were on their way back to the US air base in Kuwait. They were hit about 6 miles out. They were undoubtedly not expecting opposition and were  "low and slow". The back story here will be fascinating I'm sure, if it is ever told.

[Goose]

Wow

"U.S. fighter jet pilot whose plane crashed in Kuwait was transported to safety by local residents, who placed him in the trunk of a car"

https://x.com/vvanwilgenburg/status/2028...01630?s=20

F15 shot down over Kuwait, presumed friendly fire.

https://x.com/anadoluagency/status/20283...68759?s=20

Gotta say, it's a different feeling seeing an F15 spinning down like that as compared to a Sukhoi.

Yep.

I think most USAF F15s have two crew. Glad at least one of them seems alright.

F-15Es do, and are primarily air to ground platforms. All other versions of the F-15 are single-seat. What these platforms were doing is a bit of a mystery to me. Perhaps they were engaged in some kind of anti-drone activity because there were no single-seat F-15s available and/or they were using the WSO to acquire targets visually. If the latter, Yikes! AFAIK Iran still has enough air defense capability that it is unlikely F-15Es are being allowed to operate there in daylight, and the plane pictured doesn't seem to be carrying a heavy load of external stores. Could have been on the way home though. That would make it look more like an aircraft coming from Iran to attack.
 
As I said above, IFF in the Gulf state area can be a problem. It would be interesting to hear the radio calls before the incident. It would also be interesting to know what hit the F-15s. The missile was obviously big enough to take it down, but not big enough to cause a "unplanned disassembly". Perhaps a MANPADS?????

UPDATE: The US has announced they have local air superiority in some areas of Iran. These F-15EXs were on their way back to the US air base in Kuwait. They were hit about 6 miles out. They were undoubtedly not expecting opposition and were  "low and slow". The back story here will be fascinating I'm sure, if it is ever told.

[M T]

Today.com says the US says the aircraft were shot down by Kuwait in a friendly fire incident. 

I think about the timing of this special military operation. It seems Hegeseth rammed through his decisions on Anthropic and the (Boy) Scouts on Friday night, before the attack was launched early on Saturday. 

Oh, don’t forget to vote on Tuesday if you have elections. The races in Texas were going to be interesting.

[M T]

Today.com says the US says the aircraft were shot down by Kuwait in a friendly fire incident. 

I think about the timing of this special military operation. It seems Hegeseth rammed through his decisions on Anthropic and the (Boy) Scouts on Friday night, before the attack was launched early on Saturday. 

Oh, don’t forget to vote on Tuesday if you have elections. The races in Texas were going to be interesting.

[dabigv13]

More wild videos

An American soldier filming a Shahed drone hitting a base in Kuwait

"That's my f^cking truck!"

https://x.com/Mollyploofkins/status/2028...55886?s=20

Kuwaitis approaching a crewmember from one of the three(!) downed F15s. All seem in good spirits.

https://x.com/Osinttechnical/status/2028...61388?s=20

Seemingly the moment one of the F15s is hit.

https://x.com/Osinttechnical/status/2028...25311?s=20

[dabigv13]

More wild videos

An American soldier filming a Shahed drone hitting a base in Kuwait

"That's my f^cking truck!"

https://x.com/Mollyploofkins/status/2028...55886?s=20

Kuwaitis approaching a crewmember from one of the three(!) downed F15s. All seem in good spirits.

https://x.com/Osinttechnical/status/2028...61388?s=20

Seemingly the moment one of the F15s is hit.

https://x.com/Osinttechnical/status/2028...25311?s=20

[BostonCard]

Question for Goose (or anyone who would know).  I saw this on Twitter (so this is also a bit of a fact check):

Before today, no F-15 had been shot down in more than 35 years — since January 19, 1991, during the Persian Gulf War.
Before today, the U.S. had never had more than one aircraft shot down by friendly fire in a single day, let alone three.
The number of fixed-wing aircraft lost in friendly fire incidents today equals the number lost during the entire 20-year span of conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan since 9/11.

Sounds like all three were shot down by Kuwaiti air defenses. https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/02/middleeas...n-intl-hnk

So, what gives?  Did the Kuwaitis panic?  Do they not have the compatible IFF and assume they were Iranian jets?  Did we just not coordinate well with them?  Whatever else you might think of the conflict (and I definitely have thoughts that are not appropriate for this forum) the execution otherwise looks great.  But that is a little bit like fumbling the ball on the 1 yard line after breaking off a gorgeous play from scrimmage.

BC

[BostonCard]

Question for Goose (or anyone who would know).  I saw this on Twitter (so this is also a bit of a fact check):

Before today, no F-15 had been shot down in more than 35 years — since January 19, 1991, during the Persian Gulf War.
Before today, the U.S. had never had more than one aircraft shot down by friendly fire in a single day, let alone three.
The number of fixed-wing aircraft lost in friendly fire incidents today equals the number lost during the entire 20-year span of conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan since 9/11.

Sounds like all three were shot down by Kuwaiti air defenses. https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/02/middleeas...n-intl-hnk

So, what gives?  Did the Kuwaitis panic?  Do they not have the compatible IFF and assume they were Iranian jets?  Did we just not coordinate well with them?  Whatever else you might think of the conflict (and I definitely have thoughts that are not appropriate for this forum) the execution otherwise looks great.  But that is a little bit like fumbling the ball on the 1 yard line after breaking off a gorgeous play from scrimmage.

BC

[dabigv13]

Impressive footage of an American C-RAM point defense weapon taking out an Iranian drone. This seems to be a CIWS like the USN has, adapted for land use. Looks to be at pretty close range.

https://x.com/Osinttechnical/status/2028...73206?s=20

From Wikipedia these are the rounds it fires-

The M940 MPT-SD (multi-purpose tracer, self-destruct) shell is a 20×102 mm round produced by General Dynamics primarily for an anti-aircraft role. It has a range of over 2,000 metres (6,600 ft). The round includes a red tracer to aid in targeting. The round includes a high explosive and incendiary component and can also defeat light armor (hence its multi-purpose designation). The self-destruct feature engages at approximately 2,300 metres (7,500 ft) and destroys the round, preventing it from falling back to earth and inflicting damage on the surrounding territory. The price per round in 2008 was approximately $27.

[dabigv13]

Impressive footage of an American C-RAM point defense weapon taking out an Iranian drone. This seems to be a CIWS like the USN has, adapted for land use. Looks to be at pretty close range.

https://x.com/Osinttechnical/status/2028...73206?s=20

From Wikipedia these are the rounds it fires-

The M940 MPT-SD (multi-purpose tracer, self-destruct) shell is a 20×102 mm round produced by General Dynamics primarily for an anti-aircraft role. It has a range of over 2,000 metres (6,600 ft). The round includes a red tracer to aid in targeting. The round includes a high explosive and incendiary component and can also defeat light armor (hence its multi-purpose designation). The self-destruct feature engages at approximately 2,300 metres (7,500 ft) and destroys the round, preventing it from falling back to earth and inflicting damage on the surrounding territory. The price per round in 2008 was approximately $27.

[Goose]

Question for Goose (or anyone who would know).  I saw this on Twitter (so this is also a bit of a fact check):

Before today, no F-15 had been shot down in more than 35 years — since January 19, 1991, during the Persian Gulf War.
Before today, the U.S. had never had more than one aircraft shot down by friendly fire in a single day, let alone three.
The number of fixed-wing aircraft lost in friendly fire incidents today equals the number lost during the entire 20-year span of conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan since 9/11.

Sounds like all three were shot down by Kuwaiti air defenses. https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/02/middleeas...n-intl-hnk

So, what gives?  Did the Kuwaitis panic?  Do they not have the compatible IFF and assume they were Iranian jets?  Did we just not coordinate well with them?  Whatever else you might think of the conflict (and I definitely have thoughts that are not appropriate for this forum) the execution otherwise looks great.  But that is a little bit like fumbling the ball on the 1 yard line after breaking off a gorgeous play from scrimmage.

BC

The F-15 is still 104-0 in air-to-air combat. That is all the zoomies count :-). As to the cause of this "incident", I really don't know, and I doubt anybody fully does yet. There are lots of possibilities. We still don't know what type of system shot down the F-15s. Kuwait has Patriot systems and IHawk systems. The Patriot is link-16 capable, the IHawk as built was not, but perhaps there is some kind of an add-on. In any case, I don't know if Kuwait is on that network. My guess is no. I would like to believe that the US and Kuwait have some means of sharing the air picture. I am virtually certain that the Kuwaitis do not have the latest NATO IFF systems installed in their air-to-air batteries. In so far has they have IFF it will be older, less secure systems.
 
The USAF isn't all that good at coalition warfare in general. The USAF is very procedure oriented. Some say it is a SAC legacy, but in any case even during the cold war the USAF made the PVO look "loosey-goosey" in many ways. Those procedures are second nature to them. The problem in coalition warfare is that our partners don't necessarily even know all those procedures and those procedures may not be executable by the partner or appropriate to the situation. Even if the USAF attempts to "work around" this limitation, at times the people actually flying the missions will revert to habit, or some checklist won't get changed to match the "new" procedure. People also make mistakes. One possible issue is that the F-15s didn't change transponder modes when they left Iran to a mode the Kuwaitis could interrogate. This wouldn't be a "normal" action so maybe it didn't get done. The US air base could identify them as blue force because they would answer the NATO interrogation sequences. The Kuwaitis would not because the F-15s wouldn't respond to the format of interrogation available to the Kuwaitis. There are all kinds of variations on this theme.
 
I would like to believe it wasn't a Patriot or an IHAWK that was responsible for the shoot down. If it was, much like the Vincennes  incident, the missile should have been launched much sooner. The F-15s were already feet dry. As with the Vincennes the Kuwaiti battery commander may have been agonizing about not being absolutely sure of the target identity and actually waited too long. This is a situation where peacetime training often does not match the real situation. I am kind of the belief that it wasn't a "regular" air defense battery that did the deed but rather a MANPADS or similar missile. Part wishful thinking, but supported two factors. First the F-15s got into Kuwait and were not fired upon until they were 6 miles from "home". If it was "regular" air defense, they were very sloppy and indecisive. Given their country was under attack by drones I would expect them to be trigger-happy, not "late". Second, IMO it is unlikely that all three crews would have gotten out if it was a Patriot or HAWK. At least one of the airplanes, and probably more, would have been hit badly enough that somebody would have died. The one video that I have seen looks more like a hit from an infrared seeker missile with a smaller warhead. Given almost no real data, this guess is exactly that.

UPDATE: This video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3ihVQLDCjA) is probably worth a look. At the 5:30 mark it states that unlike the other Gulf nations Kuwait "apparently" has link 16. Not a definite statement, but if so it becomes even harder to understand a Patriot being involved. Kuwait  also has SPADA 2000 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspide)  systems. This is a candidate to be seriously examined. How is it integrated into link 16, if at all. Smaller missile, has its own autonomous acquisition radar, shorter range.....

[Goose]

Question for Goose (or anyone who would know).  I saw this on Twitter (so this is also a bit of a fact check):

Before today, no F-15 had been shot down in more than 35 years — since January 19, 1991, during the Persian Gulf War.
Before today, the U.S. had never had more than one aircraft shot down by friendly fire in a single day, let alone three.
The number of fixed-wing aircraft lost in friendly fire incidents today equals the number lost during the entire 20-year span of conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan since 9/11.

Sounds like all three were shot down by Kuwaiti air defenses. https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/02/middleeas...n-intl-hnk

So, what gives?  Did the Kuwaitis panic?  Do they not have the compatible IFF and assume they were Iranian jets?  Did we just not coordinate well with them?  Whatever else you might think of the conflict (and I definitely have thoughts that are not appropriate for this forum) the execution otherwise looks great.  But that is a little bit like fumbling the ball on the 1 yard line after breaking off a gorgeous play from scrimmage.

BC

The F-15 is still 104-0 in air-to-air combat. That is all the zoomies count :-). As to the cause of this "incident", I really don't know, and I doubt anybody fully does yet. There are lots of possibilities. We still don't know what type of system shot down the F-15s. Kuwait has Patriot systems and IHawk systems. The Patriot is link-16 capable, the IHawk as built was not, but perhaps there is some kind of an add-on. In any case, I don't know if Kuwait is on that network. My guess is no. I would like to believe that the US and Kuwait have some means of sharing the air picture. I am virtually certain that the Kuwaitis do not have the latest NATO IFF systems installed in their air-to-air batteries. In so far has they have IFF it will be older, less secure systems.
 
The USAF isn't all that good at coalition warfare in general. The USAF is very procedure oriented. Some say it is a SAC legacy, but in any case even during the cold war the USAF made the PVO look "loosey-goosey" in many ways. Those procedures are second nature to them. The problem in coalition warfare is that our partners don't necessarily even know all those procedures and those procedures may not be executable by the partner or appropriate to the situation. Even if the USAF attempts to "work around" this limitation, at times the people actually flying the missions will revert to habit, or some checklist won't get changed to match the "new" procedure. People also make mistakes. One possible issue is that the F-15s didn't change transponder modes when they left Iran to a mode the Kuwaitis could interrogate. This wouldn't be a "normal" action so maybe it didn't get done. The US air base could identify them as blue force because they would answer the NATO interrogation sequences. The Kuwaitis would not because the F-15s wouldn't respond to the format of interrogation available to the Kuwaitis. There are all kinds of variations on this theme.
 
I would like to believe it wasn't a Patriot or an IHAWK that was responsible for the shoot down. If it was, much like the Vincennes  incident, the missile should have been launched much sooner. The F-15s were already feet dry. As with the Vincennes the Kuwaiti battery commander may have been agonizing about not being absolutely sure of the target identity and actually waited too long. This is a situation where peacetime training often does not match the real situation. I am kind of the belief that it wasn't a "regular" air defense battery that did the deed but rather a MANPADS or similar missile. Part wishful thinking, but supported two factors. First the F-15s got into Kuwait and were not fired upon until they were 6 miles from "home". If it was "regular" air defense, they were very sloppy and indecisive. Given their country was under attack by drones I would expect them to be trigger-happy, not "late". Second, IMO it is unlikely that all three crews would have gotten out if it was a Patriot or HAWK. At least one of the airplanes, and probably more, would have been hit badly enough that somebody would have died. The one video that I have seen looks more like a hit from an infrared seeker missile with a smaller warhead. Given almost no real data, this guess is exactly that.

UPDATE: This video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3ihVQLDCjA) is probably worth a look. At the 5:30 mark it states that unlike the other Gulf nations Kuwait "apparently" has link 16. Not a definite statement, but if so it becomes even harder to understand a Patriot being involved. Kuwait  also has SPADA 2000 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspide)  systems. This is a candidate to be seriously examined. How is it integrated into link 16, if at all. Smaller missile, has its own autonomous acquisition radar, shorter range.....

[dabigv13]

Ukraine (presumably) struck a Russian tanker in the med with naval drones.

https://x.com/bayraktar_1love/status/202...53524?s=20

[dabigv13]

Ukraine (presumably) struck a Russian tanker in the med with naval drones.

https://x.com/bayraktar_1love/status/202...53524?s=20

[TrumpCard]

Fukuyama's "The End of History" is looking less prescient by the day.

[TrumpCard]

Fukuyama's "The End of History" is looking less prescient by the day.