upvote
On top of these cases there is all of the aircraft that has been destroyed while grounded. The high tech AWACS getting blown up was a big hit, among others. The losses are likely much worse than we know since the military has been trying to keep a lid on most of them.
reply
Not to mention the multiple THAAD radars taken offline. Those are $500M assets - and only 8 exist in the world. 24,000 precise transceivers all liquid cooled… not available on Amazon for next day deliver either.
reply
a single AN/FPS-132 radar costs $1.1 bln, not $500m. And Iran stuck 17 of the CENCCOM sites hosting radars of all kinds across Qarar, Bahrain, Iraq, UAE, Saudi, Jordan, Israel, etc).

Total cost is so much bigger, it is staggering. The whole CENTCOM is blind basically, as well as Iron Dome which relied on these radars - all blind now, in addition to long-range early nuke detection to protect CONUS is also blind.

in addition to cost, they all require Rare Earth Minerals, and China has banned the export of these (they own like 99% of the market).

So not only CENTCOM is blind and incurred damage in high single digit billions, but also will be unable to repair the damage any time soon (probably for decades) even if the funding were made to be available

Government obviously pretty silent on all these failures and media doesn't want to dig and ask hard questions

Sources: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/03/world/middleeast/iran-str...

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/iran-radars-airstrikes/

reply
> Iron Dome relied on these radars — all blind now.

Iron Dome’s primary fire-control radar is the Israeli EL/M-2084 Multi-Mission Radar, not the USA’s AN/FPS-132

reply
>So not only CENTCOM is blind and incurred damage in high single digit billions, but also will be unable to repair the damage any time soon (probably for decades) even if the funding were made to be available

not just what i quoted, but your source does not say any of what you are saying.

your source says: Satellite images show damage near vital equipment on sites in at least five countries https://archive.ph/QHNXW

reply
> Government obviously pretty silent on all these failures and media doesn't want to dig and ask hard questions

Some analysts are sure drumming up the severity [0]. In the fog of war, it is hard to tell what's exaggerated and what's not. The proposal by the current US Admin to increase defence spending by 40% to $1.5t is not a welcome sign for those opposed to heavy spending, for any number of reasons.

[0] https://shanakaanslemperera.substack.com/p/the-last-molecule... / https://archive.vn/5H0L5

reply
This is good news. Actually not for those whom chose to start the 2nd Epstein war.

I really hope that Israeli and Iranian governments both go to hell. May both destroy each other.

reply
For the United States, the government doesn't have the capability to extricate Israel from its political system, but the feds can create blowback for Israel which makes them less capable to influence the US in the future while achieving other strategic aims in the region. US war planners know plenty about blow back and I think this is being done on purpose. I am terrified for innocent Israelis, Iranians and Gulf state residents that have been led into this. Most of the states and peoples in the Middle East who have been destroyed used to be allies with the US. That isn't on accident.
reply
Government could sanction Israel like they did to Iran.
reply
deleted
reply
Fact check on this brand new account?
reply
I read the source he listed and it doesn't say any of that
reply
Ah thanks, I think that was added after I commented.
reply
If you spend a moment to verify the info that is the fact check.

No one can do the thinking for you.

reply
Did a quick search, didn’t see confirmation that they’re blind/that all radars had been knocked out. Was asking whether others who know more about this topic than me would confirm.
reply
This is the second time in 2 weeks I’ve seen a comment like this on HN. 37 years old. Been on here 16 years. Incredibly odd to me. Just announce “can someone else tell me if this is true?”
reply
That’s what I was doing, because I don’t think assertions like “CENTCOM is blind” should just sit out there without evidence.
reply
Then go get some! It adds nothing but spam when you to take time from your busy day to tell us what to do
reply
Are you asking someone to fact check publicly available information for you ? Even NYT reported this
reply
Traveling with kids on spring break, I don’t have time to read all war related news, and it tends to set off my propaganda account alarm when someone registers a new account to drop a bunch of assertions on such a politically divisive topic. So I was asking whether someone could confirm things like “The whole CENTCOM is blind basically, as well as Iron Dome which relied on these radars - all blind now, in addition to long-range early nuke detection to protect CONUS is also blind.”

There’s a good reason new accounts are colored green.

reply
New account that only has politics-adjacent posts; worth being skeptical.
reply
Is this story even true ? There has been fake AI photo about destructed THAAD radars : https://factcheck.afp.com/doc.afp.com.A2B239E
reply
If you scroll to the bottom of that page, they discuss possible evidence of damage to the radar from satellite imagery.
reply
AFAIK, the one in Qatar was paid by Qatar and operated by US.
reply
we have likely moved on from this to satellite as a stop gap.
reply
Moved on how? Satellites are useful for launch detection and cueing but as far as we know there isn't a satellite constellation capable of tracking airborne targets with enough precision for targeting. And the military couldn't really keep such satellites secret: the emissions would be impossible to hide.
reply
Cmon. At least it is all justified with good reasons!
reply
deleted
reply
[dead]
reply
This is exactly the situation I think of when I hear news of rescue missions. Running a rescue in a place with functional air defense is a recursive rescue problem that could quickly get out of control.
reply
Isn't that basically the plotline of the Blackhawk Down movie?

And, more importantly, the real-life events on which it's based?

reply
Exactly what happens to me in Kerbel Space Program.

Rescue team for the rescue team.

reply
Did you tactically forgot to put parachute on the landing pod? Or run out of fuel mid mission?
reply
The first time I ever attempted a rescue mission in KSP, I ended up stranding 5 different kerbals in various orbita nearby trying to get the first one, and of course every one was a bigger and more complicated craft trying to save as many kerbals as possible. Eventually I just gave up and put a giant cross memorial in orbit, part as a reference to Neon Genesis Evangelion, and part as a memorial to the like 6 kerbals I left stranded in space.
reply
Slaps car, thsi baby can fit soo many rescue teams in it
reply
The US did it all the time in Vietnam.
reply
And it did sometimes get way out of control: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rescue_of_Bat_21_Bravo
reply
That's an example of things getting out of control.
reply
Possibly the best example
reply
Not sure if it was actually used, but a fun idea for pilot recovery..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiller_ROE_Rotorcycle

reply
…against the viet cong, where the biggest risk was the pilot getting pierced from small arms fire (in addition to the helo going down from pilot error). Quite different from the anti-air weapons modern day Iran possesses.
reply
Are you aware that hundreds of American fixed wing aircraft were lost to surface to air missiles in North Vietnam? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._aircraft_losses_t...
reply
Ah yeah, well I didn’t know it was that high!

But I’m responding to the rescue mission comment, which, since Vietnam, have overwhelmingly employed helicopters (Huey’s then, Black Hawks today). But machinery aside, the larger point is that air operations will likely go worse here than they did in Vietnam, unfortunately for both sides.

reply
Or a MiG-17 that could outrate your F-4/F-105 at every subsonic flight regime.
reply
What are A-10s doing there? There isn't yet any ground operation, right?
reply
They were largely being used for maritime patrol against fast boats. I saw a newsblurb a couple days ago that more were being sent to the region.
reply
To my understanding blowing up drone boats designed to destroy shipping.
reply
Cheaper to operate than any fighter, longer endurance, good for patrolling over the Strait. Filling the gap between helicopters and fighters with a big, but cheap cannon.
reply
The A-10 carries AGM 88 anti-radiation missiles, and while it's a slow aircraft it can still passably perform SEAD with the AGM 88.
reply
deleted
reply
Manpads (man portable air defense) works just fine.
reply
"Just fine" for what? AGM88 is air-to-ground and manpads are surface-to-air. If you're implying that manpads work just fine instead of A-10s, you're wrong.
reply
I'm not sure that I understand what you are implying.
reply
That A-10’s can’t suppress manpads
reply
Geran-2 (which is Russian licenced Shahed drone) also carries air-to-air missile, so sending slow archaic manned airframe is just suicide mission (aka shaheed)

https://militarnyi.com/en/news/russia-used-shahed-drone-arme...

reply
That is not a Shahed drone, that is a Geran-2 drone. Which is similar from the outside but not the same. Also Iran doesn't have stock of R-60s I think.
reply
Well, A-10s are well suited for strafing runs, etc. Presumably they'd be sent in if the area they're entering is presumed safe. That clearly didn't pan out.

The reality is avoiding a ground operation was probably the wrong move at this point (ignoring the spicier broader debate of if the whole Iran campaign was the right call or not)

It's really hard to truly guarantee surface to air capabilities are gone when you're relying purely on sat images + aerial surveillance (and obviously this carries risk). Iran has fairly portable SAM systems that are public knowledge.

reply
> ignoring the spicier broader debate of if the whole Iran campaign was the right call or not

How spicy of a debate is that really? How many people outside of the admin and the dwindling hardcore trump base actually thought this was a good idea?

reply
Apparently 37.7% of Americans, so roughly 116 million people, support the war. I'm not sure "this was a good idea" was a the exact question though.

https://yougov.com/en-us/articles/54454-most-americans-oppos...

https://www.natesilver.net/p/iran-war-polls-popularity-appro...

Clearly this war isn't popular but that's a far cry from saying there's no debate. Like many other topics/questions we're seeing people following their tribe and bubbles rather than actual debating.

reply
>>How many people outside of the admin and the dwindling hardcore trump base actually thought this was a good idea?

> Apparently 37.7% of Americans,

These are the same thing. The MAGA base is fracturing and the polls are showing that with the very number you are using as a retort.

reply
I would question to what extent repeating propaganda, qualifies as debate.

Even if you do say that it qualifies, it doesn't qualify as productive debate.

There is really no productive debate to be had here. Even if you think that Iran needed to be bombed, it took absurd incompetence to start doing so before planning how to handle asymmetric warfare against drones in an affordable way.

reply
I also think there was an initial “euphoria” (I guess) during the initial days of the campaign.

People I know (even Iranian expats) were excited to see the regime get hammered and there was hope for possibility of change (and also a little bloodlust)… but I think as the war drags on and the US is exposed to be in an un-winnable mess, sentiment will continue to sour.

This has already started to happen in Nate Silver’s post you linked.

reply
Your first link says 28% support it, so somewhere between 28 and 37%. I do wonder how many of those people could find Iran on a map, though I suppose you could ask the same about the people who are against it.
reply
I lost trust in humanity when I saw how many people on HN fell for the CERN Mario Kart April fools article.
reply
[dead]
reply
75 million using the YouGov number and just under 100 million using the Nate Silver average. (I think you must have used the more Trump-favorable number AND included children in your computation, which is not reasonable.)

Also worth noting that Nate Silver's measure has been declining for almost 3 weeks, the majority of the duration of the invasion.

Before the invasion, a University of Mariland poll says 55 million and a YouTov poll says 71 million support. These are useful numbers because we know there's a rally around the flag effect that distorts thinking during a conflict.

https://criticalissues.umd.edu/feature/do-americans-favor-at... https://yougov.com/en-us/articles/54158-few-americans-suppor...

reply
20-25% of Americans would support Trump pulling his pants down and taking a shit on the floor in the oval office on live TV. These people's opinions shouldn't be taken into account or respected in these discussions.
reply
Surprisingly so, I would say. Without going into any identifying details, my buddy, who is otherwise fairly reasonable, thinks it was. I disagree. Reported country split ( US ) seems to fall some along common political lines though, so maybe we shouldn't be so surprised.

Then again.. I can no longer can rely on those surveys in any meaningful way.

reply
> seems to fall some along common political lines though

While true, I think it's more correct to say that the determining factor is which television news media people most readily consume.

reply
deleted
reply
As a person who believes in democracy, I'm pretty on board with it. My only complaint is they didn't do these strikes when the massive street protests were happening a few months ago.
reply
This is what bringing democracy looks like?! The regime is more entrenched than ever and our commander in chief keeps threatening to commit war crimes on a massive scale. If he follows through on what he says he will do and obliterates all the civilian infrastructure in the country it will kill mass numbers of innocent people and turn millions of survivors into impoverished refugees.

As bad as the regime is, and it's very bad, what we're doing is even worse for most Iranians and the odds a democratic government arises from the ashes of our bombing campaign is incredibly unlikely.

reply
As a person who believes in democracy, don't you think it should be the US Congress the one declaring war?
reply
Supporting an illegal war would be a funny way to support democracy. Or maybe they believe in democracies that ignore their constitution.
reply
> As a person who believes in democracy, I'm pretty on board with it.

As others have stated. This war will not bring democracy. Bombing Iranians have united them with the regime.

Also, US and Israel do not want a democracy in Iran. Israel would prefer a non-functioning place like Palestine or a mostly non-functional place like Lebanon that they can easily control.

reply
Yes, bombing schools, universities and dessalination plants is a sure way to have more democracy in a country. Especially double taps where you kill the rescuers.

The US have so many examples where they did so and worked!

reply
Oh, didn't you hear, we actually _triple tapped_ the school, so after the first wave of rescuers was also hit, anyone who came to help was also attacked.

Totally not a war crime.

reply
[dead]
reply
Would you say you fall into the hardcore trump base category?
reply
No, I disagree with trump on most things, including possibly why he started the war.
reply
Why did he start the war?
reply
Well, I have no idea. I'm just guessing it's not the reason I like the war.

I generally only attempt to scrutinize government action, and not government reason for action. Random citizens are at such an information disadvantage that I think it would be impossible to have an informed opinion as an outsider on the reasoning.

It could be as simple as "Iran kept trying to assassinate me so I'm going to assassinate them". Maybe he was pressured by Israel, I really have no idea.

reply
Why do you think he actually started the war?

As opposed to the myriad of reasons he and the administration have given, differing sometimes on an hourly basis, as to why he started it?

reply
deleted
reply
>"As a person who believes in democracy"

Is this a new spelling of fuck whatever semblance of international laws we have and big dicks do as they please?

reply
Bringing democracy and freedom to the world by bombing school children. God bless America!
reply
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of school children.
reply
In line with that logic, how is Ukraine protecting its freedom by bombing an ice rink in belgorod?
reply
Attacking your attacker defends your freedom. Spontaneously attacking another country does not protect their freedom.
reply
Those children who were at the ice skating rink were also attacking Ukraine? Quite precocious!
reply
If this is a troll it is masterful. If it's an honest opinion I would invite you to check your skull for unexpected holes where your brain may have fallen out.
reply
deleted
reply
What do you think the odds are that this war results in more democracy?
reply
Like my math teacher was oft heard saying, "approaches zero".
reply
Literally none of the fighting countries want Iran to be democratic. Neither USA nor Israel nor Iran. Israel dont want the country functional and would prevent democracy. USA idea of regime change is to keep regime, change head for someone who pays extortion money. And if Iranian leadership wanted democracy they would have one. Not sure if you noticed, but American admin loves dictators and insults democracies

So ,WTF are you talking about here.

Also, bombing city with that double tap tactic during protests ensures you kill protesters.

reply
Having Iran be "non functional" would just be asking for even more hardliners take over, like what happened in syria. I don't take this to be actually indicative of their viewpoints.
reply
The A-10 is a horrible friendly-fire as a service. Might as well use the thing as a bomb truck while you are still forced to keep it in service because certain brain cell lacking individuals think brr is good.
reply
I always wondered why China doesn't flood foreign war zones with weapons to field test their fancy new gear against the USAF. Seems like a no-brainer.
reply
Your link and your quote does not say the A-10 was shot down though.
reply
It's on NYT site now.
reply
Their point is that the NYT says it crashed, the cause isn't clear.
reply
Do A-10's normally crash? Or is there reason to believe that an A-10 flying in hostile territory was downed because it was shot?
reply
It's an airplane. It is as susceptible to doors not being bolted on as much as a civilian flight. Maybe actually a higher chance of some benign mechanical issue as it is well known that air crews are often overworked with little to no sleep with the high tempo of sorties in these types of missions. Lots of historical examples of US military aircraft crashing from mechanical issues and not being shot down
reply
My comment was re: stating it as fact which is misleading. Beliefs or guesses are not facts.

Military airplanes do crash, there are lots of crashes every year: https://www.defenseone.com/threats/2025/11/military-aircraft...

At war there's a lot more pressure on ground and air crews that can lead to more mistakes. Also the mission would be flown closer to the limits vs. training.

So... We don't know? If your question is whether that's a good guess/greater than zero probability then sure. Is it a certainty? No. The Iranians will claim they shot it down. The Americans may or may not admit and if they deny then people will say they're lying.

reply