U.S. used 'virtually all' of its long-range precision missiles during Iran war • Hacker News Board

Re: U.S. used 'virtually all' of its long-range precision missiles during Iran war

#771

Post by firesteelrain » Sun, Aug 09, 2026, 8:13 AM UTC

maxglute wrote: post #770

firesteelrain wrote: post #769

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get what you are saying but one aircraft loss doesn’t constitute loss of air superiority. The way I see it you are inferring “US abandoned air superiority” from losses and reduced sortie generation. That may be your assessment, but it isn’t demonstrated by the evidence you’ve cited. [1] https://www.centcom.mil/MEDIA/PUBLIC-RELEASES/Article/445196... [2] https://www.centcom.mil/MEDIA/

In terms of attrition, its like 10% of reapers - 20-30% of operational fleet. 4% of CSAR MC130s, 5% of E3 AWACs, 2% of KC135s. Yes single digit %, but relative to timeframe not nothing for high value air assets/force multipliers that prerequisite/sustains air superiority. Enough to change US tactics, i.e. enough to compel US to abandon air superiority, hence US lost air superiority. Your article just demonstrate oper…

[dead]

Re: U.S. used 'virtually all' of its long-range precision missiles during Iran war

#772

Post by throwthrowuknow » Sun, Aug 09, 2026, 9:06 AM UTC

mrguyorama wrote: post #605

throwthrowuknow wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don’t worry, they can still carpet bomb with high explosive and nuclear always remains an option lest you forget.

The US does not have enough B52s and Mk 80s to carpet bomb a place the size of Iran. We barely managed it during Vietnam using depleting surplus and losing many irreplaceable airframes. "Carpet bombing Iran to rubble" literally is not an option

You wouldn’t level the entire country, Tehran is a massive target with a handful of other major centres. Comparisons to Vietnam forget the fact that Iran is very arid and highly dependent on infrastructure for water and energy. No power, water or fuel would cripple them and also collapse their agricultural capacity.

Re: U.S. used 'virtually all' of its long-range precision missiles during Iran war

#773

Post by maxglute » Sun, Aug 09, 2026, 12:39 PM UTC

maxglute wrote: post #770

firesteelrain wrote: post #769

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get what you are saying but one aircraft loss doesn’t constitute loss of air superiority. The way I see it you are inferring “US abandoned air superiority” from losses and reduced sortie generation. That may be your assessment, but it isn’t demonstrated by the evidence you’ve cited. [1] https://www.centcom.mil/MEDIA/PUBLIC-RELEASES/Article/445196... [2] https://www.centcom.mil/MEDIA/

In terms of attrition, its like 10% of reapers - 20-30% of operational fleet. 4% of CSAR MC130s, 5% of E3 AWACs, 2% of KC135s. Yes single digit %, but relative to timeframe not nothing for high value air assets/force multipliers that prerequisite/sustains air superiority. Enough to change US tactics, i.e. enough to compel US to abandon air superiority, hence US lost air superiority. Your article just demonstrate oper…

E: below comment dead.

>You still haven’t shown evidence that Iran denied US control of the air. You’re inferring that from force preservation and munitions usage.

The evidence is drumroll, US no longer overflying Iran, when in every other war in recent memory US had not just air superiority but air supremacy. The evidence is also US expending high % of global interceptors, which means US is functionally not capable of defending CENTCOM land basing. If US cannot defend CENTCOM land basing, US can not operate force multipliers, i.e. tankers, awacs at scale/tempo to sustain air control. Keep in mind Iran is 5x the size of Iraq and during Iraq US had more carriers and regional coalition assets to sustain a longer / broader air campaign. Taken together signs point to Iran's continued ability to generate fires, or rather US inability to defend against Iranian fires + inability to blunt Iranian fires to make CENTOM land basing viable.

The TLDR is US does not have enough stand off munition to defang Iran from hitting CENTCOM and not enough interceptors in CENTOM to blunt Iranian fires. Ergo US does not have the force posture for air supremacy anymore, and the only time it did was when it had ample standoff munitions, ample interceptors that could keep Iranian fires comprehensively suppressed. Now it has neither, so it is not in a state of reestablish air superiority let along supremacy, unless there is global stockpiles to try again, but ineffectively shifting more earth while Iranian drones and TELs chill in hardened tunnels is something something insanity doing same thing expecting different results, expect keep doing same thing undermines US global posture.

Re: U.S. used 'virtually all' of its long-range precision missiles during Iran war

#774

Post by firesteelrain » Sun, Aug 09, 2026, 4:58 PM UTC

maxglute wrote: post #773

maxglute wrote: post #770

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In terms of attrition, its like 10% of reapers - 20-30% of operational fleet. 4% of CSAR MC130s, 5% of E3 AWACs, 2% of KC135s. Yes single digit %, but relative to timeframe not nothing for high value air assets/force multipliers that prerequisite/sustains air superiority. Enough to change US tactics, i.e. enough to compel US to abandon air superiority, hence US lost air superiority. Your article just demonstrate oper…

E: below comment dead. >You still haven’t shown evidence that Iran denied US control of the air. You’re inferring that from force preservation and munitions usage. The evidence is drumroll, US no longer overflying Iran, when in every other war in recent memory US had not just air superiority but air supremacy. The evidence is also US expending high % of global interceptors, which means US is functionally not capable…

[dead]

Re: U.S. used 'virtually all' of its long-range precision missiles during Iran war

#775

Post by maxglute » Mon, Aug 10, 2026, 6:59 PM UTC

maxglute wrote: post #773

maxglute wrote: post #770

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In terms of attrition, its like 10% of reapers - 20-30% of operational fleet. 4% of CSAR MC130s, 5% of E3 AWACs, 2% of KC135s. Yes single digit %, but relative to timeframe not nothing for high value air assets/force multipliers that prerequisite/sustains air superiority. Enough to change US tactics, i.e. enough to compel US to abandon air superiority, hence US lost air superiority. Your article just demonstrate oper…

E: below comment dead. >You still haven’t shown evidence that Iran denied US control of the air. You’re inferring that from force preservation and munitions usage. The evidence is drumroll, US no longer overflying Iran, when in every other war in recent memory US had not just air superiority but air supremacy. The evidence is also US expending high % of global interceptors, which means US is functionally not capable…

>Strained interceptor stocks != Iran denied US air superiority. You still need evidence that US overflights stopped because Iran made the airspace untenable.

Every analysis is inference - evidence is US stopped overflight/airspace control efforts because we can infer from operational behavior and how it relates to stockpile levels and expenditures that US cannot maintain air superiority posture. Standoff strikes is definitionally NOT air superiority strikes, mounting news of US keep draining standoff stock pile to hit Iran is not reflection US has superiority but more evidence US does not. CENTCOM CONTINUING CONDUCTING STRIKES =/= AIR SUPERIORITY, WHICH DEFINITIONALLY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ABILITY TO CONDUCT STRIKES. Go to pedantic layer and draw from formal DoD definitions (counterair operations manual), US operationally at "air parity" (below air superiority/supremacy), one can argue US has stockpiles reestablish superiority/supremacy but US operational behavior right now suggest theatre is at parity.

Interceptor stocks is not strained. It's functionally finished. US unlikely move more to CENTCOM without breaking US global security architecture, everything that can reasonably be repositioned has been. The fact that Iran fires getting through regularly = what is there is not enough. This last reply, feel free to disagree.