F-15E jet shot down over Iran
News that a U.S. F‑15E Strike Eagle has been shot down over Iran, with one crew member rescued and another missing, is prompting scrutiny of American claims of air superiority and official transparency about losses. Commenters weigh Iran’s evolving air defenses, the growing list of U.S. and allied aircraft damaged or destroyed, and the strategic limits of an air-only campaign, alongside fierce arguments over the legality and purpose of Trump’s war, civilian casualties, and the long‑term geopolitical and economic risks of the conflict, including the closure of the Strait of Hormuz.
Status of the F‑15E and Other Aircraft
- Initial confusion: CENTCOM publicly denied a shoot‑down while OSINT images and Iranian media showed F‑15E wreckage and at least one ejection seat. Later reporting confirms one crew member rescued, one missing.
- Commenters note this continues a pattern: earlier F‑35 damage incident, “friendly fire” loss of three F‑15s near Kuwait, drones downed, and AWACS/tankers destroyed on the ground. Many distrust official briefings.
- An A‑10 also crashed near the Strait of Hormuz the same day; cause (enemy fire vs accident) is reported as unclear. Rumors of a rescue Black Hawk downed are unconfirmed.
Air War, Air Defenses, and Tactics
- Debate on how significant one F‑15E loss is after thousands of sorties. Some see it as inevitable attrition; others argue it’s worrying given weeks of US claims to have “suppressed” Iranian air defenses.
- Many stress Iran’s doctrine: mobile SAMs, MANPADS, truck‑mounted IR‑guided missiles, and use of caves and mountains, making “total” suppression impossible.
- Comparisons to Desert Storm and Yugoslavia: air defenses and SAMs are more capable now; stealth and stand‑off munitions help, but not perfectly.
- Discussion of CSAR (combat search and rescue): pararescue forces, SERE training, and the extreme risk of sending C‑130s and helicopters into contested airspace.
Legality and War Crimes Debates
- Intense argument over POW vs “hostage” language if US aviators are captured.
- Hegseth’s “no quarter, no mercy” remarks are widely cited as an explicit promise to commit war crimes; commenters note this is illegal under US and international law.
- Both sides are accused of war crimes: Iran for cluster munitions and civilian targeting; US/Israel for striking schools, hospitals, water and power infrastructure, and “double/triple‑tap” strikes on rescuers.
- Some argue Iran has little incentive to respect Geneva norms given prior US conduct and lack of enforcement; others insist “two wrongs don’t make a right.”
Strategic Objectives and Politics
- Split views on casus belli: some see preventing an Iranian nuke and stopping proxy attacks as legitimate; others call this an unprovoked war of aggression akin to Iraq.
- Multiple “victory conditions” are identified:
- Iran: survive the air campaign and keep Hormuz constrained to impose global economic pain.
- US: ambiguous and shifting rhetoric from regime change to “we’ve already won.”
- Israel and Gulf states: degrade Iran’s regional power; some want Iran effectively broken.
- Concerns that the war is strategically unwinnable without a huge ground campaign, risks closing Hormuz long‑term, and accelerates erosion of US credibility, NATO cohesion, and the post‑1945 order.
Information Warfare and Trust
- Widespread recognition of “fog of war” and propaganda from all sides.
- Many say Iranian claims often exaggerate, but also observe US officials repeatedly downplaying or denying losses until forced by imagery leaks.
- Result: commenters lean heavily on OSINT, satellite photos, and cross‑checking multiple media sources rather than trusting any government narrative.