Having been an ADA officer in the US Army and having trained with officers from the UAE, all I can say is, if the Kuwaiti ADA guys are anything like the UAE ADA guys, as an ally I wouldn’t fly anywhere near those countries. They were not serious.
Methinks you are misapplying Oscar Wilde’s point. The reason why the theatre audience laughs when Lady Bracknell says this is Jack’s misfortune is none of his doing, even though he/she states it in active voice.
Are we sure it was Friendly Fire? Apparently one of the planes was hit over the Al Jahra area of Kuwait, not far from the coast, and only some 150 miles from Iran, well within range of the S-3000 AD missile. A missile could cover that distance in a matter of minutes.
Until we hear a more detailed explanation, I'm a little reluctant to buy the Friendly Fire story.
Aren't USAF F-15s also connected with Link 16 to Patriot batteries, which would provide updated location information of all friendly units to avoid this kind of incident?
And wouldn't the F-15 aircrews been alerted of a missile launch towards them?
Who starts to run out first, Iran with its dispersed drones and missiles in difficult terrain to interdict (as with North Yemen - remember?) or Israel and other regional allies with their limited stocks of expensive interceptors (F15s are VERY expensive interceptors)?
My guess is that Israeli access of interceptors is not as choked as Ukrainian one. And that Iranians have less and less flying material that could be set flying. Including the accessory storages with Hezbollah, Houthies and Hamas (HaHaHa). This material has to be produced, and that production can be controlled down. Iran simply chose the wrong enemy.
Certainly what you say is true concerning our AD stocks vs. Iranian "flying material" -- we are in a better position than Ukraine for sure. We are not Ukraine, and Iran is not Russia. However -- "better" doesn't necessarily mean "good".
For Israelis, it's not a choice. For the US it isn't choice either, because if Iranians go nuclear, Saudis and Kuwaitis and whoever go too. And we have just seen with the 3 F-15s how good the Kuwaitis are at controlling their defense posture (not).
On the other hand, the old von Manstein chose the wrong enemy with the Soviets. That he could have fought the Soviets to a standstill in 1944, as he has written, roflol.
But what choice don't the Israelis have? They will not stop the Iranian nuclear program, like this. They don't have the force to do to Iran, what they've done to Gaza. The U.S. is unwilling to send in ground troops (thank God).
This will just make the Iranians double down. They are thinking right now, and correctly, that this would never have happened, if they had nuclear weapons. This kind of thing is exactly why they want the Bomb.
This war is exactly as stupid as the previous half dozen wars we've launched in the Middle East in the last decades, all of which we lost. Maybe even stupider.
I find that quite plausible. Many people there don't like how the US is behaving in the region. They probably know what lies behind the words "freedom," "peace," and "democracy" when uttered by US presidents of recent decades.
"AWACS (e.g., E-3 Sentry) and satellites (via Link-16 data links) should have played a central role in deconfliction by sharing real-time tracks, IFF data, and air tasking orders (ATOs) with Kuwaiti batteries. However, analysts highlight potential failures: unshared encryption keys, Link-16 disruptions (possibly from Iranian electronic warfare or barrage scale), or damaged command nodes. If Iranian attacks were more effective than reported, they could have degraded satellite uplinks or AWACS integration, leading to "fog-of-war" misIDs. No OSINT confirms AWACS tracks from the incident, but standard procedures require their involvement; absence suggests a command lapse or infrastructure hit."
"While CENTCOM and the Kuwaiti Ministry of Defense have officially categorized the event as a friendly fire incident involving Kuwaiti air defenses, the probability that Iranian Electronic Warfare (EW) played a contributory role is high—estimated roughly in the 60–75% range for a C2 degradation scenario. "
Having been an ADA officer in the US Army and having trained with officers from the UAE, all I can say is, if the Kuwaiti ADA guys are anything like the UAE ADA guys, as an ally I wouldn’t fly anywhere near those countries. They were not serious.
My sources say it happened during a “drone swarm”…
After having worked extensively in the Persian Gulf, I'm betting on reckless operation by Kuwaitis.
Do we really know that Kuwaitis shot them down, and not Iranian rockets, or our own friendly fire? After all, we are being told this by known liars.
To lose one F15, Mr. Worthing, may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose three looks like carelessness.
Methinks you are misapplying Oscar Wilde’s point. The reason why the theatre audience laughs when Lady Bracknell says this is Jack’s misfortune is none of his doing, even though he/she states it in active voice.
Whereas with the 3 F15s…
..but the fact all crew had time to safely eject presumably narrows down the forensics?
No big deal, just a hundred million dollars in equipment lost.
More like $275m replacement cost.
But worth it to take down a few $20k Shahids or $2k dummies.
...for Boeing anyway.
Ker-ching!
..now, talking of dummies...
Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, thrice is enemy action.
If you watch the various videos over these states, by and large the people on the ground are cheering the attacks on USAian bases.
Are we sure it was Friendly Fire? Apparently one of the planes was hit over the Al Jahra area of Kuwait, not far from the coast, and only some 150 miles from Iran, well within range of the S-3000 AD missile. A missile could cover that distance in a matter of minutes.
Until we hear a more detailed explanation, I'm a little reluctant to buy the Friendly Fire story.
The distance from Iran to the crash site is actually around 60 miles, and the F15s were flying away from Iran before they crashed.
Aren't USAF F-15s also connected with Link 16 to Patriot batteries, which would provide updated location information of all friendly units to avoid this kind of incident?
And wouldn't the F-15 aircrews been alerted of a missile launch towards them?
We sit on top of those Kuwaiti Crews and you know it. Of the available plausible, explanations, friendly fire is the least the very least likely.
"Deeply integrated" and "closely coordinated," but not directly supervised at the tactical trigger level by US personnel.
Perhaps intentional by rogue Kuwaiti(s), but to you, the most plausible and likely explanation is "the very least likely."
“Musta been those banderite nazi jooos ...”
@StephenBryen Your White arse just can't bring itself to admit that you lot just can't help underestimating Iran's reach and capabilities! 🖕
A more general but more important question:
Who starts to run out first, Iran with its dispersed drones and missiles in difficult terrain to interdict (as with North Yemen - remember?) or Israel and other regional allies with their limited stocks of expensive interceptors (F15s are VERY expensive interceptors)?
My guess is that Israeli access of interceptors is not as choked as Ukrainian one. And that Iranians have less and less flying material that could be set flying. Including the accessory storages with Hezbollah, Houthies and Hamas (HaHaHa). This material has to be produced, and that production can be controlled down. Iran simply chose the wrong enemy.
It may be that both sides chose the wrong enemy.
Certainly what you say is true concerning our AD stocks vs. Iranian "flying material" -- we are in a better position than Ukraine for sure. We are not Ukraine, and Iran is not Russia. However -- "better" doesn't necessarily mean "good".
For Israelis, it's not a choice. For the US it isn't choice either, because if Iranians go nuclear, Saudis and Kuwaitis and whoever go too. And we have just seen with the 3 F-15s how good the Kuwaitis are at controlling their defense posture (not).
On the other hand, the old von Manstein chose the wrong enemy with the Soviets. That he could have fought the Soviets to a standstill in 1944, as he has written, roflol.
I agree with your WWII comment, for sure.
But what choice don't the Israelis have? They will not stop the Iranian nuclear program, like this. They don't have the force to do to Iran, what they've done to Gaza. The U.S. is unwilling to send in ground troops (thank God).
This will just make the Iranians double down. They are thinking right now, and correctly, that this would never have happened, if they had nuclear weapons. This kind of thing is exactly why they want the Bomb.
This war is exactly as stupid as the previous half dozen wars we've launched in the Middle East in the last decades, all of which we lost. Maybe even stupider.
Kuwaiti National Guardsmen have never, do not now, nor ever will operate those systems. Hard to take you seriously.
Absolutely untrue, and a quick look at your profile says everything about your "seriousness."
Ive worked there cocksucker. What don’t you like about my Paky AK?
Which is it?
"We sit on top of those Kuwaiti Crews and you know it."
https://weapons.substack.com/p/why-were-3-f-15s-shot-down-by-kuwait/comment/221958138
Or "have never, do not now, nor ever will operate those systems" - serious guy.
Learn to read
March not December
wonderful, you esclude that the strike has ee iranian
Intentional? Somebody working for the other side? Worth asking. Three jets, after all.
I find that quite plausible. Many people there don't like how the US is behaving in the region. They probably know what lies behind the words "freedom," "peace," and "democracy" when uttered by US presidents of recent decades.
"AWACS (e.g., E-3 Sentry) and satellites (via Link-16 data links) should have played a central role in deconfliction by sharing real-time tracks, IFF data, and air tasking orders (ATOs) with Kuwaiti batteries. However, analysts highlight potential failures: unshared encryption keys, Link-16 disruptions (possibly from Iranian electronic warfare or barrage scale), or damaged command nodes. If Iranian attacks were more effective than reported, they could have degraded satellite uplinks or AWACS integration, leading to "fog-of-war" misIDs. No OSINT confirms AWACS tracks from the incident, but standard procedures require their involvement; absence suggests a command lapse or infrastructure hit."
"While CENTCOM and the Kuwaiti Ministry of Defense have officially categorized the event as a friendly fire incident involving Kuwaiti air defenses, the probability that Iranian Electronic Warfare (EW) played a contributory role is high—estimated roughly in the 60–75% range for a C2 degradation scenario. "