The war in Ukraine demonstrated how cheap drones could overwhelm more expensive defense systems and make favorable trades. It has now also started to show that, as defense against cheap drones has gotten better, more expensive jet drones are being used that can bypass the now cheaper and slower defense systems that is designed to target cheap drones. As such we can expect to see more expensive and faster defense systems. If they then want to make even faster and bigger drones they might make it so big that put a person in it to fly it, thus making it easier to reuse and better to adapt to different defense systems.

And so the cycle is completed. The only real question seems to be if the pilot in the fighter jet will remain a benefit when the drone is increased to that scale.

> The only real question seems to be if the pilot in the fighter jet will remain a benefit when the drone is increased to that scale.

With the modern tech level, silicon-based systems can react faster, make fewer mistakes and feel less fatigue. So it all circles back to the relative wetware price.

>- US is not capable of reaching every inch of Iranian airspace with F-35s unless it is willing to accept a significant casualty rate among pilots.

The casualty rate would not be high at all, though all casualties are significant. There would be some, but again this is why I said in a serious war, pilot casualties would be expected. It also would not be as if they need to hit the whole country at once. There would be fronts and lines and structured approach.

Right now the US is working around internal issues with the IRGC. The US doesn't even want to destroy all of Iran's stockpile or production facilities. They only want to destroy those which are in the possession of the IRGC factions actively engaging in combat. Even more pressing than destroying the drones is eliminating the particular IRGC faction heads that are responsible for attack. The US isn't conducting any sort of sweeping campaign at all, every attack has been precisely targeted to hit certain commanders. Even the ones making headlines for civilian casualties. It's just more palatable to let everyone assume you made a mistake than to come out and say, "We determined there would be less collateral damage over an extended horizon if we conduct this strike now."

Quite possibly. But shaheds aren't the answer either. After Fukushima, the plutonium 240 fuel for the breeders they don't want to run anymore has been piling up. Not as good as 239, but that is what they should be looking at.

Because of stealth jets, the US is capable of destroying every single power plant in the country, with all the horrible human cost you would expect. Exactly like Putin has been trying to do in Ukraine. Except, they could actually do it.

Trump and Hegseth may be bumbling idiots but so far they have been showing restraint. The jets seem to be pretty effective at making big holes in the ground, I wouldn't call their demise just yet.

It would be sufficient to destroy just the Asaluyeh gas infrastructure near the South Pars field. It's easily approached over the open sea where Iran has negligible air defences, and it is rather... flammable. It provides something like 75% of Iran's domestic gas supply and in turn fuels most of their power stations.

Their economy would implode within days.

Of course, this would be a horrific crime against humanity, comparable in impact on civilians to dropping a nuke on a capital city.

Speaking of which: my partner knows next to nothing about warfare and while watching the news I had to explain that the US Navy submarine mentioned by the presenter isn't just for taking out enemy ships, it is a nuclear-armed "world ending" weapon that could simply... erase... a country. Or two. Probably three. In under an hour.

The US and Russia can destroy every power plant in their respective opposing countries with I(C/R)BMs, but this would involve breaking taboos of which even their respective leaders are fearful.

The fighter jet is not capable of destroying every power plant in Iran without risking pilot casualties, an endeavor for which the US lacks political capital. The drone has no such issue. A rational nation would have shifted primary investment into medium-range drones many yesterdays ago.

> Russia can destroy every power plant in their respective opposing countries with I(C/R)BMs

I don't think this is true. Sure if you count nuclear weapons, but that's not on the table.

Russia has already used IRBMs. Even Putin tacitly admitted they failed to hit their targets. It's entirely likely that Russian ICBMs simply do not have the accuracy required to strike something as small as a power plant with a conventional payload.

Even China is building stealth jets and aircraft carriers. The people making these decisions know more about their capabilities than you or me.

Shipping through Hormuz is already up to about half prewar levels. I don't think Iran's strategy is working very well for them.

The scoreboard says otherwise. US jets can't even reach the northeastern half of the country because the refueling tankers can't get close enough to give them the range.

Additionally, Iran had deterrence that you're not giving them credit for. If they destroyed Saudi and UAE's water desalination, it would be a mass casualty event.

B2s can absolutely reach the northeastern half of the country. So can cruise missiles. The current standoff is a choice, not lack of capability.

Yes, I imagine deterrence is part of that equation.

Nevertheless, it's too early to declare the end of the jet. We will probably get there someday, but that day is not today.

Ok, yeah, B2s flying from Missouri could do it, at great expense, with multiple refuelings. We're talking about putting doomsday cross-planet planes on missions to drop a couple 1000 lb bombs.

Economics matter.