"What hit the E-3 sentry?" Topic

Any thoughts?

link

Any reason to think it was deliberately targeted, vs bad luck?

No, not really. It could have been a lucky drone. I was thinking more about the extent and type of the damage and did this suggest a drone or a missile.

Well, drones are guided, so presumably an operator -- who maybe knows which plane is which, or (more likely I'd bet) just looks for the biggest one -- rather than a missile, which maybe WOULD be just luck?

If confirmed, this would be a significant development, not just because an aircraft was damaged but because of what the E-3 AWACS represents. The Boeing E-3 Sentry is a critical command-and-control platform and even a single loss can have outsized operational impact given the limited and aging nature of the fleet. It very well may have been deliberately targeted rather than being fortuitous.

The reported strike on Prince Sultan Air Base also raises broader questions about the effectiveness of base air defence and the growing threat posed by drones and missiles. If high-value, relatively vulnerable assets can be reached on the ground, it highlights a shift in how modern conflicts are being contested—particularly through saturation and precision strikes. NB Iranian attacks often combine drone & missile launches. Missiles are used to overwhelm or probe defences and drones used to penetrate and strike specific targets with precision.

That said, the report should be treated with caution until there is official confirmation. The reliance on anonymous sources and unverified imagery means the full extent of the damage and whether the aircraft is indeed beyond repair, remains uncertain. AI, anyone?

If accurate, though, the incident would fit within a wider pattern of increasing pressure on fixed military infrastructure and the challenges of defending it in an era of evolving strike capabilities.

Aren't the Iranians proving to be a more slippery opponent than Washington ever imagined? Reminds me of how the US underestimated the NVA/VC …until they won.

Part of the hit at Sultan Air Base.

Reported in multiple sources

"A U.S. Air Force E-3 Sentry (AWACS) was severely damaged or destroyed on March 27, 2026, during a coordinated Iranian missile and drone strike on Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia."

BBC report says its verified:

link

Now wait … how many US aircraft have been damaged by enemy fire? With all the aircraft the US has in country and in the air. With over 10,000 targets hit …

So one F-35 was hit and now an E3 …

Seems like pretty low loses to me …

Aren't the Iranians proving to be a more slippery opponent than Washington ever imagined? Reminds me of how the US underestimated the NVA/VC …until they won.

Not a very accurate or unbiased comment. The VC/NVA were an entirely different situation. And tech has evolved greatly since then. Again, to anyone who is not biased, etc. would see with Iran's attacks going down to 10%. From where they started that sounds like winning to me. And to others.

It reminds me of how some continue to underestimate the US from bias not facts. 2 Aircraft hit, maybe even a few more is tiny compared to the destruction Iran has suffered in about a month's time.

And just like during Vietnam, some of the VC/NVA were overestimated in many cases. E.g. During Tet they took a beating. Almost removing many of the VC units from their OOB. Plus many NVA were severely attrited. So much so it was 1972 before the NVA and remnants of the VC could launch another offensive.

But this is not a third world jungle location. And this is not 1968 or 1972, etc. And again the US does not plan a large campaign fighting in the deserts, mountains, streets of Iran. More like WWII UK Commando raids.

Based on what I have heard/read from some very experienced senior retired US Officers. Interviewed in the media. Almost daily in many cases. And I will take their word over pretty much any one here.

Some of the comments some make here sound more like something one would hear/see on "The View" … Than anyone like the US senior officers Ret. interviewed say. They know what they are talking about. Not the women of The View … or many others in the media. The term useful dupes come to mind when talking about many in the media, etc..

If the BBC says so, it's probably true. Excise my para #3, above.

In any conflict, the other guy also gets a vote.

Iran has overall, gotten absolutely pounded but they have managed to accomplish some results. They've hit four very sophisticated ground-based radars. The AN/TPY-2 radars in the UAE, Jordan and Saudi are vital for THAAD and they've been hit as has the AN/FPS-132 in Qatar. While the extent of damage isn't public, these are rare and wildly expensive systems costing between $1 USD and $2 USD Billion.

The US had a total of 16 E-3 AWACs entering 2026 as they are being retired due to age, but the E-7 Wedgetail replacements have not entered US service (and may or may not ever as their funding is shaky). The Navy's E2-D Hawkeyes are current and might take up the slack but killing even one AWACS is a loss and part of a strategy to target radar coverage.

The US does not have a plethora of E-3's available and like the KC-135 tankers, are probably not repairable if given any significant damage.

Iran has, despite absolutely being outclassed in the aggregate, tried to respond in a fairly effective manner. They are targeting radar assets attempting to create holes in coverage enabling them to get more effectiveness out of a limited number of platforms left. They aren't trying to dominate but rather, simply trying to create the conditions to sneak in a few effective strikes as they can no longer simply attempt to overwhelm defenses with volume.

@McK.

You, as usual, get my vote. I really appreciate the depth of knowledge you bring to the table – you're ex-military, I think? This type of discussion could do with a few more with real insights like the above post: as well as people with historical and political nous.

It seems to me that, ironically, Iran has learnt from the Ukraine conflict whereas the US seems not to have studied it in sufficient depth.

I believe it used to be popular in military circles to study Sun Tzu.

"In the midst of chaos, there is also opportunity."

I wonder if the Iranian military had the venerated Chinese author on their curriculum?

Yes, the venerated BBC. Their "pink knickers" have been showing a lot lately. 🙄

First as relates to Donald Trump.

"Since the 2024 U.S. election, the BBC has faced several major allegations of using misleading edits and inaccurate reporting regarding Donald Trump. These incidents led to a significant internal crisis at the broadcaster, including the resignations of top leadership.
Misleading Speech Edits
The most prominent controversy involved the BBC's current affairs program Panorama.

January 6 Speech Splicing: In a documentary aired in October 2024, the BBC spliced together two separate parts of Donald Trump's January 6, 2021, speech that were delivered nearly an hour apart.

The Misrepresentation: The edit combined his remark about walking to the Capitol with his later "fight like hell" comment, creating the false impression of a direct, continuous call for violent action.

BBC Response: The BBC eventually apologized for an "error of judgment" that "materially misled viewers". However, the broadcaster rejected Trump's subsequent $1 USD billion defamation claim, arguing the edit was unintentional and lacked malice.

Earlier Incidents: A similar "spliced" edit was later discovered in a 2022 Newsnight broadcast, where Trump's former chief of staff Mick Mulvaney pointed out the inaccuracy on air.
BBC

Recent Reporting Inaccuracies (2025–2026)
Liz Cheney "Firing Squad" Claim: In late 2025, the BBC was criticized for falsely claiming Trump called for Liz Cheney to be "shot in the face." Internal memos later admitted this was misleading, as Trump was actually making a metaphorical point about warhawks not facing the dangers they send others into.

AI-Generated Remarks: In March 2026, Trump accused the BBC of using AI-generated clips to put words in his mouth. The BBC reportedly admitted to a mistake in this instance.

Haitian Immigrant Claims: An internal review noted that the BBC over-emphasized stories about Trump's claims regarding immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, which some advisors felt compromised the corporation's impartiality.

Internal Fallout and Resignations
The exposure of these reporting issues, primarily through a leaked memo by editorial advisor Michael Prescott, led to a leadership collapse in November 2025:

Leadership Resignations: Director General Tim Davie and Head of News Deborah Turness both resigned following the scandal.

Systemic Bias Allegations: The Prescott memo alleged "systemic bias" and "internal groupthink" within the BBC, suggesting that staff were often more critical of Trump than his political opponents and used biased framing on issues like reproductive rights.

Ongoing Legal Battles: As of March 2026, President Trump has continued to target the BBC with lawsuits, recently escalating his legal claims to $10 USD billion over "corrupt fraudulent news". "

Just a few non Trump:

Martin Bashir's Princess Diana Interview
Jimmy Savile Scandal
Gaza Documentary
Nigel Farage Bank Account

NOW let us take up their "fair and balanced" coverage of the current conflict in Iran. 😏

"Since the escalation of the U.S.-Israel-Iran war in early 2026, the BBC has faced several high-profile accusations of spreading misinformation, ranging from significant translation errors to systemic bias in favor of the Iranian regime.
Major Translation and Editing Scandals

Pete Hegseth "Regime" vs. "People" Error: In March 2026, BBC Persian was forced to apologize after a live translation of U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth fundamentally altered the meaning of his speech. Hegseth stated the U.S. was targeting the Iranian "regime," but the BBC translated it as "mardom" (the people), leading audiences in Iran to believe they were being directly targeted by American forces.

Assassination of Ali Larijani: The BBC's World Affairs Editor, John Simpson, drew intense criticism for describing Iran's security chief, Ali Larijani—who was killed in an Israeli strike—as "reasonable". Critics, including President Trump, pointed out Larijani's history of involvement in the mass murder of protesters, leading Simpson to delete the post after it was labeled "fraudulent" and "fake news" by the White House.
MSN

Allegations of Institutional and Pro-Regime Bias
The "War Crime" Double Standard: A March 2026 report by a media watchdog found that the BBC applied the label "war crime" almost exclusively to U.S. and Israeli actions while making zero standalone references to crimes committed by the Iranian regime, such as the use of cluster bombs against civilians or firing missiles at holy sites.

"Systemic Bias" Whistleblower: An internal memo by editorial advisor Michael Prescott alleged "near-total silence" on the massive internal protests against the Iranian government. The memo suggested the BBC prioritized narratives of "civilian suffering" from Western strikes while ignoring the regime's own brutal crackdown on its population.

Mistranslating "Jew" in War Documentaries: Following the earlier scandal with the documentary Gaza: How to Survive a Warzone, the BBC was again accused of sanitizing antisemitism by translating the Arabic word for "Jew" (Yahud) as "Israel" or "Israeli forces" in subtitles, effectively masking the religious nature of the rhetoric used by regional actors.
BBC

Discredited Sources and Propaganda

Hamas Official's Son as Narrator: The BBC admitted to a "materially misleading" breach of guidelines when it was revealed that the young narrator of its prominent Gaza/Iran war documentary was the son of a high-ranking Hamas official. The broadcaster initially failed to disclose this connection, leading to accusations that the film served as a "propaganda prop".

Biased Field Reporting: Controversy erupted over Sally Nabil, a BBC Arabic correspondent covering the Iran war, after it was revealed she had previously liked social media posts describing the October 7 attacks as a "morning of hope" and justifying the death of Israeli civilians."

I bet they were great on Gaza.😏

So are they saying that the bias of those producing and reporting at the BBC influence their reporting?

That those same biases influence WHAT they report on and DON'T report on?

That US/Israeli successes would be downplayed and actually outright ignored, in order to foster the view they want their readers and viewers to perceive as the truth of the conflict?

You believe them, because at heart they have the same views you have, therefore they MUST be accurate. 🙄

A senior BBC executive has defended BBC Arabic as a lone voice in the region covering the "Israeli perspective", as she warned its critics that it pursued stories ignored by the Gulf's state-owned media. The corporation's Arabic service has come under sustained criticism in recent years, for its selection of coverage and for featuring some guests that had expressed antisemitic views on social media. There have even been calls for the service to be closed down.

Whenever the BBC is being criticised by both sides of an argument I tend to figure it's doing a good job and exactly what a public broadcaster should be doing.

Leaving that aside, are we saying it wasn't an E3? It wasn't hit at PSAB? The massive hole in the back end was just a flesh wound? Or the whole thing is fake?

One saving grace is that I haven't seen any reports of casualties. Operationally though, this will definitely be a (probably lucky) blow. The USN E2 has a very similar role and is good, but it's also considerably smaller and doesn't have the same range and coverage.

Wholly so you pick one quote out of my post to declare they are fair and unbiased. 😏

Yes I'm sure Pravda had true stories too.

First, no one said the story was NOT true.

I posted:

"A U.S. Air Force E-3 Sentry (AWACS) was severely damaged or destroyed on March 27, 2026, during a coordinated Iranian missile and drone strike on Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia."

That same attack injured multiple US service members and I think blew up at least one tanker. If I remember right, full of fuel or fueling up. Probably why so many service members seriously hurt.

No the issue is how so many in TMP will degrade certain sources as basically garbage, but then praise their sources as the golden source of non biased truth!

In another thread on TMP it was "the Guardian". 🙄

The Guardian and BBC are NO less biased than is the F word.

They all are biased.

Those running and reporting determine "what" they report on.

Those running and reporting determine "how" they report the stories.

Those running and reporting determine "who" they choose to interview.

Those running and reporting determine "The" questions they ask.

It is a fact, that the majority entering the profession are liberal in their views and politics.

"Student Body Trends: At major journalism hubs like Syracuse University, student polls indicate that 52% identify as "Liberal" or "Very Liberal," compared to only 7% who identify as "Conservative" or "Very Conservative".

Diversity of Thought: Educators note that while students come from various backgrounds, many are increasingly motivated by a "calling" to tell stories through their own lens, which frequently aligns with progressive or social justice-oriented perspectives"

Again in the U.S.

"This ideological gap in traditional newsrooms correlates with a divide in public trust. Pew Research Center data from 2025 shows:

61% of Democrats have confidence that journalists act in the public's best interest.

Only 25% of Republicans share that confidence."

Again as I said before:

You(generic you) believe them, because at heart they have the same views you have, therefore they MUST be accurate.

As to the plane destroyed. Planes are destroyed and troops die in every war. It's a war.

Did the Brits lose ship, planes and troops in the Falklands? Was it a defeat?

The question?

Does your news source of choice report on the whole, only negative views on the Iran conflict. According to news sources on the web, that is true for both these "news" sources.

Case in point.

Reported by BBC or Guardian? Doubtful, as it paints a bad picture for Iran's regime.

From "Iran International"

"Serious disagreements have emerged between Iran's President Masoud Pezeshkian and IRGC chief-commander Ahmad Vahidi over how to manage the war and its damaging impact on people's livelihoods and the economy, sources with knowledge of the matter told Iran International.

Pezeshkian has criticized the approach of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps regarding escalating tensions and continuing attacks on neighboring countries, warning about the economic consequences of the situation, according to the sources who spoke on condition of anonymity.

He has stressed that without a ceasefire, Iran's economy could face total collapse within three weeks to one month, the sources said.

On March 7, Pezeshkian in a video message apologized for what he called "fire at will" attacks by the country's armed forces on neighboring countries and instructed them to stop such attacks.

However, the attacks continued shortly after the release of his message.

Call for restoration of executive power

Informed sources told Iran International that Pezeshkian has called for executive and managerial powers to be returned to the administration, a demand that has been firmly rejected by Vahidi.

In response to the criticism, the IRGC commander blamed the current situation on the government's failure to implement structural reforms before the conflict began, the sources said.

In recent days, Israeli media have also reported signs of divisions within Iran's ruling system. The Times of Israel, citing a senior Israeli official, wrote: "There are signs of cracks in the Iranian regime. We are now creating conditions for its overthrow, but ultimately everything depends on the Iranian people."

The Israeli outlet Ynet also reported similar internal divisions earlier this month.

Economic impacts

As the war enters its fifth week, its economic effects are increasingly visible. Reports from major cities indicate that many ATMs are out of cash, not functioning, or physically inaccessible, while online banking services for several major banks, including Bank Melli, are periodically disrupted.

Government employees have told Iran International that salaries and benefits for large segments of workers have not been paid regularly over the past three months.

In February, before the outbreak of the ongoing war, average inflation for basic necessities reached triple digits, estimated between 105% and 115%."

More on media bias:

Negative views fostered by the MSM

"1. Negative Sentiment in Media Coverage
Data from independent media watchdogs suggests that news coverage of the current administration has been overwhelmingly negative across major networks. 

* 92% Negative Coverage: A study by the Media Research Center (MRC) analyzed evening news on ABC, CBS, and NBC during the first 100 days of the administration's second term. It found that 92% of statements made by reporters and anchors about President Trump were negative.

* Stark Contrast to Predecessor: The same group found that during the first 100 days of the Biden administration, negative coverage stood at 41%, indicating a significantly different media tone.

* Topic-Specific Negativity: Even on topics where the administration has seen success or high public approval, the spin remained negative. For example, while the administration touts reduced border crossings, media coverage of immigration was 93% negative. Coverage of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) was 97% negative. 
*

2. Public Perception of Media Bias
Americans are acutely aware of this dynamic, though their views are deeply polarized along party lines.

* Belief in Media Fabrication: Roughly 46% of Americans believe the media frequently fabricates stories about President Trump.

* Perceived Relationship: A Pew Research Center survey found that 64% of U.S. adults describe the relationship between the administration and the media as "bad".

* Partisan Split on "Too Critical":Approximately 69% of Republicans believe the media is "too critical" of the president, compared to only 12% of Democrats. Conversely, 62% of Democrats feel the media has not been critical enough."

..
"Media Trust at Record Lows: A factor limiting the media's influence is that trust in news organizations has hit a record low, with only 31% of Americans expressing a great deal or fair amount of confidence in the media."

How about just 3 examples:

Subject: Local CBS Reporter In Austin Told To Stop Covering Celebratory US-Iran Rally | OutKick

link

Subject: ‘The View' co-host Whoopi Goldberg… – Sky News Australia | Facebook

link

Subject: Thomas Hern on X: "CNN's Paul Begala falsely claims Pete Hegseth purchased ribeye steaks and lobster tails for himself, not the troops. Scott Jennings, "Internet do something." Here are the receipts: t.co/VZ6j4j2sn2 / X

link

I think this was taken sometime in week 2. It has NOT improved. 😂

"According to available reports and historical data as of March 2026:

* Negative Coverage Estimate: Internal administration complaints and independent observers suggest that over 75% of mainstream media coverage focuses on setbacks, such as the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, U.S. military casualties, and global economic instability.

* Positive Coverage Estimate: Coverage that the administration considers "positive"—focusing on tactical military successes like hitting 15,000 targets—is estimated to be less than 20% of total mainstream airtime."

Thanks, 35th, great work!

Regardless of the media source I believe that overall it is not possible to doubt that the US/Israeli military action is anything other than dominant and Iran's ability to bring any real conventional military force to the conflict is virtually nil.

Iran's current regime does however both appear unlikely to be overthrown in the near term and does retain the ability to threaten both passage through Hormuz and the infrastructure of neighboring Gulf States in terms of their desalination plants, refineries and export facilities. That threat has been sufficient to affect the US and global economies as well as both domestic and international politics.

So how does this end and does the time horizon affect one side more than the other?

That said, I believe a legitimate question is how does this end?

The US has (had) just 16 E-3s, and probably needs several in theatre to cover the whole place 24/7. But…

There are satellites, UAVs, the E-2 flying from carriers and lots of ground based radar. It was only part of the picture.

Also, the US recently downsized the E-3 fleet from 30, so there are 14 more that haven't been in the boneyard very long. I suspect they're cleaning up two or three of them right now.

So it's bad news, but not crippling. It's going to get a lot of press, but I'm not sure it's the most I'm portent thing happening.

OVI +1

McK +1

It seems to me that, ironically, Iran has learnt from the Ukraine conflict whereas the US seems not to have studied it in sufficient depth.

Again you are incorrect …

Iran has overall, gotten absolutely pounded but they have managed to accomplish some results.

Yes like as Berlin was falling many Germans fought on. Iran can still fire at US assets. But no where near the numbers of attacks they started with. Reports are 90% of Iran's weapons are no longer functionable

However, if that photo that I saw is accurate the E3 can't repaired. Again with all the aircraft in theater the very few have been hit and even fewer destroyed. Verses all the damage the US and IDF have wrought on the islamists …

Regardless of the media source I believe that overall it is not possible to doubt that the US/Israeli military action is anything other than dominant and Iran's ability to bring any real conventional military force to the conflict is virtually nil.

Agreed … But again since many don't like the POTUS and want to see him lose, etc. They highlight the one or two on Iran's missiles or drones that get through.

There are satellites, UAVs, the E-2 flying from carriers and lots of ground based radar. It was only part of the picture.

Also, the US recently downsized the E-3 fleet from 30, so there are 14 more that haven't been in the boneyard very long. I suspect they're cleaning up two or three of them right now.

So it's bad news, but not crippling. It's going to get a lot of press, but I'm not sure it's the most I'm portent thing happening.

I agree the US has other assets and the loss of one very high tech aircraft. Will not change many things if any.

One saving grace is that I haven't seen any reports of casualties. Operationally though, this will definitely be a (probably lucky) blow.

Well IIRC 15 US troops were WIA. They were on the ground. Probably doing maintenance, etc.

One is too many. IIRC the US has suffered about 300 WIA. With 13 KIA. 6 of those were when their KC-135 crashed. Not from enemy fire.

Note I never said only … But it is a shooting war …

That said, I believe a legitimate question is how does this end?

That is the $64,000 USD question. I fear the islamists regime survives. And may only play ball until there is a new POTUS. Albeit the VP, Rubio etc. will carry on the initiatives this POTUS has put in action.

The BIG Fear is if somehow a member of the other party is elected POTUS. And they start up everything that last POTUS and admin did. And the US will be back on a downward course as it was with the previous POTUS/VP.

Open borders, and appeasement, etc. will be on the table again …

And may only play ball

And what if they simply choose not to play ball? Suppose Iran doesn't need to 'win 'but rather simply survive causing just enough damage to keep Hormuz either closed or simply prohibitively high in insurance costs while generating the odd success (and/or US casualties or Gulf Allies infrastructure) with their greatly diminished but still capable drones and missiles? What does the world look like if it is April 30 and the conflict remains? What would the global economy look like if oil hits $150 USD per barrel?