3 ms·

The US only used long range precision missiles for the first 3 days of the war. Since then, its been almost all JDAMs. The interceptors got used a lot more bu

The US only used long range precision missiles for the first 3 days of the war. Since then, its been almost all JDAMs. The interceptors got used a lot more but even with those we only went through about 5% of the stockpile. This is CNBC. If you trust them on topics like this, well...that's on you. Please remember that they don't have a single person on staff with any military experience or expertise. PS Their source was probably the IRCG...

dr1ggins 2mo ago
Instead you should trust this unsourced HackerNews comment!
bigyabai 2mo ago
> but even with those we only went through about 5% of the stockpile. Source? In terms of VLS-packed high end interceptors, I'd imagine they're much deeper into the magazine than that. Quad-packed point defense missiles might be lower, but those aren't useful against theater ballistic missiles like Iran has been deploying. > Their source was probably the IRCG... That doesn't make much sense as disinformation. Iran stands to gain very little by lying like that, and judging by the exodus of US generals and admirals I'd wager to say that this was an internal point of disagreement in the US armed forces. A lot of assets earmarked for the Pacific theater have been expended with no quick replacements incoming.
russell_h 2mo ago
[dead]
Havoc 2mo ago
Where is your 5% used quote from? All the estimates for interceptors like patriots I've seen are north of 50% used so 5% certainly seems like an outlier
FrustratedMonky 2mo ago
" source was probably the IRCG" Curious. What is your source on the 5%? Why is random chud on the internet a 'better' source.
plasticsoprano 2mo ago
Sure. I bet the Military Times also used the IRCG as a source. https://www.militarytimes.com/industry/techwatch/2026/08/04/us-used-virtually-all-long-range-precision-missiles-during-iran-war-sources-say/ https://www.militarytimes.com/industry/techwatch/2026/08/04/... Probably Reuters too https://www.reuters.com/world/us-has-used-virtually-all-its-long-range-precision-missiles-during-iran-war-2026-08-04/ https://www.reuters.com/world/us-has-used-virtually-all-its-...
- foo12bar 2mo ago
  The CNBC article's source is "as reported by Reuters", and the Military Times article is just a reprint of the Reuters Article, if you look, immediately under the headline it states "By Reuters". So there is only one news outlet reporting on it, Reuters, and the rest are just reporting on the reporting.
  - plasticsoprano 2mo ago
    Hey, you did more validation than the guy I was responding to! Kudos.
    - foo12bar 2mo ago
      Thanks, but I got downvoted, anyway. Oh well, the karma burn was worth it!
1970-01-01 2mo ago
Their source is Reuters and is literally the sub-headline. You did not read this article. Flagged.
Marsymars 2mo ago
> Please remember that they don't have a single person on staff with any military experience or expertise. Do you care to clarify this? This can't possibly be accurate across their entire staff.

dr1ggins 2mo ago

Instead you should trust this unsourced HackerNews comment!

bigyabai 2mo ago

> but even with those we only went through about 5% of the stockpile. Source? In terms of VLS-packed high end interceptors, I'd imagine they're much deeper into the magazine than that. Quad-packed point defense missiles might be lower, but those aren't useful against theater ballistic missiles like Iran has been deploying. > Their source was probably the IRCG... That doesn't make much sense as disinformation. Iran stands to gain very little by lying like that, and judging by the exodus of US generals and admirals I'd wager to say that this was an internal point of disagreement in the US armed forces. A lot of assets earmarked for the Pacific theater have been expended with no quick replacements incoming.

russell_h 2mo ago

[dead]

Havoc 2mo ago

Where is your 5% used quote from? All the estimates for interceptors like patriots I've seen are north of 50% used so 5% certainly seems like an outlier

FrustratedMonky 2mo ago

" source was probably the IRCG" Curious. What is your source on the 5%? Why is random chud on the internet a 'better' source.

plasticsoprano 2mo ago

Sure. I bet the Military Times also used the IRCG as a source. https://www.militarytimes.com/industry/techwatch/2026/08/04/us-used-virtually-all-long-range-precision-missiles-during-iran-war-sources-say/ https://www.militarytimes.com/industry/techwatch/2026/08/04/... Probably Reuters too https://www.reuters.com/world/us-has-used-virtually-all-its-long-range-precision-missiles-during-iran-war-2026-08-04/ https://www.reuters.com/world/us-has-used-virtually-all-its-...

foo12bar 2mo ago
The CNBC article's source is "as reported by Reuters", and the Military Times article is just a reprint of the Reuters Article, if you look, immediately under the headline it states "By Reuters". So there is only one news outlet reporting on it, Reuters, and the rest are just reporting on the reporting.
- plasticsoprano 2mo ago
  Hey, you did more validation than the guy I was responding to! Kudos.
  - foo12bar 2mo ago
    Thanks, but I got downvoted, anyway. Oh well, the karma burn was worth it!

1970-01-01 2mo ago

Their source is Reuters and is literally the sub-headline. You did not read this article. Flagged.

Marsymars 2mo ago

> Please remember that they don't have a single person on staff with any military experience or expertise. Do you care to clarify this? This can't possibly be accurate across their entire staff.