Eh, he was unambiguously wrong though? Not that it is forbidden to be wrong, mistakes happen.
Assume a new airframe replacement was hypothetically bought tomorrow, to take the destroyed airframe’s place. That makes it very clear that the cost sustained by the US is not “lifetime cost to operate”.
From a strategic view of the war as a whole, $200 million is not a lot. If it keeps Iran from having US prisoners of war.
If the US was presented up front with an option of a) pay $200 million or b) give Iran 2 US prisoners of war, then there is zero doubt that the US would gladly take the deal. Politically, it is a no-brainer choice.
But at the cost of how many others?
Material losses include two C-130 planes and two Little Bird helicopters abandoned on ground.
I don’t know if they had human casualties, but it seems they spent about 200 million dollars to rescue the pilots.
Pretty expensive.
This comment should be deleted soon
Thanks, I didn’t know that and accidentally provided an over-estimate.
deleted by creator
Eh, he was unambiguously wrong though? Not that it is forbidden to be wrong, mistakes happen.
Assume a new airframe replacement was hypothetically bought tomorrow, to take the destroyed airframe’s place. That makes it very clear that the cost sustained by the US is not “lifetime cost to operate”.
From a strategic view of the war as a whole, $200 million is not a lot. If it keeps Iran from having US prisoners of war.
If the US was presented up front with an option of a) pay $200 million or b) give Iran 2 US prisoners of war, then there is zero doubt that the US would gladly take the deal. Politically, it is a no-brainer choice.