Global geopolitics

Decoding Power. Defying Narratives.


US used an F-35 Jet To Shoot Down a Cheap Iranian Drone

What the use of a fifth-generation fighter against an Iranian drone suggests about modern air defence limits

Reports that a United States F-35 fighter aircraft was used to shoot down an Iranian drone have prompted discussion among military analysts about the broader implications of the incident. While the interception itself was successful, the choice of platform has drawn attention, given the significant cost and advanced capabilities of the aircraft involved when compared with the limited capability of the target.

F-35c

The F-35 is designed primarily for operations against advanced air defence systems and peer or near-peer adversaries. Its strengths lie in stealth, sensor fusion, and deep strike operations. Using such an aircraft to counter a relatively unsophisticated unmanned aerial vehicle raises questions about whether other air defence options were unavailable, unsuitable, or simply not positioned to respond in time. Analysts at the International Institute for Strategic Studies have previously noted that air defence decisions are often shaped as much by readiness and proximity as by ideal force matching, particularly in contested regions such as the Middle East.

Shaved UAV 139 reconnaissance drone

Nevertheless, the incident has renewed debate about the resilience of US forces against large-scale drone attacks. Iran has invested heavily in the production of low-cost, long-range drones and has demonstrated a preference for mass deployment rather than technological sophistication. Justin Bronk of the Royal United Services Institute has repeatedly argued that drone warfare increasingly favours quantity over quality, particularly when used to exhaust defensive systems and interceptor stockpiles.

This is a photo made available by the Iranian military on March 12, 2025, shows navy vessels taking part in a joint Iranian-Russian-Chinese military drill in the Gulf of Oman. – Iranian Army Office/AFP via Getty Images

The central concern is not whether the United States can intercept individual drones, but whether it can sustain such interceptions during a prolonged or large-scale attack. Modern air defence systems rely on layered responses, combining fighter aircraft, surface-to-air missiles, electronic warfare, and radar networks. When high-value assets are used for low-value targets, the economic balance may shift in favour of the attacker. The cost disparity between an interceptor missile or air-to-air engagement and a cheaply produced drone is well documented, and defence economists at the Center for Strategic and International Studies have warned that this imbalance could become strategically significant in future conflicts.

Some observers interpret the use of the F-35 as a deliberate demonstration of capability and resolve rather than a sign of weakness. Visible use of advanced platforms may serve a deterrent purpose, signalling that the United States is willing to employ its most capable assets to defend its forces and interests. However, others caution that deterrence by display does not address the underlying challenge posed by massed, attritional drone warfare.

The incident therefore highlights a broader issue facing modern armed forces. While technological superiority remains important, it does not in itself guarantee protection against sustained attacks using simple, expendable systems. As recent conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East have shown, the ability to endure prolonged pressure may prove as important as possessing the most advanced equipment. The interception of a single drone by an F-35 may not indicate a failure of defence, but it does underline the need for continued adaptation to a changing character of warfare.

References:
International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), Military Balance assessments
Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), air power and drone warfare analysis by Justin Bronk
Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), missile defence and cost-exchange Studies

Authored By: Global GeoPolitics

This is a reader-supported publication. I cannot do this without your support. Substack has still not explained why the page abruptly stopped growing. If you believe journalism should serve the public, not the powerful, and you’re in a position to help, becoming a PAID SUBSCRIBER truly makes a difference. Alternatively you can support by way of a cup of coffee:

buymeacoffee.com/ggtv

https://ko-fi.com/globalgeopolitics



9 responses to “US used an F-35 Jet To Shoot Down a Cheap Iranian Drone”

  1. Good point, but the F-35 pilot had a great opportunity to train, and that is invaluable.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. My point on this is the waste of taxpayer’s money, none of these adventures benefit the society at large. The US has been at war for 220 years of its history. Somehow there is 50 million Americans who live in abject poverty, 9 million homeless, that’s the size of Israel’s population.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I understand your point, and I was referring to your specific comment about an F-35 versus a drone. The world has been at war for over 4,000 years. The conflict in the Middle East is as old as history itself, so we can’t just highlight what is happening between the U.S. and Iran and blame everything on that. I believe the first recorded war was around 2600 BCE, between the Sumerians and the inhabitants of Elam, near modern-day Basra, Iraq. The U.S. didn’t even exist at that time. War is a horrible thing, but the problem lies in the human heart. That reality, and the fact that some people are simply unwilling to accept basic societal norms—not Western norms, but basic human decency—are at the core of the issue. You go to Afghanistan, Iraq, many countries on the African continent, and parts of Asia, and there is real suffering in those areas. The U.S. will tackle its internal problems, but there is far more to worry about around the world than an F-35 downing a drone. The real question is why Iran is sending drones all over the region instead of addressing its internal issues.

        Like

  2. albertoportugheisyahoocouk Avatar
    albertoportugheisyahoocouk

    Yours is a strange comment.  If the F-35 fighter aircraft had killed 1,000 people, you’d have applauded? or if it had shot down an Iranian passenger flight and killed all passengers and crew, you’d have celebrated?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I am very anti-war. My take is on the corruption and the scams, the siphoning of taxpayer money to fund these heinous business adventures for personal gain by these elites at the expense of society at large.

      Like

  3. albertoportugheisyahoocouk Avatar
    albertoportugheisyahoocouk

    Dear GG, the way you write about armed conflict fits perfectly the title of one of my book, The Game of War. You are concerned about how long a player can last in the war arena.

    You don’t seem concerned about how many people will die or be maimed for life, both physically and traumatised emotionally. You are not concerned with many destroyed families and societies, orphaned children. You are not concerned with the pollution of the water we drink, the land on which we frow our food, the air we breathe. You are not concerned with the cost of war, which always results in a lack of money for medical research, schools, hospitals, housing, the Arts, etc

    Alberto Portugheis

    HUFUD Founder & President

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I am concerned, always has been. I am focusing on the mechanics behind the machinery of the power at the moment. There are great writers and activists in the space like Caitlin Johnstone that i follow. Thanks for alerting me to your book, I would to love read it

      Like

      1. albertoportugheisyahoocouk Avatar
        albertoportugheisyahoocouk

        If you reply to my comment, why don’t you identify yourself? you are very unfair knowing everything about men but not the other way round.

        I would be happy to send you my two books. The second one ‘$$$$$s In Their Hearts” is more referenced.

        However, if you admire Caitlin Johnstone, you’ll hate what I write. She is also, like most so called leftist activists, not concerned about human suffering; she is mainly concerned with criticizing right wing politics and destroying the people she hates, the Jews.

        To me Politics is Politics and all political colours are all the sides of the same coin. Anf humanity is all one family, of different colours and types of skin, hair, facial features, language, cultures, degrees of intelligence, etc.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. I have emailed you via your HUFUD e-mail. Thank you

        Like

Leave a comment