U.S. and allied militaries have turned to fighter jets in their struggle to ward off Iran’s cheap, plentiful drones, but former pilots say the mission is expensive, dangerous, and, ultimately, unsustainable with current tactics.
Open-source intelligence accounts and news outlets have posted videos of high-powered fighter jets downing Iran’s low-cost unmanned aircraft since the war began late last month. On Tuesday, Gen. Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, confirmed that U.S. and allied forces had conducted “intercepts against one-way attack drones using fighters and attack helicopters,” and said it was one reason that Iran’s use of the drones had “decreased 83 percent since the beginning of the operation.”
Last week, a Royal Air Force F-35 pilot shot down a drone that had evaded air defenses over Jordan. One former British military officer called it “using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.”
Former U.S. fighter pilots who spoke with Defense One agreed with the former UK officer’s assessment. Some of Iran’s drones, which cost in the low five figures, are being downed by missiles that cost twenty or forty times as much, launched from aircraft with relatively high operating costs. And the speed differential between jets and drones can pose problems in chaotic battlespaces.
The U.S. is now seeking advice, guidance, and support from Ukraine’s military on how to counter enemy drones based on what it has learned during its four-year war with Russia.
U.S. Central Command did not respond to multiple requests for comment seeking additional details on how U.S. fighter jets have countered waves of Shahed-136 drones.
[[Related Posts]]
John Waters, a former Air Force F-16 pilot, said enemy drones have rapidly “transformed the battle space” and said tackling swarms of unmanned systems presents multiple problems for fighter jets.
“Technology will continue to improve on both sides, but mass is definitely an issue. Large drone swarms are challenging,” Waters said. “For fighters to be able to target and eliminate numerous threats at once obviously presents challenges when we're talking about congested airspace, multiple fighters, multiple threats, multiple friendlies, and having to manage [that] all at once.”
Earlier this month, CENTCOM confirmed that three U.S. F-15E Strike Eagles were shot down in “an apparent friendly fire incident,” over Kuwait, adding it took place “during active combat—that included attacks from Iranian aircraft, ballistic missiles, and drones.”
The death toll from unintercepted drones has been steep. Last week, six U.S. soldiers were killed in a makeshift facility in Port Shuaiba, Kuwait, after it was struck by an Iranian drone that evaded air defenses.
Caine said during a Pentagon press conference Tuesday that the U.S. has started to target Iran's drone manufacturers.
“We've begun to target Iran's military and industrial complex, again focusing on centers of gravity to get upstream of the shooters out in the field in order to deny them the ability to continue to generate those one-way attack drones,” he said.
Downing drones and curbing costs
The first 100 hours of Operation Epic Fury cost roughly $3.7 billion, or $891.4 million per day, according to a recent Center for Strategic and International Security estimate. CSIS analysts reported that air-defense munitions costs for those initial operations could have ranged from $1.2 billion to $3.7 billion.
Many U.S. and allied jets are armed with AIM-120s that cost around $1 million and AIM-9s of around $400,000 each.
Using expensive air- or ground-based interceptors to target the inexpensive Shahed drones is a victory for Iran, Forecast International, a sister publication of Defense One, said in a report last week.
“Every $30,000 Shahed that forces the U.S. or a partner to fire a $4 million PAC-3 missile is a massive win for Iran—because of the relative cost, and because Iran has far more cheap drones than the U.S. and its partners have expensive interceptors,” the report said.
In recent years, to reduce the cost of expensive munitions used on one-way attack drones, the Air Force outfitted fourth-generation U.S. fighter jets such as the F-15E and F-16s with a more affordable missile. The Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System II, or APKWS, is a precision-guided rocket with a cost ranging anywhere from nearly $25,000 to $40,000, according to a 2025 report for the Center for a New American Security.
Adm. Brad Cooper, the CENTCOM commander, said during a press conference last week that the military has been embracing more cost-effective drone interceptors.
“I think you have seen over a period of time, us kind of get on the other side of this cost curve, on drones in general,” Cooper told reporters. “If I just walk back a couple of years, do you remember what you used to always hear? ‘We're shooting down a $50,000 drone with a $2 million missile.’ These days we're spending a lot of time shooting down hundred-thousand-dollar drones with $10,000-weapons.”
Last May, CENTCOM posted a video it said showed the downing of a Houthi drone with an APKWS.
CENTCOM did not respond to a Defense One query asking if the APKWS had seen widespread use during Operation Epic Fury.
Waters said fifth-generation fighter jets firing expensive munitions at Shahed drones seems impractical.
“I think it's fair to say that F-35s and F-22s are overkill when it comes to shooting down a drone that has an engine you might find in a lawn mower,” Waters said. “However, we've had to utilize our high-end fighters to counter these threats because they're new and emerging.”
He views F-15 and F-16 fighters with upgraded radar systems and APKWS missiles as “key components” against the rising threat of drones on the battlefield.
“When we first saw fighters being utilized to take down drones, we saw them using AIM-120s and AIM-9s,” Waters said. “Now, with the introduction of the AGR-20 [APKWS], we're able to see the U.S. respond to these drones with a relatively low-cost weapon versus an advanced missile.”
Historically, F-16 fighter jets have targeted surface-to-air missile sites through Suppression of Enemy Air Defense, or SEAD, missions, using the Air Force’s “Wild Weasel” squadrons.
But Dan Hampton, a former F-16 Wild Weasel pilot, told Defense One he wouldn’t be surprised to see those SEAD aviators take on Iranian drones if called upon.
“I'll tell you, from experience, the Wild Weasel stuff was just one mission that we did, and we would pivot three, four times each mission to different missions,” Hampton said. “We didn't shoot down drones then because there weren't any drones. But, we would go from hunting and killing SAMs to hunting tanks or blowing up bridges or whatever it was that was needed, as long as we had fuel and ammunition, we would adapt to it.”
Dave Deptula, a former fighter pilot and the dean of the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Power Studies, highlighted the strategic importance of taking out the drone launchers themselves, and said a multi-role F-16 would be up to that job.
“The best way to conduct defense is through an offense,” Deptula said. “So, I'm going to go out and I'm going to try to blow up all of those Shahed launchers.”
‘Too little, too late’
Ukraine has countered Shahed drones for more than four years in its ongoing war with Russia—without state-of-the-art fighters or expensive munitions. Now, despite past slights by President Donald Trump’s administration, the country is backing the U.S. in its fight against Iran’s unmanned systems.
“We received a request from the United States for specific support in protection against ‘Shaheds’ in the Middle East region,” Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy wrote on X. “I gave instructions to provide the necessary means and ensure the presence of Ukrainian specialists who can guarantee the required security.”
Hampton told Defense One, that based on Ukraine’s war with Russia, it’s likely that Ukraine would advise the U.S. military to use “everything they can,” no matter the financial cost.
“The United States weapons technology is the best in the world. If you're having to use a $3 million missile to shoot down a $50,000 drone, yeah, it's not cost-effective, if that's solely your metric,” Hampton said. “But you also have to consider, where is this drone heading? Is it headed for the center of a power grid? Is it headed for a hospital or a school or something like that? In which case, who cares how much the weapons cost to bring it down?”
Hampton said the Pentagon should also consider other solutions, such as using light attack aircraft armed with rockets and guns to counter drones.
Ukraine has offered its knowledge and proven technology in the past. The country reportedly tried to sell the U.S. its counter-drone systems last year during a White House presentation, warning that Iran had been building on the design of its one-way attack drones.
In 2024, the Joint Chiefs of Staff Joint Lessons Learned Division, which studies warfare and shares its knowledge with the services, had no “working groups or individuals” who focused solely on Ukraine, Defense One previously reported.
“I think it's too little, too late,” Hampton said. “Again, if there's one defining characteristic of the administration in Washington, it's arrogance. They're going to do it their way, no matter what, and they've only belatedly realized that maybe, in this case, they should have asked people that have apparently been doing this for years and years and years.”
]]>
