March 13 (Reuters) - Five U.S. Air Force refueling planes ​were struck and ‌damaged on the ground at Prince Sultan ​air base in ​Saudi Arabia, the Wall ⁠Street Journal reported ​on Friday, citing two ​U.S. officials.

The planes, which were hit during an ​Iranian missile strike ​on the Saudi base in ‌recent ⁠days, were damaged but not fully destroyed and are ​being repaired, ​the ⁠Journal said, adding that no ​one was killed ​in ⁠the strikes.

https://www.reuters.com/world/five-us-air-force-refueling-planes-hit-iranian-strike-saudi-arabia-wsj-reports-2026-03-13/

@Astraea I don’t think this necessarily resolves it, but the probability is way too low.

Buying NO at 19%. The market requires a confirmed manned aircraft shootdown by Iran. As of day 14 of the conflict: the MQ-9A Reaper was unmanned, the 3 jets downed over Kuwait were friendly fire (Kuwaiti air defenses), and the KC-135 crash is officially "not due to hostile fire" per CENTCOM. Iran has SAM capabilities but the US is operating with standoff munitions and stealth — the probability of Iran successfully downing a manned aircraft in the remaining 17 days is low. Estimate ~10%.

How will this resolve if an aircraft is shot down by the Iraqi militia that is supported by Iran?

@PoliticalEconomyPK https://manifold.markets/Qoiuoiuoiu/will-iran-shoot-down-a-us-military#74bvhbnc0y7

Loss of U.S. KC-135 Over Iraq https://www.centcom.mil/MEDIA/PRESS-RELEASES/Press-Release-View/Article/4432850/loss-of-us-kc-135-over-iraq/
Friendly fire?

Access Denied

@Vadim0Ly9n Says it was "not due to hostile fire or friendly fire".

@Qoiuoiuoiu Must have been those damn gremlins up to their tricks again

@Qoiuoiuoiu refueling aircraft right? So probably collision during refueling?

@bens That's what it sounds like to me. But it seems like it's a pretty safe procedure. Maybe something mechanical went wrong as well?

Sorry if this has been asked already, but what about emergency landing as a result of ballistic strike on an aircraft? So not necessarily "shot out of the sky", but clearly grounded as a result of an attack?

@Arcmage7000 Not creator but I'd personally suggest to @creator that if it has no casualties and/ or no ejections then it shouldn't count. a softer but different version of this might be "doesn't count if it makes it to a runway/ landing pad"

@Stralor That looks like a good way to clearly distinguish one resolution state from anther. I think that's fair if @creator decides to adopt that.

@Arcmage7000 Yeah - I think what @Stralor said sums up my thoughts exactly. If it successfully lands (e.g., runway or motorway), it doesn't count, regardless of injuries/fatalities. The aircraft would need to sustain significant damage upon "landing"/crashing for it to count.

@Arcmage7000 if the aircraft is inoperable/ sustained too much damage to continue operation; then it should count. It’s acceptable to land but be unable to take off again.

@Astraea How do we intend to confirm that with public info? What if the aircraft is repaired after landing? Would that count?

@Quroe if it lands in a base it’s most likely going to get repaired, but landing in the middle of nowhere and not getting cleaned makes it defunct tbh.

An aircraft that’s touching the ground is by all means a sitting duck.

@Astraea Oh! I think we're on the same page, then. I see what you're saying now.

@Astraea Hmm. I see what you're saying and part of me wants to agree; however, examples where that have occurred are often described as attempted shootdowns, rather than shootdowns.

Nota Bene: I'm a moderately large YES holder but still am in favor of a strict interpretation that is against my interests here. From as neutral a standpoint one can have, I'm glad Qoiu is adhering to that spirit of the market.

@Stralor indeed. I think this is a fair market :) it’s easy to be pedantic about this sort of stuff but creator is being pragmatic and fair.

@Qoiuoiuoiu If the pilot of the Kuwaiti F/A-18 that shot down the planes (U.S. F-15Es) happened to be found as an Iranian intelligence asset (sabatour, spy, sleeper agent, etc) would that count?

@DanzoAlerantos Ooh, good question! Yes, although they would need to be an agent of Iran (definitively connected to intelligence services) and not just a disgruntled Kuwaiti who sympathized with Iranians. Probably a high burden of proof here.

Do unmanned planes count?

@bens @Qoiuoiuoiu

@bens e.g. Iranian drone? Yes, this would count. Can you specify what you mean by unmanned plane?

@Qoiuoiuoiu I don't know if this is what Ben meant, but what if Iran shot down a US drone like a Predator? What about a kamikaze drone? (don't know if the US use them but still)

@Tomoffer No. Has to be driven by a human.

@Qoiuoiuoiu I feel like I'm being a prick here but, that isn't specified in the title or description...

@CourierSix A drone isn't a plane or helicopter. I think that's pretty clear cut but sorry if that was unclear.

@CourierSix I'll edit the description to make it more clear.

@CourierSix a drone is not a plane or heliphopter

@hidetzugu I am not saying that this counts 100% - but a potentially lethal drone is on AirNavRadar...

@CourierSix FWIW this would likely resolve 'yes' if unmanned aircraft were counted, as the Iranians have apparently downed several MQ-9 Reapers (possibly as many as 11, depending who you believe).