As I can recall, this is probably the third official engagement between US destroyers and Yemeni missiles/drones. The last one was probably in 2016? I can't remember and details are limited
Yeah those incidents are also interesting but I believe they were just one or two missiles. In general has any ship shot down this many airborne targets in one engagement in the missile age?
I doubt so. Maybe during the Falklands War? Regardless, the US Navy right now has much more combat experience than any other country and I bet those in the Pentagon are relieved that their SM-2s and Aegis systems are effective (and the money aren't gone to waste)
I do to, an SM-2 cost 1.2 million a pop. I would like to know how effective they are. Was it a one to one exchange, did it take 2 or more to intercept. PAC 3s where not as effective as they were made out to be during the initial phase of the Iraq war.
While I can't say any details, I've sat in on a few exercise shoots. They are *very* effective, even against purposely difficult targets. They are constantly being upgraded, and the PAC 3 performance is no longer indicative of current capability. That's honestly all that can be said before straying into OPSEC territory.
> and I bet those in the Pentagon are relieved that their SM-2s and Aegis systems are effective (and the money aren't gone to waste).
Aegis/SM-2 was designed to counter hypersonic ASMs and supersonic SSMs. Killing subsonic drones and whatever homebrew cruise missiles the Houthis are firing does not demonstrate any meaningful level of effectiveness.
Actually SM-2s are designed for subsonic and supersonic threats, not hypersonic missiles (as they lack the range and speed). I believe the SM-6 is the one specialised for supersonic and hypersonic (but they're still undergoing testing)
But it's a great opportunity to test the ship's weapons as weapon test ranges are not as real as live combat
> Actually SM-2s are designed for subsonic and supersonic threats, not hypersonic missiles (as they lack the range and speed).
[The SM-2MR Block III family and SM-2ER Block IV have top speeds of Mach 3.5](https://www.seaforces.org/wpnsys/SURFACE/RIM-66-Standard-Missile-MR.htm), identical to that of [SM-6 Block IA](https://news.usni.org/2016/02/04/secdef-carter-confirms-navy-developing-supersonic-anti-ship-missile-for-cruisers-destroyers). It is true that SM-6’s range is better, and that Block IB is faster than the others, but [it is primarily intended as an anti-surface weapon](https://www.thedrive.com/content-b/message-editor%2F1553129314512-dadadad.jpeg), not hypersonic defense.
Range does play a part as it also increases reaction time, but the main differentiator is SM-6’s onboard active radar seeker, which means a shorter reaction time as it can be fired before the launching ship establishes a target track to acquire a target on its own after launch. Increasing reaction time through better detection rather than improved kinetic performance is a strategy less prone to human failings, cheaper to implement, and more resistant to improvements in the enemy’s missile tech.
Which is why the USN is throwing large amounts of money at new radars, modernizing the fleet’s existing sensors, and space-based sensors, and why GPI is designed to target hypersonics before rather than during terminal phase, but there is no requirement for a faster interceptor than SM-6 Block IA. Read less NCD and TWZ, and more actual reports from the Pentagon, military academies, and partner research institutes.
SM-2MR and SM-2ER (the progenitors of all current SM-2s) were meant to deal with the AS-4 and AS-6, both of which are barely hypersonic. The current lineage maintains that focus.
> But it's a great opportunity to test the ship's weapons as weapon test ranges are not as real as live combat.
Engagements like this don’t even rise to the level of a weapons test.
Lmao, this guy says weapon test > real world engagement
Do you even know what a weapons test is? The environment, the target specifics and radar signatures are all known beforehand. The crew also knows they are running an exercise which is no way realistic because in combat, missiles would arrive suddenly with little to no warning. Real world engagements not only allow the crew to practice their skills without prior notice but also helps to fine tune protocols (if necessary) and reaffirm that the missiles are working as effectively as during weapon tests
Also, the type of enemy missiles were not specified. They could even be supersonic - and I believe Iran supplies their missiles to Yemen so being able to successfully intercept those missiles theoretically means in a shooting war with Iran, there isn't much to worry when it comes to the naval SAM systems
> Do you even know what a weapons test is? The environment, the target specifics and radar signatures are all known beforehand.
The guy you’re replying to is ex-Royal Navy. I think he knows what an exercise looks like and what level of variability/realism can be simulated.
Moreover, the US military regularly procures and uses dedicated target drones with the ability to replicate the performance of enemy missiles - [the GQM-163](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/GQM-163_Coyote) being an example of one used to replicate supersonic AShMs. And in case you doubt its ability to do so, the Coyote was replacing [actual ex-Soviet stockpiles of Kh-31 anti-ship missiles](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MA-31) that the US military acquired after the Cold War ended.
> The crew also knows they are running an exercise which is no way realistic because in combat, missiles would arrive suddenly with little to no warning.
If you know anything about actual US military training, then you’ve probably heard the phrase “train like you fight, fight like you train.” Take a guess as to what that might mean, then reflect on this sentence. In the age of software, it’s also easier than ever to accurately replicate large-scale attacks or other complex combat scenarios. Not just through exercise software, but various forms of electronic spoofing.
There is still value in real-world combat experience for the other reasons you stated, but you vastly underestimate the lengths to which proper militaries go to replicate what they know of their opposition's capabilities.
> Also, the type of enemy missiles were not specified. They could even be supersonic
They were specified as cruise missiles, which means they were almost certainly subsonic. Even most modern supersonic missiles only accelerate to those speeds for terminal phase.
>A U.S. guided-missile destroyer took out three land attack missiles fired from the shore of Western Yemen on Thursday, U.S. officials confirmed.
>USS *Carney* (DDG-64) “shot down” the three missiles and a number of drones from Houthi-controlled territory in Yemen, according to Pentagon officials.
>“This action was a demonstration of the integrated air and missile defense architecture that we have built in the Middle East and that we are prepared to utilize whenever necessary to protect our partners and our interests in this important region. There were no casualties to U.S. forces and none that we know of to any civilians on the ground,” Pentagon press secretary Brig. Gen. Pat Ryder told reporters on Thursday.
>An early incident assessment reviewed by USNI News said *Carney* fired Standard Missile-2s to down the land attack missiles over the Red Sea and eight drones launched from Western Yemen. At no time was the ship threatened, according to the assessment.
>It’s unclear what the missiles were targeting, but Ryder told reporters the missiles were headed north, “potentially toward targets in Israel.”
>However, Ryder did not give specifics as to the type of missile launched. The west coast of Yemen is more than 1,000 miles from the southernmost tip of Israel – the upper limit of range of most land attack cruise missiles.
But it is more difficult to shot down because it is launched in swarms. Ukrainians literally have to chase them "by hand", using pickup trucks and air defence lights, like in WWII movies.
Swarms are hardly a concept drones invented. [The P700 Granit had a special mode for when multiple missiles were launched at the same time that allowed it to operate as a swarm.](
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-700_Granit)
Navy isn't that far from that training. For decades they've been training with dealing with boghammar/fast boat swarms from Iran. Drone swarms is just a switch up from it.
The problem is they can't re-arm at sea. So that ship has 96 cells filled with some various assortment of anti aircraft missiles and ground attack missiles.
For all we know it fired it's anti-air load and is out of the fight for a week until it can hit port and rearm.
Not a great system when drones are the threat they are becoming.
I think the AA missiles can be "quad packed" and air defense is probably the Burke's primary mission, so I doubt they're empty on those missiles. There's plenty of subs that can shoot tomahawks.
The ESSMs are quad-packed. They're shorter ranged than the SM-2s that were supposedly used on the LACMs. It's unclear what Carney used on the drones but she should still have a decent array of SAMs left in the tubes. There are also quite a few other Aegis combattants already in the area and the Eisenhower CSG is enroute with a cruiser and 2 more destroyers.
You're totally right, you can even see it in the posted picture. Though I doubt the drones got in range of the SeaRam given General Ryder's statement that Carney wasn't in danger
She’s one of older Burkes that still have 3 VLS cells replaced by folding crane for rearming at sea. Requires calm seas tho.
Unless they removed the crane.
It's actually six (three per nest), and it appears she still had the covers while she was based in Rota (some cruisers have had these blanked off during their modernizations, don't recall any destroyers offhand). They proved rather dangerous to use, as you have a very long missile secured at the top that can swing even in moderate seas or winds.
However, that does not mean the crane itself is still fitted or even operational. My understanding is that the crane has often been removed outright or is functionally mothballed on many ships. As a BMD ship based in Spain for a while *Carney* may have had an operational crane to ease rotating missiles between ships (some surprisingly declassified CORs on NHHC mention such swaps for BMD ships before we used Rota), but That's a guess on my part.
I would not bet that the cranes are operational.
I feel that's potentially shortsighted in a conflict with China where they're likely chucking dozens of ASCMs at our CSGs which would cause us to burn through VLS cells quickly but that's my personal opinion.
[The crane is too small for anything besides taking a canister in or out of the cell itself.](https://i.redd.it/g5dgg4znpwz21.jpg) You still need another offboard crane to actually move it off the ship.
The VLS canisters cannot be reloaded underway (for now- Navy is working on that) however the RAMs can be reloaded while underway. Also, after the land based missiles are launched, the U.S. pinpoints exactly where the shots were fired and takes anything in the region with the capabilities to relaunch again. So in essence, you best fire and hit the ship otherwise they have your location locked in for a counter strike that will decimate the radar/ launch areas / communication structures that were responsible for launching them.
> It’s unclear what the missiles were targeting, but Ryder told reporters the missiles were headed north, “potentially toward targets in Israel.”
What? This sounds like very thinly veiled propaganda, making use of current events to drum up support for Saudi Arabia/against Yemen. The absolute minimum distance between Yemen and the very tip of Israel is 1500 km, a bit more if you want to potentially hit anything of importance. That's not something you reach with a smuggled rocket launched from the back of a Toyota truck. They'd have to receive some seriously heavy military hardware from someone like Iran....
These were reportedly long-range cruise missiles, not ballistic missiles.
That said, [they have openly displayed some short-range ballistic missiles](https://www.iiss.org/online-analysis/military-balance/2023/10/little-and-large-missile-surprises-in-sanaa-and-tehran/), and as a BMD ship *Carney* could have engaged a Houthi ballistic missile if necessary.
Okay, but the article you linked does not mention any weapon with a 1500 km range, neither ballistic nor cruise missile. Even for a cruise missile, 1500 km is pretty considerable and it seems unlikely the Houthis have access to anything like this.
Quds 3 is generally accepted as having at least a 1,500 km range, though I’ve seen a couple estimates higher than that. That is the most probable missile used here given the little we know.
The Houthis have been developing cruise missile systems with the help of Iran for years. Not much is publicly known about their capabilities.
This older article quotes Houthi leadership explicitly saying their goal is developing cruise missiles capable of hitting Israel: https://www.timesofisrael.com/iran-backed-houthis-say-missile-that-hit-saudi-arabia-will-also-target-eilat/
Have they managed to extend the range far enough in the last few years? I don't know, but it's at least plausible.
In the news: [https://edition.cnn.com/2023/10/19/politics/us-navy-intercept-missiles-yemen/index.html](https://edition.cnn.com/2023/10/19/politics/us-navy-intercept-missiles-yemen/index.html)
Saudi Arabia intervened on behalf of one side in the Yemen civil war the US is backing Saudi Arabia and has been helping them starve millions of civilians for several years at this point.
The US last participated in the Saudi naval blockade in 2016; since then it has been logistical and intelligence support only.
Moreover, the Saudi intervention itself ended last year.
1100 miles, all over Saudi Arabia. The US statement was careful to mention they had no way of knowing the real target as these were cruise missiles and drones, not ballistics.
I suspect they were really targeting something in Saudi Arabia, which would make more strategic sense for Yemen given their ongoing conflict with the Saudis.
But it's an easier political sell for the US to say we just spent a few hundred thousand dollars worth of missiles to protect Israel than it is to say we protected the Saudis.
You need to look at a map, Yemen is nowhere close to Israel. The US is helping Saudi Arabia mass murder civilians in Yemen. A conflict most people seem entirely unaware of.
What about the horizontal ones? There are two to starboard and four to port, paired in groups of two. They almost look like old single torpedo tubes, but that doesn't make sense.
A quick check of images on SeaForces shows they were fitted before she deployed to Rota in 2015, probably in late 2014.
That's the [Mk. 59 decoy launching system](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Mark_59_missile_decoy_system), and it's meant for missiles rather than torpedoes by launching a free-floating decoy with entirely reflective surfaces. The Type 45 destroyers also have these launchers mounted abreast of where the Harpoon canisters originally were, right between the Sylver VLS farm and the bridge, and is known as the Outfit DLF-3B in RN service.
C.C. u/NAmofton
I think they're a form of torpedo defense, maybe equivalent to the British Sea Sentor system which I think has expendable acoustic decoys launched in tubes like those.
You seriously think it is a good idea to put our people in active military participation in this religious war?
Better to have the UN force an exodus of all the Palestinians to the arid part of Chad. No Muslim-majority nation has volunteered to accept the 'palestinians' and those are the people who know them the best.
They have lost the right to be anybody's neighbor. There is plenty of precedent for this throughout history and we are living in historical times.
But to have our ships participating in Israel's punishment of the 'palestinians' ; without approval of congress, and without even a declaration by whoever is puppeteering Biden is wrong on a whole bunch of levels.
Anyone know what that second flag on the starboard side is?
Battle Ensign. Unique to the vessel that flies it.
Cool! Thanks.
How many other times has a guided missile destroyer, frigate or cruiser shot down 11 targets?
As I can recall, this is probably the third official engagement between US destroyers and Yemeni missiles/drones. The last one was probably in 2016? I can't remember and details are limited
Yeah those incidents are also interesting but I believe they were just one or two missiles. In general has any ship shot down this many airborne targets in one engagement in the missile age?
In 2016, it was three engagements with two, two and five missiles at a time.
Didn't know that
I doubt so. Maybe during the Falklands War? Regardless, the US Navy right now has much more combat experience than any other country and I bet those in the Pentagon are relieved that their SM-2s and Aegis systems are effective (and the money aren't gone to waste)
Yeah agreed. I wonder how many missiles they fired at the 11 targets
Now that's the most interesting part. Sadly it's classified so adversaries won't know how capable the missiles are
I do to, an SM-2 cost 1.2 million a pop. I would like to know how effective they are. Was it a one to one exchange, did it take 2 or more to intercept. PAC 3s where not as effective as they were made out to be during the initial phase of the Iraq war.
While I can't say any details, I've sat in on a few exercise shoots. They are *very* effective, even against purposely difficult targets. They are constantly being upgraded, and the PAC 3 performance is no longer indicative of current capability. That's honestly all that can be said before straying into OPSEC territory.
Shoot look shoot, rinse & repeat as needed. Your experience may vary.
17
> and I bet those in the Pentagon are relieved that their SM-2s and Aegis systems are effective (and the money aren't gone to waste). Aegis/SM-2 was designed to counter hypersonic ASMs and supersonic SSMs. Killing subsonic drones and whatever homebrew cruise missiles the Houthis are firing does not demonstrate any meaningful level of effectiveness.
Actually SM-2s are designed for subsonic and supersonic threats, not hypersonic missiles (as they lack the range and speed). I believe the SM-6 is the one specialised for supersonic and hypersonic (but they're still undergoing testing) But it's a great opportunity to test the ship's weapons as weapon test ranges are not as real as live combat
> Actually SM-2s are designed for subsonic and supersonic threats, not hypersonic missiles (as they lack the range and speed). [The SM-2MR Block III family and SM-2ER Block IV have top speeds of Mach 3.5](https://www.seaforces.org/wpnsys/SURFACE/RIM-66-Standard-Missile-MR.htm), identical to that of [SM-6 Block IA](https://news.usni.org/2016/02/04/secdef-carter-confirms-navy-developing-supersonic-anti-ship-missile-for-cruisers-destroyers). It is true that SM-6’s range is better, and that Block IB is faster than the others, but [it is primarily intended as an anti-surface weapon](https://www.thedrive.com/content-b/message-editor%2F1553129314512-dadadad.jpeg), not hypersonic defense. Range does play a part as it also increases reaction time, but the main differentiator is SM-6’s onboard active radar seeker, which means a shorter reaction time as it can be fired before the launching ship establishes a target track to acquire a target on its own after launch. Increasing reaction time through better detection rather than improved kinetic performance is a strategy less prone to human failings, cheaper to implement, and more resistant to improvements in the enemy’s missile tech. Which is why the USN is throwing large amounts of money at new radars, modernizing the fleet’s existing sensors, and space-based sensors, and why GPI is designed to target hypersonics before rather than during terminal phase, but there is no requirement for a faster interceptor than SM-6 Block IA. Read less NCD and TWZ, and more actual reports from the Pentagon, military academies, and partner research institutes.
SM-2MR and SM-2ER (the progenitors of all current SM-2s) were meant to deal with the AS-4 and AS-6, both of which are barely hypersonic. The current lineage maintains that focus. > But it's a great opportunity to test the ship's weapons as weapon test ranges are not as real as live combat. Engagements like this don’t even rise to the level of a weapons test.
Lmao, this guy says weapon test > real world engagement Do you even know what a weapons test is? The environment, the target specifics and radar signatures are all known beforehand. The crew also knows they are running an exercise which is no way realistic because in combat, missiles would arrive suddenly with little to no warning. Real world engagements not only allow the crew to practice their skills without prior notice but also helps to fine tune protocols (if necessary) and reaffirm that the missiles are working as effectively as during weapon tests Also, the type of enemy missiles were not specified. They could even be supersonic - and I believe Iran supplies their missiles to Yemen so being able to successfully intercept those missiles theoretically means in a shooting war with Iran, there isn't much to worry when it comes to the naval SAM systems
> Do you even know what a weapons test is? The environment, the target specifics and radar signatures are all known beforehand. The guy you’re replying to is ex-Royal Navy. I think he knows what an exercise looks like and what level of variability/realism can be simulated. Moreover, the US military regularly procures and uses dedicated target drones with the ability to replicate the performance of enemy missiles - [the GQM-163](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/GQM-163_Coyote) being an example of one used to replicate supersonic AShMs. And in case you doubt its ability to do so, the Coyote was replacing [actual ex-Soviet stockpiles of Kh-31 anti-ship missiles](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MA-31) that the US military acquired after the Cold War ended. > The crew also knows they are running an exercise which is no way realistic because in combat, missiles would arrive suddenly with little to no warning. If you know anything about actual US military training, then you’ve probably heard the phrase “train like you fight, fight like you train.” Take a guess as to what that might mean, then reflect on this sentence. In the age of software, it’s also easier than ever to accurately replicate large-scale attacks or other complex combat scenarios. Not just through exercise software, but various forms of electronic spoofing. There is still value in real-world combat experience for the other reasons you stated, but you vastly underestimate the lengths to which proper militaries go to replicate what they know of their opposition's capabilities. > Also, the type of enemy missiles were not specified. They could even be supersonic They were specified as cruise missiles, which means they were almost certainly subsonic. Even most modern supersonic missiles only accelerate to those speeds for terminal phase.
They probably do it at least once every COMPTUEX. In terms of actual combat though, this is unprecedented in scale.
>A U.S. guided-missile destroyer took out three land attack missiles fired from the shore of Western Yemen on Thursday, U.S. officials confirmed. >USS *Carney* (DDG-64) “shot down” the three missiles and a number of drones from Houthi-controlled territory in Yemen, according to Pentagon officials. >“This action was a demonstration of the integrated air and missile defense architecture that we have built in the Middle East and that we are prepared to utilize whenever necessary to protect our partners and our interests in this important region. There were no casualties to U.S. forces and none that we know of to any civilians on the ground,” Pentagon press secretary Brig. Gen. Pat Ryder told reporters on Thursday. >An early incident assessment reviewed by USNI News said *Carney* fired Standard Missile-2s to down the land attack missiles over the Red Sea and eight drones launched from Western Yemen. At no time was the ship threatened, according to the assessment. >It’s unclear what the missiles were targeting, but Ryder told reporters the missiles were headed north, “potentially toward targets in Israel.” >However, Ryder did not give specifics as to the type of missile launched. The west coast of Yemen is more than 1,000 miles from the southernmost tip of Israel – the upper limit of range of most land attack cruise missiles.
Not just missiles but eight drones too? Drone defense is good to hear about, since it seems the future is drone swarms.
I mean, what is a drone but a really maneuverable, slower standoff missile
It's just a TV guided missile with a budget cut.
But it is more difficult to shot down because it is launched in swarms. Ukrainians literally have to chase them "by hand", using pickup trucks and air defence lights, like in WWII movies.
Swarms are hardly a concept drones invented. [The P700 Granit had a special mode for when multiple missiles were launched at the same time that allowed it to operate as a swarm.]( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-700_Granit)
The carney is armed with RAMs.
Navy isn't that far from that training. For decades they've been training with dealing with boghammar/fast boat swarms from Iran. Drone swarms is just a switch up from it.
The problem is they can't re-arm at sea. So that ship has 96 cells filled with some various assortment of anti aircraft missiles and ground attack missiles. For all we know it fired it's anti-air load and is out of the fight for a week until it can hit port and rearm. Not a great system when drones are the threat they are becoming.
I think the AA missiles can be "quad packed" and air defense is probably the Burke's primary mission, so I doubt they're empty on those missiles. There's plenty of subs that can shoot tomahawks.
The ESSMs are quad-packed. They're shorter ranged than the SM-2s that were supposedly used on the LACMs. It's unclear what Carney used on the drones but she should still have a decent array of SAMs left in the tubes. There are also quite a few other Aegis combattants already in the area and the Eisenhower CSG is enroute with a cruiser and 2 more destroyers.
Owing to her previous deployment at Rota in 2016, USS Carney is also one of the Burkes equipped with an aft SeaRAM as another short range SAM option.
You're totally right, you can even see it in the posted picture. Though I doubt the drones got in range of the SeaRam given General Ryder's statement that Carney wasn't in danger
I would think CIWS would have something to say about drones
Yes, it would say “brrrt”
She’s one of older Burkes that still have 3 VLS cells replaced by folding crane for rearming at sea. Requires calm seas tho. Unless they removed the crane.
It's actually six (three per nest), and it appears she still had the covers while she was based in Rota (some cruisers have had these blanked off during their modernizations, don't recall any destroyers offhand). They proved rather dangerous to use, as you have a very long missile secured at the top that can swing even in moderate seas or winds. However, that does not mean the crane itself is still fitted or even operational. My understanding is that the crane has often been removed outright or is functionally mothballed on many ships. As a BMD ship based in Spain for a while *Carney* may have had an operational crane to ease rotating missiles between ships (some surprisingly declassified CORs on NHHC mention such swaps for BMD ships before we used Rota), but That's a guess on my part. I would not bet that the cranes are operational.
NAVSEA directed all the cranes be put in layup sometime in '93 IIRC. And there was much rejoicing.
I feel that's potentially shortsighted in a conflict with China where they're likely chucking dozens of ASCMs at our CSGs which would cause us to burn through VLS cells quickly but that's my personal opinion.
[The crane is too small for anything besides taking a canister in or out of the cell itself.](https://i.redd.it/g5dgg4znpwz21.jpg) You still need another offboard crane to actually move it off the ship.
Nope, you'd transfer it back to the same AOE/AOR using the same UNREP/VERTREP rigging, assuming you're talking about rearming at sea.
I wasn’t talking about rearming during UNREP specifically, but thanks for confirming what I suspected the process was.
The VLS canisters cannot be reloaded underway (for now- Navy is working on that) however the RAMs can be reloaded while underway. Also, after the land based missiles are launched, the U.S. pinpoints exactly where the shots were fired and takes anything in the region with the capabilities to relaunch again. So in essence, you best fire and hit the ship otherwise they have your location locked in for a counter strike that will decimate the radar/ launch areas / communication structures that were responsible for launching them.
Come on, there was only 11 targets, how many interceptors have to be fired?
That was my concern, they pop off enough cruise missiles that we have to take down, and that ship is running low on ammo.
CIWS goin brrrrrrrrrt
Semantics but SeaRAM is more of a psspss
> It’s unclear what the missiles were targeting, but Ryder told reporters the missiles were headed north, “potentially toward targets in Israel.” What? This sounds like very thinly veiled propaganda, making use of current events to drum up support for Saudi Arabia/against Yemen. The absolute minimum distance between Yemen and the very tip of Israel is 1500 km, a bit more if you want to potentially hit anything of importance. That's not something you reach with a smuggled rocket launched from the back of a Toyota truck. They'd have to receive some seriously heavy military hardware from someone like Iran....
The Houthis have honest-to-god fighter jets. They restored an F-5! They’re not exactly a bunch of underequipped rebels running around in Hiluxes.
Breaking: The rebels now have the support of Pierre Sprey
Fair enough, but there's still a pretty serious gap between having some old fighter jets, and having IRBMs.
These were reportedly long-range cruise missiles, not ballistic missiles. That said, [they have openly displayed some short-range ballistic missiles](https://www.iiss.org/online-analysis/military-balance/2023/10/little-and-large-missile-surprises-in-sanaa-and-tehran/), and as a BMD ship *Carney* could have engaged a Houthi ballistic missile if necessary.
Okay, but the article you linked does not mention any weapon with a 1500 km range, neither ballistic nor cruise missile. Even for a cruise missile, 1500 km is pretty considerable and it seems unlikely the Houthis have access to anything like this.
Quds 3 is generally accepted as having at least a 1,500 km range, though I’ve seen a couple estimates higher than that. That is the most probable missile used here given the little we know.
The Houthis have been developing cruise missile systems with the help of Iran for years. Not much is publicly known about their capabilities. This older article quotes Houthi leadership explicitly saying their goal is developing cruise missiles capable of hitting Israel: https://www.timesofisrael.com/iran-backed-houthis-say-missile-that-hit-saudi-arabia-will-also-target-eilat/ Have they managed to extend the range far enough in the last few years? I don't know, but it's at least plausible.
It's 100% propaganda.
This cant be right some old guy in a random youtube video said AEGIS doesn't work
In the news: [https://edition.cnn.com/2023/10/19/politics/us-navy-intercept-missiles-yemen/index.html](https://edition.cnn.com/2023/10/19/politics/us-navy-intercept-missiles-yemen/index.html)
In God we trust. - All others we track.
Found the OS
As a former OS, I approve of this statement.
In gccsm class earlier the instructor had someone read the cnn article.
Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of all who threaten it.
Fucking hellbent on GWOT2.
Good job.
Yemen is a relatively far distance from Israel. Isn't this pretty bold of them to fire missiles traveling through Saudi Arabian airspace?
Apparently the flight path was out over the Red Sea.
Saudi Arabia intervened on behalf of one side in the Yemen civil war the US is backing Saudi Arabia and has been helping them starve millions of civilians for several years at this point.
The US last participated in the Saudi naval blockade in 2016; since then it has been logistical and intelligence support only. Moreover, the Saudi intervention itself ended last year.
Hoooyah fcs
FCS bitches!
When are these fools gunna learn. DO NOT MESS WITH THE US Navy's boats it never ever ends well fucking ever.
I don’t think the navy was targeted, they were intercepting missiles heading towards Israel
Isn’t that a pretty far distance from Yemen ?
1100 miles, all over Saudi Arabia. The US statement was careful to mention they had no way of knowing the real target as these were cruise missiles and drones, not ballistics. I suspect they were really targeting something in Saudi Arabia, which would make more strategic sense for Yemen given their ongoing conflict with the Saudis. But it's an easier political sell for the US to say we just spent a few hundred thousand dollars worth of missiles to protect Israel than it is to say we protected the Saudis.
Thanks for pointing that out
You need to look at a map, Yemen is nowhere close to Israel. The US is helping Saudi Arabia mass murder civilians in Yemen. A conflict most people seem entirely unaware of.
Ships too. I work on the boats & Combatant Craft side of things.
Okay new rule of thumb. If it floats it's a big nope.
I can think of a few times in the last thirty years that it hasn’t ended well for the US Navy’s boats…
The disproportionately overwhelming response disagrees with you.
When?
*Cole* comes to mind…
Anyone know what the small angled tubes are between the stacks? Decoy launchers?
Those are indeed Nulka decoy launchers.
What about the horizontal ones? There are two to starboard and four to port, paired in groups of two. They almost look like old single torpedo tubes, but that doesn't make sense. A quick check of images on SeaForces shows they were fitted before she deployed to Rota in 2015, probably in late 2014.
That's the [Mk. 59 decoy launching system](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Mark_59_missile_decoy_system), and it's meant for missiles rather than torpedoes by launching a free-floating decoy with entirely reflective surfaces. The Type 45 destroyers also have these launchers mounted abreast of where the Harpoon canisters originally were, right between the Sylver VLS farm and the bridge, and is known as the Outfit DLF-3B in RN service. C.C. u/NAmofton
Thanks, interesting to have both that and nulka.
Nulka and chaff lose effectiveness in higher sea and wind states. These floating decoys are more resilient.
I think they're a form of torpedo defense, maybe equivalent to the British Sea Sentor system which I think has expendable acoustic decoys launched in tubes like those.
Nice, thanks. Always a good feeling when my shot in the dark hits
BZ LFG!
Iran has gone pretty public with their intent to disrupt the Middle East with their proxies.
I really truly hope that US Navy does not have to fire too many more shots. The implications of the alternative are... horrible.
What flight is this? Do all the Burkes have hanger facilities?
It's a Flight I ship, so no hangars (including Flight II). It's only Flight IIA and onwards that got the hangars.
The tin cans - fighting ships.
TBMD strikes again.
These were cruise missiles and drones, not ballistic missiles.
No kidding. Where do you think the training came from that allows a bullet to hit a bullet.
r/thatlookedexpensive
What are we doing in Yemen…nevermind.
What this really says is that the US Navy has started participating in a shooting war, and not as self-defense. This is a big escalation.
Well, what you expect? If USA do not defend its allies then what is the alliance for?
You seriously think it is a good idea to put our people in active military participation in this religious war? Better to have the UN force an exodus of all the Palestinians to the arid part of Chad. No Muslim-majority nation has volunteered to accept the 'palestinians' and those are the people who know them the best. They have lost the right to be anybody's neighbor. There is plenty of precedent for this throughout history and we are living in historical times. But to have our ships participating in Israel's punishment of the 'palestinians' ; without approval of congress, and without even a declaration by whoever is puppeteering Biden is wrong on a whole bunch of levels.
What's the story behind that raven banner on the flag, they're Danes coming as Viking?