Houthi Rebels Lauch Two ASMs at US Warship

N&P: Discuss governments, nations, politics and recent related news here.

Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital

User avatar
Balrog
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2258
Joined: 2002-12-29 09:29pm
Location: Fortress of Angband

Re: Houthi Rebels Lauch Two ASMs at US Warship

Post by Balrog »

Broomstick wrote:My objection is to the DELIGHT in death and destruction. The applauding of killing.
Blind hatred can be an ugly thing. Though you could chalk it up to a zealot-like adherence to an narrow ideological viewpoint, but after a certain point the two kinda meld together.

I am curious though if the warship itself might have been responsible for causing the missiles to crash into the sea. No mention of engaging any of the physical point-defense weapons, but the possibility of electronic tomfoolery?
'Ai! ai!' wailed Legolas. 'A Balrog! A Balrog is come!'
Gimli stared with wide eyes. 'Durin's Bane!' he cried, and letting his axe fall he covered his face.
'A Balrog,' muttered Gandalf. 'Now I understand.' He faltered and leaned heavily on his staff. 'What an evil fortune! And I am already weary.'
- J.R.R Tolkien, The Fellowship of the Ring
Patroklos
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2577
Joined: 2009-04-14 11:00am

Re: Houthi Rebels Lauch Two ASMs at US Warship

Post by Patroklos »

Reports say they did use countermeasures (not sure if it was flare, chaff, etc) but if I had to bet they were just bad shots.
Simon_Jester
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 30165
Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm

Re: Houthi Rebels Lauch Two ASMs at US Warship

Post by Simon_Jester »

If I were the Navy, I wouldn't be particularly specific as to how my ship defeated the missiles. If the enemy just plain missed the target entirely and my defenses did nothing, I wouldn't want potential enemies to know. If my defenses were highly effective, I probably STILL wouldn't want potential enemies to know, and I certainly wouldn't want them knowing details of which defensive systems are good at what.
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov
User avatar
LaCroix
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 5196
Joined: 2004-12-21 12:14pm
Location: Sopron District, Hungary, Europe, Terra

Re: Houthi Rebels Lauch Two ASMs at US Warship

Post by LaCroix »

According to Globalsecurity, the Missile is worth it's money, quote
The Yingji-802 can be launched from airplanes, ships, submarines and land-based vehicles, and is considered along with the US "Harpoon" as among the best anti-ship missiles of the present-day world.
, crediting it with an estimated 98% of hitting, so I'm pretty sure that out of two, at least one would have hit the intended target, especially at that range.

Yeah, pretty sure it was the countermeasures that prevented a hit.
A minute's thought suggests that the very idea of this is stupid. A more detailed examination raises the possibility that it might be an answer to the question "how could the Germans win the war after the US gets involved?" - Captain Seafort, in a thread proposing a 1942 'D-Day' in Quiberon Bay

I do archery skeet. With a Trebuchet.
Patroklos
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2577
Joined: 2009-04-14 11:00am

Re: Houthi Rebels Lauch Two ASMs at US Warship

Post by Patroklos »

They are being charitable. We have long watched Iran practice with these things in the gulf and their ability to hit things with them under controlled conditions can only be described as surprisingly abysmal.

The fact that they characterized the Harpoon as one of the best ASMs in the world instead of an ancient outdated legacy leftover tells me all I need to know about their assessment. They both work, but the Russians and Chinese have been developing new and better ASMs for decades because their concept of operations relies on them.
User avatar
Sea Skimmer
Yankee Capitalist Air Pirate
Posts: 37390
Joined: 2002-07-03 11:49pm
Location: Passchendaele City, HAB

Re: Houthi Rebels Lauch Two ASMs at US Warship

Post by Sea Skimmer »

LaCroix wrote: , crediting it with an estimated 98% of hitting, so I'm pretty sure that out of two, at least one would have hit the intended target, especially at that range.
This is classic case of GS.org republishing commerical propapganda information from Chinese marketing...from the mid 1990s, and never updated since. And unlike FAS GS.org doesn't keep any of the original citations around either. That's also why it says Harpoon is good. In 1997 the latest Harpoon still was pretty good.

It might be estimated at 98% on some Chinese computer program, but even in that situation the Chinese would assume proper targeting upon launch. In fact probably perfect targeting, which in a computer simulation can be absolute. Real life never is for radar.

Now think about it this way, that missile design is from 1989 entry into service. It has upgraded versions, but they are called something different for that reason. What other Chinese electronic-technical product from 1989 do you recall being known for good quality?

Its an okay missile, in that it meets the basic requirements to be worth firing at a defended ship, but that's about it. Features like digital signal processing in the radar back end are simply going to suck. Never mind how old the actual warshots in question might be, if they are sourced directly from Iran they could be 20 years old.

The reality is the hit probabilities of missiles like this from that vintage of technology will never be very good. The missiles barely have an INS system, and no means of positive location; that was introduced only on the original unbuilt Harpoon II, and later simpler improved Harpoons which had GPS. C-802 predates this kind of technology.

While advertised radar ranges can be as high as 25nm maximum on Harpoon, which probably had a way better clutter rejection computer function then anyone else back then, realistically a 1980s vintage anti ship sea skimmer needed to be directed to within more like 3-5nm of a target to actually have a high probability to hit it. Russia went to all kinds of crazy trying to brute engineer around this, the formation flying P-700 being one example, but none of it was going to work great without GPS like navigation.
Yeah, pretty sure it was the countermeasures that prevented a hit.
That seems very unlikely, and would probably have been claimed by the US navy. The ships have obsolete jammers but they would primarilyfunction by deflecting the missiles off course into chaff clouds, rather then inducing them to crash. Making them crash isn't happening without jamming the radar altimeters, which just isn't likely under any situation because of the geometry involved. Also just for reasons of LOS if the jammer can reach the missile, a SAM can also be fired.

I'd say overwhelmingly likely answer is that the missiles were not targeted well enough to acquire the ship to attack, and may have physically performed poorly besides it. Course and speed changes by US warship may or may not have mattered, for all we know from public data on the missiles may have been fired at another ship over the horizon, missed, and then crashed short of the US ship. This will happen, ocean big. The Houthi control over 200 miles of coastline and dozens of large islands.

Without some period of radar tracking it's very hard to plot a ship course and speed. The Houthi may well have been using people in small boats with GPS and a radio for this, while they probable have suitable radars using them from shore would be a dead giveaway of an attack situation. Something that would probably make the ship steam over the horizon if it was unusual. If the Egyptians and Saudis didn't already destroy the fixed site radars I'd be amazing; explicitly they heavily bombed and shelled several fortress islands which had 130mm and 122mm gun batteries.
"This cult of special forces is as sensible as to form a Royal Corps of Tree Climbers and say that no soldier who does not wear its green hat with a bunch of oak leaves stuck in it should be expected to climb a tree"
— Field Marshal William Slim 1956
User avatar
Sea Skimmer
Yankee Capitalist Air Pirate
Posts: 37390
Joined: 2002-07-03 11:49pm
Location: Passchendaele City, HAB

Re: Houthi Rebels Lauch Two ASMs at US Warship

Post by Sea Skimmer »

Well, USNI now says they have a leak that says the ship did fire, may have hit one missile or it may have crashed, the other missile crashed short on its own certain. Which really again tends to favor a much less then idealized attack, or one directed at another ship.

Official sources are saying nothing useful.

I find this all now very odd, but the Obama administration is incapable of handling anything in a straightforward manner, perhaps I assume far too much reason is involved.
"This cult of special forces is as sensible as to form a Royal Corps of Tree Climbers and say that no soldier who does not wear its green hat with a bunch of oak leaves stuck in it should be expected to climb a tree"
— Field Marshal William Slim 1956
User avatar
Sea Skimmer
Yankee Capitalist Air Pirate
Posts: 37390
Joined: 2002-07-03 11:49pm
Location: Passchendaele City, HAB

Re: Houthi Rebels Lauch Two ASMs at US Warship

Post by Sea Skimmer »

So I see it was also part of the original report a lot of media cut out, that in fact these two inbounds were detected about 1 hour apart. Which only further muddles the situation.
"This cult of special forces is as sensible as to form a Royal Corps of Tree Climbers and say that no soldier who does not wear its green hat with a bunch of oak leaves stuck in it should be expected to climb a tree"
— Field Marshal William Slim 1956
User avatar
Lonestar
Keeper of the Schwartz
Posts: 13321
Joined: 2003-02-13 03:21pm
Location: The Bay Area

Re: Houthi Rebels Lauch Two ASMs at US Warship

Post by Lonestar »

USNI is also reporting that countermeasures were used, specifically the Nulka. I'm not too familiar with it, we only had SRBOCs on my ship.
"The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles."
Patroklos
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2577
Joined: 2009-04-14 11:00am

Re: Houthi Rebels Lauch Two ASMs at US Warship

Post by Patroklos »

We had. Its just a repeater that is held aloft by a helicopter type mechanism for a good clip of time.
User avatar
Sea Skimmer
Yankee Capitalist Air Pirate
Posts: 37390
Joined: 2002-07-03 11:49pm
Location: Passchendaele City, HAB

Re: Houthi Rebels Lauch Two ASMs at US Warship

Post by Sea Skimmer »

The main point is it can actually simulate ship motion, which negates a lot of simple filtering a missile can use to ignore countermeasures. It also means you can control the direction the missiles are lured, not towards other friendly ships. But the repeater function still has to work for that to matter.

And another one was launched today...
https://news.usni.org/2016/10/12/pentag ... ason-yemen

Houthi rebels fired two more cruise missiles at the guided-missile destroyer USS Mason (DDG-87) on Wednesday and Pentagon officials are pledging a response, DoD spokesman Peter Cook said in a Wednesday statement.

“For the second time in four days, USS Mason responded to an incoming missile threat while conducting routine operations in international waters off the Red Sea coast of Yemen,” Cook said.
“Those who threaten our forces should know that U.S. commanders retain the right to defend their ships, and we will respond to this threat at the appropriate time and in the appropriate manner.”

Mason was operating in the strait of Bab el-Mandeb when two costal defense missiles were launched at the ship from the vicinity of southern city of Al Hudaydah at around 1800 local time (1100 EST), according to information from defense officials provided to USNI News.

The missile attack did not result in any damage to the ship or injuries to the crew, Cook said.

Mason used unspecified countermeasures following the launch of the cruise missiles. However, it’s unclear whether the missiles missed their target and hit the water because of actions by the ship’s crew or if the missiles failed on their own.

Chief of Naval Operations Adm. John Richardson praised the actions of the crew in a statement provided to USNI News on Wednesday.

“The team on USS Mason demonstrated initiative and toughness as they defended themselves and others against these unfounded attacks over the weekend and again today. All Americans should be proud of them.” he said.
“These unjustified attacks are serious, but they will not deter us from our mission. We are trained and ready to defend ourselves and to respond quickly and decisively.”

The latest incident follows a separate attack on Sunday in which Mason had to defend itself from two missiles—believed to be Chinese-built C-802s (NATO reporting name CSS-N-8 Saccade) and provided to the Houthi rebels by Iran.

During Sunday’s attack the ship fired two SM-2s and an Evolved Seasparrow Missile (ESSM) to intercept the missiles launched from southern Yemen, USNI News reported on Tuesday. It’s not clear if Mason fired additional interceptors to counter the missiles from Yemen in Wednesday’s attack.

While the C-802s—based on the French Exocet anti-ship missile—are likely more than a decade old, they feature a powerful warhead capable of severely damaging the most sophisticated warship. A single air-launched Exocet sank the Royal Navy frigate HMS Sheffield during the Falklands War in 1982.

The damage the warhead can inflict is evident in the damage inflicted on the UAE- operated HSV Swift, which earlier was attacked by what is likely a C-802 launched by Houthi rebels
HSV Swift following an attack by what is believed to be a C-802 Chinese-built missile.

HSV Swift following an attack by what is believed to be a C-802 Chinese-built missile.

Combined with the Sunday attack, Wednesday’s incident is evidence of how easily weapons having the power to sink a $2 billion U.S. warship have fallen into the hands of non-state actors, Eric Wertheim—naval analyst and author of U.S. Naval Institute’s Combat Fleets of the World—told USNI News on Wednesday.

“It shows how easily these missiles can get into the hands of anyone who wants them and that our ships have to be ready,” he said. “It highlights the danger to shipping from even the most disorganized groups.”

Until now, the most recent attack against a warship with a guided missile from a non-state actor was the 2006 strike on the Israeli corvette INS Hanit by an Iranian-made C-802 variant by Hezbollah.

“It wouldn’t surprise me if we see more of this,” Wertheim said.

Last week, the United States sent three warships—Mason, USS Nitze (DDG-94) and the afloat forward staging base USS Ponce (AFSB(I)-15)—as part of a presence mission off the southern coast of Yemen following the destruction of Swift.

The presence of the U.S. ships is in part to reassure commercial traffic that transits the strait that connects the Red Sea to the Indian Ocean—one of the busiest maritime traffic zones in the world.

The attacks come as the U.S. is evaluating its support for the Saudi-led coaltion that has been fighting the Iran-backed Houthis since last year. A coalition bombing of a funeral that killed 140 and injured more than 500 came ahead of the first attack against Mason.

The following is the complete Oct. 12 statements from DoD spokesman Peter Cook and CNO Adm. John Richardson.

Statement by Pentagon Press Secretary Peter Cook on USS Mason

For the second time in four days, USS Mason responded to an incoming missile threat while conducting routine operations in international waters off the Red Sea coast of Yemen. At about 6 p.m. local time today (11 a.m. EDT), the ship detected at least one missile that we assess originated from Houthi-controlled territory near Al Hudaydah, Yemen. The ship employed defensive countermeasures, and the missile did not reach USS Mason. There was no damage to the ship or its crew. USS Mason will continue its operations. Those who threaten our forces should know that U.S. commanders retain the right to defend their ships, and we will respond to this threat at the appropriate time and in the appropriate manner.

Statement from Chief of Naval Operations Admiral John Richardson:

“The US Navy remains on watch in the Red Sea and around the world to defend America from attack and to protect U.S. strategic interests. These unjustified attacks are serious, but they will not deter us from our mission. We are trained and ready to defend ourselves and to respond quickly and decisively.
The team on USS Mason demonstrated initiative and toughness as they defended themselves and others against these unfounded attacks over the weekend and again today. All Americans should be proud of them.”
"This cult of special forces is as sensible as to form a Royal Corps of Tree Climbers and say that no soldier who does not wear its green hat with a bunch of oak leaves stuck in it should be expected to climb a tree"
— Field Marshal William Slim 1956
User avatar
Zeropoint
Jedi Knight
Posts: 581
Joined: 2013-09-14 01:49am

Re: Houthi Rebels Lauch Two ASMs at US Warship

Post by Zeropoint »

So, leaving aside the emotional, ethical, and legal aspects of the situation: what would the Yemeni rebels hope to accomplish by firing missiles at US Navy ships? Surely actually hitting the ships would provoke retaliation, with damage that would hurt them more than killing one ship would gain them?

Or, is that what they're going for? Are they trying to provoke the US into making an open and direct attack, and thereby look bad (well, worse) in the eyes of the world?

Or am I assuming a level of tactical and strategic thinking that they don't have, and the actual reasoning process was more like, "It's them! Blast them!"?
I'm a cis-het white male, and I oppose racism, sexism, homophobia, and transphobia. I support treating all humans equally.

When fascism came to America, it was wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.

That which will not bend must break and that which can be destroyed by truth should never be spared its demise.
User avatar
K. A. Pital
Glamorous Commie
Posts: 20813
Joined: 2003-02-26 11:39am
Location: Elysium

Re: Houthi Rebels Lauch Two ASMs at US Warship

Post by K. A. Pital »

The US has retaliated with missile strikes.

I guess if the goal was to pull the US into the war on Saudi side and "make it look bad", it is very close to being accomplished.
Lì ci sono chiese, macerie, moschee e questure, lì frontiere, prezzi inaccessibile e freddure
Lì paludi, minacce, cecchini coi fucili, documenti, file notturne e clandestini
Qui incontri, lotte, passi sincronizzati, colori, capannelli non autorizzati,
Uccelli migratori, reti, informazioni, piazze di Tutti i like pazze di passioni...

...La tranquillità è importante ma la libertà è tutto!
Assalti Frontali
User avatar
Lonestar
Keeper of the Schwartz
Posts: 13321
Joined: 2003-02-13 03:21pm
Location: The Bay Area

Re: Houthi Rebels Lauch Two ASMs at US Warship

Post by Lonestar »

A mighty three Houthi radar sites have been struck by TLAMs, although they were not launched by the Mason, which I think would piss off the crew of the Mason to no end.
"The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles."
Patroklos
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2577
Joined: 2009-04-14 11:00am

Re: Houthi Rebels Lauch Two ASMs at US Warship

Post by Patroklos »

K. A. Pital wrote:The US has retaliated with missile strikes.

I guess if the goal was to pull the US into the war on Saudi side and "make it look bad", it is very close to being accomplished.
Besides the fringe such as yourself, who would fault a retaliatory strike against an overt ASM attack on a nations warship? If that was the logic of the Houthi actions the point is to instigate an unprovoked or disproportionate response from the US. All they did is make themselves look like unstable assholes.
User avatar
K. A. Pital
Glamorous Commie
Posts: 20813
Joined: 2003-02-26 11:39am
Location: Elysium

Re: Houthi Rebels Lauch Two ASMs at US Warship

Post by K. A. Pital »

Patroklos wrote:
K. A. Pital wrote:The US has retaliated with missile strikes.

I guess if the goal was to pull the US into the war on Saudi side and "make it look bad", it is very close to being accomplished.
Besides the fringe such as yourself, who would fault a retaliatory strike against an overt ASM attack on a nations warship? If that was the logic of the Houthi actions the point is to instigate an unprovoked or disproportionate response from the US. All they did is make themselves look like unstable assholes.
Uh... I am definetely not "faulting" the US for retaliating, where'd you get that from? I am faulting them for selling weapons and supporting Saudite islamist killers. In fact, it is a much smaller crime to fire back with a missile at some radar locations than it is to supply the prime sponsor of global jihad with weapons and intelligence for its bloody endeavours in Yemen - and elsewhere.

And I agree so far the US has not directly intervened on the Saudi side. Maybe the US leaders are wise enough to avoid this.
Lì ci sono chiese, macerie, moschee e questure, lì frontiere, prezzi inaccessibile e freddure
Lì paludi, minacce, cecchini coi fucili, documenti, file notturne e clandestini
Qui incontri, lotte, passi sincronizzati, colori, capannelli non autorizzati,
Uccelli migratori, reti, informazioni, piazze di Tutti i like pazze di passioni...

...La tranquillità è importante ma la libertà è tutto!
Assalti Frontali
User avatar
ray245
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7956
Joined: 2005-06-10 11:30pm

Re: Houthi Rebels Lauch Two ASMs at US Warship

Post by ray245 »

K. A. Pital wrote:
And I agree so far the US has not directly intervened on the Saudi side. Maybe the US leaders are wise enough to avoid this.
Why would they want to actively support the Saudi? They would need to have some form of public support to aid the Saudis, which they do not really have. Given how much the US public is against the Saudis, no administration could afford to support the Saudi directly. After all, there is no narrative of innocent democratic loving people being oppressed in this Yemen conflict.
Humans are such funny creatures. We are selfish about selflessness, yet we can love something so much that we can hate something.
Simon_Jester
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 30165
Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm

Re: Houthi Rebels Lauch Two ASMs at US Warship

Post by Simon_Jester »

Patroklos wrote:
K. A. Pital wrote:The US has retaliated with missile strikes.

I guess if the goal was to pull the US into the war on Saudi side and "make it look bad", it is very close to being accomplished.
Besides the fringe such as yourself, who would fault a retaliatory strike against an overt ASM attack on a nations warship? If that was the logic of the Houthi actions the point is to instigate an unprovoked or disproportionate response from the US. All they did is make themselves look like unstable assholes.
Them shooting at us is reasonable, because we're beating on them indirectly. You can't fund someone's enemies and not expect to become a target.

Us shooting at them is also reasonable, because they're shooting at us.

One side or the other started it and is ultimately responsible for the conflict, but neither side's actions in this particular incident are blameworthy. Though if I were a Yemeni, I'd probably be yelling at my own missile battery crews for being bad shots and/or shooting at a time when it would gain them little.
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov
User avatar
K. A. Pital
Glamorous Commie
Posts: 20813
Joined: 2003-02-26 11:39am
Location: Elysium

Re: Houthi Rebels Lauch Two ASMs at US Warship

Post by K. A. Pital »

ray245 wrote:Why would they want to actively support the Saudi?
Because it fits their current strategic plans (which we do not know) and they have been supporting the Saudi-funded militias in Syria?
ray245 wrote:They would need to have some form of public support to aid the Saudis, which they do not really have.
In that, you are right. As far as I understood, Obama tried to veto a law that would allow US citizens to sue Saudis, but failed. Still, the US has been supporting the House of Saud with money and weapons for a good decade after 9/11. It is unlikely to end this support just now.
ray245 wrote:Given how much the US public is against the Saudis, no administration could afford to support the Saudi directly.
However, if they are drawn into a war, the public would have no choice but to consent, right? The covernment can always say that the rebels are belligerents who initiated the war, and this would be technically correct. The casus belli is there.
Lì ci sono chiese, macerie, moschee e questure, lì frontiere, prezzi inaccessibile e freddure
Lì paludi, minacce, cecchini coi fucili, documenti, file notturne e clandestini
Qui incontri, lotte, passi sincronizzati, colori, capannelli non autorizzati,
Uccelli migratori, reti, informazioni, piazze di Tutti i like pazze di passioni...

...La tranquillità è importante ma la libertà è tutto!
Assalti Frontali
User avatar
Sea Skimmer
Yankee Capitalist Air Pirate
Posts: 37390
Joined: 2002-07-03 11:49pm
Location: Passchendaele City, HAB

Re: Houthi Rebels Lauch Two ASMs at US Warship

Post by Sea Skimmer »

Lonestar wrote:A mighty three Houthi radar sites have been struck by TLAMs, although they were not launched by the Mason, which I think would piss off the crew of the Mason to no end.
Yeah, but her firing is tactically unsound, people on shore could physically sea the launches and take cover. Tomahawks from far over the horizon can arrive with total surprise. You really don't want people to know they are coming, they be shot down after all.

I can't help but observe that this is also exactly the kind of scenario DDG-1000 and her stealth hulk and extended range deck cannon was intended for.

I'm assuming these radars were being allowed to exist because they were civilian? Probably anyway.
"This cult of special forces is as sensible as to form a Royal Corps of Tree Climbers and say that no soldier who does not wear its green hat with a bunch of oak leaves stuck in it should be expected to climb a tree"
— Field Marshal William Slim 1956
User avatar
SpottedKitty
Jedi Master
Posts: 1004
Joined: 2014-08-22 08:24pm
Location: UK

Re: Houthi Rebels Lauch Two ASMs at US Warship

Post by SpottedKitty »

Sea Skimmer wrote:Tomahawks from far over the horizon can arrive with total surprise. You really don't want people to know they are coming, they be shot down after all.
Is there any record of a Tomahawk's vulnerability (or any other modern cruise missile) to actually being shot down? I know they can be treated as conventional planes in many ways, but they're small, usually very low-flying, and whooshandthey'regone fast. I can't see anything short of a modern, state-of-the-art AA system being able to engage one successfully.
“Despite rumor, Death isn't cruel — merely terribly, terribly good at his job.”
Terry Pratchett, Sourcery
User avatar
ray245
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7956
Joined: 2005-06-10 11:30pm

Re: Houthi Rebels Lauch Two ASMs at US Warship

Post by ray245 »

K. A. Pital wrote: Because it fits their current strategic plans (which we do not know) and they have been supporting the Saudi-funded militias in Syria?
I mean actively, as in sending troops and air support directly into the conflict.
In that, you are right. As far as I understood, Obama tried to veto a law that would allow US citizens to sue Saudis, but failed. Still, the US has been supporting the House of Saud with money and weapons for a good decade after 9/11. It is unlikely to end this support just now.
But it will be fairly limited. The escalation of conflict by the US would require a narrative that American public would buy. It's just US has been using up all the justification they can think of.
However, if they are drawn into a war, the public would have no choice but to consent, right? The covernment can always say that the rebels are belligerents who initiated the war, and this would be technically correct. The casus belli is there.
It would require a massive loss of life before the US have a casus belli that could get public support behind them. The US ambassador was killed in Libya and there is no public outcry for more intervention in Libya. The legacy of the Iraq War is still on the minds of many people.
Humans are such funny creatures. We are selfish about selflessness, yet we can love something so much that we can hate something.
Simon_Jester
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 30165
Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm

Re: Houthi Rebels Lauch Two ASMs at US Warship

Post by Simon_Jester »

SpottedKitty wrote:
Sea Skimmer wrote:Tomahawks from far over the horizon can arrive with total surprise. You really don't want people to know they are coming, they be shot down after all.
Is there any record of a Tomahawk's vulnerability (or any other modern cruise missile) to actually being shot down? I know they can be treated as conventional planes in many ways, but they're small, usually very low-flying, and whooshandthey'regone fast. I can't see anything short of a modern, state-of-the-art AA system being able to engage one successfully.
The thing is, they're not supersonic. Some random guy with a Stinger missile COULD theoretically shoot one down, even if it isn't very likely. And as Skimmer notes, even if you don't see one coming, you can still take cover against its attack, or take steps in a hurry to disperse equipment or get it under cover.

So surprise matters even if your weapon is invulnerable to counterattacks.
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov
User avatar
Sea Skimmer
Yankee Capitalist Air Pirate
Posts: 37390
Joined: 2002-07-03 11:49pm
Location: Passchendaele City, HAB

Re: Houthi Rebels Lauch Two ASMs at US Warship

Post by Sea Skimmer »

Its ~460mph at low altitude, somewhat faster when it cruises ~10,000 feet for more range. Its much like good WW2 aircraft coming at you, only much smaller and with no armor or redundancy aside from the missile warhead casing being tough. So tough to hit but much easier to bring down.

The main point is simply that the missile flies very low, and with infinite blind missile courage will attempt to obey even most insane flight path possible, which used to be limited by TERCOM radar contrast but now is much less of a consideration with LIDAR and GPS guidance. But if the enemy does see the missile it stands a good chance of being shot down by just about anything. The Soviets simply put a lot of SAM systems up on towers, long before the S-300 had its famous masts, to give them some chance to hit targets at 200ft.

That makes the survivability of the missile extremely dependent on the terrain, the layout of the defenses and the ability of the mission planners and the launch platforms to execute something approaching a precise time on target. In the Gulf War a large number of Tomahawks were shot down, the number is classified but it was probably over 50% in later attacks, because the limitations of route and mission planning imposed meant the missiles would arrive in a stream at the target, and some were used in daylight. The Iraqis simply had a lot of AD gear, and actively moved it to park under the Tomahawk routes.

Its also a feature of the concept that you can use some of the missiles to attack specific defenses, and for all the claims and cries of mobility SAM batteries trying to defend strategic targets are generally not going to be moving in real time. So a major Tomahawk attack can incorporate a measure of integral defense suppression without requiring manned aircraft.

Future Tomahawks are going to have an anti radiation seeker to help deal with mobile defenses and let them hit even moving emitters. It would not surprise me if classified Tomahawks had already been stockpiled like that, its just in the past it would have been too bulky and expensive to fit to all of them with such a seeker head. The US has generally kept its passive radiation stuff pretty damn secret. Even public weapons we know exist like the anti Jammer Patriot are still functionally underwraps.

Most subsonic cruise missiles like Harpoon and C-802 are closer to .9 mach speeds and usefully penetrate defenses better for it, weapons like optical AA become far less relevant except random chance, but said weapons tend not to have anything like 900nm range. Tomahawk is so slow a competing design actually used a propfanbut the radar signature was too high.
"This cult of special forces is as sensible as to form a Royal Corps of Tree Climbers and say that no soldier who does not wear its green hat with a bunch of oak leaves stuck in it should be expected to climb a tree"
— Field Marshal William Slim 1956
User avatar
Sea Skimmer
Yankee Capitalist Air Pirate
Posts: 37390
Joined: 2002-07-03 11:49pm
Location: Passchendaele City, HAB

Re: Houthi Rebels Lauch Two ASMs at US Warship

Post by Sea Skimmer »

USS Mason has been attacked by multiple missiles a third time.
"This cult of special forces is as sensible as to form a Royal Corps of Tree Climbers and say that no soldier who does not wear its green hat with a bunch of oak leaves stuck in it should be expected to climb a tree"
— Field Marshal William Slim 1956
Post Reply