|
Originally Posted by Mogwi
(Post 11576246)
So perhaps don’t tell them what hit them?
Mog |
US fighter aircraft shot down an anti-ship cruise missile fired from a Houthi-controlled area of Yemen at one of its warships in the Red Sea, the US military said on Sunday night.
The missile was fired towards the USS Laboon which was operating in the Southern Red Sea, US Central Command said in a statement, in what appears to be the first such attempt on a US destroyer. No injuries or damage were reported, Central Command said. The incident follows warnings from Houthis and their allies of possible further military action in the aftermath of Friday’s US-UK bombing of rebel-held areas in Yemen. Initial briefings from the US suggested that only about a quarter of the Houthis’ missile and drone attack capability had been destroyed in that attack. A Houthi supporter said on Sunday that the group’s attacks on merchant shipping travelling the busy waterway south of the Suez Canal would continue “because they are at war with Israel”. Hussain al-Bukhaiti said that if the US and UK continued to bomb Yemen, Houthi forces would attack western warships “maybe using hundreds of drones and missiles,” which would represent a significant escalation. |
Originally Posted by ORAC
(Post 11576373)
US fighter aircraft shot down an anti-ship cruise missile fired from a Houthi-controlled area of Yemen at one of its warships in the Red Sea, the US military said on Sunday night.
The missile was fired towards the USS Laboon which was operating in the Southern Red Sea, US Central Command said in a statement, in what appears to be the first such attempt on a US destroyer. No injuries or damage were reported, Central Command said. The incident follows warnings from Houthis and their allies of possible further military action in the aftermath of Friday’s US-UK bombing of rebel-held areas in Yemen. Initial briefings from the US suggested that only about a quarter of the Houthis’ missile and drone attack capability had been destroyed in that attack. A Houthi supporter said on Sunday that the group’s attacks on merchant shipping travelling the busy waterway south of the Suez Canal would continue “because they are at war with Israel”. Hussain al-Bukhaiti said that if the US and UK continued to bomb Yemen, Houthi forces would attack western warships “maybe using hundreds of drones and missiles,” which would represent a significant escalation. |
Facts 4 eu.org ....quote " The EU shows it is a long way from having any credible foreign and defence policy....
On 11-12 January 2024 in response to continued illegal and potentially lethal Houthi attacks against commercial shipping transiting the Red Sea and Suez Canal, the armed forces of the United States and the United Kingdom, with non-operational backing from the Netherlands, Canada, Bahrain, and Australia, conducted joint strikes against a number of targets in Houthi-controlled areas of Yemen. This was in accordance with the inherent right of individual and collective self-defence, consistent with the UN Charter. Germany and Denmark have since signed a joint statement in support of the attacks, but France, Italy and Spain refused. Only jets from the UK and US were involved. The UK Typhoons flew the missions from their base in Cyprus.". ends ________________ Divi up the costs and send to all. What a bunch of hangers on. |
Very long sortie
night tanking single pilot potentially very hazardous mission these Typhoon pilots deserve a lot of praise! |
Yemen
Firstly, it’s a long way from Cyprus to Yemen so well done to the folks involved in this mission and those supporting it.
Next, it was of course only a matter of time before a retired Fish head wrote to the Times demanding to know why we have not dispatched an aircraft carrier to the Red Sea. Whilst I rarely agree with anything retired senior naval officers say it is in this case a valid question so I thought I would start speculating on reasons why not. Semi serious perhaps but all contributions valid! The obvious ones, we don’t have enough aircraft, we don’t have enough crews, neither are combat ready. The aircraft don’t yet have clearance to drop anything, we are concerned that we don’t have enough escort vessels to prevent the carrier getting hit by a missile. All these points are pure speculation but the carriers take a HUGE chunk of the defence budget so if we don’t use then now what’s the point? |
Because HMSQNLZ is preparing to deploy, with her F-35s, on Exercise Steadfast Defender.
MOD has confirmed that, if required, she can redeploy at short notice. However, much as retired admirals would like the publicity, the USN are capable of doing the job with the RAF providing token international air support as and when required. |
Originally Posted by ASRAAMTOO
(Post 11576634)
Firstly, it’s a long way from Cyprus to Yemen so well done to the folks involved in this mission and those supporting it.
Next, it was of course only a matter of time before a retired Fish head wrote to the Times demanding to know why we have not dispatched an aircraft carrier to the Red Sea. Whilst I rarely agree with anything retired senior naval officers say it is in this case a valid question so I thought I would start speculating on reasons why not. Semi serious perhaps but all contributions valid! The obvious ones, we don’t have enough aircraft, we don’t have enough crews, neither are combat ready. The aircraft don’t yet have clearance to drop anything, we are concerned that we don’t have enough escort vessels to prevent the carrier getting hit by a missile. All these points are pure speculation but the carriers take a HUGE chunk of the defence budget so if we don’t use then now what’s the point? |
Because the crabs (two legged variety) run naval aviation these days and they don't like going to sea.
|
Because it is unnecessary at this time? There are enough carriers already on station.
|
Originally Posted by Asturias56
(Post 11575891)
The Security Council can only act if they agree - or more likely no-one objects. Russia will almost certainly object
Prior to the adoption, Vassily A. Nebenzia (Russian Federation) said that his country takes questions involving international shipping seriously, expressing concern over the situation in the Red Sea. However, he noted that the United States and its allies preferred to choose a path of unilateral solutions to a problem by force, cobbling together a so-called “international coalition” to ensure security. He stressed that the authors of the resolution are not trying to ensure security in the Red Sea but, rather, to legitimize the coalition’s actions in hindsight and achieve an open-ended blessing from the Council. (source press.un.org) (...) 2. Demands that the Houthis immediately cease all such attacks, which impede global commerce and undermine navigational rights and freedoms as well as regional peace and security, and further demands that the Houthis immediately release the Galaxy Leader and its crew; 3. Affirms the exercise of navigational rights and freedoms by merchant and commercial vessels, in accordance with international law, must be respected, and takes note of the right of Member States, in accordance with international law, to defend their vessels from attacks, including those that undermine navigational rights and freedoms; 4. Commends the efforts by Member States within the framework of the International Maritime Organization, to enhance the safety and secure transit of merchant and commercial vessels of all States through the Red Sea; (...) |
Originally Posted by Video Mixdown
(Post 11576647)
You have no evidence that any of what you say is true. Decisions about the use of military resources are not made because of what's written in newspaper articles.
PS For clarity the bit about getting facts from todays BBC was VERY MUCH tongue in cheek! |
'orrid Little Tw@t with a reservation in the best Bunker in Town seems to think WW3 is a Go.....
No money left except for killing people |
Sorry, even though I agree with a lot of what he says, I couldn’t force myself to read it right to the end. Didn’t his school teacher tell him that paragraphs need at least two sentences?
The country deserves better than him in that pivotal röle, especially at this juncture in history. Mog |
My father who was in the Navy would say "Because a single pilot and aircraft is cheaper to replace than a carrier".
Why risk the carrier fighting a not very important enemy when you can send a few planes? |
Originally Posted by Right20deg
(Post 11576416)
Facts 4 eu.org ....quote " The EU shows it is a long way from having any credible foreign and defence policy....
On 11-12 January 2024 in response to continued illegal and potentially lethal Houthi attacks against commercial shipping transiting the Red Sea and Suez Canal, the armed forces of the United States and the United Kingdom, with non-operational backing from the Netherlands, Canada, Bahrain, and Australia, conducted joint strikes against a number of targets in Houthi-controlled areas of Yemen. This was in accordance with the inherent right of individual and collective self-defence, consistent with the UN Charter. Germany and Denmark have since signed a joint statement in support of the attacks, but France, Italy and Spain refused. Only jets from the UK and US were involved. The UK Typhoons flew the missions from their base in Cyprus.". ends ________________ Divi up the costs and send to all. What a bunch of hangers on. Did it cross your mind that other interested parties may be perhaps keeping their powder dry for now while they pursue other channels? |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 05:23. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.