Yemen Crisis/Conflict & the "Decisive Storm" Coalition


Surely you don t fire a SM-2 at a missile that is fired from a distance of a score of kilometres? Smaller and cheaper missiles
according to the US Navy announcement, one ESSM was fired, in addition to two SM-2s

or the Phalanx should do it.
nah, you don't know incoming missiles' profiles to claim this, I mean a Phalanx is mounted at the fore, so what if they had been fired at close range and approaching (I said if, I of course don't know the profiles either) from the rear ... plus obviously SM-2s are the most reliable for this job; can you imagine the disgrace if the ship had been hit?! I can't

LOL by the way do you know what missiles the Partizans fired (I didn't see any official info, just "probably" "possibly" "evidence suggests" etc. stuff)?

And now they fired five Tomahawks. How much did these cost?
about six mil (in total, depending on the version)

But the main cost is to US diplomatic position.
which is:
 

delft

Brigadier
but Houthis have said they didn't shoot at any ships :) (links should be on the previous or so page here I have to go now)
Exactly. So how will US diplomats describe the current situation?
BTW perhaps the SM-2's were fired because they were reaching their "use before" date.
 

shen

Senior Member
Exactly. So how will US diplomats describe the current situation?
BTW perhaps the SM-2's were fired because they were reaching their "use before" date.

the radar tracks can be outside the range of ESSM even if Mason is sailing close to the coast.
 

shen

Senior Member
the radar sites targeted were reportedly already destroyed by the Saudi. and they were S-75 radar sites.
 

shen

Senior Member
US claim that they provide KSA with "intelligence".
BTW the Saudi air force has been trained by US for more than half a century. Why should it still be incompetent?

Korean War, Vietnam War, it is difficult to come up with examples of competent wartime performance by US trained foreign troops.
 

delft

Brigadier
Let's look at the Yemen-USN situation:
Three possibilities for the missiles:
They were fired by the Houthis
They were fired by another party as a false flag
No missiles were fired as in the Tonkin Gulf incident.

Despite the alleged fears of the crews of the USN ships the slight chance of success, the slight advantages and serious disadvantages of firing missiles at the ships, make it extremely unlikely that the Houthis are responsible.
The other two possibilities suppose that some party is intent on binding US closer to the conflict. For USN personnel to be involved in it would mean that somewhere in the chain of command there exists some very serious lack of discipline. The greater probablity is a false flag by Saudi Arabia or, less likely, one of its allies. Despite the poor performance of Saudi Arabia in this war, which is a disgrace for the education department of the Pentagon, this must be considered well within its capabilities.
 
US is openly on the side of the Saudi's

That's true but on the same side can mean a lot of different things. So far it has meant selling weapons, providing intelligence, providing diplomatic and some PR cover but not directly participating in the conflict at a meaningful scale.

Missile attacks against US warships by the Houthis are indeed suicidal as I doubt they are so ignorant as to think they can successfully attack a US warship with pot shots in the first place, and not suffer retaliation regardless of whether they succeed or fail.

Certainly Iran knows better, and such an event would be much more serious than harassing US warships near Iranian territorial waters or boarding a measly patrol boat that may have strayed into its territorial waters. Iran has its hands full and it is definitely against its interests to antagonize the US to the extent of a likely to fail missile attack on a warship.

Iran may be on the same side as the Houthis but it does not control them just as the US does not control the Saudis. Even among the Houthis the leadership is unlikely to have total control over frontline fighters especially if particular fighters are out for vengeance. The most probable explanation is that the recent Saudi strike on a Houthi funeral did indeed kill numerous Houthi VIPs on top of being a heinous war crime and the Houthis, at least some Houthis, are out for revenge with their crude capabilities with their desire for vengeance trumping logical thinking.
 
...
BTW perhaps the SM-2's were fired because they were reaching their "use before" date.
delft what "perhaps" doesn't fit your anti-American conjectures, which I noticed you had been posting all the day today, is that the opposite is true:
Navy Restricts Use of ‘A Number’ of SM-2 Missiles Following USS The Sullivans Launch Failure
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

(I'm saying this from the position which has been critical about the US relations with Saudis
for example
Wednesday at 5:21 PM
Sunday at 7:37 AM

now this:
US government warned last year that selling arms to Saudi Arabia could 'implicate it in war crimes’
Officials and lawyers within Barack Obama's administration repeatedly said that the US could possibly be defined as a 'co-belligerent' in the Yemeni civil war under international law

source:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
etc. but I think you're ready to say any baloney if it's anti-American enough, and I think in between your "false flags" one is conveniently missing: A horizontal tricolor of green, white and red, with ... but no, I won't conspire for you LOLOL)
now I'll give you Like and won't respond
 

Top