|
The MoA Week In Review – OT 2025-107
Last week's posts on Moon of Alabama:
—
Other issues:
Gaza:
Germany:
Empire:
Britain:
Turkey:
Rules Based Order:
Use as open (not related to the wars in Ukraine and Palestine) thread …
To view keyboard shortcuts, press question mark
View keyboard shortcuts
Grok 3
See new posts
Are there any in depth news stories about Yemen targeting and nearly hitting an American F-35 stealth fighter jet
Several news stories have reported on an incident during the U.S. military’s Operation Rough Rider (March-May 2025) in Yemen, where Houthi forces nearly hit an American F-35 stealth fighter jet with a surface-to-air missile (SAM). Below is a detailed summary of the available information from credible sources, focusing on in-depth coverage of the event:
Key Details of the Incident
Operation Rough Rider: The U.S. launched an intensified bombing campaign against Houthi targets in Yemen starting March 15, 2025, under the Trump administration. The campaign aimed to curb Houthi attacks on Red Sea shipping and their drone and missile strikes, including those targeting Israel.
F-35 Incident: During this operation, a U.S. F-35 Lightning II, a fifth-generation stealth fighter, was forced to take evasive maneuvers to avoid a Houthi SAM. The missile came close enough to require the jet to maneuver aggressively, though it escaped unharmed.
Houthi Air Defenses: The Houthis, backed by Iran, possess a mix of Soviet-era and Iranian-supplied anti-air systems, including mobile SAMs and infrared-homing missiles like the Saqr/358 series. These systems, while not as advanced as Russia’s S-400, proved capable of threatening advanced U.S. aircraft, including the F-35.
Other Aircraft at Risk: Alongside the F-35, several U.S. F-16s were also nearly struck by Houthi air defenses during the campaign. Additionally, the Houthis shot down at least seven U.S. MQ-9 Reaper drones, each costing around $30 million.
Ceasefire Context: On May 6, 2025, President Trump announced a ceasefire mediated by Oman, halting U.S. strikes after the Houthis agreed to stop targeting Red Sea vessels. Some reports suggest the near-loss of advanced jets like the F-35 and F-16, combined with the high cost of the campaign (over $1 billion), influenced the decision to pause operations.
In-Depth News Stories and Analysis
The War Zone (TWZ) – “How The Houthis’ Rickety Air Defenses Threaten Even The F-35” (May 14, 2025)
Details: TWZ provided a detailed analysis of the Houthi air defense capabilities, noting their use of highly mobile SAM systems and infrared-homing missiles. A U.S. official confirmed to TWZ that the F-35 had to maneuver to evade Houthi SAMs, stating, “They got close enough.” The article highlights how Houthi defenses prompted increased use of stealth aircraft like the F-35 and costly standoff munitions to minimize risks.
Significance: The piece emphasizes the surprising effectiveness of Houthi air defenses against advanced U.S. aircraft, raising questions about the F-35’s survivability in asymmetric warfare. It also references a prior TWZ deep dive into the Houthi air defense arsenal, underscoring their Iranian-backed capabilities.
Link: TWZ Article
The New York Times – “Why Trump Suddenly Declared Victory Over the Houthi Militia” (May 12, 2025)
Details: The NYT reported that within the first 30 days of Operation Rough Rider, Houthi air defenses nearly struck an F-35 and several F-16s, raising concerns about potential American casualties. The article frames the incident as part of a broader, costly, and inconclusive U.S. campaign that failed to establish air superiority over the Houthis.
Significance: The NYT connects the near-miss to the Trump administration’s decision to declare a ceasefire, suggesting that the risks to advanced aircraft and the campaign’s high costs (including the loss of seven MQ-9 drones) prompted a strategic retreat.
Link: NYT Article
19FortyFive – “The Houthis Proved the F-35 Fighter Can Be Shot Down” (May 16, 2025)
Details: This article describes the F-35 incident as a wake-up call, noting that the jet’s advanced stealth features did not prevent it from being targeted by Houthi defenses. It highlights the Houthis’ Iranian-supplied weaponry and training, which enabled them to challenge U.S. air power.
Significance: The piece questions the F-35’s invulnerability, arguing that even non-peer adversaries like the Houthis can pose significant threats. It also critiques the broader efficacy of the U.S. campaign in Yemen, noting the Houthis’ resilience.
Link: 19FortyFive Article
Business Insider – “The F-35 stealth fighter isn’t invisible” (May 17, 2025)
Details: This article discusses the F-35’s near-miss, quoting retired U.S. Army Major General Gordon Davis, who described Houthi air defenses as “a significant threat” to aircraft operating near Yemen. It notes uncertainty about whether the F-35 was directly targeted or if the Houthis fired in its general direction, forcing evasive action.
Significance: The piece underscores that the F-35, despite its advanced stealth capabilities, is not invulnerable. It compares the Houthi defenses to more sophisticated threats the jet was designed to counter, suggesting the incident may not fundamentally alter perceptions of the F-35’s capabilities.
Link: Business Insider Article
BulgarianMilitary.com – “Not Russia, not China, Houthis nearly down F-35 over Yemen” (May 14, 2025)
Details: This outlet describes the F-35 incident as a “shocking near-miss” during Operation Rough Rider, emphasizing the technological and strategic implications. It notes that the F-35’s survival reflects its design strengths, but the fact it was targeted challenges assumptions about stealth superiority.
Significance: The article frames the incident as evidence of the evolving nature of asymmetric warfare, where even less-resourced groups like the Houthis can threaten cutting-edge U.S. technology.
Link: BulgarianMilitary Article
Additional Context and Sentiment
Houthi Capabilities: The Houthis’ ability to target the F-35 likely stems from their Iranian-supplied systems, such as the Saqr/358 missile, which uses infrared homing and has some loitering capability. While not as advanced as top-tier air defenses, these systems exploit the F-35’s infrared signature, which cannot be fully masked.
Public and Social Media Reaction: Posts on X reflect shock and concern about the incident, with some users claiming it “humiliated” U.S. air power and exposed vulnerabilities in the F-35’s stealth capabilities. Others argue it highlights the effectiveness of Chinese or Iranian-supplied weapons used by the Houthis. However, these claims are speculative and not fully substantiated by primary sources.
Strategic Implications: The incident has sparked debate about the F-35’s survivability against less sophisticated adversaries and the broader challenges of maintaining air superiority in contested environments. Some analysts suggest it may lead to tactical shifts, such as greater reliance on standoff weapons or stealth bombers like the B-2.
Limitations and Uncertainties
Specific Details: The exact type of missile used by the Houthis and the circumstances of the F-35’s targeting (e.g., whether it was a direct lock or a proximity engagement) remain unclear.
Houthi Claims: Houthi-aligned sources have claimed responsibility for forcing U.S. aircraft into evasive maneuvers, but their statements lack independent verification and may exaggerate their capabilities.
Official U.S. Statements: U.S. officials have confirmed the incident but provided limited details, likely to avoid revealing operational vulnerabilities.
Conclusion
The near-miss of an F-35 by Houthi forces in Yemen during Operation Rough Rider is a significant event that underscores the evolving threat posed by Iranian-backed groups and the limitations of even the most advanced stealth technology. In-depth news stories from The War Zone, The New York Times, 19FortyFive, Business Insider, and BulgarianMilitary.com provide detailed accounts and analysis, highlighting both the tactical details and broader strategic implications. For further reading, the linked articles offer comprehensive insights into the incident and its context within the U.S.-Houthi conflict.
If you’d like me to dive deeper into a specific aspect (e.g., Houthi air defense systems, the F-35’s stealth features, or the political fallout), let me know!
27 posts
15 web pages
Posted by: Hot Carl | May 18 2025 16:42 utc | 29
@Jeremy Rhymings-Lang | Sun, 18 May 2025 21:44:00 GMT | 50
and it got me wondering: do we have any graduates/PHD’s in “political science” lurking or contributing?
I have one, in international relations, and I believe Roger Boyd does as well.
Because I’m wondering what, exactly, “political science” is? Does it have well-established and well-known experimental frameworks? Is there a system of peer review for new concepts, theories or discoveries? Where is the historical archive of research (and sometimes blunder) that exists for something like chemical, biological or physical sciences?
Is it even a real science? Or is it a meal-ticket for pumping out low-grade essays and articles for publication in Mighty Western Wurlitzer organs?Because I’m wondering what, exactly, “political science” is? Does it have well-established and well-known experimental frameworks? Is there a system of peer review for new concepts, theories or discoveries? Where is the historical archive of research (and sometimes blunder) that exists for something like chemical, biological or physical sciences?
I assume you’re being genuine and not snide in your commentary, so I will enlighten you. Political science, or politics outside the US, is an academic discipline, and is the systematic, and scientific, study of political interactions within and between polities. Is it “scientific”? Yes, it follows the scientific method. It is also, mostly, highly quantified, utilizing econometrics, game theory, advanced statistics, and that sort of thing. There are frameworks, there are theories, there is a vast body of literature, the tapestry of all human history is its archive, from which it draws upon.
The difference between the human/social sciences, and the natural sciences is that humans are reflective, they are not static. They think about their “condition” and this changes them, and thus, how they are studied. Unlike ants, or rocks, or gases, or clumps of asteroids, which take millions of years, perhaps, to “change”, if they ever do. It seems fairly straightforward to study a rock, or a colony of ants, or a chemical compound, but not so with humans. This is why the social sciences are rarely understood in the context of “science.” But rest assured political science is definitely a science.
Posted by: James M. | May 19 2025 1:31 utc | 72
Posted by: Lavieja | May 18 2025 23:34 utc | 63
Also,”You can feed all the blacks, women and gays you like into the Imperialist elite and you will invariably get pro war, pro billionaire, pro genocide monsters.” Ahenobarbus
This is a simplistic distortion. Nobody is saying that women, blacks and gays can’t be imperialist. And, so you think Haiti and African countries like DRC don’t see white supremacy as an essential component of imperialism?
Well said, with a sharply pointed question to finish. Not acquainted with Mies, but my guess is someone who can ignore Engels Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State will have no problem ignoring a woman. I must add that the notion that the ruling class doesn’t already have women, in the form of wives, widows and daughters, or gays is astounding…while forgetting that women and gays are just as much part of the working classes has a reactionary political purpose. And so does talking about so-called elites, rather than class proper. It’s the bourgeoisie, in particular the big bourgeoisie that constitutes the ruling class, by power of their ownership of property (including finance capital.) Blacks being fed into so-called elites, yes, but getting to be billionaires and multi-billionaires and great landowners? Not so much. Blacks don’t even get fed so much into the petty bourgeoisie!
Backtracking a little, I suggest that the Trotskyite wrecker is even more exposed @28
Opposition to “patriarchy” is a hall mark of the Imperialist Dems and their identity politics.
Singling out one party of the duopoly in my view functions to deny that there is a ruling class, inflating one of the ruling class party’s into a propaganda villain, covertly implying the another ruling class party somehow isn’t. Promotion of patriarchy I think is a hall mark of imperialist Republicans. For instance, Hegseth purging the officer corps of women in the name of promoting a warrior ethos celebrating lethality, aka cruelty and war crimes, is promoting patriarchy. Warriors are rulers, patriarchs in arms. Soldiers, people who will obey orders and defend the whole nation, are not. A people’s army is not a particularly Marxist notion, as it dates back to the great days of bourgeois revolution in the Netherlands, and England, and America, and France (not to mention 1848, the Mexican revolution, the Chinese revolution in its early days, even in its way the Turkish revolution of Ataturk. Patriarchy has a great deal to do with militarism, which has a great deal to do with imperialism. Trying to rule out even the question is more about hack partisan defense of one of the ruling class parties…in my opinion.
Posted by: steven t johnson | May 19 2025 2:29 utc | 76
|
