Yemeni Forces Destroy UAE Warship

[Hack-Hook]

Interesting theory. But no evidence. Which makes your theory just a good/bad as the ones claiming noor or c802

Sipri data shows 25 c801 delivered in 1995 for 3 huangfen facs. So, that is a shipbased application, not a landbased system.

This is interesting in that the huang fen is a chine osa fac, which normally comes with styx missile i.e. Silkworm.

This missile is p15termit from russia or chinese clone and has 80km range.... so why one would re-equip boats with shorter range missiles....???

And yemen army is listing p15 termit in its inventory ... coastal defence missile.

So imho a more plausible culprit than navy c801....

If old yemen military equipment were used, that is. Which i doubt as apparently rebels themselves claimed iranian missile (i have yet to see verification of this though)

As far as I'm aware Houthis confirmed nothing and they denied Any involvement in the incident.

 

[Penguin]

As far as I'm aware Houthis confirmed nothing and they denied Any involvement in the incident.

like i said, i believe it when i see it. It being evidence.

 

[mohsen]

The Story Changes: The Pentagon Is No Longer Sure Yemen Fired Missiles At A US Ship

by Tyler Durden
Oct 17, 2016 3:42 PM


Last Thursday, after two consecutive missile attacks on the US Navy ship USS Mason, which allegedly were launched by Houthi rebel forces in Yemen, the US entered its latest military engagement in the middle east, when the USS Nitze launched several Tomahawk cruise missiles aimed at radar installations located by the Bab el-Mandab straight, and which enabled the launch of at least three missiles against the U.S. ship.

The USS Mason (DDG 87), a guided missile destroyer

As Pentagon spokesman Peter Cook said, "these limited self-defense strikes were conducted to protect our personnel, our ships and our freedom of navigation," adding that "these radars were active during previous attacks and attempted attacks on ships in the Red Sea," including the USS Mason, one of the officials said, adding the targeted radar sites were in remote areas where the risk of civilian casualties was low. That said, as we highlighted, the U.S. said while there growing indications, there was no official proof that Houthi fighters, or forces aligned with them, were responsible for the attempted strikes which targeted US ships. Still, the lack of concrete proof did not bother the US which, cavalier as usual, unleashed the missile assault on Yemeni territory, breaching the country's sovereignty and potentially killing an unknown number of people.

However, today - four days after the US "counterattack" - the story changes. According to Reuters earlier today the Pentagon declined to say whether the USS Mason destroyer was targeted by multiple inbound missiles fired from Yemen on Saturday, as initially thought, saying a review was underway to determine what happened.

"We are still assessing the situation. There are still some aspects to this that we are trying to clarify for ourselves given the threat -- the potential threat -- to our people," Pentagon spokesman Peter Cook told a news briefing."So this is still a situation that we're assessing closely."

And yet, the US had no problem with "clarifying" the source of the threat on Thursday when it fired American cruise missiles at Yemeni targets.

At this point we refer readers to what we said on Thursday, when we once again put on the cynical hat, and voiced what those who have not been brainwashed by US media thought, to wit:



In retrospect one now wonders if the "cruise missiles" that fell close to the US ships were merely the latest false flag providing the US cover to launch another foreign intervention.To be sure, the Houthis, who are battling the internationally-recognized government of Yemen President Abd Rabbu Mansour al-Hadi, denied any involvement in Sunday's attempt to strike the USS Mason.

A few days later, we have the closest thing possible to a confirmation that, even as the Pentagon itself admits, the "open and closed" case that Yemeni rebel fighters would, for some unknown reason, provoke the US and fire unperforming cruise missiles at a US ship, has just been significantly weakened. Of course, it if it wasn't Yemen rebels, the only logical alternative is the adversary of Yemen's rebels: Saudi Arabia. Although with the Saudis in the press so much as of late, almost exclusively in a negative light, we doubt that the Pentagon's "assessment" would ever get to the point where it would admit that America's Saudi allies launched missiles at US ships in a false flag attempt to get the US involved in the Yemen conflict by attacking the Saudi opponents and in the process aiding and abetting the Saudi execution of even more "war crimes."

 

[Arminkh]

Interesting theory. But no evidence. Which makes your theory just a good/bad as the ones claiming noor or c802

Sipri data shows 25 c801 delivered in 1995 for 3 huangfen facs. So, that is a shipbased application, not a landbased system.

This is interesting in that the huang fen is a chinese copy of the russian osa fac, which normally comes with styx missile i.e. Silkworm.

This missile is p15termit from russia or chinese clone and has 80km range.... so why one would re-equip boats with shorter range missiles....???

And yemen army is listing p15 termit in its inventory ... coastal defence missile.

So imho a more plausible culprit than navy c801....

If old yemen military equipment were used, that is. Which i doubt as apparently rebels themselves claimed iranian missile (i have yet to see verification of this though)

Well according to Wikipedia C-801 can be fired both from land batteries or even helicopters:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-801_anti-ship_missile

And as far as I know they claimed to use Iranian missile for the Emirati ship. They have denied any involvement in the recent attack on US navy vessels and I also would like to agree that they definitely don't need one more airborne country to hammer them.

On the contrary, KSA would benefit the most from this incident

 

[BlueInGreen]

Ok. It seems whoever is firing the missiles is using Yemen's old arsenal:

Analysis: Mystery of the Red Sea missiles continues
Jeremy Binnie, London - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly
14 October 2016

There has been widespread suspicion - but no confirmation as yet - that an Iranian-supplied anti-ship missile systems such as the one pictured were used in the recent attacks in the Red Sea. (Iranian Ministry of Defence and Armed Forces Logistics)

ANALYSIS
It is still unclear what missiles and target acquisition systems the Yemeni rebels are using. AFP cited an unidentified senior defence official as saying they are believed to have a type of the Chinese-made C-802 anti-ship missiles. That could be interpreted as a reference to Iran's Noor version of the C-802, which has a range of 120 km.

However, that assertion was undermined by an earlier report that they had a far shorter range. A US official told Reuters that one missile travelled more than 24 n miles (44.5 km) before coming down in the sea. That is a close fit for the C-801, which has a stated range of 42 km and was acquired by the Yemeni Navy in the 1990s.

So getting back to your question @BlueInGreen, the missiles claimed to have been fired at US navy vessels are not Iranian made.I would argue it probably is done by former government forces to pull US into the conflict.

It would make the most sense that the KSA (or pro KSA forces) would target the US ships in order to get the US to strike the Houthis and drag them into the war. Basically they pulled a USS liberty (Israel attacking US ship to get them to go to war against Egypt).

Scary times coming soon, very scary times. Also I never believed even for a second, that the missiles that the US had said were fired against their ships were Iranian, if they were, they would have gotten a lot closer and would have been more accurate than the ones the US navy says it has shot down ( Honestly i think the ones the US navy shot down or used countermeasures against were Chinese and not Iranian). But still, Iran does need to develope a Brahmos type supersonic anti-ship cruise missile. Iran's missiles are world class, so if it was a legit Iranian anti-ship cruise missile that ship would have been in WAY more trouble.

 

[somebozo]

Dude Pakistan need to make a deal with these arabs who can't fight for shit.
I don't know, have them fund an aircraft carrier for us so we can join the war in yemen....

No...cut a deal with Afghanistan and the Arabs..send all Afghanis to fight for Arabs...since they love to do nothing but fight..anyways..

 

[Penguin]

Well according to Wikipedia C-801 can be fired both from land batteries or even helicopters:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-801_anti-ship_missile

And as far as I know they claimed to use Iranian missile for the Emirati ship. They have denied any involvement in the recent attack on US navy vessels and I also would like to agree that they definitely don't need one more airborne country to hammer them.

On the contrary, KSA would benefit the most from this incident

That applies for many ash missiles. It doesnt mean you can take a missile onto any launch platform and presto!...I hope you are smart enough to realize that you cant just take a missile plus launch container from a ship and use it from the back of a truck effectively. Yemen obtained naval ship application c801 only, it needs the ship sensors for targeting and command system. Furthermore Iran produces copies of several chinese antiship missiles.

It would make the most sense that the KSA (or pro KSA forces) would target the US ships in order to get the US to strike the Houthis and drag them into the war. Basically they pulled a USS liberty (Israel attacking US ship to get them to go to war against Egypt).

Scary times coming soon, very scary times. Also I never believed even for a second, that the missiles that the US had said were fired against their ships were Iranian, if they were, they would have gotten a lot closer and would have been more accurate than the ones the US navy says it has shot down ( Honestly i think the ones the US navy shot down or used countermeasures against were Chinese and not Iranian). But still, Iran does need to develope a Brahmos type supersonic anti-ship cruise missile. Iran's missiles are world class, so if it was a legit Iranian anti-ship cruise missile that ship would have been in WAY more trouble.

Double bs.

There is no evidence to support a ksa liberty incident. And if one is unwilling to accept the iranian noor missile explanation for lack of evidence the one cant very well accept a ksa liberty scenario without evidence.

Irans antiship missiles are reverse engineered chinese missiles, in turn modelled on the french exocet. Nothing particularly special.

 

[mohsen]

'Houthi Missiles' or Radar Glitch? What Sparked US Warship Attack on Yemen?

Military & Intelligence
00:23 18.10.2016(updated 10:12 18.10.2016) Get short URL
3468941240
Last week, the Pentagon began a new military campaign in Yemen, ostensibly in retaliation for attempted attacks on the USS Mason in the Red Sea. But new reports suggest that the American naval vessel may have suffered from a radar malfunction.

Last Thursday, the United States launched strikes on three radar sites in Yemen, "officially" entering the conflict in the Middle Eastern nation. According to Pentagon spokesman Peter Cook, the action was necessary in light of recent missile attacks on US ships operating in international waters.


None of these alleged attacks struck their targets.

But Navy officials have now expressed doubt that American vessels were ever in danger, suggesting that reports of incoming missiles may have been the result of faulty radar systems.

"We are aware of the reports and we are assessing the situation," one US defense official said, speaking on condition of anonymity, according to The Week.
"All of our ships and crews are safe and unharmed."

Self-Defense: A Pretext for US Escalation of War in Yemen – and Elsewhere


Writing for AntiWar.com, Jason Ditz points out that this "raises the possibility that the US warships are not only retaliating against the wrong people, but that there was nothing to retaliate against in the first place.

"Though there was some speculation that remnants of the Yemeni military were involved in firing missiles, by way of explaining why the Houthis were denying it, this must inevitably raise questions if anything happened at all other than the heavy-handed US reaction."

Speaking to Radio Sputnik’s Loud & Clear last week, anti-war activist David Swanson spoke about how the United States often uses "self-defense" as justification for invading foreign countries.

"With these harmless good intentions, the US had ships off the coast of Yemen, and someone [shot but missed] these ships, and they retaliated in a proper, proportionate, and thereby somehow supposedly legal, active self-defense," he told Loud & Clear’s Brian Becker.

US Involved in Yemen 'Since the First Month of Fighting', Claims Human Rights Watch


"This seems to be a new pattern in the US media speech, that the US is able now to defend itself no matter where it is or who it has invaded or what right it has to be there."

The United States has been indirectly involved in the Yemen conflict from the start, providing weapons and intelligence to the Saudi government.

"Even though what has happened in the last couple of days is certainly an escalation [of the Yemeni conflict], the United States was involved in this conflict for many months," Kristine Beckerle, a member of Human Rights Watch’s North Africa Division, told Sputnik.

"It’s an escalation, but it’s not a fundamental change in the standoff, which has already claimed the lives of more than 4,000 civilians."

 

[Arminkh]

That applies for many ash missiles. It doesnt mean you can take a missile onto any launch platform and presto!...I hope you are smart enough to realize that you cant just take a missile plus launch container from a ship and use it from the back of a truck effectively. Yemen obtained naval ship application c801 only, it needs the ship sensors for targeting and command system. Furthermore Iran produces copies of several chinese antiship missiles.

Depends on who is helping them? Our soldiers used RPG7 to shoot down choppers during Iran-Iraq war and they actually succeeded several times. So if you are creative enough you can do with anything.

On the other hand the missiles were so off track that even US military personnel are not sure whether it was their defensive measures that derailed the missiles or the missiles just didn't know where they were going. That might be a clue to using a weapon improperly (i.e. using a ship based C801 for a land platform). On the other hand it seems like whoever fired it didn't want to hit the target so again choice of weapon seem to be a secondary issue.

 

[BlueInGreen]

That applies for many ash missiles. It doesnt mean you can take a missile onto any launch platform and presto!...I hope you are smart enough to realize that you cant just take a missile plus launch container from a ship and use it from the back of a truck effectively. Yemen obtained naval ship application c801 only, it needs the ship sensors for targeting and command system. Furthermore Iran produces copies of several chinese antiship missiles.



Double bs.

There is no evidence to support a ksa liberty incident. And if one is unwilling to accept the iranian noor missile explanation for lack of evidence the one cant very well accept a ksa liberty scenario without evidence.

Irans antiship missiles are reverse engineered chinese missiles, in turn modelled on the french exocet. Nothing particularly special.

No need for evidence (although the Houthis said they didn't fire the missile and the US is still trying to figure what exactly happened) to make a educated assumption that would make the most tactical sense. KSA isn't doing to well in Yemen so if they can get the US to formally bring themselves into the war it would add to the physical and psychologic warfare agains the Houthis (now they have to worry about American jets and Saudi Jets). Also note I said KSA "or pro KSA forces" so please don't omit what I said and focus on the KSA part. Saudia Arabia has virtually unlimited amounts of money and influence within the US so the war in Yemen can go as long as they want, but Sana'a is still Houthi controlled, so i don't know about that exactly.

Also Iranian anti-ship missiles whether it be cruise or ballistic are different enough in design and performance that saying they're reverse engineered rather than something unique is just plain wrong (A lot of American weaponry is based on German tech etc, etc...). The Iranian weapon missile systems are homegrown and they are powerful and they are accurate and they are tested on a yearly basis. I'm an American yet even I can admit to military achievements that the Iranians have made.

Last thing. Penguin, I have read your other posts and I respect everyone on this forum, so I don't want this to inflame into some sort of pissing contest of whose info can trump the others, also I don't necessarily hate the KSA and I usually take a more pragmatic approach to things.

If we are to continue this conversation let us do so with mutual respect for each others opinions and analysis on various subjects.

 

[Hack-Hook]

Irans antiship missiles are reverse engineered chinese missiles, in turn modelled on the french exocet. Nothing particularly special.

there is one problem on this theory , the noor missile if failed to acquire target wont fall in just 30km it fly till reach other side of the red sea.

 

[Penguin]

Depends on who is helping them? Our soldiers used RPG7 to shoot down choppers during Iran-Iraq war and they actually succeeded several times. So if you are creative enough you can do with anything.

On the other hand the missiles were so off track that even US military personnel are not sure whether it was their defensive measures that derailed the missiles or the missiles just didn't know where they were going. That might be a clue to using a weapon improperly (i.e. using a ship based C801 for a land platform). On the other hand it seems like whoever fired it didn't want to hit the target so again choice of weapon seem to be a secondary issue.

There is a world of difference between a low tech rpg and a high tech ashm. The argentinians barely managed it, and it was ineffective, and they had ship and aircraft launched exocets available. I dont quickly see a rebel organization managing it, at least not without experienced help. If it were that easy, it would have been done far more oftem in conflict since the falklands war of 1982.

The things you claim about the missiles and the us assessment, do they come from a credible source? Which?

Just because a missile doesnt reach max rang doenst mean it has to be a short range one.

It is not at all clear if weapons used against us ddgs were the same as that used against the uae ship, which imho clearly was a single ashm with a substantial warhead.

It is all speculative with pieces of the various missile, proper ship damage assessment, data from ew/esm and official statement by parties involved.

there is one problem on this theory , the noor missile if failed to acquire target wont fall in just 30km it fly till reach other side of the red sea.

No, not at all. See recent missile failures with indonesian navy missiles from china. Depends on what fails, engine or guidance or structure. And that is just the missile itself, there is also the command side to consider.

No need for evidence (although the Houthis said they didn't fire the missile and the US is still trying to figure what exactly happened) to make a educated assumption that would make the most tactical sense. KSA isn't doing to well in Yemen so if they can get the US to formally bring themselves into the war it would add to the physical and psychologic warfare agains the Houthis (now they have to worry about American jets and Saudi Jets). Also note I said KSA "or pro KSA forces" so please don't omit what I said and focus on the KSA part. Saudia Arabia has virtually unlimited amounts of money and influence within the US so the war in Yemen can go as long as they want, but Sana'a is still Houthi controlled, so i don't know about that exactly.

Also Iranian anti-ship missiles whether it be cruise or ballistic are different enough in design and performance that saying they're reverse engineered rather than something unique is just plain wrong (A lot of American weaponry is based on German tech etc, etc...). The Iranian weapon missile systems are homegrown and they are powerful and they are accurate and they are tested on a yearly basis. I'm an American yet even I can admit to military achievements that the Iranians have made.

Last thing. Penguin, I have read your other posts and I respect everyone on this forum, so I don't want this to inflame into some sort of pissing contest of whose info can trump the others, also I don't necessarily hate the KSA and I usually take a more pragmatic approach to things.

If we are to continue this conversation let us do so with mutual respect for each others opinions and analysis on various subjects.

i disagree on evidence. No analist can work without as much factual info as can be had. The more good dots, the easier to figure out what connects them. It is well documented and acknowledged in professional circle that these missile from iran are quite close to the chinese original. And even if modified, this would not magically give them a huge edge over the chinese originals, which are well known quantities.

The implied relation between us weapons today and german tech is bogus. Russia, france, us and uk all used german scientists and tech after ww2. In that sense all developed weapons based on german ideas. In fact germans invented ashm (fritz x). But there is nothing to connect harpoon with german tech, or any other current us weapon, for that matter. But c801 is closely modelled on exocet. And , licensed or not, irans antiship missiles are virtual clones of chinese missiles.

'Houthi Missiles' or Radar Glitch? What Sparked US Warship Attack on Yemen?

Military & Intelligence
00:23 18.10.2016(updated 10:12 18.10.2016) Get short URL
3468941240
Last week, the Pentagon began a new military campaign in Yemen, ostensibly in retaliation for attempted attacks on the USS Mason in the Red Sea. But new reports suggest that the American naval vessel may have suffered from a radar malfunction.

Last Thursday, the United States launched strikes on three radar sites in Yemen, "officially" entering the conflict in the Middle Eastern nation. According to Pentagon spokesman Peter Cook, the action was necessary in light of recent missile attacks on US ships operating in international waters.


None of these alleged attacks struck their targets.

But Navy officials have now expressed doubt that American vessels were ever in danger, suggesting that reports of incoming missiles may have been the result of faulty radar systems.

"We are aware of the reports and we are assessing the situation," one US defense official said, speaking on condition of anonymity, according to The Week.
"All of our ships and crews are safe and unharmed."

Self-Defense: A Pretext for US Escalation of War in Yemen – and Elsewhere


Writing for AntiWar.com, Jason Ditz points out that this "raises the possibility that the US warships are not only retaliating against the wrong people, but that there was nothing to retaliate against in the first place.

"Though there was some speculation that remnants of the Yemeni military were involved in firing missiles, by way of explaining why the Houthis were denying it, this must inevitably raise questions if anything happened at all other than the heavy-handed US reaction."

Speaking to Radio Sputnik’s Loud & Clear last week, anti-war activist David Swanson spoke about how the United States often uses "self-defense" as justification for invading foreign countries.

"With these harmless good intentions, the US had ships off the coast of Yemen, and someone [shot but missed] these ships, and they retaliated in a proper, proportionate, and thereby somehow supposedly legal, active self-defense," he told Loud & Clear’s Brian Becker.

US Involved in Yemen 'Since the First Month of Fighting', Claims Human Rights Watch


"This seems to be a new pattern in the US media speech, that the US is able now to defend itself no matter where it is or who it has invaded or what right it has to be there."

The United States has been indirectly involved in the Yemen conflict from the start, providing weapons and intelligence to the Saudi government.

"Even though what has happened in the last couple of days is certainly an escalation [of the Yemeni conflict], the United States was involved in this conflict for many months," Kristine Beckerle, a member of Human Rights Watch’s North Africa Division, told Sputnik.

"It’s an escalation, but it’s not a fundamental change in the standoff, which has already claimed the lives of more than 4,000 civilians."

Sputnik + david swanson > two clearly anti us sources, so be adviced on the possible presence of biassed reporting here.

 

[mohsen]

Sputnik + david swanson > two clearly anti us sources, so be adviced on the possible presence of biassed reporting here.

The thing is that I know U.S and I'm sure there can't be any more biased report than those published by U.S government.
though the source of doubt is Americans who find their report so biased that even themselves can't believe it.

 

[BlueInGreen]

There is a world of difference between a low tech rpg and a high tech ashm. The argentinians barely managed it, and it was ineffective, and they had ship and aircraft launched exocets available. I dont quickly see a rebel organization managing it, at least not without experienced help. If it were that easy, it would have been done far more oftem in conflict since the falklands war of 1982.

The things you claim about the missiles and the us assessment, do they come from a credible source? Which?

Just because a missile doesnt reach max rang doenst mean it has to be a short range one.

It is not at all clear if weapons used against us ddgs were the same as that used against the uae ship, which imho clearly was a single ashm with a substantial warhead.

It is all speculative with pieces of the various missile, proper ship damage assessment, data from ew/esm and official statement by parties involved.


No, not at all. See recent missile failures with indonesian navy missiles from china. Depends on what fails, engine or guidance or structure. And that is just the missile itself, there is also the command side to consider.


i disagree on evidence. No analist can work without as much factual info as can be had. The more good dots, the easier to figure out what connects them. It is well documented and acknowledged in professional circle that these missile from iran are quite close to the chinese original. And even if modified, this would not magically give them a huge edge over the chinese originals, which are well known quantities.

The implied relation between us weapons today and german tech is bogus. Russia, france, us and uk all used german scientists and tech after ww2. In that sense all developed weapons based on german ideas. In fact germans invented ashm (fritz x). But there is nothing to connect harpoon with german tech, or any other current us weapon, for that matter. But c801 is closely modelled on exocet. And , licensed or not, irans antiship missiles are virtual clones of chinese missiles.


Sputnik + david swanson > two clearly anti us sources, so be adviced on the possible presence of biassed reporting here.

With regards to the Iranian

There is a world of difference between a low tech rpg and a high tech ashm. The argentinians barely managed it, and it was ineffective, and they had ship and aircraft launched exocets available. I dont quickly see a rebel organization managing it, at least not without experienced help. If it were that easy, it would have been done far more oftem in conflict since the falklands war of 1982.

The things you claim about the missiles and the us assessment, do they come from a credible source? Which?

Just because a missile doesnt reach max rang doenst mean it has to be a short range one.

It is not at all clear if weapons used against us ddgs were the same as that used against the uae ship, which imho clearly was a single ashm with a substantial warhead.

It is all speculative with pieces of the various missile, proper ship damage assessment, data from ew/esm and official statement by parties involved.


No, not at all. See recent missile failures with indonesian navy missiles from china. Depends on what fails, engine or guidance or structure. And that is just the missile itself, there is also the command side to consider.


i disagree on evidence. No analist can work without as much factual info as can be had. The more good dots, the easier to figure out what connects them. It is well documented and acknowledged in professional circle that these missile from iran are quite close to the chinese original. And even if modified, this would not magically give them a huge edge over the chinese originals, which are well known quantities.

The implied relation between us weapons today and german tech is bogus. Russia, france, us and uk all used german scientists and tech after ww2. In that sense all developed weapons based on german ideas. In fact germans invented ashm (fritz x). But there is nothing to connect harpoon with german tech, or any other current us weapon, for that matter. But c801 is closely modelled on exocet. And , licensed or not, irans antiship missiles are virtual clones of chinese missiles.


Sputnik + david swanson > two clearly anti us sources, so be adviced on the possible presence of biassed reporting here.

I still believe that if a design is redone and modified enough it will become it's own entity. Same thing goes with the Iranian cruise missiles that were assumed to be fired and that the US says are Iranian but I Dont believe they are. It would make no sense for Iran to transfer those big ticket (sort of) weapon systems to Yemen and allow then to be fired against the US considering that there is supposed to be some sort of thaw in the US-Iran relationship. Also if those were legit Iranian weapons then the neocon US media would make a much much bigger fuss about it.

Also I doubt there he internal systems of the Iranian cruise are 1 for 1 the same as the Chinese. It, yet again would make no sense since this would mean that the cruise is highly prone to electronic warfare and other tech since the hardware is so old and the schematics would be well known by the US.

But other then that I think you are fairly on point. I do agree that the missile is based on chinese design but at this point it is it's own thing.

 

[yantong1980]

This is just American pretext for 'officially' involved in Yemeni conflict. First HSV, now they 'complain' their warship get 'haunted' by 'ghost missiles'.