The U.S. military unleashed B-2 stealth bombers to target underground bunkers used by Yemen’s Houthi rebels early Thursday, a major escalation in the American response to the rebels’ attacks on Mideast shipping lanes that appeared to be a warning to Iran as well.
While it wasn’t immediately clear how much damage the strikes caused, the attack appeared to be the first use of the B-2 in combat in years and the first time the flying wing targeted sites in Yemen.
In announcing the strikes against the Houthis, who have been attacking ships for months in the Red Sea corridor over the Israel-Hamas warin the Gaza Strip, U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin made a point to offer a warning likely heard in Tehran as well.
Is this actually necessary? Like, the point of the B-2 is to be able to penetrate air defenses. Do the Houthis actually have much by way of air defenses?
kagis
This is from six years back, but apparently at the time, Iran was sending them air defense hardware, so that might be it.
https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/irans-support-houthi-air-defenses-yemen
According to the Gulf coalition and the internationally recognized Yemeni government, Iran has been violating the UN arms embargo by trying to provide Houthi rebels with advanced surface-to-air missile systems. The smuggling of Iranian-built Sayyad-2C SAMs and passive flight-tracking equipment could worsen the air-defense threat to U.S. allies such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, jeopardizing efforts to hammer out a peace settlement in the process.
Also from six years back, and more in-depth:
https://warisboring.com/the-houthis-do-it-yourself-air-defenses-3/
When the Saudi-led coalition intervened in Yemen’s civil war in 2015, it quickly neutralized most of the Houthis’ air defenses. Nearly all of the radars and launchers belonging to the Houthis’ five air-defense brigades were destroyed by mid-April 2015.
Elements of two air-defense brigades managed to recover and hide most of their equipment. Correspondingly, the air defenses of the Houthi-dominated coalition were limited to a miscellany of man-portable air-defense systems, light anti-aircraft cannons including U.S.-made Vulcan guns and various heavy machine guns.
Through 2015, such weapons were responsible for the losses of one Moroccan and one Bahraini F-16C, two Saudi AH-64As and up to a dozen various UAVs. However, the longer the war went on, the clearer it became that they weren’t enough to defend Houthi forces from the Saudis and their allies.
Indeed, the aircraft loss rate for the Saudi-led coalition decreased by an order of magnitude in 2016. While two different Saudi helicopters were written off during combat operations over Yemen, Houthi air defenses were responsible for the downing just one CH-4 Wing Loong UAV.
Understanding that more efficient measures were required, Yemeni engineers with the Missile Development & Research Command worked feverishly on repairing available air-defense equipment and improvising new ones. In January 2017, they announced they had repaired one S-75/SA-2 surface-to-air missile system.
And on Jan. 20, they went as far as to claim the downing of a Saudi F-15 over Sana’a. Actually, they achieved nothing, and the system in question was soon tracked down and destroyed by the Saudi-led coalition.
One of solutions developed by the MRDC was to take air-to-air missiles from stocks of the former Yemeni air force and attempt deploying them for air-defense purposes. This idea is not new. Back in 1999, the Serbs adapted Russian-made R-60/AA-8 and R-73/AA-1 air-to-air missiles for surface-to-air missions.
Furthermore, the Houthi-led coalition has enough experienced and skilled personnel to undertake such an adaptation on its own – and it’s in possession of significant stocks of air-to-air munitions at bases of the former Yemeni air force.
Yemen acquired a stock of Soviet-made R-60MK/AA-8 missiles back in 1980, together with MiG-21bis and Su-22 fighter-bombers. A small batch of R-73/AA-11 missiles was acquired by the former South Yemen in 1994 for deployment with MiG-29 interceptors. An even larger number of R-27/AA-10, R-73s, and R-77/AA-12s were acquired by Sana’a after 2001 together with up to 36 MiG-29SMs and UBs.
The challenge was adapting such weapons for deployment from the ground, and without the support of the fire-control systems in the aircraft that usually carry them.
Active radar-homing missiles such as the R-77 and semi-active radar-homing missiles such as the R-27R would require the adaptation of at least one of the N019MP radars and related fire-control systems delivered to Yemen together with the MiG-29SMs.
Not only was this a complex undertaking, but most of the necessary systems were destroyed early during the war when the Saudi-led coalition systematically tracked down and knocked out every single MiG it could find.
Instead, engineers at the MRDC opted to adapt infrared homing missiles as SAMs. That effort required the adaptation of APU-60 and P-12 launch rails — for the R-60 and R-73, respectively — on supports mounted on pick-up trucks plus a reliable supply of electric power and liquid nitrogen to cool the seeker heads.
The first such improvisations were deployed in combat in February 2017, and by June the Houthi-dominated coalition claimed the downing of five fighter-bombers, one helicopter and one UAV.
Whether any of the missiles actually scored a hit remains unclear. What is certain is that a Jordanian F-16AM crashed over southern Saudi Arabia while returning from a combat sortie over Yemen on Feb. 24, 2017.
The situation remains the same in early 2018. The reality is that air-to-air missiles are designed to be fired from fast-moving aircraft that are already airborne. The motors of air-to-air missiles are relatively small and light in comparison to the motors of surface-to-air missiles. The latter are big, heavy and far more powerful.
For example, the rocket motor of the Patriot PAC-2 weights 1,200 pounds and develops more than 20,000 pounds of thrust in order to accelerate the missile to speeds in excess of Mach 4.
Without such motors, the effective range of air-to-air missiles fired from the ground is dramatically shorter than if they are fired from the air. Even an R-27 is unlikely to reach a target more than five miles away.
At least as important is the issue of fire-control. It’s not enough to point a guided missile in the direction of its target and fire. All anti-aircraft missiles function better if locked-on at their target before launch.
Engineers at the MRDC found a solution by coupling one of three U.S.-made Flir Systems ULTRA 8500 turrets – delivered to Yemen back in 2008 – with makeshift controls for their “new” SAMs. One such SAM enabled them to fire the R-27T that narrowly missed a Saudi F-15 over Sana’a on Jan. 7, 2018.
Ironically, while the first related reports only cited the firing of the missile, the Houthi-controlled media in Yemen and all Iranian media outlets were quick to convert that report into a claim that the targeted F-15 was shot down.
Actually, the F-15SA in question came away with minor damage. F-15SAs are equipped with digital electronic warfare systems and common missile warning systems made by BAE Systems and designed not only to recognize missile attacks, but also to warn the crew and automaticallydeploy countermeasures.
The same is true of the Tornado IDS the Houthis claimed to have shot down over northern Sa’ada province on the same day. Actually, the aircraft in question suffered a failure of its oxygen system that caused a fire inside its cockpit and prompted the crew to eject.
While Houthi and Iranian media associated these two claims with the deployment of a new surface-to-air missile, the adaptation of R-73s and R-27s as SAMs — supported by ULTRA 8500 turrets — hardly qualifies as new. It’s also not as effective as the Houthis claim. The missile that targeted the Saudi F-15SA over Sana’a on Jan. 7, 2018 was the first ever to get that close to its target.
Deployment of such weapons didn’t escape the attention of Saudi and allied air forces and intelligence agencies. On the contrary, representatives of the Saudi-led coalition confirmed their appearance during one of their regular briefings for the press in early November 2017.
They also published two photographs showing installations of R-27T and R-73 missiles on pick-up trucks operated by the Houthi coalition. Ironically, the Iranians – the party said to be supporting the Houthis – seem to have learned about the appearance of such SAMs from Saudi media.
In comparison, MRDC’s work on repairing some of the coalition’s SA-9 vehicles proved at least slightly more effective. One of these has managed to shot down a U.S.-operated MQ-9 Predator UAV over Sana’a on Oct. 1, 2017.
In a quick skim, I don’t see much more-recent than 2018. There’s this from January of 2024:
US says it destroyed Houthi surface-to-air missile which was prepared to launch
US forces have struck and destroyed Yemen’s Houthi surface-to-air missile which was prepared to launch, the Central Command says in a statement.
“US forces identified the missile in Houthi-controlled areas of Yemen and determined that it presented an imminent threat to US aircraft,” it adds.
And this from September 2024:
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates — Yemen’s Houthi rebels claimed Monday that they shot down another American-made MQ-9 Reaper drone, with video circulating online showing what appeared to be a surface-to-air missile strike and flaming wreckage strewn across the ground.
Saree said the Houthis used a locally produced missile. However, Iran has armed the rebels with a surface-to-air missile known as the 358 for years. Iran denies arming the rebels, though Tehran-manufactured weaponry has been found on the battlefield and in seaborne shipments heading to Yemen despite a United Nations arms embargo.
Wikipedia doesn’t have a lot on this 358:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/358_missile
I’m guessing, from the fins in the image, the fact that it apparently uses a turbojet engine, and the description as a “loitering munition” that it’s probably not the fastest-moving missile in the world, though.
So, I’m guessing from that that they have some level of surface-to-air weaponry above MANPADS, but it doesn’t sound like a lot of capability.
This was a message to Iran, nothing else.
The US has F35 and F22s in the neighborhood, but rolling out the spirit is meant to flex the global strike capability and remind everyone what they are capable of.
A poster in another forum pointed out that they staged from Tindal in Australia, and that was also a message to China, which can’t reach Tindal with their missiles.
There are probably enemy watching those planes in the region, outside the base watching the planes take off and land.
Calling in the b2 retains suprise.
I doubt that’s the reason… as they could have also just used other standoff weapons then instead of clocking a round the world trip on the B2… but it’s possible.
Rumour has it that they staged from Tindal in Australia - so, not quite a world trip.
Big trip to get there, but not quite as big to attack Yemen from there.
I had to check… that’s still 20.000 km trip. So half way around the world.
These flew from US mainland into Yemen and bombed protected / hidden sites THEN flew back home.
The US gave warning of the attack and likely all the governments in the area saw were birds on their radar screens.
The B-2 was a great choice to deliver a quit messing with commerce message
These flew from US mainland into Yemen and bombed protected / hidden sites THEN flew back home.
That’s how the B-2s normally operate. I forget the name of the airbase (I think it starts with a “B”?) but it’s somewhere in the center of the US, and they do their missions straight out of the continental US.
kagis
No, not a “B”. Whiteman Air Force Base.
It is, but thats an important detail about the capability of the B-2 that can be lost without pointing out.
No way the USA keeps their best weapons at a place called Blackman…
quit messing with commerce message
Politics aside, that’s the message. Don’t care who you are, what you believe, what you’re fighting for, you cannot fuck with international commerce. That kinda BS hurts all of us, millions of us. That’s the idea behind treating pirates so harshly. Do not fuck with trade because every human society depends on it.
Nah fuck that, they’re only affecting ships dealing with or owned by Israel. I know that’s the message the US is trying to give, but I hope the Houthi’s keep up the good work despite the force of the US against them. Very David vs Goliath where David is trying to stop a genocide and Goliath is an arms dealer for Nazis.
I posted this upthread, but: rumour has it that they staged from Tindal in Australia. Chances are they returned to Tindal before heading home.
It looks like Iran was shipping these 358 missiles to the Houthis at least within the last four years. This shipment was interdicted by the US, but I assume that others have made it:
https://www.dia.mil/Portals/110/Documents/News/Military_Power_Publications/Seized_at_Sea.pdf
The Houthis’ Saqr surface-to-air missile (SAM) exhibits nearly identical features to a missile interdicted on a dhow headed to Yemen in 2020 as the Iranian 358 SAM displayed for Russian officials in Tehran in September 2023. The Saqr and 358 both have distinctive features, which include front-mounted fins (1) and rear-mounted fins (2) in an X-shaped orientation and the engine (3). The Houthis have used the Saqr to attack U.S. UAVs in Yemen. In addition to the Houthis, Iran proliferated the 358 to partners and proxies in Iraq and Lebanon.
Necessary in what sense? Necessary to defeat the Houthis? Probably not. Necessary to tell Iran you can fuck with Israel but you better not fuck with the U.S.? Possibly.
If you think you want to be more prepared for a nearer-peer conflict, you might want to get your B2 crews some real combat sorties. Kind of like a college football rent-a-win game before the conference season starts.
It’s a risk because the Spirits are basically capital ships of the air, but it may be a worthwhile trade-off.
Necessary to use the B-2s rather than a more-conventional delivery platform. It isn’t what I’d normally expect to be used in a conflict like this one.
The B-2 was the message, not the bombing.
I suppose that could make some sense. There’s some symbolic value there.
Mind you, this is just me hypothesizing. But I can’t think of a better reason.
I would take a wild guess, but there is also the fact that the US knows a lot more about the vaunted S400 Russian air defence systems thanks to Ukraine, and is now more confident that it can not detect the B2 even if crews are given time to refine and experiment against a real target, and wanted to flex that point.
I don’t think that the Houthis have S-400s (and I can’t imagine that Russia has been providing them to anyone in the last couple years, given as how they have a shortage themselves, and it’s probably one of the more-critical shortages that they face).
I can’t find any reference to the Houthis having them online, at any rate.
I think it’s more of a general confidence that there really is no system capable of detecting it. It flew halfway across the world, and radar systems usually have very high ranges. It wouldn’t necessarily need to be the Houthis that have the system.
If you remember, they didn’t let Turkey buy F-35s because they also had S-400s. They didn’t want it to be “public” knowledge how they match up. The US now knows, hence more confident stealth aircraft deployments.
It’s just my theory anyways.
deleted by creator
Oh, that’s an interesting thought. That topic was in the news recently relating to the prospect of Israel doing a strike on Iran’s underground nuclear facilities, discussion of whether Israeli warplanes could carry a bomb capable of penetrating Iranian nuclear bunkers. The answer was that they couldn’t carry a huge bomb, but I commented that with the precision of modern guided bombs, they might be able to just strike the same place multiple times, and I saw a subsequent article also raising that possibility, so it’s not just me.
I remember reading an interesting comment on Reddit some years back on how Iran was actually a world leader in UHPC, though, and I have no idea whether they’ve provided that to the Houthis; it might be specific to Iran.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_concrete#Ultra-high-performance_concrete
Ultra-high-performance concrete
Ultra-high-performance concrete is a new type of concrete that is being developed by agencies concerned with infrastructure protection. UHPC is characterized by being a steel fibre-reinforced cement composite material with compressive strengths in excess of 150 MPa, up to and possibly exceeding 250 MPa.[5][6][7] UHPC is also characterized by its constituent material make-up: typically fine-grained sand, fumed silica, small steel fibers, and special blends of high-strength Portland cement. Note that there is no large aggregate. The current types in production (Ductal, Taktl, etc.) differ from normal concrete in compression by their strain hardening, followed by sudden brittle failure. Ongoing research into UHPC failure via tensile and shear failure is being conducted by multiple government agencies and universities around the world.
goes looking for something more-authoritative than a Reddit comment
Yeah, looks like it.
Super concrete shielding Iranian nukes?
June 14, 2012
Some of the world’s experts in ultrahigh-performance concrete (UHPC) are working in Iran, a country regularly beset by earthquakes. They want to use the material, a mix of Portland cement, silica fume, quartz flour, fine silica sand, and either steel or plastic-reinforcing fibers, to build durable bridges, sewer pipes, dams, and other structures.
But U.S. military officials and others around the world are worried the Iranians will use the high-strength material to protect nuclear-weapons labs and to build other military bases and underground bunkers.
UHPC’s compression strength is on the order of 30,000 psi, while that of normal concrete is just 4,000 psi. And UHPC has a tensile strength of 1,000 psi, far above normal concrete’s 400 psi. Strength is critical for defensive structures. Tests of a 13-ton bunker-busting bomb, for example, showed it could penetrate 180 ft of ordinary concrete, but only get through 25 ft of concrete that was twice as strong. So it’s possible that the same bomb might only dent UHPC, with its compressive strength seven times that of normal concrete.
EDIT: The author deleted his comment (unfortunately; I think that it was insightful), but the gist of it was that it raised the point that it might be possible that the B-2 was necessary to carry a large, bunker-busting bomb.
EDIT2: He was also correct when he said that the B-2 was one of the only aircraft capable of carrying some large, penetrating weapon; the MOP appears to fit that bill.
Interesting stuff.
I deleted it since I started doubting what I wrote and didn’t really have the time to look into it.The New York Times stated that this was specifically asked the Pentagon, given the phrasing of their announcement and got a no-comment. It’s certainly a good thought.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/17/us/politics/houthis-strike-stealth-bombers.html
“This was a unique demonstration of the United States’ ability to target facilities that our adversaries seek to keep out of reach, no matter how deeply buried underground, hardened or fortified,” Mr. Austin said in a statement late Wednesday night. “The employment of U.S. Air Force B-2 Spirit long-range stealth bombers demonstrate U.S. global strike capabilities to take action against these targets when necessary, anytime, anywhere.”
Attacking so-called hardened buried sites generally requires the use of specially built bombs that have much thicker steel cases and contain a smaller amount of explosives than similarly sized general-purpose bombs. The heavy casings of such “bunker buster” bombs allows the munition to stay intact as it punches through soil, rock or concrete before detonating.
The B-2 is the only warplane that can carry the largest of this class of weapon in the Pentagon’s inventory: a 30,000-pound GPS-guided munition called the GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator, or MOP, that contains the equivalent of about 5,600 pounds of TNT. A Pentagon spokesman declined to say whether that weapon was used in the attack on Wednesday.
EDIT: Reading the above, maybe the situation is basically both of the two guesses here combined.
It’s a message to Iran, and the reason that the B-2 specifically is involved in that message is because it can drop very large bunker-busters, which could presumably penetrate Iranian facilities.
Associated Press - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for Associated Press:
MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source
