A Navy fighter jet fell overboard Monday when the USS Harry S. Truman aircraft carrier veered to avoid fire from the Houthis, according to two defense officials.

The military was using the $60 million jet as part of its weekslong campaign against Houthi fighters in Yemen, who have attacked commercial and military shipping in the waterway for the past two years.

The aircraft’s loss adds to the growing price tag in the effort against the Houthis, which has included seven MQ-9 drones shot down by the group over the past several weeks. The Houthis have brought down more than a dozen of the surveillance drones since October 2023, when they began attacking ships in the Red Sea to, as they said, help Hamas in its war with Stop the genocide committed by Israel. They cost more than $20 million each.

  • LeninOnAPrayer@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    16 hours ago

    Given that our ships there are carrying out terrorist attacks on Yemen, a nation that is puting material pressure to stop the genocide in Gaza. Something that is REQUIRED by international law.

    Yeah. Good riddance. Hope all the US ships out there sink with all the aircraft.

    Free Palestine.

  • BigDanishGuy@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    22 hours ago

    When I was a kid my dad didn’t properly tie down a lounge chair on the trailer. Although we didn’t lose the chair avoiding a Houthi attack, we did have to go back and pick it up on the highway.

    So I can totally relate /s

  • TheAlbatross@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    1 day ago

    I’m shocked that the ship can maneuver quickly enough to 1) affect the outcome of a missile attack, 2) create enough force to toss a plane off the side.

    I would have figured the protocol is to have the CIWS and interceptor launchers at an appropriate angle to intercept the attack prior to the missiles being launched.

        • mosiacmango@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          17 hours ago

          That carrier is using steam powered propellers. Luckily the steam is “pushed” by a couple of large nuclear reactors, so it’s got plenty of juice.

          • peoplebeproblems@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            16 hours ago

            What

            Those are STEAM POWERED? good lord that’s more oomph than I was expecting I was thinking we had some giant ass motors creating some crazy ass electromagnatisim

            • Boxscape@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              12 hours ago

              Those are STEAM POWERED? good lord that’s more oomph than I was expecting I was thinking we had some giant ass motors creating some crazy ass electromagnatisim

            • mosiacmango@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              edit-2
              15 hours ago

              100% steam. Steam makes the electricity, locomotion, desalination and the plane catapults go on that class of carrier. The reactors and salt water make the various types of steam used in the various systems.

              Limitless water is a neat hack when you couple it with limitless heat.

              • wabafee@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                11 hours ago

                I’m amaze how advance everything is but we’re still using steam like the people from the industrial revolution. The only difference is instead of coal were using nuclear reaction. I do wonder why we’re not using some kind passive way instead through mechanical way to generate electricity.

                • mosiacmango@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  2 hours ago

                  There is no form factor of power generation that could match nuclear on something as “small” and dense as an aircraft carrier.

                  Solar is a no go due to just surface area and the challenges of salt water. The only consistent things left are petrol and nuclear, and of the two, nuclear is better in every way but cost.

                  It is wacky that “hot rock make steam. Steam makes turbine go” is how like 95% of all civilization exists, but man when we stumbled on a winner in the 1800s, we just went all in on it.

        • Boxscape@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          12 hours ago

          That’s incredible. Thanks for sharing!

          It is indeed, but I think your question still stands non? That doesn’t look like it’s fast enough to avoid a missile?

      • ℍ𝕂-𝟞𝟝@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        19 hours ago

        An actual A2A kill with a Shahed on an F18 would be way bigger news. As would a hit on the carrier. What else could be the way it happened?

        • IndustryStandard@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          6 hours ago

          There have been previous reports of aircraft carriers “hitting a rock” and having to go for repairs.

          Maybe it is true. But the US no doubt would like to keep up the illusion that it can intercept all missiles with easy and its personell is in no danger.

          Remember how the Biden admin kept a US soldier dying to the “Gaza pier” secret for a long time.

    • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      24 hours ago

      And this is when we remind ourselves that the US hasn’t fought an enemy that can shoot back with anything other than guns in decades. They have late-stage Israel syndrome.

      • real_squids@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        23 hours ago

        They have late-stage Israel syndrome.

        Don’t ignore the fact those guys were hit with a load of ballistic and cruise missiles recently and did alright. Not to mention drones and rocket arty on the regular.
        I do agree the US are wildly overspending in the era of disposable unmanned-everything though, and this one incident isn’t gonna change their ways.

        spoiler

        I just hope both sides have fun ☺️

  • JayleneSlide@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    23 hours ago

    seven MQ-9 drones shot down by the group over the past several weeks. The Houthis have brought down more than a dozen of the surveillance drones (emphasis mine)

    Wow, something tells me the military had some editorial input on this article. In all kinds of materials, including General Moseley’s own statements, the MQ-9 Reaper is a hunter-killer drone. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Atomics_MQ-9_Reaper)

    • mlg@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      22 hours ago

      I mean its possible they might actually be using them only for surveillance without anything on the hardpoints due to the larger range, but I like how the wikipedia file photo is a reaper carrying two hellfire AGMs and a fat paveway LGB for good measure.

      “Surveillance” lol

    • InvertedParallax@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      The Shornet is a nice platform, and it’s been upgraded to hell to be a real game-breaker.

      But the real issue is the Navy can’t operate a procurement program to save its life, hence it was forced to take the F-35 because basically all its other attempts were absolute catastrophes.

      The only thing it’s been able to build effectively as been their CVNs (which are just updated copies of the Nimitz from the 1960s) and the SHornet which is a massively upgraded F-5 from the 1960s.

      The A-12 Dorito failed miserably, as did the LCS, the Virginia cost 3x what it was supposed to, the Zumwalt has no bullets and the radar basically doesn’t work, so they’re building more Arleigh-Burkes which are upgraded Spruances from again, the 1970s.

      • tal
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        19 hours ago

        Could be. I don’t think that it’s that old, though. Maybe the original Hornet rather than the Super Hornet, which was a smaller aircraft.

        kagis

        Yeah. The game F/A-18 Interceptor is probably what you’re thinking of. It came out in 1988, and the Super Hornet was only produced starting in 1995.

        Despite the fact that they both share an identifier (“F/A-18<revision>”), I think that it’d probably be fair to call the Hornet and the Super Hornet different planes. I don’t think that there’s been another case where we’ve produced a warplane and then made a significantly-larger aircraft and used the same identifier.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F/A-18_Hornet

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_F/A-18E/F_Super_Hornet

        The Navy retained the F/A-18 designation to help sell the program to Congress as a low-risk “derivative”, though the Super Hornet is largely a new aircraft.

  • okgurl@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    23 hours ago

    so glad this is where we put all our money into. not silly things like health or clean power or transportation. instead I say let’s invest another 300 mill and get ten replacements 😎😂

    • ℍ𝕂-𝟞𝟝@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      19 hours ago

      It would definitely cost more than that to restore it after that dip.

      If I was the US, I’d even send some depth charges after it to make sure the Chinese don’t go fishing.

      • reddig33@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        15 hours ago

        There might be a slew of still salvageable parts I would think. I guess the question is how salvageable, how complicated to recover, and how much those parts would be worth.

    • LeninOnAPrayer@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      16 hours ago

      You’re not wrong. Yemen is the only country (at least to this material degree) following international law requiring all nations to take every action possible to stop a genocide.

      And then you have the US taking every action possible to ensure that genocide is continued in Gaza.

      Houthis are in the right here.