Photo Evidence Slams MSM Propaganda that Houthis’ Missile Not Hit US Hybrid Catamaran in Red Sea

Donate

Photo Evidence Slams MSM Propaganda that Houthis’ Missile Not Hit US Hybrid Catamaran in Red Sea

Photo: twitter.com / JosephHDempsey

On October 1, the Houthis launched an anti-ship missile at the US HSV-2 Swift hybrid catamaran in the Red Sea. The vessel was leased by the UAE government in order to participate in the naval blockade of Yemen and to transport interventionist troops.

Saudi Arabian, UAE and other main stream media outlets were denying the fact of hitting the catamaran with the missile for almost a week. However, photos of the destroyed vessel that have been published online dispelled all the doubts.

The catamaran’s damages look very serious and it is still unknown whether the ship will be repaired – judging by the burned cabin, there was a serious fire inside it.

Ukrainians were among members of the HSV-2 Swift’s crew. According to one of them, Oleksandr Lukianov, right after the missile strike, the catamaran was also fired by people from a small boat.

“We were afraid because if you don’t die from fire, you could die from a bullet,” The National news website quoted his words.

The fact of the shooting attack was also confirmed by another member of the crew, Indian Shailendra Kumar, according to whom, when the crew saw flames shooting from the front of the ship, they ran towards the back and saw people firing from a small boat. Kumar noted that the gunfire continued for half an hour.

According to The National, an hour or two after the missile strike, the UAE Navy and Coastguard arrived at the scene. Now the crew of the HSV-2 Swift is recovering in the UAE.

Photo Evidence Slams MSM Propaganda that Houthis’ Missile Not Hit US Hybrid Catamaran in Red Sea

Photo: twitter.com / JosephHDempsey

Photo Evidence Slams MSM Propaganda that Houthis’ Missile Not Hit US Hybrid Catamaran in Red Sea

Photo: twitter.com / JosephHDempsey

Photo Evidence Slams MSM Propaganda that Houthis’ Missile Not Hit US Hybrid Catamaran in Red Sea

Photo: twitter.com / JosephHDempsey

Donate

SouthFront

Do you like this content? Consider helping us!

  • Marumiyu Moriame

    to bad it not an artificial reef:(

    • chris chuba

      Not too late for that :-), although it would need to be towed to an appropriate location to avoid being a shipping hazard.

  • Gary Sellars

    “it is still unknown whether the ship will be repaired”

    You must be joking…. that vessel is a burned out hulk, and will be scrapped.

    • John Whitehot

      true. Buying a new one will cost less than repair it.

    • duke oflilywhite

      Actually, that boat is burned toast. Real crispy, yum, yum! (⊙ ◡ ⊙ )

  • chris chuba

    Someone should be taking notes. Our invincible M1 Abrams have been going down with anti-tank missiles and a U.S. designed ship was fairly easily taken out by an anti-ship missile. This is a tactic being studiously developed by the Iranians. I sense a lot of complacency in the U.S., oh yeah, give us more money for railguns and lasers.

    • VGA

      This catamaran design is not to be used in a military engagement, it is for troop transport and relief operations. The UAE and the saudis are imbeciles and cannot protect their assets.

      • chris chuba

        I get the argument that our navy is better trained but I saw the video clip and the ship was moving high speed during the night. The point is that the if this missile can take out a modern transport ship under these circumstances then it follows that missiles of this nature has the firepower and targeting ability to attack something like a destroyer.

        If the Iranians chose to launch a large scale attack of this nature, it would be a challenge to counter it.

        • VGA

          That’s why USA would have AEGIS cruisers and recon aircraft to avoid this occurence.

          • Jesus

            The Aegis has not been proven against peer technology, or sub peer technology. Computer stimulations are mere games. Russians stated that a complex technology can be rendered inept by simple countermeasures.

          • chris chuba

            Also, the Russians seem to think that they have budgeted enough air defense to counter whatever the U.S. throws at them in terms of cruise missiles and aircraft. I do not believe that the Russians bluff. They have watched us operate 4 times, twice in Iraq and Libya so they know our playbook quite well.

            We have never seen how they would respond to our methods even once. Does the U.S. navy still have battleships? The only thing that I can think of is if we just tossed in the old fashioned naval shells. They probably could hit them but it would be quite expensive.

          • John Whitehot

            no battleships anymore. They were a nightmare in terms of costs and maintenance problems, as they were getting too old and basically broke down all the time.

          • chris chuba

            Thanks for the reply. So then if our only weapon of attack are $1M Tomahawk cruise missiles or air launched missiles. The S3/400 will likely be a cost effective counter. I was thinking that had we swarmed a Syrian target with cheap, long range weapons that we could overwhelm their defenses (just thinking tactics, not endorsing that action).

            Politically, the Russians should have very little issues shooting down cruise missiles since it would involve no loss of U.S. personnel. Having to target a capital ship doing a long range bombardment is a different matter. The Russian Gen. in his statement pretty much said that a stealth aircraft flying over Syrian govt territory would be considered hostile threat.

          • John Whitehot

            I believe he was referring to stealth planes dropping munitions, not simply flying over. I sincerely think that most US military personnel in the area is cool-headed and abides to the US government rules of engagement, which for now totally exclude bombing the Syrian armed forces. I believe though that there is some particular element(s) in the chain of command that ordered the Deir-ezzor bombing, and is basically being influenced by actors outside the US administration, and that may even order some actions that could lead to retaliation and escalation. That could be very dangerous: what could happen if there are shootdowns because of such “rogue” mission, maybe with loss of life? The US president would be forced to two options: escalating even more, or publicly declaring that he has not full control on the armed forces actions (with all the consideration such choice would bring). The movie “Dr. Strangelove” comes to mind..

          • Jesus

            I believe the S300 deployed more inland for improved air coverage while the S-400 is deployed on the coast line. I think the Russians deployed more than a battery of of S-300. If I was I their shoes, I’d make sure I can engage at least 200 major targets at one time.
            The Russians most likely are going to confront the cruise missiles with electronic warfare ( since they are slow) than use an assortment of missiles that make sense for particular situations. They do not have to use the S-300 or S400, they can allow the cruise missiles to come close and engage them from 1-10 miles, or they can steer them away from the target.
            Yes, Iowa class battleship has the 18 inch guns, they were recomissioned when the Soviets deployed the Kirov battle cruisers ( they are currently all decommissioned) its guns are good to soften up costal defenses, however, without adequate air cover a 2000 lbs bomb would neutralize it.

          • John Whitehot

            but it has proven its ability to shoot down airliners when the USS Vincennes brought down an iranian airbus in the 80ies, killing all the occupants (290 people killed). Notice that after the incident, the US ship crew were awarded medals and promotions.

          • Jesus

            Yes, I remember that, Iranians thought the US was siding with Iraq, and subsequently the war between Iran and Iraq came to an end. It was an ugly war.

          • Ted

            I appreciate this sight for the stories varying point of view. I like the fact it is the opposite of what I find elsewhere. That being said, I find that many times the one sided point of view is so dominate that it can become what I sought to avoid! But I see here you post with rational thought and a good sense of reality. Refreshing to find.

          • chris chuba

            I didn’t say that the Iranians would win. I said that the Iranian missiles would be a serious challenge and we seem overly complacent in our belief that our technology is invincible.

            The only thing that I said was that it shows that the missiles have both the guidance and firepower to target and damage our ships. MANPADs and TOWS are also examples of low cost systems that pose a challenge to relatively expensive systems as well. They can be countered but have done significant damage under the right circumstances. In a big conflict we might get a surprise or two.

            I did not think that the Houthis would be doing this well at this point. As far as I am concerned, they can start taking Saudi scalps for what the KSA has done to their country.

          • VGA

            US ships are defended by anti-missile missiles like the SM series and point defense cannons, they have electronic and physical countermeasures that are very effective against older types of rocket threats.
            An old engagement as an example:
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Latakia

            The saudis/UAE and their mercenaries like Sudan are the more ineffectual fighting forces on this planet. It defies logic that so well-equipped forces can fail in every conceivable way, from the soldier level, to naval warfare, to strategic planning, to defending against cruise missiles they just fail.

            Imagine if they had to face a serious threat like Iran, they would be swept away like a hankerchief in a hurricane.

    • Sheepdog

      The ship was not designed by the US. It was designed as a vehicle ferry by Australian naval architects and an Australian ship builder. The only difference between it, and the many identical ferries they have built is that it is painted grey.not

  • Kell

    After seeing the wrecks of Brit Warships burnt to the waterline after the Falklands I would have tholught the damage would be much worse – for a civilian car ferry made out of Aluminium its held up surprisingly well, perhaps it was an RPG strike from the small boat rather than a silkworm hit?

    • John Whitehot

      seem it got hit by 3 or 4 atgms. I don’t believe it’s a Silkworm nor any other kind of anti ship missile.

  • Hassadnah Abraham

    Now Yemenis know, it is easy ti retaliate against Al Soud killing of innocence women and child of Yemen- next move is to sink the Oil tanker that pass Yemen shore daily. Al Soud become evil because or oil and money, it is time to burn the tanker of evil money.

  • Dow Jones

    USSAN Admiral Ketchup Kerry was on R&R in Israel at the time .