5 ms·
B-2 Spirit Stealth Bombers Begin Unannounced Deployment to Diego Garcia
- sorokod 2y agoDestination Yemen I suppose.
- Tomte 2y agoThe article discusses that B-2s would be overkill, since the Houthis have no relevant air-defense. It speculates about Iran instead.
- sorokod 2y agoOn the other hand, hardware wants to be used. Also, an attack in Yemen is a message to Iran. Also #2, "Trump sends second aircraft carrier to Middle East in ramp up against Houthis" https://www.politico.com/news/2025/03/21/trump-air-craft-carrier-red-sea-00243745 https://www.politico.com/news/2025/03/21/trump-air-craft-car...
- silverquiet 2y agoThere's a fabulous article[0] by William Langewiesche in "The Atlantic" that I read years ago to that effect; it's "An Extraordinarily Expensive Way to Fight ISIS" that follows a B-2 mission against a group of ISIS militants in the desert that shows how ridiculous they are against such an enemy. But yes, essentially they are enormous military-industrial capital investments, and it seems they just want to get used now and again. [0]https://archive.is/P8oUN https://archive.is/P8oUN
- alabastervlog 2y agoThis puts a pretty strong asterisk on other comments speculating that these probably aren't for Yemen, since they'd be overkill. They are overkill, but also we've used them in cases where better-scoped and cheaper solutions would have done the job, before. As for comments like "why move them there, they're built for attacking from the US?": sustained strikes. The mission in the linked article had the crews awake 33 hours and put tons of strain on their aircraft, all of which would lengthen the time to a follow-up flight to, I'd guess, several days at least. You do this if you are planning to (or want it to look like you're planning to) use the aircraft several times in within a single week.
- theultdev 2y agoB-2s come in after threatening air defense is destroyed. In this case, they can just roll right in. Whether they are stealth or not, they are B-2 bombers, their purpose is to bomb. Whatever can drop the payload. The more the merrier. All that and the fact that we know that B2 stealth bombers have already been used against Yemen, even during the Biden admin. Article author doesn't seem to be well-informed of this making that statement. When it comes to striking fear in the enemy, overkill is practical.
- elorant 2y agoGreat. Let's end the war in Ukraine and start WW3 with Iran.
- theultdev 2y agoThere's a huge middle ground between WW3 and allowing Iran to fund and coordinate terrorism. A strike on them to correct their malicious behavior is far away from a global war. I didn't see much concern about Ukraine leading to WW3 until Trump allowed peace talks to start. During the Biden administration peace was not discussed and not even considered an option by many.
- elorant 2y agoAny type of action has a reaction. Iran can target US military bases all around Middle East. They can damage tankers passing the Persian Gulf causing havoc to worldwide markets.
- theultdev 2y agoThey already are damaging ships via proxy support of Houthis. Deterrence sometimes means applying force. Iran won't be able to do anything if the US actually applies force to them. And I highly doubt anyone will actually come to their defense, which is an ingredient for WW3.
- aaomidi 2y agoHouthis had stopped their attacks on ships during the ceasefire. I think forcing Israel to maintaining their ceasefire is a significantly easier way of unblocking the water passageways. You know, with a bonus of preventing hundreds of people being killed everyday in Gaza too.
- boredatoms 2y agoIran has to be worried about being carpet bombed into nothingness though, so theres only so much they can escalate
- slashdev 2y agoLikely for Iran, they're overkill for Yemen. Hopefully it's just to put pressure on them for the negotiations. But I expect it's also to be ready if diplomacy fails.
- egeozcan 2y agoIran has been investing in low-frequency radars that are better at detecting stealth aircraft. Aldo the areas around Tehran and key nuclear facilities (like Fordow or Natanz) have particularly dense air defense coverage. Iran also has a good number of S-300/Bavar launchers which can saturate the air space when radar is ineffective. Not to mention that they have an untouched air force (though they are probably not in the best shape).
- eitland 2y agoIran has recently seen Israel dominating them completely - in the skies far into Israel. As far as I understand, in addition to the main targets, Israel also knocked out a good number of the air defense systems Iran had at the time. Given russia can't even replace their own losses of sam systems I personally doubt that they are sending much to Iran.
- egeozcan 2y agoDefending against missiles is much harder than defending against planes (be it normal ones or stealth ones). But you're not wrong, as they were supposed to be good at both, and they failed miserably against missiles.
- mrguyorama 2y agoLow frequency radar cannot be used to target the B2. The famous incident in Serbia is because the payload bay was open and that's what the missile was locked on to. Moments before, when the payload bay was closed, the Serbian radar saw nothing, despite being pointed directly at the F-117. It is an inherent property of low frequency radar that it is not precise enough for weapons targeting. You can't engineer that away. That being said, these aircraft aren't invincible. If you could visually see the B2, you might be able to essentially hip-fire a SAM at it and hope it eventually picks up some signal as it gets close, but that would be pretty unlikely to work and some missiles might not be capable of doing that at all. There are some soviet systems that are optically guided, and those would probably work fine. In the day at least. Heat seeking A2A missiles would probably also work, though the B2 has some mitigations there. All these options are a significantly limited engagement range though, and I would hope B2s aren't sent alone. A few F35s with the strike would fix all problems. SEAD is way easier when the enemy's radars can barely detect you at 60km. US anti-radiation weapons can reach out to over 100km easily, though even basic SAM doctrine can limit their "Reach out and ruin someone's day" ability. Meanwhile this entire situation is pathetic. The signal leak demonstrates that even Trump's admin knows that Europe and Israel can handle this themselves, which they insist we shouldn't pay for, and then burn money doing. We couldn't afford $100 billion a year in old, explicitly deprecated systems like Gulf War era Bradleys and weapon systems we stopped using because they aren't that great but are definitely better than nothing and CERTAINLY better than the trucks and golf carts Russia is using, but we can afford $150k per B2 flight hour to turn yet more of the desert into craters.
- sorokod 2y agoHas been done before "B-2 Bombers Strike Houthi Targets in Yemen"[1] - October 2024 [1]https://www.airandspaceforces.com/b-2-stealth-bombers-strike-houthis-targets-yemen/ https://www.airandspaceforces.com/b-2-stealth-bombers-strike...
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago[flagged]
- Fauntleroy 2y agoErr—"hopefully"?
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y agoYes.
- DSingularity 2y ago[flagged]
- nielsbot 2y agoGross
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- steveBK123 2y agoEveryone please check your Signal app for updates
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- trhway 2y agoi don't see any war plans there just some flights schedule. Reminds how in June 1941 Stalin had morning schedule for the June 22th of the German troops amassed near USSR border, yet he was saying it weren’t German war plans ...
- steveBK123 2y agostand back and stand by
- mcphage 2y ago> yet he was saying it weren’t German war plans ... Whoopsie Daisy
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- toomuchtodo 2y agohttps://blog.sentinel-team.org/p/1-in-3-chance-of-us-to-strike-iran https://blog.sentinel-team.org/p/1-in-3-chance-of-us-to-stri...
- lnwlebjel 2y ago"Briefly, the US has the capacity to decisively win on one or two fronts at a time, so its strategic logic leads it to want to wrap up conflicts in order: put an end to the Ukraine war, and address Iran next, to preserve its ability to respond to a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. The logic of its rivals is then the opposite: to tightly coordinate and threaten to expand conflicts on each front so that the US can’t effectively respond to any. This is a path to a world war." So, if US hit Iran, we have to watch out for escalation from Russia and China.
- MaxPock 2y agoThey would just arm Iran and give her satellite intel to enable the Mullahs kills as many invading American troops as possible. That's not an escalation.
- ycombinatrix 2y agostrawman argument
- dylan604 2y agoHow? Your response feels like a low effort and not really anything more valuable than a strawman as well. Russia does not want to get into a 1:1 shooting war with the US--especially now that it has a puppet in the WH. Russia has always done what was laid out in GP. It has previously been doing this in Iran, Syria, etc.
- ycombinatrix 2y agoimo calling out a strawman argument is inherently more valuable than making a strawman argument.
- adrr 2y agoWhy would you deploy B-2s outside of the country? Does Diego Garcia even have the required climate controlled hangars to store the planes? Point of these planes was take them off from the US and have them return to the US. If we're using them for Yemen, wouldn't the b-1b be better and cheaper. Much lower operating costs and almost double the payload?
- Quillbert182 2y agoI would assume Diego Garcia does have the facilities for B-2s. The B-2 has been based there fairly frequently in the past, I believe.
- dylan604 2y agoI would s/based/staged.
- saberdancer 2y agoIt's a big stick to point toward Iran. Flying from Diego Garcia means they can takeoff without anyone reporting them inbound.
- belter 2y agoThey better not. The biggest they have is the GBU-57A/B [1] and that will work until 60 meters reinforced concrete. Iran has the facilities under more than 80 to 100 meters and its granite. Even an upgraded GBU-57A/B that it seems exist, wont be good enough. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-57A/B_MOP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-57A/B_MOP [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fordow_Fuel_Enrichment_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fordow_Fuel_Enrichment_Plant
- seryoiupfurds 2y agoI mean hey, while we're violating international norms... > The biggest conventional munition they have
- 2y ago
- ge96 2y agoTangent: is the stealth tanker real or still conceptual Not the small one, this thing is massive can fuel two F35s at the same time
- ck2 2y agoWhy are we bombing innocent civilian apartments? And how are we bombing at all without Congress declaring war? And why are we attacking people that are specifically threats to the Saudis and not USA?
- gadflyinyoureye 2y agoCongress probably allowed the bombings in some overly large bill that gave expansive power to the administration to interpret threats to the US as it sees fit. The war equivalent of the Chevron ruling.
- alabastervlog 2y agoPresidents still have insanely-extensive authority granted by the AUMF from the original batch of "Global War on Terror" (barf) bills. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_of_2001 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Milit... Remember when a bunch of people were complaining that tons of that legislation was dangerous crap that handed way too much power to the executive? Yeah, they were 100% right.
- stackedinserter 2y agoBecause we can! :punch: :us: :fire:
- dylan604 2y agoPOTUS is the Commander in Chief and has discretionary authority to authorize missions like this. Congressional approval is only necessary to finance or not situations POTUS decides to get into. Congress obviously is the only way to formally declare war. These are low grade skirmishes or special operations or any other term to allow not needing congressional approval
- krapp 2y agoHave you just been blissfully unaware of American foreign policy since... (checks notes) ... the end of World War 2?
- 2y ago
- hnpolicestate 2y agoThis isn't tech news lol. How does Dang believe topics like this can be discussed without a flame war.
- Jtsummers 2y agoFlag it if it's off-topic. dang doesn't personally review every submission, this site is mostly self-moderated. That said, it was interesting to see how they determined that the movement occurred.
- belter 2y ago> dang doesn't personally review every submission Every submission and every comment. He does....
- belter 2y ago> without a flame war. I see what you did there...
- daft_pink 2y agoThe most announced unannouncement ever.
- gj035571 2y ago[dead]