Houthi rebels have shot down seven U.S. Reaper drones worth $200 million in recent weeks
Houthi rebels in Yemen have shot down seven U.S. Reaper drones in less than six weeks, a loss of aircraft worth more than $200 million in what is becoming the most dramatic cost to the Pentagon of the military campaign against the Iran-backed militants.
According to defense officials, three of the drones were shot down in the past week — suggesting the militants' targeting of the unmanned aircraft flying over Yemen has improved. The drones were doing attack runs or conducting surveillance, and they crashed both into the water and onto land, said the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss military operations.
The U.S. has increased its attacks on the Houthis, launching daily strikes since March 15, when U.S. President Donald Trump ordered a new, expanded campaign. He promised to use 'overwhelming lethal force' until the Houthis cease their attacks on shipping along a vital maritime corridor.
Central Command spokesman Dave Eastburn said Thursday night that the U.S. has struck more than 800 Houthi targets. 'These strikes have destroyed multiple command-and-control facilities, air defense systems, advanced weapons manufacturing facilities, advanced weapons storage locations, and killed hundreds of Houthi fighters and numerous Houthi leaders,' Eastburn said.
Another defense official said that although hostile fire is likely the cause of the drone losses, the incidents are still under investigation. The official noted that the increase in U.S. strikes can add to the risk to aircraft, but said the U.S. will take every measure possible to protect troops, equipment and interests in the region. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to comment on sensitive military issues.
The sophisticated drones, built by General Atomics, cost about $30 million each, and generally fly at altitudes of more than 40,000 feet (12,100 meters). Houthis leaders have consistently touted the strikes in public statements. One of the defense officials said the U.S. lost Reaper drones on March 31 and on April 3, 9, 13, 18, 19 and 22.
U.S. senators, meanwhile, are raising concerns about civilian casualties caused by the American strikes in Yemen. Democratic Sens. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Tim Kaine of Virginia wrote to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Thursday questioning whether the Trump administration is 'abandoning the measures necessary to meet its obligations to reducing civilian harm.'
Specifically, they questioned reports that U.S. strikes at the Ras Isa fuel terminal in Yemen last week potentially killed more than 70 civilians.
'Military leaders agree that ingraining civilian harm mitigation practices within U.S operations leads to better outcomes and that civilian casualties actually undermine the mission that the military has been sent in to do,' their letter said.
In addition to downing the drones, the Houthis have been persistently firing missiles and one-way attack drones at U.S. military ships in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden. They haven't hit any.
The U.S. has been using an array of warships, fighter jets, bombers and drones to strike the Houthis, and aircraft can now launch from two Navy carriers in the region.
Mr. Hegseth decided in March to beef up the Navy warship presence in the Middle East, ordering the USS Harry S. Truman to extend its deployment there, as the USS Carl Vinson steamed toward the area.
The Truman, along with two of the destroyers and a cruiser in its strike group, is now in the Red Sea. And the Vinson, along with two destroyers and a cruiser, is in the Gulf of Aden.
The third destroyer assigned to the Truman is in the Mediterranean Sea. And two other U.S. Navy destroyers are in the Red Sea, but aren't part of the Truman's group.
Mr. Hegseth is weighing whether to grant a request by U.S. Central Command to once again extend the Truman's deployment. A decision to do that could keep the Truman and at least some of its strike group in the region for several more weeks.
It has been rare in recent years for the U.S. to have two aircraft carriers in the Middle East at the same time. Navy leaders have generally been opposed to the idea because it disrupts ship maintenance schedules and delays time at home for sailors strained by the unusually high combat tempo.
Last year, the Biden administration ordered the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower aircraft carrier to remain in the Red Sea for an extended time, as U.S. warships waged the most intense running sea battle since World War II.
Prior to that it had been years since the U.S. had committed that much warship power to the Middle East.
The Houthis have been waging persistent missile and drone attacks against commercial and military ships in the region in what the group's leadership has described as an effort to end the Israeli war against Hamas in the Gaza Strip.
From November 2023 until this January, the Houthis targeted more than 100 merchant vessels with missiles and drones, sinking two of them and killing four sailors. That has greatly reduced the flow of trade through the Red Sea corridor, which typically sees $1 trillion of goods move through it annually.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
43 minutes ago
- Time of India
Wall Street opens slightly lower driven by market anxiety over crude oil prices, tariffs and Russia-Ukraine conflict
AI-generated image Stock markets in the United States opened with a slight decline, surrendering a portion of their gains from May, which marked their strongest performance since 2023. During early Monday trading, the S&P 500 declined by 0.3%. The Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped 174 points, representing a 0.4% decrease, whilst the Nasdaq composite fell by 0.2%. This was driven by crude oil prices that surged more than 4%. Despite OPEC+ nations agreeing to boost their output further, market analysts noted this decision was largely anticipated by investors. Additionally, Ukrainian strikes within Russian territory over the weekend heightened concerns regarding global oil and gas distribution. Global trade tensions also contributed to the decline as Beijing dismissed US claims regarding breach of tariff reduction agreements. Simultaneously, tensions with the European Union escalated following Trump's proposal to increase steel duties twofold. This was in line with the expectation of Wall Street opening on Monday. The intensifying Russia-Ukraine situation over the weekend heightened market concerns and drove oil prices upward. Prior to Monday's opening bell, S&P 500 futures declined 0.4%, whilst Dow Jones Industrial Average futures decreased 0.3%. The Nasdaq futures showed a reduction of 0.6%. The escalating Russia-Ukraine conflict, coupled with OPEC+'s decision to implement a smaller-than-anticipated production increase, led to rising oil prices and gains in oil company shares. Devon Energy experienced a 2.5% increase, whilst Chevron, Exxon and ConocoPhillips each gained between 1% and 1.5%. The US benchmark crude oil rose by $2.54, exceeding 4%, reaching $63.33 per barrel. Simultaneously, Brent crude, the global benchmark, increased by $2.34 to $65.12 per barrel. Steel sector shares witnessed substantial gains after President Donald Trump announced to Pennsylvania steelworkers on Friday his decision to increase steel import tariffs to 50%, doubling the previous rate to safeguard their industry. This significant increase could potentially raise prices for steel, a crucial material in housing, automotive and various other manufactured goods. Stay informed with the latest business news, updates on bank holidays and public holidays . AI Masterclass for Students. Upskill Young Ones Today!– Join Now
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
America's campus wars and its China connection
The US announced last week it is revoking the visas of hundreds of Chinese nationals studying and researching in high-value science and engineering fields. This sweeping decision by the Trump administration represents a major escalation in tensions with Beijing and is aimed at curbing what it describes as the Chinese Communist Party's efforts to steal US intellectual property through academic institutions. The decision has triggered protests from American universities and reignited debates about immigration, openness, and national security. But it also marks a turning point. For the first time in decades, the US is limiting academic access on national security grounds—a move that, while controversial, is not without justification. As someone who has taught at Duke, Stanford, Harvard, and Carnegie Mellon, I have long believed in the power of openness. The US has led in innovation precisely because it has welcomed the world's brightest minds. Over the last four decades, its top universities have drawn extraordinary talent from countries like China and India. These students have earned advanced degrees, contributed to major breakthroughs, launched start-ups, and helped build the US tech economy. Many of my students from China and India were among the most diligent, creative, and capable I have taught. At Carnegie Mellon's Silicon Valley campus, where I taught a course on exponential innovation — covering Artificial Intelligence (AI), robotics, cybersecurity, and synthetic biology — more than half of the class was Chinese. Most of them were outstanding and will no doubt go on to do great things. But not all Chinese students come to the US solely to learn. In 2005, I was teaching a course and conducting research at Duke University comparing engineering education in the US, China, and India. One Chinese student stood out — not for academic excellence, but for disinterest. When I asked him why he had enrolled, he told me plainly: His father was in the Chinese military, and he had been sent — on a government scholarship — to study, make contacts, and report back. Years later, a European institute contacted me to verify a recommendation letter I had supposedly written for him. I had written no such letter. It had been forged — presumably to help him gain access to sensitive research. In other cases, I met Chinese students who openly said they were on Chinese military-sponsored programmes. They worked hard to align themselves with professors conducting cutting-edge research in photonics, quantum devices, and advanced materials—fields with clear military applications. To be clear, this is not the norm. I estimate that only a small, single-digit percentage of Chinese students are sent abroad with such strategic intentions. But even a small number, when operating in critical research environments, can have an outsized impact. What troubles me more is how US universities often look the other way. At every institution where I taught, professors routinely received invitations from Chinese universities to collaborate or attend conferences — with business-class airfare, honorariums, and perks for spouses. Visiting researchers from Chinese State-linked institutions were welcomed with little scrutiny. Everyone seemed to treat it as business as usual. I myself received dozens of such invitations. I declined nearly all of them, except for a research trip to Hong Kong organised by the New York Academy of Sciences which paid $5,000. I also hosted Chinese scholars at Stanford and CMU, receiving modest stipends. At the time, my colleagues assured me this was routine and did not require disclosure. But in hindsight, I see how easily these engagements can blur into influence operations, especially in the absence of transparency. Meanwhile, America's own immigration system continues to undermine its competitiveness. Because it is so difficult for foreign students to stay after graduation, nearly all of my Chinese students returned home. They took with them the knowledge, networks, and experience they gained in the US — and many will now use that to advance China's strategic goals. If the class had been made up of 80% American citizens and 20% foreign students committed to contributing to the US, that would have felt balanced. But what I witnessed was lopsided. I increasingly worried that I might be helping train technologists who would later compete with democratic countries. That was one of the reasons I chose to step away from teaching. This doesn't warrant blanket bans. The US must remain open to the world's talent, but it also must be smart. Visa and research screening should include affiliations, risk, and research domains. If a student or researcher has ties to the Chinese military or a State-backed research initiative, they should not be allowed into the country or granted access to sensitive technologies or federally funded labs. Universities must also be held accountable. They should be required to fully disclose all foreign funding sources. Faculty should not be permitted to accept undisclosed compensation or enter into informal partnerships with institutions tied to adversarial governments. Sensitive research, particularly in dual-use technologies, must be governed by stronger security protocols — on par with those used by government contractors and national laboratories. China is not just another academic peer. It is a surveillance State, a strategic rival, and an authoritarian regime with a declared ambition to dominate critical technologies. It does not separate research from national interest, unlike democracies such as the US and India, which must now work together to protect the integrity of their institutions. Vivek Wadhwa is CEO, Vionix Biosciences. The views expressed are personal.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Wall Street: US stocks head low, crude oil rises after OPEC's production hike
U.S. stocks are drifting lower and giving back a small bit of their sprint through May, which was their best month since 2023. The S&P 500 was 0.3% lower in early trading Monday. The Dow Jones Industrial Average was down 174 points, or 0.4%, and the Nasdaq composite was down 0.2%. The price of crude oil jumped more than 4%. The countries in the OPEC alliance decided to increase their production again, but analysts said investors were widely expecting it. Attacks by Ukraine in Russia over the weekend also helped raise uncertainty about the flow of oil and gas around the world. After closing out its best month since 2023, Wall Street was poised to open with losses on Monday as the Russia-Ukraine conflict escalated over the weekend, contributing to broader market anxiety and a jump in oil prices. Futures for the S&P 500 lost 0.4% before the opening bell Monday, while futures for the Dow Jones Industrial Average gave up 0.3%. Nasdaq futures retreated 0.6%. In addition to rising tensions in Russia-Ukraine war, oil prices and oil company stocks climbed after OPEC decided on a more modest increase in output than was expected. Devon Energy rose 2.5%, while Chevron, Exxon and ConocoPhillips all rose between 1% and 1.5%. U.S. benchmark crude oil gained $2.54, more than 4%, to $63.33 per barrel, while Brent crude, the international standard, was up $2.34 at $65.12 per barrel. Steel companies were on an even bigger ride after President Donald Trump on Friday told Pennsylvania steelworkers he's doubling the tariff on steel imports to 50% to protect their industry, a dramatic increase that could further push up prices for a metal used to make housing, autos and other goods. Later in a post on his Truth Social platform, Trump confirmed the steel tariff and said that aluminum tariffs would also be doubled to 50%. Both tariff hikes would go into effect Wednesday, Trump said. Nucor and Steel Dynamics both rose around 10%, while Cleveland-Cliffs soared a whopping 25%. Shares of U.S. Steel have already taken off this year as it has become increasingly clear that Trump was going to allow some kind of major deal between U.S. Steel and Japan's Nippon Steel. Speaking Friday at U.S. Steel's Mon Valley Works–Irvin Plant in suburban Pittsburgh, Trump talked about the likely partnership in which Nippon will invest in the iconic American steelmaker. In a light week for corporate earnings reports, both Dollar Tree and Dollar General report in the coming days. Also Monday, UnitedHealth Group opens its annual meeting, just weeks after its CEO stepped down citing personal reasons. The nation's largest health insurer, whose shares are down 40% this year, also suspended its full-year financial outlook due to higher-than-expected medical costs. In Asia, Hong Kong's Hang Seng initially plunged more than 2% as Beijing and Washington traded harsh words over trade. China blasted the U.S. for issuing AI chip export control guidelines, stopping the sale of chip design software to China, and planning to revoke Chinese student visas. U.S. chipmakers were broadly lower early Monday. A report over the weekend that China's factory activity contracted in May, although the decline slowed from April as the country reached a deal with the U.S. to slash President Donald Trump's sky-high tariffs, further undermined market sentiment. But the Hang Seng closed just 0.6% lower, at 23,157.97. Markets in mainland China were closed for a holiday. Hong Kong's Hang Seng dropped 0.6% to 23,157.97 as China and the U.S. accused each other of breaching their tariff agreement reached in Geneva last month. Tokyo's Nikkei 225 lost 1.3% to 37,470.67, while the Kospi in Seoul added 0.1% to 2,698.97. Australia's S&P/ASX 200 retreated 0.2% to 8,414.10. India's Sensex lost 0.4% while the Taiex in Taiwan fell 1.6%. Elsewhere, in Europe at midday, Germany's DAX retreated 0.3% and the CAC 40 in Paris declined 0.5% British FTSE 100 gained 0.1%. In currency trading early Monday, the U.S. dollar fell to 142.72 Japanese yen from 143.87 yen. The euro inched up to $1.1418 from $1.1351.
