Psychological Warfare and the Red Sea: What Does It Mean When a U.S. Cruiser Shoots Down a U.S. Jet?
NYN | Reports and analyses
Amid the escalating tensions in the Red Sea, the U.S. aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman has not been immune to the winds of surprise.
The European platform Visegrád Post revealed that the carrier — one of the most iconic symbols of U.S. naval dominance — suffered a series of “embarrassing” operational losses during its indirect confrontation with the forces of Sanaa. These setbacks have shaken Washington’s confidence in its fleet’s ability to operate under pressure, especially in a conflict increasingly shaped by unconventional technologies and adversaries that defy traditional calculations of technological superiority.
According to the report published Friday, the U.S. Navy’s mission in the Red Sea has encountered what were described as “unexpected challenges,” most notably the loss of three F/A-18 Super Hornet fighter jets within just six months, during the deployment of the carrier’s combat task force.
In a scene that drew ridicule among military analysts, a U.S. guided missile cruiser accidentally shot down one of those jets during a combat drill amid high tensions in the Red Sea — exposing severe internal coordination and communication flaws within the Navy, despite all claims about the precision of U.S. systems.
While the Truman itself was not directly targeted by missiles from Sanaa, the loss of its aircraft — without a direct confrontation or actual battle — at the hands of a technically less advanced opponent, highlighted a performance gap and a readiness failure. This has alarmed Washington regarding potential future confrontations with more advanced powers such as China or Russia.
The report states that these incidents have prompted the U.S. Navy to revisit its operational planning and reassess its strategic preparedness, especially in light of the emergence of new tactics that are increasingly disrupting conventional deterrence models and igniting U.S. spheres of influence using low-cost but effective methods.
The damage, according to the report, goes beyond the military sphere — it also includes financial costs and reputational damage to the U.S. fleet. Losing three high-cost aircraft delivers a direct blow to the operational budget and exposes a critical vulnerability in the narrative of military supremacy upon which Washington builds its deterrence power.
In conclusion, the report stated that what the Truman faced in the Red Sea is “not merely a series of errors,” but rather a real test of the U.S. Navy’s ability to adapt to new-generation warfare — where drones, anti-ship missiles, and symbolic strikes leave no room for mistakes and no time for hesitation.
