Despite an international coalition providing a protective umbrella over the Red Sea – Op Prosperity Guardian – the Houthi attacks against merchant shipping continued.
Shortly before midnight on Thursday, the US and UK launched a wave of attacks on 60 Houthi military targets using over 100 guided munitions, predominantly Tomahawk cruise missiles.
The UK contribution to the strike package was four Typhoon fighter jets.
Although cruise missiles can be launched from hundreds of miles away from their targets, once launched they can take some time to reach them and, while en route, the ground situation can change.
Fighter missions place the pilots in harm’s way, but also enable a much shorter time-of-flight for the weapon, and thus a more dynamic assessment to be made of the threat and potential collateral damage.
So, what is involved in mounting a Typhoon attack mission?
From the moment that the Houthis started attacking Red Sea merchant shipping on 19 November, US and UK forces would have been developing a suitable list of military targets and options.
More on Israel-hamas War
Related Topics:
Satellite imagery and routine intelligence gathering would have identified command and control nodes, radars, weapon storage areas and missile launch sites, plus established “pattern of life” around potential targets to assess the risks of collateral damage.
Diplomatic options ‘exhausted’
Advertisement
Once the two countries’ political leadership had exhausted diplomatic options, they would have outlined what they wanted any military action to achieve, and be briefed on options.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
3:12
UK and US hit Houthi targets
The political objective was to avoid further escalation, demonstrate resolve, and degrade the Houthis’ capability to attack shipping, but limit collateral damage.
The US appears to have identified a window of opportunity to conduct strikes – overnight to limit the number of casualties – and the UK PM approved the military action.
The Typhoon capability already deployed to Cyprus would have received their tasking several hours before launch, prompting an intense period of planning and preparation.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
4:12
US and UK strikes on Yemen explained
Pilots planning routes, weapons specialists matching weapons to targets – size of bomb, fusing, guidance required – and deciding which pilots would be selected for the mission.
In addition, the whole squadron would have been focused on preparing the four aircraft, refuelling, and arming, servicing and downloading vital software – a team effort.
But Cyprus is a long way from the target area – a round trip of more than 3,000 miles. Two air-to-air refuelling tankers (Voyager) would also be required to refuel the Typhoons both before entering Yemeni airspace, and also to provide the vital top-up to get the jets home again.
Planning these sorties takes time, co-ordination and patience.
Working back from the planned Time on Target – co-ordinated with the US strikes occurring simultaneously – the pilots would identify where the tanker needed to be, and when, and with how much fuel, for both ingress and egress.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
3:59
How UK jets struck the Houthis
The pilots can then work out their departure time from Cyprus, before which they need to conduct pre-flight briefings, get kitted out in flight gear, walk to jets leaving time to race for the spare jet if the primary fails to start – and getting briefed on the recovery plan should the pilot get shot down over Yemen.
Jets ‘bristling with arms’
Walking out to the jets focuses the mind – seeing the Typhoon jet bristling with live missiles and explosive munitions is a stark reminder that this is no training mission.
Finding the refuelling tanker can often be a challenge – especially if the weather is less than fair – but plugging in at over 20,000 ft (6,100m) and seeing the fuel gauge read full again, it’s time to depart the sanctuary of international airspace and plot a course to the target.
Defensive aids on, chaff and flares ready, watching for any signs that enemy radars are tracking you.
Spreaker
This content is provided by Spreaker, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Spreaker cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Spreaker cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Spreaker cookies for this session only.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:29
PM wants to ‘de-escalate’ Yemen
A second rendezvous with the tanker to fill up again, and then the long flight back home.
Land, sign in the jet, get out of the immersion suit, g-suit and other flying kit, go to the bathroom, rehydrate, then prepare for an hour-long debrief.
And for the ground crew, armourers, suppliers and support staff, the work starts all over again.
A simple headline like “UK Typhoons strike Houthi targets”, requires an immense effort behind the scenes, and it’s a superb example of British experience, professionalism, and teamwork.
Pressure is growing to renegotiate or leave an international convention blamed for slowing building projects and increasing costs after a judge warned campaigners they are in danger of “the misuse of judicial review”.
Under the Aarhus Convention, campaigners who challenge projects on environmental grounds but then lose in court against housing and big infrastructure have their costs above £10,000 capped and the rest met by the taxpayer.
Government figures say this situation is “mad” but ministers have not acted, despite promising to do so for months.
The Tories are today leading the call for change with a demand to reform or leave the convention.
In March, Sky News revealed how a computer scientist from Norfolk had challenged a carbon capture and storage project attached to a gas-fired power station on multiple occasions.
Andrew Boswell took his challenge all the way the appeal court, causing delays of months at a cost of over £100m to the developers.
In May, the verdict handed down by the Court of Appeal was scathing about Dr Boswell’s case.
More from Politics
“Dr Boswell’s approach is, we think, a classic example of the misuse of judicial review in order to continue a campaign against a development… once a party has lost the argument on the planning merits,” wrote the judges.
They added: “Such an approach is inimical to the scheme enacted by parliament for the taking of decisions in the public interest,” adding his case “betrays a serious misunderstanding of the decision of the Supreme Court” and “the appeal must therefore be rejected”.
Another case – against a housing development in a series of fields in Cranbrook, Kent – was thrown out by judges in recent weeks.
The case was brought by CPRE Kent, the countryside challenge, to preserve a set of fields between two housing developments alongside an area of outstanding natural beauty.
John Wotton, from CPRE Kent, suggested it would have been hard to bring the challenge without the costs being capped.
“We would’ve had to think very carefully about whether we could impose that financial risk on the charity,” he told Sky News.
After his case was dismissed, Berkeley Homes said the situation was “clearly absurd and highlights how incredibly slow and uncertain our regulatory system has become”.
They added: “We welcome the government’s commitment to tackle the blockages which stop businesses from investing and frustrate the delivery of much needed homes, jobs and growth.
“We need to make the current system work properly so that homes can actually get built instead of being tied-up in bureaucracy by any individual or organisation who wants to stop them against the will of the government.”
‘Reform could breach international law’
Around 80 cases a year are brought under the Aarhus Convention, Sky News has learned.
The way Britain interprets Aarhus is unique as a result of the UK’s distinctive legal system and the loser pays principle.
Barrister Nick Grant, a planning and environment expert who has represented government and campaigns, said the convention means more legally adventurous claims.
“What you might end up doing is bringing a claim on more adventurous grounds, additional grounds, running points – feeling comfortable running points – that you might not have otherwise run.
“So it’s both people bringing claims, but also how they bring the claims, and what points they run. This cap facilitates it basically.”
However, Mr Grant said that it would be difficult to reform: “Fundamentally, the convention is doing what it was designed to do, which is to facilitate access to justice.
“And it then becomes a question for the policymakers as to what effect is this having and do we want to maintain that? It will be difficult for us to reform it internally without being in breach of our international law obligations”
In March, Sky News was told Number 10 is actively looking at the convention.
Multiple figures in government have said the situation with Britain’s participation in the Aarhus Convention is “mad” but Sky News understands nothing of significance is coming on this subject.
Image: ‘The country faces a choice,’ says Robert Jenrick
The Tories, however, want action.
Robert Jenrick, shadow justice secretary and former housing minister, said the Tories would reform or leave the convention.
He told Sky News: “I think the country faces a choice. Do we want to get the economy firing on all cylinders or not?
“We’ve got to reform the planning system and we’ve got to ensure that judicial review… is not used to gum up the system and this convention is clearly one of the issues that has to be addressed.
“We either reform it, if that’s possible. I’m very sceptical because accords like this are very challenging and it takes many many years to reform them.
“If that isn’t possible, then we absolutely should think about leaving because what we’ve got to do is put the interest of the British public first.”
Mr Jenrick also attacked the lawyers who work on Aarhus cases on behalf of clients.
“A cottage industry has grown. In fact, it’s bigger than a cottage industry,” he said.
“There are activist lawyers with campaign groups who are now, frankly, profiteering from this convention. And it is costing the British taxpayer a vast amount of money. These lawyers are getting richer. The country is getting poorer.”
Warning: This article contains graphic descriptions of murders.
Image: (L-R) Yostin Mosquera murdered Albert Alfonso and Paul Longworth
Mosquera’s victims were 62-year-old Albert Alfonso and his civil partner, 71-year-old Paul Longworth. It is believed that Mosquera, a 35-year-old who worked in the adult film industry, first met Mr Alfonso online.
Image: Paul Longworth and Albert Alfonso walk with Mosquera from their house. Pic: Met Police
The three men struck up a friendship, the couple visited Mosquera in Colombia, and they repeatedly flew Mosquera to the UK to stay with them at their flat in London.
While the men would take day-trips to tourist attractions, like Madame Tussauds, Mr Alfonso and Mosquera would engage in extreme sex together.
But in the weeks leading up to their murders, Mosquera was clearly planning his attacks.
He looked online for a freezer and, on the day of the killings, searched for: “Where on the head is a knock fatal?”
The prosecution argued he was financially motivated.
Image: Mosquera has been convicted of two murders. Pic: Met Police
Mosquera repeatedly tried to find the price of the couple’s property in Scotts Road, Shepherd’s Bush, and stole money from Mr Alfonso after murdering him.
On 8 July 2024, Mosquera killed Mr Longworth by hitting him with a hammer, shattering his skull, before hiding his body in a divan bed.
That evening, during sex with Mr Alfonso, Mosquera stabbed him with a knife. A postmortem revealed 22 stab wounds.
Image: Paul Longworth and Albert Alfonso. Pic: Met Police
All of this was recorded on cameras, which had been placed in the room by Mr Alfonso.
Mosquera then decapitated the bodies, the heads stored in a freezer which he had delivered on 9 July.
Image: A handyman hired by Mosquera loads the victims’ bodies into a van in suitcases. Pic: Met Police
The other remains were put in suitcases and on 10 July, Mosquera hired a van with a driver to transport him and the bags to Clifton Suspension Bridge.
The prosecution argued Mosquera went to Bristol with the intention of throwing the bags off the bridge.
But, struggling with their weight, Mosquera caught the attention of passers-by, telling them the cases contained car parts.
But people noticed liquid leaking from the bags – blood.
Image: Yostin Mosquera ran off after passers-by noticed the suitcases were leaking blood. Pic: Met Police
Image: Mosquera was later arrested just after 2am on 13 July. Pic: Met Police
Mosquera ran off and was later arrested at Bristol Temple Meads station on 13 July 2024 and charged with both murders.
When the case came to trial, initially at the Old Bailey and then at Woolwich Crown Court, the gruesome footage of Mr Alfonso’s murder was repeatedly played to the jury.
‘It was the worst video I have ever seen’
It is not often a murder is caught on camera.
It is even rarer when they are filmed from multiple angles, with sound.
I was at the Old Bailey for the first trial, where the recording of Mosquera killing Albert Alfonso was repeatedly played to the jury.
The two men are naked, taking part in consensual sex, which was filmed by Mr Alfonso on several cameras, a normal practice for the pair.
Unwittingly, Mr Alfonso recorded his own murder.
We see Mosquera hide the knife.
Then, when Mr Alfonso is at his most vulnerable, Mosquera calmly stabs him in the neck.
Mr Alfonso struggles against Mosquera, screaming, but is overpowered.
Mosquera cruelly taunts him, asking, “Do you like it?”
As Alfonso lay dying, Mosquera bizarrely sings and dances before going to Alfonso’s computer.
The judge warned the jury about the graphic video, reassuring them that, if they felt unable to proceed due to its content, they would be excused.
One jury member did not come back the next day and I could completely understand their discomfort.
The sound of screaming was hard to forget.
A murder is always upsetting to watch, but this felt intrusive.
While many aspects of their sexual relationship could be disturbing to an outsider, Albert Alfonso could never have predicted that his private recordings would be so publicly analysed at a trial into his own murder.
Miranda Jollie, Senior Crown Prosecutor at the CPS, said she found the video “horrific”, but maintained that it was necessary to show the video because of Mosquera’s claims.
Mosquera denied the murders, but admitted killing Mr Alfonso – his defence team argued it was manslaughter by loss of control.
However, the video evidence contradicts this claim.
It shows Mosquera had hidden the knife before sex, showing the attack was premeditated.
He was also calm as he attacked Mr Alfonso, who was taken off guard, and went to Mr Alfonso’s computer to try and steal from him as he lay dying.
In court, Mosquera argued, through a Spanish interpreter, that Mr Alfonso had repeatedly “raped him” and that Mr Longworth had been killed by Mr Alfonso.
But the prosecution argued there was no evidence to support these claims, while the couple’s relationship was unconventional, it was also “loving”, and Mr Alfonso would never have killed Mr Longworth.
The system for regulating water companies in England and Wales should be overhauled and replaced with one single body, a major review of the sector has advised.
It has recommended abolishing regulator Ofwat as well as the Drinking Water Inspectorate (DWI), which ensures that public water supplies are safe.
The report, which includes 88 recommendations, suggests a new single integrated regulator to replace existing water watchdogs, mandatory water metering, and a social tariff for vulnerable customers.
The ability to block companies being taken over and the creation of eight new regional water authorities with another for all of Wales to deliver local priorities, has also been suggested.
The review, the largest into the water industry since privatisation in the 1980s, was undertaken by Sir Jon Cunliffe, a career civil servant who oversaw the biggest clean-up of Britain’s banking system in the wake of the financial crash.
He was coaxed out of retirement by Environment Secretary Steve Reed to lead the Independent Water Commission.
Here are nine key recommendations:
More from Money
• Single integrated water regulators – a single water regulator in England and a single water regulator in Wales. In England, this would replace Ofwat, the Drinking Water Inspectorate and water-environment related functions from the Environment Agency and Natural England
• Eight new regional water system planning authorities in England and one national authority in Wales
• Greater consumer protection – this includes upgrading the consumer body Consumer Council for Water into an Ombudsman for Water to give stronger protection to customers and a clearer route to resolving complaints
• Stronger environmental regulation, including compulsory water meters
• Tighter oversight of water company ownership and governance, including new powers for the regulator to block changes in water company ownership
• Public health reforms – this aims to better manage public health risks in water, recognising the many people who swim, surf and enjoy other water-based activities
• Fundamental reset of economic regulation – including changes to ensure companies are investing in and maintaining assets
• Clear strategic direction – a newlong-term National Water Strategy should be published by both the UK and Welsh governments with a “minimum horizon of 25 years”
• Infrastructure and asset health reforms – including new requirements for companies to map and assess their assets and new resilience standards
In a speech responding to Sir Jon’s report, Mr Reed is set to describe the water industry as “broken” and welcome the commission’s recommendations to ensure “the failures of the past can never happen again”.
Final recommendations of the commission have been published on Monday morning to clean up the sector and improve public confidence.
Major other suggested steps for the government include greater consumer protection by upgrading the Consumer Council for Water into an ombudsman with advocacy duties being transferred to Citizens Advice.
Stronger and updated regulations have been proposed by Sir Jon, including compulsory water metering, changes to wholesale tariffs for industrial users and greater water reuse and rainwater harvesting schemes. A social tariff is also recommended.
Oversight of companies via the ability to block changes in ownership of water businesses and the addition of “public benefit” clauses in water company licences.
To boost company financial resilience, as the UK’s biggest provider Thames Water struggles to remain in private ownership, the commission has recommended minimum financial requirements, like banks are subject to.
It’s hoped this will, in turn, make companies more appealing to potential investors.
The public health element of water has been recognised, and senior public health representation has been recommended for regional water planning authorities, as have new laws to address pollutants like forever chemicals and microplastics.
A “supervisory” approach has been recommended to intervene before things like pollution occur, rather than penalising the businesses after the event.
A long-term, 25-year national water strategy should be published by the UK and Welsh governments, with ministerial priorities given to water firms every five years.
Companies should also be required to map and assess their assets and resilience
This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly.