Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why the US Navy won't blast the Iranians and 'open' Strait of Hormuz

responsiblestatecraft.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 1001 posts

Re: Why the US Navy won't blast the Iranians and 'open' Strait of Hormuz

#201

Post by randomNumber7 »

Quarrelsome wrote: post #195
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> this shift in carrier-based projection of power in the era of low-cost drones Nothing in this war has suggested carriers are obsolete. A carrier that launches drones and fields an anti-drone strike group would be amazing. We don’t have that. (And even what we do have is great in the carrier department, it’s given us air parity to superiority from way offshore.)

Would it not be preferable to launch drones from less of a big target? The issue is that the carrier is clearly visible and targetable. You could go submersible or just spam much smaller ships with smaller payloads. In those cases you get the benefits of the same level of assault without the potential of a hugely expensive loss. At a guess, I assume much of the scale of carriers is tied to the logistics of air power,…

I think this strategy is effective for Ukraine and Iran because they fight an enemy that is superior in terms of weapon capabilities.

If you are the big boy with the bigger gun you don't necessarily need that.

PS: I will take that back when someone manages to hit a carrier with a low cost drone boat.

Re: Why the US Navy won't blast the Iranians and 'open' Strait of Hormuz

#202

Post by XorNot »

panick21_ wrote: post #54
khalic wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lol carriers were already being overwhelmed by regular missiles, this now means a multi billion dollar ship can and will be destroyed by cheap drones if it's anywhere near its optimal deployment zone.

You have any evidence for this? Because low cost drones can't fly very far, are easy to spot with radar, are slow as hell and can be shot down with cheap intercepters, or even lasers as the US is already deploying. Traditional anti-shipping missiles are a bigger danger. The optimal deployment zone is far off shore, and there its very hard to reach. Is your point that you can put a huge carrier literally in the strait…

You don't even need to say "lasers" : that's the future. CIWS is already a thing today and Ukrainians have downed Shaheds with ground fire from small arms.

There's a plethora of various low cost systems being developed for some defence, but the assumption I always see on HN and elsewhere is that for some reason cheap offensive drones will just never have a countermeasure...which isn't how any of this works (exhibit A: massed infantry assaults can sometimes work against emplaced machine guns, but in general the machine gun was the end of that tactic).

There is absolutely no reason that the current disruption drones are causing should lead to some sustained power imbalance: if you don't have the big laser today that's one thing, but if tomorrow you're scoring 100% intercept rates against the same threat then how cheap it is doesn't matter anymore. And there's no particular reason to think that won't be the case (if a cheap drone can be on the offensive, you'd have to present a very good case why the interceptor cannot be built in similar quantities at which point you're back to high end systems deciding the day).

Re: Why the US Navy won't blast the Iranians and 'open' Strait of Hormuz

#203

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 »

yomismoaqui wrote: post #34
high_na_euv wrote: post #11

Brightest minds of US were too focused on displaying ads and making teenagers addicted to tik tokies-like stuff instead of working security, defense, etc You couldve seen anti militsry industry sentiment on HN for years, which apparently worked for US adversaries, who knows who was behind that propaganda :) Inb4: im from eu

I prefer having those minds focused on optimizing ad serving than on optimizing school bombings.

Having those minds eliminate targeting mistakes wouldn't make a difference?

Re: Why the US Navy won't blast the Iranians and 'open' Strait of Hormuz

#204

Post by scrubs »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #9
fooker wrote: post #6

At the heart of this is the fact that America has lost the capability to manufacture anything at scale. High tech interceptors and missiles and aircraft carriers are great, but with China's help these are outnumbered by three (soon to be four) orders of magnitude. It's unclear if we can do much other than threaten sanctions and nukes, with not much in between.

> America has lost the capability to manufacture anything at scale We make plenty of stuff at scale. We just haven’t designed any of military around it since WWII. > unclear if we can do much other than threaten sanctions and nukes We could learn from our allies in Ukraine. Give them capital and manufacturing bases in America.

We (the US) probably spend too much per munition and do not have manufacturing capacity like China. We're not helpless, but i dont get the sense we have plenty of stock either. Both are problems.

(1) In this back and forth I'm surprised mines in the straight are not mentioned.

(2) im having difficulty seeing how cheap drones incapacitates a carrier. They are there to project force well into enemy territory for precise strikes. The carrier can be some distance from the shore. Now, the question turns to strike what? Surely drone manufacturing plants and barracks would have to be on list or ... they'd be less effective.

(3) if drones are sub-mach speeds why not shoot down with a glorified gattleling gun as opposed to expensive missiles or lasers?

Re: Why the US Navy won't blast the Iranians and 'open' Strait of Hormuz

#205

Post by Quarrelsome »

randomNumber7 wrote: post #201
Quarrelsome wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would it not be preferable to launch drones from less of a big target? The issue is that the carrier is clearly visible and targetable. You could go submersible or just spam much smaller ships with smaller payloads. In those cases you get the benefits of the same level of assault without the potential of a hugely expensive loss. At a guess, I assume much of the scale of carriers is tied to the logistics of air power,…

I think this strategy is effective for Ukraine and Iran because they fight an enemy that is superior in terms of weapon capabilities. If you are the big boy with the bigger gun you don't necessarily need that. PS: I will take that back when someone manages to hit a carrier with a low cost drone boat.

sure but America's ship building doesn't appear to be at the level of being able to cranking out carriers should they start losing them. Conversely I imagine it might have a better shot at cranking out a smaller blue print en-masse.

Re: Why the US Navy won't blast the Iranians and 'open' Strait of Hormuz

#206

Post by tim333 »

SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #105
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> America has lost the capability to manufacture anything at scale We make plenty of stuff at scale. We just haven’t designed any of military around it since WWII. > unclear if we can do much other than threaten sanctions and nukes We could learn from our allies in Ukraine. Give them capital and manufacturing bases in America.

> We could learn from our allies in Ukraine. Give them capital and manufacturing bases in America. That is happening, only with "EU" not "America". Because the EU are Ukraine's allies. https://kyivindependent.com/ukraine-to-open-10-weapons-expor... https://www.politico.eu/article/ukraine-to-open-arms-factory... https://euobserver.com/209049/eu-signs-off-on-e260m-grant-fo... As for the US being Ukrainian allies as com…

I think the majority of Americans are on Ukraine's side but of course the president has other ideas. The UK has some Ukranian drone manufacturing going on https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy0dvjwygk1o

Re: Why the US Navy won't blast the Iranians and 'open' Strait of Hormuz

#207

Post by angry_octet »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #60
KingOfCoders wrote: post #13

I don't get that "Strait" discussion. Where does the Strait begin and end? If somehow the US Navy "opens" the Strait, what stops Iran to attack every ship moving in the direction of the Strait? Where does the "protection zone" start and end?

> Where does the Strait begin and end? Practically speaking, the Musandam Peninsula [1]. Open that to the sea and you make everyone except Iraq and Kuwait happy. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musandam_Peninsula

Much further than that. At least 200nm using drone ISR to cue Shaheeds, 500nm with satellite ISR. (With a 90kg warhead.) There are also many fishing vessels in the region, originating from a number of countries (e.g. Oman, Iran, Pakistan) which can report sightings of VLCCs.

Once you have sighted the ship it is an undergrad project to implement target classification and recognition using off the shelf algorithms. It doesn't need a fast GPU because naval engagements are very slow, a cheap mobile phone can do it.

Re: Why the US Navy won't blast the Iranians and 'open' Strait of Hormuz

#208

Post by metalman »

tumpy was/is/might be going to china in a week or so, and there is pretty much no way that can happen while WWIII is launching, and/or things are going mega bad for the marines, as there is no way they are not going find themselves in a real fight. all those islands are owned and operated by the irainian military, who in fact have complete long range artilery superiority,and every square inch dialed in, dont see how it could be done except with a full and total invasion of the wholecountry, which would likely go worse and would require a much much larger force than the one on hand, but tumpy is crazy, so who knows

Re: Why the US Navy won't blast the Iranians and 'open' Strait of Hormuz

#209

Post by lotsofpulp »

b00ty4breakfast wrote: post #199
lotsofpulp wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Americans have been sold an image of the US being an omnipotent presence, due to its Navy. It is a legitimate question to wonder why a relatively weak, long embargoed country has the power to control the waters when the US has spent a pretty penny on all these warplanes and aircraft carriers. If little Iran can prevent the US from being able to establish security in a little straight, it (ideally) shatters that image…

You can lose a game of chess to a guy with fewer and less powerful pieces than you if you play like a moron. The US has been playing the Iran situation like a gigantic moron.

Maybe I am misinformed, but I was under the impression that the US was so capable it is not even playing the same game as a country like Iran. As in they could brute force solutions due to superior technology and infrastructure, because that is how much more the US spends on it.

Re: Why the US Navy won't blast the Iranians and 'open' Strait of Hormuz

#210

Post by IAmBroom »

cyanydeez wrote: post #15
fooker wrote: post #6

At the heart of this is the fact that America has lost the capability to manufacture anything at scale. High tech interceptors and missiles and aircraft carriers are great, but with China's help these are outnumbered by three (soon to be four) orders of magnitude. It's unclear if we can do much other than threaten sanctions and nukes, with not much in between.

is china helping ukraine also? The real "force multiplier" is basically the same as it was 100 years ago: fancy advanced tech works great to clear large, unoccupied spaces with no terrain costs; it still won't go into a jungle, climbmountains or fight in the streats. Whats compounding existing reality, is how cheap it is to use commercial tech from any of these manufacturing hubs, china included, and turn it into a s…

My theory is that China is playing wait-and-see. Likely futures:

Russia survives; business as usual, if much poorer. China doesn't want to poison that relationship.

Russia falls; China helpfully "adopts" the orphaned Asian lands.

Iran falls; turmoil follows; the USA as usual (since WWII) has no plans for afterwards. Do nothing until opportunity presents itself.

Iran survives; the US falters; wait and benefit from the opening that creates.

I can't see a path where China picking sides in UKR/RUS nor USA/IRAN benefits China at all.

Post reply on HN