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

301–310 of 1001 posts

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

#301

Post by phil21 »

somat wrote: post #293
rustyhancock wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the point being made is that before Iranian drone doctrine (they were the originators of the long range drones, the FPV drones and sea drone which have dominated the Ukraine way too). A US CSG could simply sit in the Hormuz strait shoot down any incoming missiles and keep it open. Right now the US has 3 CSG in the middle east and nearly 50000 troops. After weeks of intensive bombing the strait remains closed…

Quick, what's the difference between a suicide drone and a guided missile?

Cost.

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

#302

Post by Schmerika »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #217
freefaler wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is capitalism in the wrong here? Resource warfare is universal trough the history in any society. The check and balances of the US President that can start an offensive war is more a political problem, not "capitalism" problem.

"Everything I don't like is woke." - Right "Everything I don't like is capitalism." - Left

Global wildlife populations have dropped 69% since 1970.

Virtually all climate scientists agree human activity is destabilizing the climate, the oceans, and entire biospheres.

Military spending is at record highs while housing, healthcare, and clean water remain out of reach for billions.

These are some things people "don't like", which share a common thread...

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

#304

Post by originalvichy »

tim333 wrote: post #225

>The era of carrier-dominated airpower is fading, as cheap, unmanned anti-ship weapons reshape naval warfare, whether US planners are ready for it or not. is not really backed up by reality. Pretty much the whole US operation so far, destroying much of Iran's military and leadership was done from US carriers. If anything it demonstrates how powerful they are. Also straits being closed to shipping by whatever power co…

I think it was achieved by two nuclear armed countries openly amassing their assets in the region for months. Any conflict between peer non-nuclear nations would have probably began with the country in Iran’s position sinking those carriers. Thanks to US and Israeli nukes, they were free to start killing people without fear of getting surprised.

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

#305

Post by mothballed »

gentleman11 wrote: post #285
testing22321 wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Losing just one carrier would give Trump all the excuse he needs to drop a nuke, declare a monster emergency and cancel elections…

To the people criticizing the comment above, think of all the other illegal things trump is already doing. It's not a matter of "can't", it's a matter of if he will and who will stop him (nobody, so far)

I'm surprised he hasn't considered dropping The Bomb. No one will stop him, and it could actually garner a win.

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

#306

Post by colechristensen »

somat wrote: post #293
rustyhancock wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the point being made is that before Iranian drone doctrine (they were the originators of the long range drones, the FPV drones and sea drone which have dominated the Ukraine way too). A US CSG could simply sit in the Hormuz strait shoot down any incoming missiles and keep it open. Right now the US has 3 CSG in the middle east and nearly 50000 troops. After weeks of intensive bombing the strait remains closed…

Quick, what's the difference between a suicide drone and a guided missile?

- 2-4 orders of magnitude in cost.

- One of them I could reliably build a factory for in my garage.

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

#307

Post by switchbak »

brokencode wrote: post #235
tim333 wrote: post #225

>The era of carrier-dominated airpower is fading, as cheap, unmanned anti-ship weapons reshape naval warfare, whether US planners are ready for it or not. is not really backed up by reality. Pretty much the whole US operation so far, destroying much of Iran's military and leadership was done from US carriers. If anything it demonstrates how powerful they are. Also straits being closed to shipping by whatever power co…

I agree that this conflict in Iran doesn’t really indicate that the aircraft carrier is any weaker now than it ever was. Though I do worry about the possibility of a more sophisticated opponent being able to launch swarms of drones and missiles at aircraft carriers. More than any air defense could ever stop.

Carriers have been in question long before this conflict. There's been a big question as to how effective and/or survivable a carrier battle group will be in the South Pacific, especially given China's long range anti-ship missiles.

There's been a whole ramp up of very exquisite technology to try to get the upper hand here, but I don't expect we'll see the carrier be the force it has been over the last few generations. It's just too tempting a target.

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

#308

Post by JackFr »

brokencode wrote: post #235
tim333 wrote: post #225

>The era of carrier-dominated airpower is fading, as cheap, unmanned anti-ship weapons reshape naval warfare, whether US planners are ready for it or not. is not really backed up by reality. Pretty much the whole US operation so far, destroying much of Iran's military and leadership was done from US carriers. If anything it demonstrates how powerful they are. Also straits being closed to shipping by whatever power co…

I agree that this conflict in Iran doesn’t really indicate that the aircraft carrier is any weaker now than it ever was. Though I do worry about the possibility of a more sophisticated opponent being able to launch swarms of drones and missiles at aircraft carriers. More than any air defense could ever stop.

Carriers aren’t going away because there’s nothing else that does what they do.

Many nations can blow stuff up but to actually project power, you need a mobile air base.

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

#309

Post by jandrewrogers »

brokencode wrote: post #235
tim333 wrote: post #225

>The era of carrier-dominated airpower is fading, as cheap, unmanned anti-ship weapons reshape naval warfare, whether US planners are ready for it or not. is not really backed up by reality. Pretty much the whole US operation so far, destroying much of Iran's military and leadership was done from US carriers. If anything it demonstrates how powerful they are. Also straits being closed to shipping by whatever power co…

I agree that this conflict in Iran doesn’t really indicate that the aircraft carrier is any weaker now than it ever was. Though I do worry about the possibility of a more sophisticated opponent being able to launch swarms of drones and missiles at aircraft carriers. More than any air defense could ever stop.

Cheap drones are pretty useless against large naval vessels. Making a dent in those ships requires a heavy, specialized penetrating warheads. And even then you'll need to score several hits.

Just the warhead alone on a standard anti-ship weapon weighs more than an entire Shahed-136 drone.

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

#310

Post by themafia »

jmward01 wrote: post #276

The title should change 'won't' to 'shouldn't'. This administration doesn't do things because of deep understanding, it does them because of gut reaction. The US Military could, at an unknown cost, just blast away. This article points out, rightfully, how scared we are to put our weapons in harms way because of how expensive they are. I made this argument many times to friends years ago. From a military strategic poi…

> at an unknown cost

We know the cost. We've conducted that type of warfare before. It's incredibly destructive and barbaric and requires huge amounts of human sacrifice to positively take control of territory after you've finished battering it with high explosives from every available angle. It looks really bad on TV.

> cruise missile carriers

You don't get very large payloads this way. It's fine if you want to pierce the armor of another ship or if you want to launch an "assassination missile" at a single unit but not awesome if you want to replace the capabilities of carriers and battleships and the literal BFGs they carry.

> If you build ships good for real wars you tend to get into wars.

It was meant to be a deterrent against other nation states and one particular form of naval warfare. In the modern world of terrorist cells and asymmetric warfare this may be a moot point.

Post reply on HN