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

351–360 of 1001 posts

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

#351

Post by jmward01 »

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…

How many of the strikes in Iran were 100% organic Navy assets? Sure, f18's took off and landed on carriers, but they tanked a couple times before dropping their bombs. The CSG helps, but was it really the thing enabling strikes? We have a massive air base in Qatar and other capabilities in the region. We are using bases all over the place to support these operations. The CSG helps... but isn't crucial to what is going on here. Now, bring S-3 organic tanking back and maybe the CSG would have a -little- more legitimacy.

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

#352

Post by jimjimjim »

jepj57 wrote: post #327
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…

In this instance, a flight of B-52's could wipe the concrete shielded missiles off the face of the Earth. Start off with F18s to secure the skies, then B52s to pound the missiles, then the Navy could stroll back in. It's just that no one has had the gumption to do it until now.

But sir, how do we stop an old guy on the bow of a rusty fishing boat firing a $50 rpg at the oil tanker?

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

#353

Post by justin66 »

jandrewrogers wrote: post #320
randomNumber7 wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These boat drones ukraine used to sink some russian ships seem to be very hard to avoid.

All large ships in the US Navy have automated weapons for killing swarms of small surface craft. They added that capability a few decades ago because they were regularly attacked by swarms of suicide speed boats packed with explosives. No one tries that anymore. Surface drones are effectively indistinguishable from that threat. Easier than avoiding torpedos, which are also long-range drones.

> Surface drones are effectively indistinguishable from that threat.

It's pretty hard to imagine a scenario from the nineties where there are so many speedboats in an attack that all four CIWS on a carrier use all their ammo at once. (that's an awful lot of suicidal jihadis, or whatever)

On the other hand, if the CIWS are targeting clouds of aerial drones and jetski drones at the same time, that could be a pretty bad scene. About fifteen seconds of fire per CIWS (1550 rounds), five minutes downtime to reload, between one and three seconds to service each target...

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

#354

Post by fsagx »

jandrewrogers wrote: post #309
brokencode wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_USS_Forrestal_fire

(~20kg warhead)

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

#355

Post by FpUser »

msisk6 wrote: post #350
appreciatorBus wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> there has to be a real purpose. Escorting a bunch of privately owned oil tankers to bring down the price of gas does not really cut it. While I agree with you in principle, if I have learned anything about politics it is that under whatever political system you care to invent, the people will definitely demand war and a navy to escort private oil tankers if it means they get to drive for $0.01 less per gallon.

Normally I wouldn't think the American public would be so shallow. But just tonight, while getting gas just outside St. Louis, a young woman was having an absolute meltdown outside her car about the price of gas being $3.65 a gallon. Wild. So, yeah, perhaps the price of gas is high enough that the public would tolerate some heavy collateral damage at this point.

>"So, yeah, perhaps the price of gas is high enough that the public would tolerate some heavy collateral damage at this point"

Or realize who had caused the whole thing.

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

#356

Post by kube-system »

jepj57 wrote: post #327
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…

In this instance, a flight of B-52's could wipe the concrete shielded missiles off the face of the Earth. Start off with F18s to secure the skies, then B52s to pound the missiles, then the Navy could stroll back in. It's just that no one has had the gumption to do it until now.

The US military did exactly that two weeks ago:

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/5789279-strait-hormuz-oil...

If it was as effective as you presume, the strait would have been open by now.

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

#357

Post by jacquesm »

throwawayffffas wrote: post #317
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…

The position of the article seems to me to be it 'won't' because it can't. And that is an accurate assessment. It would take much more than the forces in the region, to secure the "strait". To actually secure the strait, you have to secure the entire Persian Gulf. It doesn't matter if tankers can pass through the strait only to be blown up just of Qatar. At it's widest the Gulf is about 360 kilometers, well within th…

> The US navies ships are good for real wars

This is a real war.

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

#358

Post by throwaway173738 »

babypuncher wrote: post #228
Quarrelsome wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What this current administration is doing speaks much more of a lack of strategy than what the Khans did in the 13th century. Not having any sort of counterplay to Iran's one big move (the blocking of the straight), in a nation of some of the brighest minds on the planet, speaks volumes of how advisors are clearly not being listened to. The powers of the once mighty Republic have seemingly been vested in the hands of…

> a nation of some of the brighest minds on the planet The brightest minds we had working in government have all quit or been fired in the last year.

To wit: Hegseth immediately demanded the loyalty or resignation of the entire officer corps upon taking office. Anyone who would’ve been the voice of reason likely resigned a year ago.

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

#359

Post by AnimalMuppet »

randomNumber7 wrote: post #321
shevy-java wrote: post #249

I am very angry with Trump. He owes all of us money here. The sooner the guy is gone, the better. Some folks compared Trump to Lyndon B. Johnson, but as a lame duck from the get go. I think Trump in his own category - a new label of criminal and stupid. I want my money "back".

He was always very clear about Iran long before the election.

He was also very clear about "no new wars".

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

#360

Post by class3shock »

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…

The point is a country like Iran can, in 2026, force the US Navy to keep an large stand off distance. How much further could a country like China keep the Navy back? What about in 10 years?

Eventually you are beyond the range of being able to project force or risking losing billions invested in one asset to a $50k missile. That is where reality is heading.

Post reply on HN