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

401–410 of 1001 posts

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

#401

Post by throwawayffffas »

mayama wrote: post #392
jandrewrogers wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An aerial drone capable of materially damaging a modern navy ship costs $1-2M a piece. Anything much cheaper doesn't have the range, survivability, or required warhead to do much more than scratch the paint. A cheap drone is only useful against soft targets. It is the reason Ukraine is scaling up heavy cruise missile production even though they already have vast numbers of cheap long-range drones. Being "cheap" isn't…

> An aerial drone capable of materially damaging a modern navy ship costs $1-2M a piece. Anything much cheaper doesn't have the range, survivability, or required warhead to do much more than scratch the paint. Problem isn't a single drone, it's the cost of intercepters. Iran could launch a swarm of 100s of drones with few antiship missiles mixed in to hone in at same time. CSG has to spend $million+ interceptors and…

> Could launch a swarm of 100s of drones.

As far as I know we have never seen that happen against a single target. I believe the reasons are operational not cost related. A single truck can fit like 5 shaheds. For 100 at the same target at the same time you need to coordinate 20 crews just to get them in the air all these drones need to be controlled to some degree as well. It's possible but we have not seen such an attack. We have seen hundreds of drones targeting hundreds of targets against an entire country. So it's definitely possible, but I wager it's harder than it sounds to send 100s of shaheds against a carrier strike group.

Shahed drones are very slow, and can thus be very easily distinguished from antiship missiles and can also be intercepted far befpre they reach the ships. You are thinking SM-2s. But the best way to deal with such a threat is a flight of f-18s with a bunch of laser guided rockets (like 50 or 70) and a targeting pod, intercepting the drones hundreds of miles from the target.

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

#402

Post by sdsd »

jbm wrote: post #382
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 make plenty of stuff at scale. We just haven’t designed any of military around it since WWII. When people claim that America is losing manufacturing jobs, you get the "Oh we produce high value products, mostly military". Then you get posts like this. How is one to reconcile these ideas? Is Lockheed Martin the Ferrari of weapons?

The US is responsible for over 10% of world manufacturing, putting them in second place of all countries (after China).

>When people claim that America is losing manufacturing jobs

That percentage goes down every year due to reduced manufacturing but also jobs are lost to high-tech automation in manufacturing. But it's still a buttload.

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

#403

Post by s5300 »

sph wrote: post #93
poulpy123 wrote: post #19

I'm always perturbed to see people talk of mass killings so casually

Number 1 reason why I want to see the United States of America and its very loud citizens get a taste of humble pie in this self-inflicted crisis of idiocy with global ramifications. Even when discussing a war that's obviously gone out of hand with no easy resolution in right, there's still this air, this attitude from American commenters that somehow the might and brilliance of the US military will prevail in the en…

[dead]

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

#404

Post by [deleted] »

throwawayffffas wrote: post #374
jacquesm wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The US navies ships are good for real wars This is a real war.

Sure, but keeping the straight open is not really important, sure gas, fertilizers and a few other commodities are going to get more expensive, but there is no need to put thousands of sailors in harms way. The US navy ships, in this war have performed admirably, they have performed over 850 tomahawk strikes, and navy airplanes have performed thousands of sorties. And have had no casualties due to enemy action. I can…

[deleted]

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

#405

Post by vgchh »

Irrespective of the political leadership, it's unlikely that USA military is completely oblivious about the new modes of wars - cheap drones, AI, rapid build-outs (e.g. in China). On the contrary, they are likely deeply aware of it. That being said, it is also likely true that USA has become more bureaucratic and there is a high chance of deer-in-headlights situation. USA remains the shining city on the hill, though probably not for long, unless we pull up socks and innovate, work, work, work and build, build and build.

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

#406

Post by jcynix »

wvbdmp wrote: post #230
Balgair wrote: post #113

In chapter 11 of All Quiet on the Western Front Paul and his unit find an abandoned food cache in the middle of no mans land. Instead of secreting away the food back to their lines where they will have to share it, they decide to just cook and eat it right then and there. But a spotter plane from the allies sees the smoke and then begins shelling their position. Cue a terrifying, if hilarious, scene where the soldier…

It’s difficult to imagine something more psychologically damaging than WWI trenches. Where can we read more about this?

Try Peter Cawdron's book "The Anatomy of Courage" which is a sci-fi retelling of a ww1 report.

Here's a revview: https://www.zeppjamiesonfiction.com/a-remarque-able-read-a-r...

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

#407

Post by kjellsbells »

vgchh wrote: post #405

Irrespective of the political leadership, it's unlikely that USA military is completely oblivious about the new modes of wars - cheap drones, AI, rapid build-outs (e.g. in China). On the contrary, they are likely deeply aware of it. That being said, it is also likely true that USA has become more bureaucratic and there is a high chance of deer-in-headlights situation. USA remains the shining city on the hill, though…

There's no shortage of national security and military analysis talent in the US. There is a gigantic shortage of intestinal fortitude in the politicians.

The Army tried reducing the sizeof their tank force, and had to back down after screams from Congress because it would have meant job losses in some representative's district. The US poured money into the strike fighter and littoral ship projects, despite the brass telling them it was the wrong approach. And so on. (I suspect this is one reason why Anduril have been successful, since they have fewer sacred cows that must be fed.)

Now we are in a timeline where the top brass are being ejected unless they toe the Party line. I am not optimistic that this will lead to better outcomes in terms of our ability to win against adversaries.

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

#408

Post by brokencode »

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.

Imagine trying to launch fighters when there are explosions on the deck from swarms of drones. And of course the fighters themselves could be hit and destroyed. An aircraft carrier that can't launch fighters is pretty much worthless.

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

#409

Post by kjellsbells »

jandrewrogers wrote: post #212
kashunstva wrote: post #10

Whether or not professional military strategists and planners anticipated this shift in carrier-based projection of power in the era of low-cost drones, it is nearly certain that the Commander-in-Chief of the United States military has not. And if the Commander is involved in the either the day-to-day operations or the strategic level of planning, I can’t imagine that whatever reasoning about these shifts in power dy…

An aerial drone capable of materially damaging a modern navy ship costs $1-2M a piece. Anything much cheaper doesn't have the range, survivability, or required warhead to do much more than scratch the paint. A cheap drone is only useful against soft targets. It is the reason Ukraine is scaling up heavy cruise missile production even though they already have vast numbers of cheap long-range drones. Being "cheap" isn't…

Do the Iranians have to win against a Navy ship or an oil tanker? Asymmetric warfare suggests they would ignore the well fortified ship and wreak havoc on commercial shipping to get the same result. The Strait of Hormuz is so shallow and narrow that they only really need to sink two or three tankers to shut the whole thing down.

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

#410

Post by protocolture »

appreciatorBus wrote: post #325
throwawayffffas wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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.

The issue is that the administration has kicked the bee hive, and is now claiming that securing passers by from angry bees has nothing to do with them.

Its a great way to diminish what lingering shreds of trust the (hopefully) former allies of the US may still have had.

The US has better ways to decrease oil prices internally that commit to losing boats in the strait.

Post reply on HN