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

Ships keep moving through Hormuz despite strike

lloydslist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 198 posts

Re: Ships keep moving through Hormuz despite strike

#131

Post by fc417fc802 »

hammock wrote: post #45
msabalau wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is fundamentally a failure of political leadership. You don't try to achieve a goal when you don't have the military means to achieve at a cost you are willing to bear. There are endless numbers of military objectives that the US military that could have been sent on where they would have had no chance to succeed. That they generally weren't is a function other administrations, however bad, not being so embarras…

You’re making an orthogonal point. His point was that regardless of political decision making, the US Navy has demonstrated an incapacity of controlling the Strait of Hormuz, which is bad

No, his point is that being unable to do that was (or at least should have been) a forgone conclusion. There are many things that we know the US (or UK or Chinese or etc) military can't do and that isn't a bad thing per se.

The US navy was unable to keep hormuz secure for civilian traffic but was able to blockade it themselves. I think that's exactly the outcome you'd expect in this scenario.

Re: Ships keep moving through Hormuz despite strike

#132

Post by fc417fc802 »

petilon wrote: post #98
Levitz wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can call it a failure, it's just not a military one. Hell there's an argument to be made that the US should downsize its military because there's no universe in which exercising its full capability is not either the end of the world as we know it or absolute political suicide.

> You can call it a failure, it's just not a military one. Would that work in corporate America? Try telling your boss, "I didn't actually fail because had you given me an unreasonable amount of time and resources I would have succeeded." Every project has an expectation of time and cost, and if you can't meet that expectation then you failed.

If your boss sets patently unreasonable expectations then that's arguably his failure as opposed to yours though obviously he will attempt to shift the blame to you.

Re: Ships keep moving through Hormuz despite strike

#133

Post by nradov »

baq wrote: post #81
andriy_koval wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the question how efficiently they can be hunted, if ROI is that high.

my best guess is any information on the topic is... classified

The basic information about surface warship specifications isn't classified. We know how many interceptor missiles they can carry. Standard doctrine is to fire at least two interceptors at each incoming threat in order to increase the probability of a kill. And empirically these defensive systems work very well, but ships in action empty their magazines quickly and then are out of action until they can return to a friendly base to rearm. At some point there just aren't enough hulls and missiles to sustain the effort.

Re: Ships keep moving through Hormuz despite strike

#134

Post by fc417fc802 »

baq wrote: post #81
andriy_koval wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the question how efficiently they can be hunted, if ROI is that high.

my best guess is any information on the topic is... classified

They've actually been pretty open about the expense and difficulty for a long time. At least since the Iraq war if not earlier.

Japan made public that one of the motivations for continuing rail gun research is defending naval vessels against saturation attacks.

Re: Ships keep moving through Hormuz despite strike

#135

Post by fc417fc802 »

bulbar wrote: post #104
ozim wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh me? Nope I think that's nothing new and that was already in the news like months ago when countries started asking Ukraine to buy drone warfare know-how.

Really not sure how to interpret this thread. I could buy a drone for 100 bucks 10 years ago. Using cheap drones for asymmetric warfare can't be new or surprising for a country with a supposed vast intelligence network. Or for a country that's supposed to have a modern military which means having effective answers to what an enemy throws at you in battle.

> can't be new or surprising

Indeed it isn't. The military has been doing cheap drone swarm research since well before ukraine. But I think that for everyone - including the military - whether or not the people in charge update their worldviews is an entirely separate matter.

Re: Ships keep moving through Hormuz despite strike

#136

Post by fc417fc802 »

nradov wrote: post #129
gizzlon wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US and Israel never had the right to attack Iran in the first place

That's a non sequitur . What's your point?

It's not at all. Who is dictating who has what rights? Each side took action against the other's interests. Each claims the other is in the wrong.

Claiming that a country can't exercise military control over its territorial waters seems like a legal or political fiction to me. Granted they share part of the waterway with their neighbors but expecting a country at war to honor such things also seems like wild fantasy to me. They've been bombing those same neighbors.

Re: Ships keep moving through Hormuz despite strike

#137

Post by rayiner »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #131
hammock wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re making an orthogonal point. His point was that regardless of political decision making, the US Navy has demonstrated an incapacity of controlling the Strait of Hormuz, which is bad

No, his point is that being unable to do that was (or at least should have been) a forgone conclusion. There are many things that we know the US (or UK or Chinese or etc) military can't do and that isn't a bad thing per se. The US navy was unable to keep hormuz secure for civilian traffic but was able to blockade it themselves. I think that's exactly the outcome you'd expect in this scenario.

> No, his point is that being unable to do that was (or at least should have been) a forgone conclusion.

No, not at all. As I said, controlling straits and keeping them open for shipping is a fundamental function of a navy going back to Roman times: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_navy (“By far, the navy's most vital task was to ensure Roman grain imports were shipped and delivered to the capital unimpeded across the Mediterranean.”).

The inability to keep the strait clear shouldn’t have been expected. It’s a purely military objective that’s squarely within what our ridiculously overspecced Navy should be able to do.

Re: Ships keep moving through Hormuz despite strike

#138

Post by nradov »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #136
nradov wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a non sequitur . What's your point?

It's not at all. Who is dictating who has what rights? Each side took action against the other's interests. Each claims the other is in the wrong. Claiming that a country can't exercise military control over its territorial waters seems like a legal or political fiction to me. Granted they share part of the waterway with their neighbors but expecting a country at war to honor such things also seems like wild fantasy…

You appear to be confused about maritime law. Iran hasn't ratified the UNCLOS or agreed to follow its terms so their territorial waters extend only 3 NM from their shores. Iran has been attacking neutral vessels well outside that limit.

Of course in the real world law takes a back seat to force.

Re: Ships keep moving through Hormuz despite strike

#139

Post by fc417fc802 »

nradov wrote: post #138
fc417fc802 wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not at all. Who is dictating who has what rights? Each side took action against the other's interests. Each claims the other is in the wrong. Claiming that a country can't exercise military control over its territorial waters seems like a legal or political fiction to me. Granted they share part of the waterway with their neighbors but expecting a country at war to honor such things also seems like wild fantasy…

You appear to be confused about maritime law. Iran hasn't ratified the UNCLOS or agreed to follow its terms so their territorial waters extend only 3 NM from their shores. Iran has been attacking neutral vessels well outside that limit. Of course in the real world law takes a back seat to force.

Was the swipe suggesting that I'm confused (I'm not) really necessary?

> their territorial waters extend only 3 NM from their shores

Do you suppose their current government would agree with that statement? Personally I rather doubt they would.

But even if they did, as you say law often takes a back seat to force in these matters meaning that they could just as well say "yeah you're right but we're at war so get bent".

Re: Ships keep moving through Hormuz despite strike

#140

Post by fc417fc802 »

rayiner wrote: post #137
fc417fc802 wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, his point is that being unable to do that was (or at least should have been) a forgone conclusion. There are many things that we know the US (or UK or Chinese or etc) military can't do and that isn't a bad thing per se. The US navy was unable to keep hormuz secure for civilian traffic but was able to blockade it themselves. I think that's exactly the outcome you'd expect in this scenario.

> No, his point is that being unable to do that was (or at least should have been) a forgone conclusion. No, not at all. As I said, controlling straits and keeping them open for shipping is a fundamental function of a navy going back to Roman times: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_navy (“By far, the navy's most vital task was to ensure Roman grain imports were shipped and delivered to the capital unimpeded across…

It is a fundamental function in the general sense, yes. But I don't think anyone was expecting that the US could do so in hormuz in this instance (at least without committing far more assets of a non-naval variety). I also think there are plenty of examples that take the form (strong navy, narrow body of water) where failure would be expected but that doesn't mean the navy in question isn't capable or that it fails to fulfill its role.

Similarly it is a fundamental function of the infantry to maintain ground control over a region but it is easy to come up with hypotheticals where any given power including the US would fail to do so.

> It’s a purely military objective that’s squarely within what our ridiculously overspecced Navy should be able to do.

I'm sure they could if cost was of no consequence but depending on the size of iran's drone stockpiles the interceptor costs might well bankrupt us. And even then they would only manage because (I assume) iran either can't or won't employ hypersonic missiles against tankers.

Post reply on HN