Why the US Navy won't blast the Iranians and 'open' Strait of Hormuz • Hacker News Board

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

#141

Post by rented_mule » Tue, Mar 31, 2026, 5:12 PM UTC

mmh0000 wrote: post #136

fooker wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We make plenty of stuff at scale Maybe this video of a rather famous YouTuber trying to manufacture something as simple as a grill scrubber with a US supply chain would help you understand how bad it is? https://youtu.be/3ZTGwcHQfLY

TL;DW: skip to 17m55s for the important bit [1] https://youtu.be/3ZTGwcHQfLY?t=1075

I saw hints of this ~20 years ago. I was working on software for a consumer device. For manufacturing it, we chose Foxconn. One non-negotiable point from their end was that they had to write some of the software on the device. They didn't care which part or how small.

The device had a physical keyboard with a micocontroller that managed it and they ended up writing the code that ran on that micro as it was largely independent of the code we were writing, and easy for us to test. The first versions were not great, but they got better quickly.

As we talked amongst ourselves about why they were so emphatic about this, it became clear to us that they were taking a long term view of the importance of moving into the intellectual property side of things. Dustin points out that, in some areas, they are there.

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

#142

Post by maxglute » Tue, Mar 31, 2026, 5:47 PM UTC

freefaler wrote: post #134

s1artibartfast wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there's very little to be learned from Ukrainian technology. They dont have unprecedented servos, software, or manufacturing. What they have is a dire situation that drives efficient and pragmatic proucurement. This is much harder to export.

They have a working operational system and battle tested tactics, not only procurement. It's not the rifle that distinguishes the special forces, but how it's used. They built a network centric warefare with starlink and cheap android tablets down to the drone teams in the field. They built a network of cheap acousting sensors (old phones) as passive sensors and using ML models to find the drones cheaply and increase…

UKR = entire country of +40m is on the battlefront so they can do total war mobilized homefront distributed system... so can Iran. But it's very different for force projecting security guarantor US - can't convince paying protectorates to pivot total war defense posture in peacetime, that's what they bribe US not to do.

And ultimately whatever model of distributed lethality / survivability (which US planning foresaw) is less relevant that US global commitments requires high end hardware that has to be rotated / propositioned selectively, and sustainable only in limited numbers vs adversaries mobilized on total war.

But the fundamental problem is US adversaries are catching up on precision strike complex. Iran isn't asymmetric warfare, but restoration of symmetry. It's not so much US getting weaker as adversaries getting stronger, and without monopoly over mass precision strike (which naval / air superiority / supremacy is only delivery platform), US expeditionary mode simply on the losing side of many local attrition scenarios. Ultimately all US adversaries will gain commoditized local precision strike (even deadlier if bundled with high end ISR), at varying scales due to proliferation requiring persistence across global theatres US simply doesn't have numbers/logistics for.

TLDR: US expeditionary model is bunch of goons with rifles in trucks, driving around neighbourhood where everyone had knives that could not get in range. The second everyone else buys guns, then rifles, the expeditionary model breaks.

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

#143

Post by ryandrake » Tue, Mar 31, 2026, 6:07 PM UTC

mcphage wrote: post #129

chneu wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correction: Hegseth is a crusader. He is a super zealous religious fanatic who very much wants to destroy as many Muslims as possible. He has a crusades tattoo and openly talks about killing heathens in his WEEKLY SERMON. He might be an idiot alcoholic, but he very much knows what he is doing.

> Correction: Hegseth is a crusader. [...SNIP...] He might be an idiot alcoholic, but he very much knows what he is doing. That sound like he knows what he wants to do, but that's not the same as knowing what he is doing.

English language ambiguity problem. "Knows what he is doing" has two potential meanings: it could mean competence, or it could mean clear intent. I think OP meant the latter.

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

#144

Post by ryandrake » Tue, Mar 31, 2026, 6:11 PM UTC

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #110

div wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s really quite amazing how the US went in without seemingly an iota of planning beyond “kill ayatollah for regime change”, but at this rate we will see US regime change before Iranian.

Enough planning for the Secretary of War to buy defense stocks and the son of the president to own a drone manufacturing company. Just not planning for anything that might help "make America great again".

It's really this simple. People seem so confused as to why this administration is doing this and why this administration is doing that, but it's clearly about personal enrichment of leaders. It's not some complex 5D chess game. If you want to know why Trump did this or why Hegseth did that or why Bondi did thus, just look at who placed bets, owns stock, owns companies, and/or will be personally enriched by the decision. That's all there is to it.

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

#145

Post by dingaling » Tue, Mar 31, 2026, 6:31 PM UTC

mcphage wrote: post #128

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.)

> Nothing in this war has suggested carriers are obsolete. What are ours doing during this war?

Adding 70+ strike and AEW aircraft apiece, individually more than most national air forces could muster.

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

#146

Post by slumberlust » Tue, Mar 31, 2026, 6:42 PM UTC

mmh0000 wrote: post #136

fooker wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We make plenty of stuff at scale Maybe this video of a rather famous YouTuber trying to manufacture something as simple as a grill scrubber with a US supply chain would help you understand how bad it is? https://youtu.be/3ZTGwcHQfLY

TL;DW: skip to 17m55s for the important bit [1] https://youtu.be/3ZTGwcHQfLY?t=1075

No thanks. Watched the whole thing since its a great channel with great content.

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

#147

Post by JumpCrisscross » Tue, Mar 31, 2026, 6:50 PM UTC

pjc50 wrote: post #106

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the "blockade" will probably continue The part that makes the Strait weird is no belligerent wants it entirely closed. (Maybe Israel.) Iran wants to export. And America wants exports. So you get this weird stalemate where America doesn’t want to actually blockade Iran, while Iran seems to do just enough to keep America from actually shutting the Strait.

America isn't getting exports from Iran, until recently they were sanctioned. More of a problem is that the biggest buyer of Iranian oil is China. I don't think that getting out of the war with Iran by starting a war with China would be an improvement.

> America isn't getting exports from Iran

Single market. Every barrel China buys from Iran is a barrel it doesn’t scour the global markets for.

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

#148

Post by JumpCrisscross » Tue, Mar 31, 2026, 6:51 PM UTC

pjc50 wrote: post #106

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the "blockade" will probably continue The part that makes the Strait weird is no belligerent wants it entirely closed. (Maybe Israel.) Iran wants to export. And America wants exports. So you get this weird stalemate where America doesn’t want to actually blockade Iran, while Iran seems to do just enough to keep America from actually shutting the Strait.

America isn't getting exports from Iran, until recently they were sanctioned. More of a problem is that the biggest buyer of Iranian oil is China. I don't think that getting out of the war with Iran by starting a war with China would be an improvement.

> America isn't getting exports from Iran

Single market. Every barrel China buys from Iran is a barrel it doesn’t scour the global markets for.

> getting out of the war with Iran by starting a war with China

China isn’t getting into a war with America over the Strait.

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

#149

Post by JumpCrisscross » Tue, Mar 31, 2026, 6:55 PM UTC

pjc50 wrote: post #109

arkensaw wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trump casually talks about destroying the energy infrastructure, power plants, desalination plants etc. This is one of the most controversial things that the Russians do in Ukraine - attack the grid when it's cold to try and freeze people to death. To willingly deprive a country of 100,000,000 people of water and power coming into summer would surely be a war-crime.

Iran already had severe water problems. Attacking the water infrastructure would definitely cause huge civilian casualties. Israel is used to that. Not clear whether America is ready to go into the midterms with an official policy of US-flagged genocide.

> Attacking the water infrastructure would definitely cause huge civilian casualties

I personally think there is a wide barrier between electrical and water infrastructure. But given water infra has allegedly been hit already, it doesn’t feel like it’s off the table for both sides the way it once was.

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

#150

Post by panarky » Tue, Mar 31, 2026, 7:07 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #65

avianlyric wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a carrier can launch fields of drones and missiles, then whatever land mass your attacking can launch more, given they obviously have a lot more space. The change in dynamic here isn’t a function of carriers or their abilities. It’s a change in the cost of drones and missiles. The cost of a “good enough” drone and missile is now so low that opponents of the US can simply build the thing faster than the US can buil…

> If a carrier can launch fields of drones and missiles, then whatever land mass your attacking can launch more This is also true of airplanes. The point is you choose where you launch your drones from anywhere in the world. > change in dynamic here isn’t a function of carriers or their abilities. It’s a change in the cost of drones and missiles It's a return to battleship economics. Except instead of direct fire fro…

The big lesson from the US/Israel war against Iran is that the power balance has shifted away from strike capability toward defense magazine depth.

You can't win with stand-off strike capability. You can't seize and control territory, you can't keep strategic choke-points open, you can't change regimes.

But you can definitely lose by spending two or three multi-million dollar air defense interceptors per incoming projectile that costs 10x to 100x less. Especially when your supply chain can only produce hundreds of interceptors per year and your adversary makes that many missiles per month and 10x that many drones per month.