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

341–350 of 1001 posts

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

#341

Post by AnimalMuppet »

edm0nd wrote: post #313
rustyhancock wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get the feeling you haven't read the article. The carrier is not in drone range precisely for that reason. The reason so many tankers have been lost and that E3 sentry is that the carriers are having to stay out of the preferred range and rely on refueling for the bombing campaign. If the CSG could move to the Iranian coast they wouldn't have to maintain a constant chain of refueling tankers which have become so vu…

>The carrier is not in drone range precisely for that reason. umm, you have no idea what you are talking about. the Iranian Shahed drones typically have an operational travel distance of approximately 1,200 to 2,000 kilometers (roughly 750 to 1,250 miles). and >USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72) CSG: As of March 30, 2026, this strike group is operating in the Arabian Sea supporting Operation Epic Fury. Satellite imagery fr…

All right, they have the range. Let's say a carrier is 700 km away and the drone has a range of 1200 km. Great.

Now, does it have the kill chain to supply it with an accurate targeting fix and update it during the flight? Or, does it have a radar good enough to find the Lincoln on its own? If it doesn't, then it's a really big ocean. But sure, they've got the range.

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

#342

Post by steveBK123 »

The problem is that we need to adapt to the asymmetrical aspect of drone warfare, as Ukraine has done. The best description I saw of the current state is “flying IEDs”.

Drones and ballistic missiles make area denial asymmetrically cheap for a defending forces. This lesson needs to be incorporated because it would be the same tactic used by China to deny access to the South China Sea.

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

#343

Post by megous »

boc wrote: post #318
sph wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

[flagged]

Great, you can now help genocide defenseless children, and attack countries to cause massive disruptions to the rest of the world, without much worry. Sure great strategy to get HATED, as you should be.

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

#344

Post by coderenegade »

PunchyHamster wrote: post #255
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…

> 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. The country with 0.3% of global spending in military is putting a noticeable dent in assets of country that has 35% of global spending in military and are begging allies for help coz they can't even stop the dro…

The issues the US faces are political and humanitarian (and economic) rather than military. I don't see any compelling evidence that the US couldn't open the straits if it really wanted to, it's just that the cost in lives and hardware would be unlike anything the US has seen since Vietnam, maybe even the second world war. And of course, once you open the strait, you have to keep it open. The whole thing is a lose-lose situation for everyone involved.

It should probably also be pointed out that doing nothing has a cost too, and it's probable that the bill for doing nothing over a long period of time has come due. I, like most people, never bought the WMD claims leading up to Iraq. I'm not sure what to think here. I certainly don't buy that Iran wasn't working towards getting the bomb after how well it worked out for North Korea. I can't claim to know the calculus involved in determining whether or not it's worth going to war with Iran to stop them from getting the bomb.

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

#345

Post by msabalau »

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 Quincy Institute exists to push their "restraint/realpolitic" agenda, not to accurately describe reality.

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

#346

Post by acdha »

kcb wrote: post #267
PunchyHamster wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. The country with 0.3% of global spending in military is putting a noticeable dent in assets of country that has 35% of global spending in military and are begging allies for help coz they can't even stop the dro…

[flagged]

This would be more effective as criticism if you demonstrated the superior knowledge you imply having. Maybe point to some primary sources?

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

#347

Post by sedawkgrep »

kcb wrote: post #267
PunchyHamster wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. The country with 0.3% of global spending in military is putting a noticeable dent in assets of country that has 35% of global spending in military and are begging allies for help coz they can't even stop the dro…

[flagged]

A strong and convincing rebuttal!

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

#348

Post by steveBK123 »

jmward01 wrote: post #330
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.

The issue though is that this won't get us maritime supremacy. To get civilian tankers through the strait you need that. Iran will still take the occasional shot at these ships and who in their right mind would put their ship into a situation where there is even a 1 in 2000 chance you will be struck? At the end we will have boots on the ground, with real casualties, potentially a ship or two actually damaged and Iran…

Yes, i think the Trump admin has escalated itself into a situation that either involves ground troops or leaving without opening the strait.

The first is bad due to the losses that will be incurred and the difficulty of holding territory.. for unclear strategic reasons (I thought we destroyed their nuclear program last summer / what was the urgency / is this even our war?). The second is bad because the strait was open before this started, so things are worse than starting conditions.

That is not to say Iran is winning. Remember this is not a sports game, and no one needs to win. It is possible, and likely, for everyone to lose (be in a worse position than prior).

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

#349

Post by throwawayffffas »

shiroiuma wrote: post #323
pram wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think our navy is mostly designed for prestige too, but it seems like you could use the current carriers to transport like a million disposable drones?

Drones have limited range. Perhaps a submarine would be better: sneak close to your target, raise a pipe from the sub to the surface, then launch a bunch of drones from it.

Limited range? Shaheds have over 2000 kilometers more than tomahawks.

And btw, if you can get a submarince close to your target, torpedoes and missiles are going to be much more effective than drones.

Space is limited on platforms, a submarine might have space for 60 drones or 30 missiles, given the immense cost of the submarine, going with the missiles is the right call.

The trucks launching shaheds that iran is using can fit like 5 such drones, a similar truck could probably fit 2 to 4 cruise missiles the only reason they are using drones is the rapid production and cost associated with drones instead of the cruise missiles.

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

#350

Post by msisk6 »

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.

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.

Post reply on HN