Trump is finally...

[Kantarii]

Instead of hyperbole, explain how one of those "cute" little subs would be ineffective against an oil tanker.

It's called asymmetrical warfare. They don't need an Ohio class sub to interfere with shipping.

Those little bastards are also difficult to find and track.

But, the real danger are the shore-based batteries.

What is the time estimate to clear two sunken tankers from a main channel?

Cover is also needed for the salvage operation.

http://www.shiptraffic.net/2001/04/hormuz-strait-ship-traffic.html


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cf/Stra%C3%9Fe_von_Hormuz.jpg/250px-Stra%C3%9Fe_von_Hormuz.jpg

Talk is cheap.

This scenario reminds me of the original war of the worlds. Where nothing could stop the Martians. In the end, one of the simplist life form killed them because they didn’t have a defense against it or view it as a threat.
Sure, Iran can cause disruption with a mini sub. Anything is possible. Even the Somoli pirates caused disruption with speed boats on the high seas. Realistically, the US navy is a juggernaut. Shore batteries pose more danger than a few mini subs, but they are in fixed locations and have limited range. Again, disruption is going to have to pose a greater threat level - something Iran probably isn’t willing to do. If so, they would’ve done that years ago in my opinion.

To date, no surface to air missle has successfully targeted nor brought down an F-35

 

[Hal9000_]

This scenario reminds me of the original war of the worlds. Where nothing could stop the Martians. In the end, one of the simplist life form killed them because they didn’t have a defense against it or view it as a threat.
Sure, Iran can cause disruption with a mini sub. Anything is possible. Even the Somoli pirates caused disruption with speed boats on the high seas. Realistically, the US navy is a juggernaut. Shore batteries pose more danger than a few mini subs, but they are in fixed locations and have limited range. Again, disruption is going to have to pose a greater threat level - something Iran probably isn’t willing to do. If so, they would’ve done that years ago in my opinion.

To date, no surface to air missle has successfully targeted nor brought down an F-35

What are the numbers of shore batteries? I've read hundreds.

So...they say "fuck it", and sink a couple dozen tankers in the narrowest parts of the strait. Before we can mount a counter attack and silence them.

Then, they start harassment with their subs and small vessels. They have indicated full willingness to use kamikaze boats.

Salvage Ops to reopen traffic lanes would take at least months for partial shipping.

Meanwhile, it blows up in to total war. Who knows what Russia and China will do. Sit back idly?

 

[heathergives]

Did "your dad" locate every mini sub operated by drug cartels on American shores?

This year?

Why do you think they use such subs?

You suggest a preemptive strike on the hardened shore based batteries?

(They have STA missiles as well, bought from China and Russia)

Don't quit your day job. Unlike you, the Navy knows what it's doing.

(BTW; the proper acronym is SAM - surface to air missile, not "STA".)

 

[Hal9000_]

Don't quit your day job. Unlike you, the Navy knows what it's doing.

The Navy fully acknowledges it can't keep the Strait open.

Iran can easily blockade it, perhaps for months.

 

[Kantarii]

What are the numbers of shore batteries? I've read hundreds.

So...they say "fuck it", and sink a couple dozen tankers in the narrowest parts of the strait. Before we can mount a counter attack and silence them.

Then, they start harassment with their subs and small vessels. They have indicated full willingness to use kamikaze boats.

Savavage Ops to reopen traffic lanes would take at least months for partial shipping.

Meanwhile, it blows up in to total war. Who knows what Russia and China will do. Sit back idly?

The Germans tried to capture the Suez Canal and failed. They could have blocked the Strait of Gibraltar, but, if I’m not mistaken, ocean depth posed a problem. I guess it boils down to a few factors in the Persian Gulf: how deep is the strait, what is the narrowest point and more importantly timing. Sure, they can attack any ship, but having it sink exactly where it needs to is nearly impossible. Even intentional sinkings don’t go 100% the way they’re intended.

Shore batteries would damage a moving ship but aren’t guaranteed to sink it exactly where it needs to sink.

The only way blocking the Persian Gulf is possibly is if Iran sails its biggest ships to the narrowest, shallowest point and intentionally sinks them. Sounds great, but those ships would no longer be assets - something Iran would trade off short term with no long term benefits to itself.

 

[Kantarii]

The Navy fully acknowledges it can't keep the Strait open.

Iran can easily blockade it, perhaps for months.

Parts of the strait are international waters. China has no oil field I know of off hand. I’d venture to say China wouldn’t sit idle by having their oil supply cut off like that.

 

[heathergives]

The Navy fully acknowledges it can't keep the Strait open.

Iran can easily blockade it, perhaps for months.

https://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/US-can-send-carrier-through-Strait-of-Hormuz-despite-Iran-tensions-589313


https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/real-iran-threat-strait-hormuz-causing-oil-prices-skyrocket-55092

But for all of Tehran’s bluster, an outright Iranian closure of the Strait remains highly unlikely. That is because, even though the Iranian regime has the military might to do so (something the U.S. intelligence community has been warning about for years), the strategic consequences would be ruinous for Tehran.

As one military official explained privately a few years ago, “if Iran closes the Strait, it will remain closed.” In other words, such a step would be treated as a casus belli by the U.S. military, which would respond decisively with an open-ended blockade of its own. That would have disastrous consequences for the Iranian regime, which relies on oil exports for more than a third of its federal budget.

It would also play right into the Trump administration’s hands. For now, Iranian authorities are still hoping that its major energy clients will keep buying its crude despite the U.S. pressure. But “business as usual” would become impossible for those countries if the United States takes strategic control of the Strait.

https://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Report-US-considering-military-options-to-keep-strait-of-Hormuz-open-563625

Next you can tell us about the courses that you teach at the Naval War College.

 

[Hal9000_]

The Germans tried to capture the Suez Canal and failed. They could have blocked the Strait of Gibraltar, but, if I’m not mistaken, ocean depth posed a problem. I guess it boils down to a few factors in the Persian Gulf: how deep is the strait, what is the narrowest point and more importantly timing. Sure, they can attack any ship, but having it sink exactly where it needs to is nearly impossible. Even intentional sinkings don’t go 100% the way they’re intended.

Shore batteries would damage a moving ship but aren’t guaranteed to sink it exactly where it needs to sink.

The only way blocking the Persian Gulf is possibly is if Iran sails its biggest ships to the narrowest, shallowest point and intentionally sinks them. Sounds great, but those ships would no longer be assets - something Iran would trade off short term with no long term benefits to itself.

Good points.

First, the shore batteries are anti ship missiles bought from Russia and/or China. One missile can sink a tanker. Sea skimming, hypersonic, and auto targeting.

The Strait of Hormuz is some 20 mi. wide at it's narrowest. However, the shipping lanes are less than 2 mi. wide.

I've read about all this some years ago. Literally two supertankers sunk in the right spot is all it takes.

Now, I also remember a novel method presented to clear, and somewhat unintentionally widen and deepen the channel, as well.

 

[Kantarii]

The Navy fully acknowledges it can't keep the Strait open.

Iran can easily blockade it, perhaps for months.

Okay, let’s say they did blockade the Persian Gulf and the US Navy can’t keep it open. Then, Iran surely isn’t going to be able to stop or prevent all the Hell that will rain down on that sandbox. Shore batteries would be prime targets and inoperable almost immediately.
Erwin Rammel fortified the Atlantic Wall - that neither stopped nor prevented D-Day from happening. So shore batteries would be useless in preventing or hindering efforts to reopen the strait.

 

[heathergives]

Ability of Iran to hinder shipping
See also: Military of Iran
Millennium Challenge 2002 was a major war game exercise conducted by the United States armed forces in 2002. According to a 2012 article in The Christian Science Monitor, it simulated an attempt by Iran to close the strait. The assumptions and results were controversial.[37]

A 2008 article in International Security contended that Iran could seal off or impede traffic in the Strait for a month, and an attempt by the U.S. to reopen it would be likely to escalate the conflict.[38] In a later issue, however, the journal published a response which questioned some key assumptions and suggested a much shorter timeline for re-opening.[39]

In December 2011, Iran's navy began a ten-day exercise in international waters along the strait. The Iranian Navy Commander, Rear Admiral Habibollah Sayyari, stated that the strait would not be closed during the exercise; Iranian forces could easily accomplish that but such a decision must be made at a political level.[40][41]

Captain John Kirby, a Pentagon spokesman, was quoted in a December 2011 Reuters article: "Efforts to increase tension in that part of the world are unhelpful and counter-productive. For our part, we are comfortable that we have in the region sufficient capabilities to honor our commitments to our friends and partners, as well as the international community." In the same article, Suzanne Maloney, an Iran expert at the Brookings Institution, said, "The expectation is that the U.S. military could address any Iranian threat relatively quickly."[42]

General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in January 2012 that Iran "has invested in capabilities that could, in fact, for a period of time block the Strait of Hormuz." He also stated, "We've invested in capabilities to ensure that if that happens, we can defeat that."[43]

They're ready for it.

 

[Hal9000_]

Next you can tell us about the courses that you teach at the Naval War College.

Wow. The cure to blocking the strait is:


wait for it...


Blocking the Strait even more!!!



(Thanks for admitting we can't keep them from blocking it, though)

 

[heathergives]

Wow. The cure to blocking the strait is:


wait for it...


Blocking the Strait even more!!!



(Thanks for admitting we can't keep them from blocking it, though)

And as per the above, it can be defeated, my reading impaired friend.

 

[Que]

What are the numbers of shore batteries? I've read hundreds.

So...they say "fuck it", and sink a couple dozen tankers in the narrowest parts of the strait. Before we can mount a counter attack and silence them.

Then, they start harassment with their subs and small vessels. They have indicated full willingness to use kamikaze boats.

Salvage Ops to reopen traffic lanes would take at least months for partial shipping.

Meanwhile, it blows up in to total war. Who knows what Russia and China will do. Sit back idly?

First you're not going to get to sink two. After you sink the first one the Iranian Navy above and below ceases to exist. I don't care how quiet they are they will all be detected and destroyed using active sonar and magnetometers. There's not a chance that they don't get them all. Small mines would be a bigger problem but not insurmountable either.

Yes they could definitely interrupt shipping to the point that it could be financially disruptive on the world markets all of which is going to help American oil production.

Given that Iran is virtually a theocracy empowered by God I don't really think the mullahs want to let their people see how absolutely powerless they actually are.

 

[Hal9000_]

Okay, let’s say they did blockade the Persian Gulf and the US Navy can’t keep it open. Then, Iran surely isn’t going to be able to stop or prevent all the Hell that will rain down on that sandbox. Shore batteries would be prime targets and inoperable almost immediately.
Erwin Rammel fortified the Atlantic Wall - that neither stopped nor prevented D-Day from happening. So shore batteries would be useless in preventing or hindering efforts to reopen the strait.

At what cost? Of course, eventually, we would win.

Is it worth it? They could plant mines, harass shipping, sabotage oil terminals, etc, probably for years.

You act as if they will send in a uniformed army and build fortified lines.

If you've learned anything from old times, it's that supply lines are the most difficult to defend.

 

[heathergives]

First you're not going to get to sink two. After you sink the first one the Iranian Navy above and below ceases to exist. I don't care how quiet they are they will all be detected and destroyed using active sonar and magnetometers. There's not a chance that they don't get them all. Small mines would be a bigger problem but not insurmountable either.

Yes they could definitely interrupt shipping to the point that it could be financially disruptive on the world markets all of which is going to help American oil production.

Given that Iran is virtually a theocracy empowered by God I don't really think the mullahs want to let their people see how absolutely powerless they actually are.

The Iranian people are not stupid. They may be fed up with their rulers. This may be the agent of change that the "mullahs" fear, and righteously so.

 

[Kantarii]

The biggest sticking point to this Russia/ China weapon systems I see is neither of their so called area denial shit has been battlefield tested, certainly against American weapons. Do you remember when Trump gave the order to launch all those missles on Syria after the chemical attack? Russia claims they could’ve shot them down, but made no effort. They were huffy puffy, but the fact is, had they made an attempt America would know how good or how bad their weapon systems operated in a combat situation.

In the end, they told us everything we needed to know by not firing a shot because of it failed, who are they gonna sell a shit weapon system to that’s ineffective?

 

[Hal9000_]

And as per the above, it can be defeated, my reading impaired friend.

You lack understanding, compadre.

Of course it can be defeated. Then blocked again. Ad infinitum.

You must have missed, oh so conveniently, my post about how to easily clear and widen and deepen the channel at the same time.

 

[Hal9000_]

First you're not going to get to sink two. After you sink the first one the Iranian Navy above and below ceases to exist.

Do you realize how many tankers are in the strait at one time?

With hundreds of missiles at hand, you are wrong.

 

[Hal9000_]

The biggest sticking point to this Russia/ China weapon systems I see is neither of their so called area denial shit has been battlefield tested, certainly against American weapons. Do you remember when Trump gave the order to launch all those missles on Syria after the chemical attack? Russia claims they could’ve shot them down, but made no effort. They were huffy puffy, but the fact is, had they made an attempt America would know how good or how bad their weapon systems operated in a combat situation.

In the end, they told us everything we needed to know by not firing a shot because of it failed, who are they gonna sell a shit weapon system to that’s ineffective?

You seem to forget Argentina.

 

[heathergives]

You lack understanding, compadre.

Of course it can be defeated. Then blocked again. Ad infinitum.

You must have missed, oh so conveniently, my post about how to easily clear and widen and deepen the channel at the same time.

Oh well, it's never too late:


https://youtu.be/c8N72t7aScY



https://www.bing.com/th?id=OIP.dHQLDXzxJQo51nOHnwFgUwHaFj&w=224&h=165&c=7&o=5&pid=1.7

 

[Kantarii]

At what cost? Of course, eventually, we would win.

Is it worth it? They could plant mines, harass shipping, sabotage oil terminals, etc, probably for years.

You act as if they will send in a uniformed army and build fortified lines.

If you've learned anything from old times, it's that supply lines are the most difficult to defend.

Cost? Okay, the cost being ends justifying the means. Are we talking monetarily, in lives, or what have you? In any war their is a price. It always boils down to how much each side is willing to lose to achieve its goals and still save face. Plain and simple.

I served a year in South Korea as well while I was in the military. South Korea hasn’t fully recovered from the devastation. North Korea is even worse. Vietnam still has birth defects from the use of agent orange.

What kind of devastation do you think America would rain down on a sandbox? Let’s just say they would have no problem drilling for oil once the sand was turned to glass.

 

[Hal9000_]

Oh well, it's never too late:

How soon.

When faced with logic and reason you fold in to the very thing you complain about:

Ad hominem.

You also use appeal to authority and appeal to emotion.

All logical fallacies.

Since you crave the attention I will give it to you this once.

 

[Kantarii]

You seem to forget Argentina.

The Falkland War? It’s probably been studied to Hell and back just like the first Gulf war.

 

[Hal9000_]

Cost? Okay, the cost being ends justifying the means. Are we talking monetarily, in lives, or what have you? In any war their is a price. It always boils down to how much each side is willing to lose to achieve its goals and still save face. Plain and simple.

I served a year in South Korea as well while I was in the military. South Korea hasn’t fully recovered from the devastation. North Korea is even worse. Vietnam still has birth defects from the use of agent orange.

What kind of devastation do you think America would rain down on a sandbox? Let’s just say they would have no problem drilling for oil once the sand was turned to glass.

The cost is potential theater-wide nuclear war.

How many World Naval powers are currently in that vicinity?

 

[Hal9000_]

The Falkland War? It’s probably been studied to Hell and back just like the first Gulf war.

How many missiles did it take to sink a warship?

(granted, modern warships have better defenses, but we are talking about tankers)