6 ms·

Modern US surface warships such as the DDG-52 Arleigh Burke class are pretty survivable. The Iranians (and their Houthi proxies) have made sustained attacks on

by nradov 6mo ago

Modern US surface warships such as the DDG-52 Arleigh Burke class are pretty survivable. The Iranians (and their Houthi proxies) have made sustained attacks on them and don't seem to have hit anything. And a single hit would be highly unlikely to sink such as vessel: we're not talking about something like the Russian Moskva cruiser that was crewed by drunks and had inoperative defensive systems. The real problem is that there are too few such vessels to sustain convoy escort operations. Each destroyer can only provide area air defense for a handful of merchant vessels, and they can only stay on station for a few days at a time before they have to cycle out to refuel, rearm, and conduct critical maintenance. Some of the key munitions also appear to running low. And it appears that the other Gulf states are refusing to allow use of their facilities over fears of Iranian retaliation. Other countries generally aren't really in a position to assist as part of a coalition either. They either don't have sufficiently capable warships at all, or lack the logistics train to sustain them in the Persian Gulf / Gulf of Oman region. After the Cold War a lot of countries like the UK and Germany essentially dismantled their navies so that they now exist only as government jobs programs.

xrd 6mo ago
I don't know anything about this but I am a software engineer. Stop laughing for a minute because I do have a point. As a software engineer, I typically build something and engineer it so I can iterate quickly and improve it. I know that the first version won't work. Isn't this a perfect opportunity for Iran to iterate on sinking cargo ships? I'm struggling to believe that a regime that is (allegedly) weeks away from a nuclear bomb wouldn't be able to keep launching missiles at ships until they notice the right type of hole. And, think of the apprenticeship opportunities.
- crossbody 6mo ago
  Iterating on a rocket design is not like making a tweak to a line of code. It needs production line changes, manufacturing, testing, (repeat X times) where the process takes weeks, months or even years untill desired results can be achieved. And their manudacturing sites have been reduced to rubble, so that slows things down too.
  - xrd 6mo ago
    As I said I'm only a software engineer but didn't Ukraine revolutionize the rules of asymetric warfare by drone iteration? Your statement rings true but I wonder if there are aspiring rocket engineers that really want to test their totally unproven new ideas without the constraint of a military hierarchy in peacetime.
    - DrProtic 6mo ago
      The thing is, Iran doesn’t need to. US maybe can defend their ships, but they can’t defend commercial ships well enough for them to resume regular operations. Even unsuccessful attacks would cause insurance to make it not possible. Houthis closed their straight some years ago and US wasn’t able to do anything about that neither. And Houthis are nowhere near as capable as Iran. US gambled on decapitation strike and failed.
      - DoctorOetker 6mo ago
        It's clearly clogged, could PNE's unclog it?
    - crossbody 6mo ago
      Yes, that is a fair point. However, the cost of drone versus latest generation ballistic missile that has a chance to reach us naval ship is very different. And in that sense, iterating on a drone is closer to iterating on a line of code because one drone would cost you a thousand bucks and your iteration is a small tweak like adding a different grenade triggering mechanism. Rockets require custom design, custom manufacturing lines, and generally much more difficult to modify and make more effective. You also have a lot more tries with cheap drones since the target is lower value, so you have hundreds of data points on how each iteration performs vs hitting a naval ship which is an extremely rare event, so it's hard to see whether your iteration on a rocket actually succeeded.
- nradov 6mo ago
  Yes, Iran has already hit several merchant vessels. Their ability to do that occasionally is not in doubt. It's mostly a question of economics. The ship owners and insurers have to decide whether it's worth the risk to run their cargoes through. This has all happened before with the 1980s "Tanker War" between Iraq and Iran: despite some losses the traffic never completely stopped. And large merchant ships, especially crude oil tankers, and quite tough to sink. When they take a hit it usually just causes some damage.
- mrandish 6mo ago
  Iran doesn't want to sink merchant ships. They want to extort money from merchant shipping companies by threatening to sink their ships if they don't pay for 'protection'. All they need is a credible threat, which they already have absent any naval ships willing to stay at point blank range to defend merchant ships. While there are religious, cultural and political aspects to this, the Iranian govt has primarily become a kleptocracy in recent years. It sustains power through the Revolutionary Guard (aka IRGC) which has grown into what's essentially a state-run, money-making commercial enterprise. It collaborates and colludes with various entities across the Iranian economy which it controls either directly or via bribes and coercion. While reasonable people can debate what the recent attacks on Iran accomplished, they certainly nerfed a large part of the IRGC's income. The new Hormuz extortion scheme isn't just retaliation or vengeance, it's replacing lost income which is urgently needed to prop up the Iranian government.
bparsons 6mo ago
The Iranians (and their Houthi proxies) have made sustained attacks on them and don't seem to have hit anything. That's because the US has kept the surface combatants far back from the Persian Gulf for the duration of the war. As far as we know, they have attempted to run the strait twice and had to turn back because they were under sustained attack. I assume these ships can defend themselves for some period of time, but eventually the munitions run out, and they become sitting ducks. There is a reason the US Navy fled the Persian Gulf on Feb 26 and has not returned since.
- infamia 6mo ago
  > There is a reason the US Navy fled the Persian Gulf on Feb 26 and has not returned since. Two US Arleigh Burke Class Destroyers transited Hormuz a couple of weeks ago without damage and are still there last I heard. The Iranians were really upset, but couldn't do anything to stop it. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/2-us-navy-destroyers-transit-strait-of-hormuz-after-dodging-iranian-onslaught/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/2-us-navy-destroyers-transit-st...
  - don_esteban 6mo ago
    Do you have supporting evidence they are still there? I though they exited toward the Gulf of Oman around May 6/7 https://www.centcom.mil/MEDIA/PRESS-RELEASES/Press-Release-View/Article/4480437/centcom-protects-us-warships-transiting-strait-of-hormuz/ https://www.centcom.mil/MEDIA/PRESS-RELEASES/Press-Release-V...
    - infamia 6mo ago
      I had not heard about that transit, thanks for sharing! The ships mentioned in our two links match up, so it certainly sounds like they spent a some number days in the Persian Gulf and transited back. There was also a transit that occurred in April which mentioned other ships joining the operation in the future, not sure if that happened or not.
  - overfeed 6mo ago
    If it went so swimmingly, why only twice then, when there are thousands of marooned ships in need of escort services?
HWR_14 6mo ago
Assisting the US with regard to Iran is phenomenally unpopular. The increase in energy prices isn't outweighing people's desire not to have their country assist.
- nradov 6mo ago
  And yet national leaders do phenomenally unpopular things all the time when they decide it's necessary. In this particular case it's mostly moot because none of the other impacted countries really has the capability to act regardless of popularity or lack thereof. Like the UK chose to spend all of their money on nationalized healthcare instead of the military. I don't mean that in a critical or negative way, on balance that might have been the right choice for them. But that choice does constrain their options in a crisis.
  - nicoburns 6mo ago
    Would it not be pretty counterproductive for other countries to assist the US in this case? That seems only likely to prolong / exacerbate the war. The US giving up would be much faster.
    - nradov 6mo ago
      Whether it would be counterproductive or not depends on what those other countries are trying to produce. None of them particularly want to pay tribute or protection money to Iran, especially because Iran could then decide to close the strait again or raise the fee at any time. They also don't want to set a precedent that other countries might exploit for charging transit fees through their national waters. And the USA might impose secondary sanctions on any country which makes payments to Iran. So the current stalemate might last quite a while.
      - deleted 6mo ago
        [deleted]
  - jonquark 6mo ago
    The UK spends a lower fraction of its GDP on health than the US (the US is an outlier because of its system). The UK's NHS is not why it's not taking part in this mess.
riffraff 6mo ago
Is it even worth to escort tankers? The money you spend on countering cheap drones would be massive, and this administration would likely ask the escorted ships to pay for protection. At that point, they might as well just pay Iran.
- QuiEgo 6mo ago
  The rub is the insurance for the tankers. The providers are looking at the risk and saying “hard pass.” Unless the US govt wants to get in the tanker insurance business they are stuck.
  - nradov 6mo ago
    The US government is already in the shipping insurance business. That hasn't helped. War risk insurance is also still available from other carriers. https://www.insurancebusinessmag.com/us/news/breaking-news/washingtons-40-billion-hormuz-insurance-fix-zero-takers-575507.aspx https://www.insurancebusinessmag.com/us/news/breaking-news/w...

by nradov 6mo ago

xrd 6mo ago

I don't know anything about this but I am a software engineer. Stop laughing for a minute because I do have a point. As a software engineer, I typically build something and engineer it so I can iterate quickly and improve it. I know that the first version won't work. Isn't this a perfect opportunity for Iran to iterate on sinking cargo ships? I'm struggling to believe that a regime that is (allegedly) weeks away from a nuclear bomb wouldn't be able to keep launching missiles at ships until they notice the right type of hole. And, think of the apprenticeship opportunities.

crossbody 6mo ago
Iterating on a rocket design is not like making a tweak to a line of code. It needs production line changes, manufacturing, testing, (repeat X times) where the process takes weeks, months or even years untill desired results can be achieved. And their manudacturing sites have been reduced to rubble, so that slows things down too.
- xrd 6mo ago
  As I said I'm only a software engineer but didn't Ukraine revolutionize the rules of asymetric warfare by drone iteration? Your statement rings true but I wonder if there are aspiring rocket engineers that really want to test their totally unproven new ideas without the constraint of a military hierarchy in peacetime.
  - DrProtic 6mo ago
    The thing is, Iran doesn’t need to. US maybe can defend their ships, but they can’t defend commercial ships well enough for them to resume regular operations. Even unsuccessful attacks would cause insurance to make it not possible. Houthis closed their straight some years ago and US wasn’t able to do anything about that neither. And Houthis are nowhere near as capable as Iran. US gambled on decapitation strike and failed.
    - DoctorOetker 6mo ago
      It's clearly clogged, could PNE's unclog it?
  - crossbody 6mo ago
    Yes, that is a fair point. However, the cost of drone versus latest generation ballistic missile that has a chance to reach us naval ship is very different. And in that sense, iterating on a drone is closer to iterating on a line of code because one drone would cost you a thousand bucks and your iteration is a small tweak like adding a different grenade triggering mechanism. Rockets require custom design, custom manufacturing lines, and generally much more difficult to modify and make more effective. You also have a lot more tries with cheap drones since the target is lower value, so you have hundreds of data points on how each iteration performs vs hitting a naval ship which is an extremely rare event, so it's hard to see whether your iteration on a rocket actually succeeded.
nradov 6mo ago
Yes, Iran has already hit several merchant vessels. Their ability to do that occasionally is not in doubt. It's mostly a question of economics. The ship owners and insurers have to decide whether it's worth the risk to run their cargoes through. This has all happened before with the 1980s "Tanker War" between Iraq and Iran: despite some losses the traffic never completely stopped. And large merchant ships, especially crude oil tankers, and quite tough to sink. When they take a hit it usually just causes some damage.
mrandish 6mo ago
Iran doesn't want to sink merchant ships. They want to extort money from merchant shipping companies by threatening to sink their ships if they don't pay for 'protection'. All they need is a credible threat, which they already have absent any naval ships willing to stay at point blank range to defend merchant ships. While there are religious, cultural and political aspects to this, the Iranian govt has primarily become a kleptocracy in recent years. It sustains power through the Revolutionary Guard (aka IRGC) which has grown into what's essentially a state-run, money-making commercial enterprise. It collaborates and colludes with various entities across the Iranian economy which it controls either directly or via bribes and coercion. While reasonable people can debate what the recent attacks on Iran accomplished, they certainly nerfed a large part of the IRGC's income. The new Hormuz extortion scheme isn't just retaliation or vengeance, it's replacing lost income which is urgently needed to prop up the Iranian government.

bparsons 6mo ago

The Iranians (and their Houthi proxies) have made sustained attacks on them and don't seem to have hit anything. That's because the US has kept the surface combatants far back from the Persian Gulf for the duration of the war. As far as we know, they have attempted to run the strait twice and had to turn back because they were under sustained attack. I assume these ships can defend themselves for some period of time, but eventually the munitions run out, and they become sitting ducks. There is a reason the US Navy fled the Persian Gulf on Feb 26 and has not returned since.

infamia 6mo ago
> There is a reason the US Navy fled the Persian Gulf on Feb 26 and has not returned since. Two US Arleigh Burke Class Destroyers transited Hormuz a couple of weeks ago without damage and are still there last I heard. The Iranians were really upset, but couldn't do anything to stop it. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/2-us-navy-destroyers-transit-strait-of-hormuz-after-dodging-iranian-onslaught/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/2-us-navy-destroyers-transit-st...
- don_esteban 6mo ago
  Do you have supporting evidence they are still there? I though they exited toward the Gulf of Oman around May 6/7 https://www.centcom.mil/MEDIA/PRESS-RELEASES/Press-Release-View/Article/4480437/centcom-protects-us-warships-transiting-strait-of-hormuz/ https://www.centcom.mil/MEDIA/PRESS-RELEASES/Press-Release-V...
  - infamia 6mo ago
    I had not heard about that transit, thanks for sharing! The ships mentioned in our two links match up, so it certainly sounds like they spent a some number days in the Persian Gulf and transited back. There was also a transit that occurred in April which mentioned other ships joining the operation in the future, not sure if that happened or not.
- overfeed 6mo ago
  If it went so swimmingly, why only twice then, when there are thousands of marooned ships in need of escort services?

HWR_14 6mo ago

Assisting the US with regard to Iran is phenomenally unpopular. The increase in energy prices isn't outweighing people's desire not to have their country assist.

nradov 6mo ago
And yet national leaders do phenomenally unpopular things all the time when they decide it's necessary. In this particular case it's mostly moot because none of the other impacted countries really has the capability to act regardless of popularity or lack thereof. Like the UK chose to spend all of their money on nationalized healthcare instead of the military. I don't mean that in a critical or negative way, on balance that might have been the right choice for them. But that choice does constrain their options in a crisis.
- nicoburns 6mo ago
  Would it not be pretty counterproductive for other countries to assist the US in this case? That seems only likely to prolong / exacerbate the war. The US giving up would be much faster.
  - nradov 6mo ago
    Whether it would be counterproductive or not depends on what those other countries are trying to produce. None of them particularly want to pay tribute or protection money to Iran, especially because Iran could then decide to close the strait again or raise the fee at any time. They also don't want to set a precedent that other countries might exploit for charging transit fees through their national waters. And the USA might impose secondary sanctions on any country which makes payments to Iran. So the current stalemate might last quite a while.
    - deleted 6mo ago
      [deleted]
- jonquark 6mo ago
  The UK spends a lower fraction of its GDP on health than the US (the US is an outlier because of its system). The UK's NHS is not why it's not taking part in this mess.

riffraff 6mo ago

Is it even worth to escort tankers? The money you spend on countering cheap drones would be massive, and this administration would likely ask the escorted ships to pay for protection. At that point, they might as well just pay Iran.

QuiEgo 6mo ago
The rub is the insurance for the tankers. The providers are looking at the risk and saying “hard pass.” Unless the US govt wants to get in the tanker insurance business they are stuck.
- nradov 6mo ago
  The US government is already in the shipping insurance business. That hasn't helped. War risk insurance is also still available from other carriers. https://www.insurancebusinessmag.com/us/news/breaking-news/washingtons-40-billion-hormuz-insurance-fix-zero-takers-575507.aspx https://www.insurancebusinessmag.com/us/news/breaking-news/w...