news
Welcome to c/news! We aim to foster a book-club type environment for discussion and critical analysis of the news. Our policy objectives are:
-
To learn about and discuss meaningful news, analysis and perspectives from around the world, with a focus on news outside the Anglosphere and beyond what is normally seen in corporate media (e.g. anti-imperialist, anti-Zionist, Marxist, Indigenous, LGBTQ, people of colour).
-
To encourage community members to contribute commentary and for others to thoughtfully engage with this material.
-
To support healthy and good faith discussion as comrades, sharpening our analytical skills and helping one another better understand geopolitics.
We ask community members to appreciate the uncertainty inherent in critical analysis of current events, the need to constantly learn, and take part in the community with humility. None of us are the One True Leftist, not even you, the reader.
Newcomm and Newsmega Rules:
The Hexbear Code of Conduct and Terms of Service apply here.
-
Link titles: Please use informative link titles. Overly editorialized titles, particularly if they link to opinion pieces, may get your post removed.
-
Content warnings: Posts on the newscomm and top-level replies on the newsmega should use content warnings appropriately. Please be thoughtful about wording and triggers when describing awful things in post titles.
-
Fake news: No fake news posts ever, including April 1st. Deliberate fake news posting is a bannable offense. If you mistakenly post fake news the mod team may ask you to delete/modify the post or we may delete it ourselves.
-
Link sources: All posts must include a link to their source. Screenshots are fine IF you include the link in the post body. If you are citing a Twitter post as news, please include the Xcancel.com (or another Nitter instance) or at least strip out identifier information from the twitter link. There is also a Firefox extension that can redirect Twitter links to a Nitter instance, such as Libredirect or archive them as you would any other reactionary source.
-
Archive sites: We highly encourage use of non-paywalled archive sites (i.e. archive.is, web.archive.org, ghostarchive.org) so that links are widely accessible to the community and so that reactionary sources don’t derive data/ad revenue from Hexbear users. If you see a link without an archive link, please archive it yourself and add it to the thread, ask the OP to fix it, or report to mods. Including text of articles in threads is welcome.
-
Low effort material: Avoid memes/jokes/shitposts in newscomm posts and top-level replies to the newsmega. This kind of content is OK in post replies and in newsmega sub-threads. We encourage the community to balance their contribution of low effort material with effort posts, links to real news/analysis, and meaningful engagement with material posted in the community.
-
American politics: Discussion and effort posts on the (potential) material impacts of American electoral politics is welcome, but the never-ending circus of American Politics© Brought to You by Mountain Dew™ is not welcome. This refers to polling, pundit reactions, electoral horse races, rumors of who might run, etc.
-
Electoralism: Please try to avoid struggle sessions about the value of voting/taking part in the electoral system in the West. c/electoralism is right over there.
-
AI Slop: Don't post AI generated content. Posts about AI race/chip wars/data centers are fine.
view the rest of the comments
They also avoid discussing the elephant in the room which is the cost of these escorts. Running a bunch of war ships back and forth and using multi-million dollar interceptors would result in this oil being worth more than gold, and that's assuming they can even guarantee passage. The math here doesn't work.
It also increases the burn rate on interceptor stockpiles.
The US has two carrier task forces, and I think they're sending a third, to the region. You're talking about 11 to 15 destroyers In the area and iirc 3 littoral (edit) combat ships. which probably is not enough for this plan. They need to keep a few of those escorts near the carriers, 2 to 4 depending on how aggressive the Iranians are targeting them. At any given time a few of them are going to need replenishment and rearming of they are seeing persistent attacks. That only leaves a handful, to go back and forth through Hormuz, shooting $1,000,000 interceptors at $1,000 drones until their launchers run dry.
And that's even before we think about what Iran could do in retaliation to arleigh Burke class destroyers going through the strait. If they actually mine the strait of Hormuz, an already catastrophic situation gets even worse. At least Chinese owned and operated ships, seem to be able to make it through, a few other ships have snuck through at night by turning off all of their radio equipment. But as soon as Iran drops a single mine, nobody's going to want to risk it.
Yeah, it's unworkable, these ships can carry a limited number of munitions. And once they go through them, then they have to sail to a friendly port to restock, and then come back. And all that assuming that they can even survive the trip at all. The most likely scenario is that their defenses would be quickly overwhelmed, and they never make it through the strait.
It's too bad they can't rearm at Bahrain anymore lol
Off the top of my head, I'm not sure there's anywhere to rearm outside of going through the Suez or mabie Diego Garcia.
damn, sure would be unfortunate if a plucky little group of chill guys decided to block the other strait that allows access to the Suez from the Gulf... nah that'd never happen, that's too crazy
They've been hauling back to Diego Garcia so far
That's like a 2-day trip, isn't it?
In a best case for the US:
According to Google, you're looking at over 1500 mi (assume 400 mi off the coast of Oman, and a straight line to Diego Garcia). if you're going at 30 knots, which would almost be redlining their engine the entire way burning an ungodly amount of fuel, you're talking about 40 hours of travel time. Even if it only takes 16 hours to refuel and rearm, which is impossibly fast, every time a ship has to leave the theater it's gone for at least 4 days.
More realistically:
2,000 mi at 20 knots, which is a more realistic, is 4 days and 4 hours of travel one way.
AB destroyers have at least 90 VLS cells, assume only half of those are anti-air missiles. Google says about a half hour to load each VLS, which means you're talking at least 24 hours to rearm. If they pack the ship to the gills with anti-air missiles, it's more like 48 hours.
So you're talking about 11 days to leave their formation, rearm, and get back.
Most realistically:
The US Navy has already said that they are not going to be escorting ships through Hormuz anytime soon, because even the most brain dead us admiral can do basic math. If you have 15 destroyers, you need to leave 2 or 3 fully armed with each carrier, that leaves 9 or 11 to run escort duty. If 1/3 of them are either going to rearm or coming back, that leaves six or eight to actually escort tankers. Six destroyers 20 miles apart. Could cover the whole straight, with one or two ships patrolling in between, but that still leaves massive gaps. Perfect for UAV, USV, UUVs to slip through.
To paraphrase the IRA: to pull this off the United States Navy would have to be lucky every single time, Iran only needs to get lucky once, in order to stop practically every tanker from taking the risk even with US Navy escorts. Not to mention the fact, that those destroyers would be sitting ducks the entire time.
Do they not have cargo ships that can resupply them while at sea? Or is loading the munitions too complex of a task for that, so they need to be docked?
US Navy have 14 Lewis and Clark-class dry cargo ships for large scale munition replenishment, those would need to be escorted too, and they would need to have ammo to replenish, and US already burned through quite a bit of their stock in war against Yemen.
As far as I know they need to dock, but resupplying at sea wouldn't really change the overall dynamic that much. You'd still need ships constantly going back and forth to get these resupplies. And the resupplies themselves have to come from somewhere too. Given what we're reading about existing stocks, it doesn't sound like that would be sustainable for long.
littoral? not trying to be annoying, but it reads differently if you meant literal
You are 100% correct. Is the problem with relying on voice to text.
At least auto-correct didn't step in and drop a 'c'...
Of course. The best stealth ships are the clittoral combat vessels... No one will ever find them.