Iran/US conflict

[Skybird]

Yeah, the Royal Navy doesn't mess around.

Sure, but how many RN vessels exist on the planet any more, how many of them are at sea at once - and how many tankers pass through critical waters per day?

The Iranians probably will now work to improve their timing.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Sure, but how many RN vessels exist on the planet any more, how many of them are at sea at once - and how many tankers pass through critical waters per day?

The Iranians probably will now work to improve their timing.

The Royal Navy has a frigate, four minehunters and a Royal Fleet Auxiliary support ship already stationed in a permanent Naval Support Facility in the region, at Mina Salman in Bahrain.

I should imagine at least one more frigate will be despatched to assist HMS Montrose.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48946051

[Skybird]

You certainly understood the underlying problem I pointed at. Too low numbers in general.

Maybe have missile teams on tankers in that region from now on. A missile shot on a tanker may cauzse a whole and oil spilling out and fire. And it would get the Iranias a war shipped to them without further costs. But a missile with a suitable HE or fragmentation warhead hitting a speed boat makes short process with it.

[ikalugin]

I am not sure if that would be enough to run all the right tankers without bundling them into convoys. If the story is true ofc.

[Jimbuna]

Give the west a few days to organise themselves but if a tanker is attacked and set ablaze I think it would be western airpower and not navl that would bring about a heavy price to be paid.

[ikalugin]

And as we know airpower by itself is not enough.


Not that we would protest - it would drive oil prices and arms sales up.

[Schroeder]

I wonder though what Iran (if it actually was Iran) is trying to achieve here.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Schroeder

I wonder though what Iran (if it actually was Iran) is trying to achieve here.

Wie du mir, so ich dir. The Brits seized an Iranian tanker at Gribraltar recently. Alkso, they want to demonstrate to the US how vulnerable tankers are - and how capable their forces.



Air drones were my first guess, too, but if the Iranians adapt their attacking technique for boarding tankers, plan their timing better and get aboard, drones in the air would not change the fact that then the tanker is under Iranian control as long as they do not meet armed superior resistence - aboard. And then the hostage negotiation game begins.

[Catfish]

Originally Posted by Schroeder

I wonder though what Iran (if it actually was Iran) is trying to achieve here.

Just emphasized the obvious
"How can you know the Iranians placed the mines?"
"We were there."

[moose1am]

Originally Posted by Schroeder

I wonder though what Iran (if it actually was Iran) is trying to achieve here.

Maybe they are trying to run up the price of oil so that they can make more money selling their oil that they smuggle out of Iran.

[Aktungbby]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

The Royal Navy has a frigate, four minehunters and a Royal Fleet Auxiliary support ship already stationed in a permanent Naval Support Facility in the region, at Mina Salman in Bahrain.

I should imagine at least one more frigate will be despatched to assist HMS Montrose.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48946051

WHAT WITH THE COMMANDEERED IRANIAN TANKER AT GIBRALTAR AND THE SIMILAR DETAINMENT OF THE NORTH KOREAN VESSEL 'WISE HONEST' NOW IN AMERICAN SAMOA AND MASSIVE SANCTIONS NOW IN PLACE AGAINST MALFEASORS IRAN AND FATBOY....WWIII IS WELL UNDERWAY AS WE MAKE THE 'HAVE NOTS' HAVE EVEN LESS. NUTHING WOULD PLEASE ME MORE THAN TO RESURRECT A RUST BUCKET TANKER AND ARM IT WITH AN ARRAY PHALANX GUNS HIDDEN LIKE THE OLD WWI Q SHIPS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q-ship (Attacks on merchant ships by pirates originating on the Somalia coast have brought suggestions from some security experts that Q-ships be used again to tempt pirates into attacking a well-defended ship.) AND LET THE IRANIANS APPROACH AT THEIR PERIL. RULE 1: NO STOPPIN' FOR SURVIVORS ALSO WE SHOULD POST FALSE NEWS THAT NEW KORAN TRANSLATION REVEALS THAT U DON'T GET 72 VIRGINS IN PARADISE IF U DIE ON JIHAD ....BY DROWNING-THAT SHOULD REDUCE JIHADIST ENTHUSIASM CONSIDERABLY! (PSYCHOLGICAL WARFARE??!!) PLAN B CALLS FOR A COMPLETE BLOCKADE OF HORMUZ BY SINKING ALA SCAPA FLOW STYLE BLOCK-SHIPS AND TURNING THE PERSIAN GULF INTO A PERMANENT LAKE; THEY' PAY TREMENDOUS FEE TO SHIP THRU OUR PIPELINES...WEIRDLY RENDERING UNTO IRAN WHAT IT IS CURRENTLY ATTEMPTING IN THE STRAIT. <PIPELINE ACROSS SAUDI ARABIA

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by ikalugin

And as we know airpower by itself is not enough.

There is more than sufficient airpower in the region to cause massive damage to the Iranian military infrastructure. Nobody is suggesting 'boots on Iranian territory.

Originally Posted by Commander Wallace

The U.S hardly has to justify it's actions to a regime like Iran. The U.S is merely using it's economic powers as it sees fit and the U.S is within it's rights to deny access to it's financial institutions. Actually, I'm sorry that Iran didn't attack the British tanker. Iran would have payed a terrible price.

That is my belief also

[ikalugin]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

There is more than sufficient airpower in the region to cause massive damage to the Iranian military infrastructure. Nobody is suggesting 'boots on Iranian territory.

Which is not enough to win the war or enact regime change. I am also uncertain that said airpower would be capable of removing Iranian capability to force significant attrition to the tankers passing the straits if not outright closing them, from Yemen experience for example.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by ikalugin

Which is not enough to win the war or enact regime change. I am also uncertain that said airpower would be capable of removing Iranian capability to force significant attrition to the tankers passing the straits if not outright closing them, from Yemen experience for example.

I've never mentioned 'war' or 'regime change' I'm talking about maintaing the navigation route through the Straits of Hormuz. Any entity threatening said navigation would be swiftly dealt with in a day or two even if a week or two.

[ikalugin]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

I've never mentioned 'war' or 'regime change' I'm talking about maintaing the navigation route through the Straits of Hormuz. Any entity threatening said navigation would be swiftly dealt with in a day or two even if a week or two.

That is not what is happening in Yemen. Modern airforces of petro-monarchies (compare and contrast KSA airforce with RAF for example) fail to supress the ability to hit targets within say aforementioned KSA.

Straits are closer to Iran and do not require complex logistics for Iran to cover. Moreover due to Iran's geographical position Western powers would find it hard to close down the ability of Iran to re-supply from 3rd parties.