Iran
Joined: Mar 2018
Posts: 2,243
Likes: 1,154
From: Central UK
I suspect it depends on what the "threat" actually is, post Epic Tantrum phase 1.
CENTCOM J2/J3 ought to have anticipated an attempt to close the strait and as a matter of course ought to have malleted every known storage location of sea mines, every small harbour (there are surprisingly few) with IRGC FIAC and of course the main naval bases, targeting the Kilos and Ghadirs. That leaves the missile threat, which - again - ought to have been targetted relatively early. There is nigh-on air supremacy, which means that persistent ISR with on-call strike should be achievable.
All of the above should - big if here - reduce the threat to relatively residual levels and each launch / disclosure further depletes the threat. Still significant risk, but some successful transits might actually shift the P&I market.
Note - the word "ought" above is doing some seriously heavy lifting.
CENTCOM J2/J3 ought to have anticipated an attempt to close the strait and as a matter of course ought to have malleted every known storage location of sea mines, every small harbour (there are surprisingly few) with IRGC FIAC and of course the main naval bases, targeting the Kilos and Ghadirs. That leaves the missile threat, which - again - ought to have been targetted relatively early. There is nigh-on air supremacy, which means that persistent ISR with on-call strike should be achievable.
All of the above should - big if here - reduce the threat to relatively residual levels and each launch / disclosure further depletes the threat. Still significant risk, but some successful transits might actually shift the P&I market.
Note - the word "ought" above is doing some seriously heavy lifting.
Is it acceptable to destroy every single small fisherman's boat you find? Nice! What to do about inflatables with big outboards that can be kept in a house, hut or cave? Ditto drones and even mines. Small boats are easily hidden.
It's a vain hope even with modern sensors that you'd achieve a high success rate. After all, you have to be lucky 100% of the time, they only have to be lucky once.
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 360
Likes: 152
From: Europe
He also intends preventing any ships leaving that paid the toll. At least the US will be able to claim that they have closed the Strait, not Iran, so another victory.
While it is intended to put additional pressure on Iran, it does seem to be a case of cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Another unintended consequence of surrounding yourself with yes-men that are not the sharpest pencils in the pack.
At least we have more cost increases and inflation to look forward to. That will go down well with the domestic and global public.
It will be interesting to see if the Iranians will try target the ships enforcing the blockade and those allegedly being sent to sweep for mines. If they manage to sink or damage one it would be very embarrassing for the administration.
While it is intended to put additional pressure on Iran, it does seem to be a case of cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Another unintended consequence of surrounding yourself with yes-men that are not the sharpest pencils in the pack.
At least we have more cost increases and inflation to look forward to. That will go down well with the domestic and global public.
It will be interesting to see if the Iranians will try target the ships enforcing the blockade and those allegedly being sent to sweep for mines. If they manage to sink or damage one it would be very embarrassing for the administration.
Joined: Apr 2008
Aviation Qualifications: Military (Retired)
Posts: 44
Likes: 98
From: West Country
The UK and France are going to organise a conference to discuss the Strait.
At least its not a planning conference to examine, conceptually, the potential for meeting to develop outline options for discussions addressing the issue of the Strait in a non-interventionary context.
Do they have mirrors?
At least its not a planning conference to examine, conceptually, the potential for meeting to develop outline options for discussions addressing the issue of the Strait in a non-interventionary context.
Do they have mirrors?
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 174
Likes: 116
From: Scotland
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,515
Likes: 151
From: A better place.
What's the use of malleting every "known" location when there are probably far more unknown ones?
Is it acceptable to destroy every single small fisherman's boat you find? Nice! What to do about inflatables with big outboards that can be kept in a house, hut or cave? Ditto drones and even mines. Small boats are easily hidden.
It's a vain hope even with modern sensors that you'd achieve a high success rate. After all, you have to be lucky 100% of the time, they only have to be lucky once.
Is it acceptable to destroy every single small fisherman's boat you find? Nice! What to do about inflatables with big outboards that can be kept in a house, hut or cave? Ditto drones and even mines. Small boats are easily hidden.
It's a vain hope even with modern sensors that you'd achieve a high success rate. After all, you have to be lucky 100% of the time, they only have to be lucky once.
All that's needed is one drone hitting a tanker.
And if Iran really wanted to hurt the US, a ballistic missile or two fired from inland and pointed at a carrier or similarly significant capital ship.
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 807
Likes: 425
From: Portsmouth
Joined: Dec 2001
Aviation Qualifications: Military
Posts: 2,964
Likes: 483
From: The Roman Empire
The UK and France are going to organise a conference to discuss the Strait.
At least its not a planning conference to examine, conceptually, the potential for meeting to develop outline options for discussions addressing the issue of the Strait in a non-interventionary context.
Do they have mirrors?
At least its not a planning conference to examine, conceptually, the potential for meeting to develop outline options for discussions addressing the issue of the Strait in a non-interventionary context.
Do they have mirrors?
Thread Starter
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Joined: Jul 2000
Aviation Qualifications: Spotter
Posts: 24,509
Likes: 7,254
From: Peripatetic
Fighters going home, but a constant stream of resupply C-17/C-5 etc going the other way.
USAF United States Air Force - Coronet East Boeing
KC-46 Pegasus 2x
#AE5E12 17-46037 - REACH 408
#AE63C2 21-46086 - REACH 188
+ TABOR 42-44 Flt 3x F-22A Raptors
TABOR 42-44 Flight returning to Langley AFB this afternoon from RAF Lakenheath after a TDY. They are supported by REACH 408 from Mildenhall, and REACH 188 from Lajes.
KC-46 Pegasus 2x
#AE5E12 17-46037 - REACH 408
#AE63C2 21-46086 - REACH 188
+ TABOR 42-44 Flt 3x F-22A Raptors
TABOR 42-44 Flight returning to Langley AFB this afternoon from RAF Lakenheath after a TDY. They are supported by REACH 408 from Mildenhall, and REACH 188 from Lajes.
Joined: Jun 2016
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 1,318
Likes: 386
From: Brantisvogan
If it weren't for the global impact of the strait being closed, I am sure they would rather let the US administration stew in its own juices.
Joined: Feb 2006
Aviation Qualifications: LAME
Posts: 36,137
Likes: 5,738
From: Falling off the end of the thread
Joined: Feb 2006
Aviation Qualifications: LAME
Posts: 36,137
Likes: 5,738
From: Falling off the end of the thread
The aircraft heading the other way may be because they have expended their available hours, so require maintenance checks, it does not stop fresh aircraft heading back the other way when needed, no point keeping valuable assets in a region where they may be attacked..
Joined: Jan 2015
Posts: 170
Likes: 12
From: Usually firmly on the ground
Thread Starter
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Joined: Jul 2000
Aviation Qualifications: Spotter
Posts: 24,509
Likes: 7,254
From: Peripatetic
The aircraft heading the other way may be because they have expended their available hours
Joined: Jul 2013
Aviation Qualifications: Non-Aircrew
Posts: 1,388
Likes: 675
From: Within AM radio broadcast range of downtown Chicago
Last edited by WillowRun 6-3; 13th April 2026 at 12:23.
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 807
Likes: 425
From: Portsmouth
Not through choice - which is why they're busy volleying stuff indiscriminately at the Gulf states and beyond. Given the chance to inflict a blow on a carrier from the Great Satan do you think the IRGC would refuse?
Joined: Aug 2013
Aviation Qualifications: Military (Retired)
Posts: 1,345
Likes: 562
From: Washington.
Considering the lack of planning, thought and discussion that has gone into this conflict, taking some time for allies to align and decide if they really want to be involved in the US mess, collaborating with an unreliable partner and what risks they will be exposing their services to, doesn't seem unreasonable.
If it weren't for the global impact of the strait being closed, I am sure they would rather let the US administration stew in its own juices.
If it weren't for the global impact of the strait being closed, I am sure they would rather let the US administration stew in its own juices.
Joined: Jan 2015
Posts: 170
Likes: 12
From: Usually firmly on the ground
My uninformed view is that current evidence suggests they are not implementing a "use it or lose it" strategy and I can imagine there might be reasons not to inflict such a blow (or not to have done so "already", as per your original comment) at a given point in time, reasons other than a lack of capability.
Last edited by Eutychus; 13th April 2026 at 13:46.
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,787
Likes: 1,205
From: Baston
Joined: Jul 2013
Aviation Qualifications: PPL
Posts: 54
Likes: 2
From: France
"The aborted Pakistan peace talks were nothing but theatre. Pakistan, Egypt and Turkey are energy dependent, which is why Pakistan cobbled together a peace deal, but presented a different 'deal' to both sides (hence the confusion over wether Lebanon was included in it).
The real reason is firstly that the Americans are using the talks as a stalling tactic while they and the Gulf states rearm interceptors and position the George HW Bush, to carry on the war to the required conclusion. Interceptor stocks are reduced by about 60% so are being supplemented from Greece Taiwan and North Korea. About 800 Tomahawks have been used, another 600 are on their way for round 2"
To this point (from Seafury's) earlier thread, there was a very interesting interview on Sky TV yesterday with USN Rear Admiral Joe Sestak, Formerly Deputy Chief of US Naval Operations, who was speaking about the lack of preparedness by USN and others for asymmetric warfare and the fact that IRGC have been launching hundreds of drones which necessitated response from Patriot and presumably other systems using expensive interceptors to counter the ( relatively cheap) threat. The point he was emphasising was not the fact these systems worked (thank goodness) but the fact that US was rapidly depleting its inventory, he stated that it could take many years to restock the current inventory even if they significantly increased production today and that's just based on round 1 of the conflict, so really how likely is it that US or even the allies plus US can continue to resource this conflict ? and even if they did and prevail ( which inevitably they will) what state does that leave them in to fight any other conflicts ? I can imagine Russia and China are very happy with this situation.
The real reason is firstly that the Americans are using the talks as a stalling tactic while they and the Gulf states rearm interceptors and position the George HW Bush, to carry on the war to the required conclusion. Interceptor stocks are reduced by about 60% so are being supplemented from Greece Taiwan and North Korea. About 800 Tomahawks have been used, another 600 are on their way for round 2"
To this point (from Seafury's) earlier thread, there was a very interesting interview on Sky TV yesterday with USN Rear Admiral Joe Sestak, Formerly Deputy Chief of US Naval Operations, who was speaking about the lack of preparedness by USN and others for asymmetric warfare and the fact that IRGC have been launching hundreds of drones which necessitated response from Patriot and presumably other systems using expensive interceptors to counter the ( relatively cheap) threat. The point he was emphasising was not the fact these systems worked (thank goodness) but the fact that US was rapidly depleting its inventory, he stated that it could take many years to restock the current inventory even if they significantly increased production today and that's just based on round 1 of the conflict, so really how likely is it that US or even the allies plus US can continue to resource this conflict ? and even if they did and prevail ( which inevitably they will) what state does that leave them in to fight any other conflicts ? I can imagine Russia and China are very happy with this situation.
