|
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK
(Post 12067602)
Route charges for ATC are pretty commonplace.
Although, you can not pass without receiving service. |
Originally Posted by Chu Chu
(Post 12067637)
Not sure if it matters that until 1658, the straight separated Denmark from Denmark.
|
Opening the Straits of Hormuz isn't the only problem. Reported on AlJazeerah, Saudia Arabia has just released a damage assessment in relation to oil and gas facilities which look fairly extensive including the vital East-West pipeline. All the Gulf states were fairly secretive about how much actual damage was caused to key oil/gas/port infrastructure over the past few weeks. It will be a long time before exports can reach pre-war levels - maybe years if major repairs are needed to facilities. Riyadh discloses damage to key Aramco facilities | Latest Market News
|
Originally Posted by SINGAPURCANAC
(Post 12067694)
Airlines pay for service that is given to them not for right to pass.
Although, you can not pass without receiving service. Another example overflying Sudan a few years ago, we couldn’t talk to anyone and none of their VORs were working. That didn’t prevent them to charge us a substantial navigation fee… For using GPS I guess :rolleyes: Sorry, back to the topic. |
Can we keep the Trump commentary to Jetblast? Very little of the comments add anything of value to this specific aspect of the conflict.
It is exhausting filtering through the waffle to find something worth reading. |
Originally Posted by artee
(Post 12067227)
I think the SoH is open, for those willing to go through the Toll Booth (Ayatollah Booth) between Qeshm & Larak islands. A bargain at c. $2m, in Crypto or Yuan.
It really doesn't matter very much who says the strait is or is not open; if the insurance industry isn't on board, very little moves.
Originally Posted by Dave Ed
(Post 12067708)
Opening the Straits of Hormuz isn't the only problem. Reported on AlJazeerah, Saudia Arabia has just released a damage assessment in relation to oil and gas facilities which look fairly extensive including the vital East-West pipeline. All the Gulf states were fairly secretive about how much actual damage was caused to key oil/gas/port infrastructure over the past few weeks. It will be a long time before exports can reach pre-war levels - maybe years if major repairs are needed to facilities. Riyadh discloses damage to key Aramco facilities | Latest Market News
Just on ten years ago we had an interesting conversation here in PPRuNe about the likely nature of peak oil being a loss of demand rather than tapering off supply. Although we're currently seeing sustained demand in excess of abruptly reduced supply, this is giving the world a firm shove in the direction of reduced demand by the development of other energy sources and decarbonisation. Regardless of your position on climate change or the possibility of running out of economically recoverable oil, diversifying energy sources away from oil (and gas, looking at you, Europe and Russia gas), is strategically wise and increasingly economically favourable too. Adoption of electric vehicles in most parts of the world outside "you know who" is rapidly accelerating, and all these factors combined with the likely ongoing disruption to supply for several years that you allude to, make me wonder whether we might be seeing peak oil right now or very soon. By the time the supply is back up to pre-war levels, the demand may well have faded considerably. But as I said ten years ago; I'm an engineer, not an economist (or a climate scientist). Nobody else seems to be saying this might be peak oil, so maybe I'm talking out my hat. |
Ministry of Foreign Affairs Kuwait:
Statement Issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Friday, 10 April 2026 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs expresses the State of Kuwait's strong condemnation and denunciation of the heinous attacks launched by the Islamic Republic of Iran and its proxies, including factions, militias, and armed groups loyal to it, via drones that targeted several vital facilities in the State of Kuwait, on the evening of Thursday, 9 April 2026, in flagrant violation of the sovereignty of the State of Kuwait and its airspace, and a blatant breach of international law, international humanitarian law, and the United Nations Charter. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs affirms that the continuation of these brazen attacks launched by the Islamic Republic of Iran and its proxies against the State of Kuwait and the countries of the region undermines the regional and international efforts that have recently borne fruit with the announcement of a ceasefire between the United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran, and constitutes a blatant challenge to the international community. While the Ministry of Foreign Affairs emphasizes the necessity of obligating the Islamic Republic of Iran and its proxies to immediately and unconditionally cease all hostile acts directed against the State of Kuwait and all other countries of the region in accordance with the provisions of Security Council Resolution 2817 of 2026, it renews its affirmation of the State of Kuwait's firm adherence to its full and legitimate right to self-defense under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, and to take all necessary measures to preserve its sovereignty, security, and stability. |
In the eventual analysis of this conflict it will be interesting to see the relative contributions of the various air arms involved, specifically USAF and the USN. Given the USN carrier groups were some way removed from the conflict, their involvement must have been greatly diminished in comparison to their involvement in GW1 & 2. The Abe Lincoln group in the Indian ocean must have had a rough time of it, given they wouldn’t have had as much access to the tanking assets based in Saudi etc. Doesn’t bode well for the defence of Taiwan if/when this ever kicks off.
|
Interesting to see it's a private tanker owned by Metrea, not USAF. Must be hurting for airframes.....
|
I know there are many here with a military background, so could what is described here on this link be true...and what Hegseth said be total fabrication?
It is dated April 9th, 2026 and contains experiences first hand from those on the ground at the time Army survivors of deadly attack in Kuwait dispute Pentagon's account, say unit "was unprepared" to defend itself (CBS News Exclusive) Survivors of the deadliest Iranian attack on U.S. forces since the war began have disputed the Pentagon's description of events and said their unit in Kuwait was left dangerously exposed when six service members were killed and more than 20 wounded. Speaking publicly for the first time, members of the targeted unit offered CBS News a detailed account of the attack and its harrowing aftermath from the perspective of those on the ground. The members CBS News spoke to disputed the description of events from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who described the drone as a "squirter" — in that it squirted through the defenses of a fortified unit inside Kuwait. "Painting a picture that 'one squeaked through' is a falsehood," one of the injured soldiers told CBS News. "I want people to know the unit … was unprepared to provide any defense for itself. It was not a fortified position." If true is there any recourse against Hegseth, especially since people died and severely injured in the attack that appears to have been played down...I get that playing things like this down is often used to maintain morale levels within the troops in a war scenario but it really seems that significant differences in the versions of what happened exist |
UN Convention on Laws of the Sea (UNCLOS) defines international transit thru straits among other rules. Free transit of innocent passage is guaranteed by all signatories. As someone who has refueled in the straits of Gibraltar because the Spanish wouldn’t approve overflight, it applies to air transit.
|
Originally Posted by galaxy flyer
(Post 12067939)
UN Convention on Laws of the Sea (UNCLOS) defines international transit thru straits among other rules. Free transit of innocent passage is guaranteed by all signatories. As someone who has refueled in the straits of Gibraltar because the Spanish wouldn’t approve overflight, it applies to air transit.
|
Originally Posted by galaxy flyer
(Post 12067939)
UN Convention on Laws of the Sea (UNCLOS) defines international transit thru straits among other rules. Free transit of innocent passage is guaranteed by all signatories.
In any case, neither the US, nor Iran have ratified UNCLOS so the discussion of its provisions are moot. |
Salute!
Well, Bonnie, good question. And to all.....I realize my up close personal eperience is very old, and some is no longer applicable today due to technology, but NOT for many ancient axioms and fundamental aspects of warfare, which I have endured more than many contributors here, without doubt.. The administrations' and soldiers' comments BOTH share viewpoints seen over and again , and neither are lies, as I see no intent to deceive. Maybe innacurate. These days, I see far too many comments and opinions by folks asserting someone is lying. But the majority of times the statements of interest are due to IGNORANCE or poor homework or bad poop from a staffer , and are simply innacurate. So what do do? Call out the individual and say ignorant, stupid, "don't know what you are talking about"? The incident resembles what the U.S. saw early in 'nam. We took many hits at our bases and in the air on our initial bomb runs due to ignorance and failure to give credit to our adversary. From my bunch, it was the skill and tactics of the VPAF and later, the AAA gunners who had practice on a daily basis, heh heh. Being one of their targets was not fun! So I agree with both the administration AND the troops in their shelters. Gums sends... |
Originally Posted by gums
(Post 12067981)
Salute!
Well, Bonnie, good question. And to all.....I realize my up close personal eperience is very old, and some is no longer applicable today due to technology, but NOT for many ancient axioms and fundamental aspects of warfare, which I have endured more than many contributors here, without doubt.. The administrations' and soldiers' comments BOTH share viewpoints seen over and again , and neither are lies, as I see no intent to deceive. Maybe innacurate. These days, I see far too many comments and opinions by folks asserting someone is lying. But the majority of times the statements of interest are due to IGNORANCE or poor homework or bad poop from a staffer , and are simply innacurate… Gums sends... producing plastic inflatable replicas of key targets is one approach, as is camo netting overhead and moving things around from time to time, like two or three times a day, might save millions of dollars worth of hardware from going up in smoke. Asking out of complete ignorance as to what is involved. |
Originally Posted by meleagertoo
(Post 12067627)
I doubt the complexities, such as they are, of ships passing though the Straits of Hormuz are in any way comparable with the complexity, precision, equipment, training and general establishment required for aviation en route services.
Maybe we should try that stunt with the English Channel - and see how popular that idea is... Sorry, that’s incorrect, you do have a Navy. But it’s broken |
Originally Posted by Newhairdo
(Post 12068048)
great idea, except…….. you don’t have a Navy to enforce anything !
Sorry, that’s incorrect, you do have a Navy. But it’s broken A Navy is not required to close a strait; All you need is control of at least one shoreline, and the credible threat of anti-ship weapons that can be deployed therefrom. |
Salute!
Well, Viz, ya think there are no longer functioning air defense units left? Ya think they are advertising? Until today or yesterday I watched a Turkish AWACS in orbit last three or four weeks, as well as Saudi SAAB EW plane orbiting west of the Gulf. No harm in decoys, as you noted, and maybe there are many? Plus, homing on RF is better for those than pure electro-optical. Gums recalls Red Flag and Hanoi missions... |
The war that shaped modern Iran
Good article by Richard Cockett in The Economist.
One story has dominated March’s news: the American-Israeli assault on Iran. Shashank Joshi, our defence editor, has been keeping War Room readers informed in his usual dispatches on Mondays. And we have published numerous articles on the conflict—and its adverse economic consequences—online and in print. In this bonus edition, however, I wanted to step back a bit and consider a previous conflict, the Iran-Iraq war of 1980-88, to gain some insights into how the present war may turn out. To help me sift through the history I talked to Nicolas Pelham, The Economist’s Middle East correspondent and a long-standing expert on Iran. He has visited the country many times; on one notorious occasion, he was forced to stay rather longer than he expected. He argues that the Iran-Iraq war was “foundational for what the Islamic Republic became”. Perhaps Donald Trump might have studied it before embarking on his present adventure. The Iran-Iraq war remains one of the bloodiest conflicts since the second world war. According to David Crist, a historian, it cost approximately 1m lives, and about four times that number were wounded. Iraq’s leader, Saddam Hussein, ordered the invasion of his neighbour in September 1980, ostensibly to pre-empt Iran’s hostile intentions towards his own country. He considered the newly installed clerical regime in Tehran to be a mortal enemy of his own secular Baath party. After initial breakthroughs Iraq’s offensive petered out. What territory it did seize was recovered by Iran. The war, most people agree, ended in a stalemate. What were the consequences for Iran? First, Saddam was expecting his invasion to provoke a popular uprising against the untested and divided revolutionary regime that had taken power in 1979. But, as Nick puts it, “instead of toppling the regime, the invasion entrenched it.” The horrific human losses merely sustained Iran’s cult of martyrdom, much as the murderous and recently deceased Ali Khamenei is now being mythologised as a great leader. Second, the egregious failures of the regular Iranian army provided an opportunity for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) to expand its power. The IRGC became both the regime’s praetorian guard and its own battlefield army. It also started arming proxies, such as Hizbullah in Lebanon and later the Houthis in Yemen and Hamas in Gaza, to keep the battles away from Iranian territory (a forward-defence strategy) and to rally the Shia faithful. America has been fighting a clandestine war against these groups ever since, while Israel has done so more openly. Third, the conflict shows that Iran was ready to fight long wars with any means at its disposal. Iraq offered Iran a very good deal to end the bloodshed in 1982, but the regime just fought on, oblivious, it seemed, to the human cost. It was, as Nick says, “happy to go for broke”, as it is now, sapping its opponent’s will and munitions. Remarkably, Iran carried on fighting even as most of the world’s great powers—including the Soviet Union, America and France—supported Iraq and supplied it with weapons. Although it’s hard to believe now, Israel actually armed Iran during this conflict to sustain a regional counterweight against Iraq. Last, Iran (and Iraq) discovered how to use attacks on shipping in the Strait of Hormuz to persuade other countries, such as America, to put pressure on their opponent to surrender. Altogether, hundreds of commercial vessels were damaged in the so-called Tanker War. Iran perfected speedboat attacks on tankers and also used missiles. Iraq—as America did this month—bombed Kharg Island, Iran’s main oil terminal in the Gulf, to little effect. The current conflict is unpredictable, but there are always valuable lessons in the past. |
Iran has been unable to open the Strait of Hormuz to more shipping traffic because it cannot locate all of the mines it laid in the waterway and lacks the capability to remove them, according to U.S. officials. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 12:06. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.