The Chinese ROE are the interesting ones.

Indeed!
From their point of view: foreign military vessel impeding the progress of home nation commercial vessel in international waters.
What could go wrong?

Mine sweepers headed in that direction.

https://www.twz.com/sea/flurry-of-na...Trfin53EVP3vTw

The latest from Sal. on What is going on with Shipping.

The situation appears to be, to say the least, in a State of Flux.

Like the rest of this campaign; Iranian strategy in an entirely different playbook to that of the current US administration.

REMUS is one way.

lars, the simple answer is "Get on the horn, call COMFIFTHFLEET, and get guidance."

I added a question mark that you left out.
​​​​​​​The PPRuNe penchant for grammar nitpicking is alive and well. ;)

make sure you take your iodine pills and you clever aluminium hat camo. SPF 1,000,000 is of some help.

No, I don't think they would have done it already if they could.
As some others have pointed out, the IRGC have already taken pot shots at USN carriers and other ships using drones and other short range missiles.
They've probably made quite a cynical estimate of return on investment on use of IRBMs.
Easier for them to lob an IRBM at a static land based target and know they are guaranteed to hit something of value, be it a city, refinery train, airbase etc.
Harder to hit a remote static target (they've already tried with Diego Garcia) and especially hard to precisely hit a remote moving target in the manner of the DF-21.
On the precision question, interesting to note the Iranians recent use of conventional MIRV type warheads - I wonder what the collective circular area probable of those MIRVs is once deployed, and if that materially increases the probability of hitting a target like a ship?
There's absolutely nothing to stop them from using an IRBM against capital ships - and my understanding is unless you get them in boost or ex-atmospheric phase, they're very hard to intercept in terminal phase due to velocity.

Isn't that the standard UK pattern for retiring types early? Jag and Harrier come to mind.. Maybe the US are pressing Again! to get rid of the A10.

I don't think they've managed a MIRV yet, more a cluster-type warhead, not even equivalent to an MRV and while they allegedly have a terminal manoeuvring capability, that's still at the original aim point, as opposed to terminal guidance. So your CEP against a fixed target is likely to be in the hundreds if not thousands of metres. Much more against a moving target.

apart from the difficulties in hitting a moving target then......?

Hence, if they were going to use them against ships, they would have done so earlier. That they haven't suggests lack of capability rather than deliberate strategy.

It's not so much modern mines as type of mine.

You've in essence got floaters vs ground mines. Both types can have fiendishly clever sensing and triggering modes (acoustic, magnetic, pressure) and with all sorts of anti-sweep tricks added.

Your ground mines lie on the seabed, often shaped and coloured to look like rocks or similar. They have to be hunted, unless you can influence sweep (try to spoof them into triggering) by towing a signature producing system - either drone-based or for the USN helicopter towed.

Your floaters are either moored below the surface, or for the more adventurous pariah state, let loose into the sea lanes floating at or near the surface to be triggered by the first ship they come across. Your floaters can be swept (mechanically or influence) or even sniped at from the air.

Still begs the question why any known shoreside sea mine depots weren't identified as priority targets in the ATO. A lot easier to counter them there, than once deployed.

Salute!

Good points, Boffin.

I feel U.S. only targeted the means of delivery to be more PC than face accusations of widespread bombing of schools, churches and groceries.

And your observation of being a "pariah state" is spot on. We must all remember that these folks fly planes into builings and blow themselves up at parties and weddings ( and Marine barracks in Lebanon).

Gums sends...

We have heard little more about the Royal Navy SWEEP system since deployed in the Gulf. Is this because they simply do not trust some actors in their security? Similarly with the joint U.K./France MMCM system. The Straits will provide an ideal test ground.

There are reports on BBC and other outlets that the Hormuz Strait is not as rigidly blocked as it was anticipated. The Chinese-owned crude oil carrier "Rich Starry" is reported to have passed the strait while carrying Iranian oil. Also a few other cargo ships that have visited Iranian ports on their route passed the strait unhindered. Wall Street Journal reports that Saudi Arabia is rather unhappy with any closure of the Straits.

What exactly is the US trying to achieve here? Loudly declaring the straits closed, but then enforcing this selectively at best does not look like a death grip on Iran, but rather like a fairly undecisive move.

All mouth and no trousers?

I think the US's aspiration to impose a full blockade currently exceeds its capability to implement one. Its a significant undertaking, and I doubt they've figured out the details yet - I doubt Trump consulted anyone let alone the military before making this unilateral declaration.

It does smack rather of "Let's yank this lever and see what happens!"

I think a simplistic explanation of present US policy from the oval office is “ Clutching at Straws “
.

Definition for those unfamiliar:
From AI and the Collins Dictionary

Idiom Definition & Origin

• Meaning: To try unusual, extreme, or desperate methods to improve a difficult situation when other ideas have failed, even if they are unlikely to succeed.
• Origin: Derived from the proverb "a drowning man will clutch at straws," first recorded in Thomas More’s Dialogue of Comfort Against Tribulation (1534). It visualizes a person in a river desperately grabbing at thin reeds (straws) that have no strength to save them.

Think Führerbunker April/May 1945

What is driving Iranian policy, on the other hand, is perhaps the ever popular: “Persistence in the Face of Reality”.

……………

China’s comment
 

China’s response on the blockade is worthy of some appreciation, they at least maintain a level of refinement in their actions. They happen to quite correct, absolutely, sir, blockading their ships and their purchased oil that happens to be from Iran is not a friendly matter at the straits. How long until some numpty in the WH realises that 90% of China’s oil is coming from Iran, and dang if the Iranian terminals are offline, then that makes the blockade moot. There are a number of ways to do that, the loud, the really loud, the boots one and about a gazillions others.

the consequences of Irans fuel supplies going offline to and sundry, including Panda Xpress will be worthy of a discussion, it might just get China to start taking some interest in avoiding that outcome, after all, what would Sun Zoo do for his very own panda?

it would be great for popcorn sales, and I would suggest that wiser heads might raise the topic with the keepers of the panda and see if they really want to have that occur, as, obviously, Agent Orange has shown his propensity to bankrupt entities scales along with his ego.

From CENTCOM