First B-52 mission?

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....23cbf7c1b3.png
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HDhF4p6X...g&name=900x900https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....e7d53966df.png
​​​​​​​

India appears to have met an accommodation with Iran re transit through the SoH;

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news...-gulf-of-oman/

Photos

Video

Confident enough that there are no MANPAD around to do a strafing run?

Impossible to confirm the date and time of the footage.

There is only little enthusiasm around the world for Mr Trumps idea of having other nations lie in the bed he made around the Strait of Hormuz.

From Japan, I hear that the "legal requirements for sending Japanese ships are rather high", which is a clear No if I understand their traditions right.
Korea has stated that they are observing the situation closely.
Great Britain is of the opinion that this is not a NATO mission and never was going to be one.
Germany also stated that NATO is not responsible for the Strait of Hormuz.
Australia has shown no interest either.
China stated that they were in contact with all parties and called for de-escalation.

The general feeling seems to be that the US have brought this on themselves and there is no need for other worldwide armies to come and stay a little back also in this war.

Wait until he asks Putin for help. … "Net"; high oil price helps Russia
But we have had our butt kicked, help … how can I get out of this mess (it's made by 'you', Israel, everyone else's fault).

Loss of face (nothing to lose) vs committing the fleet to action.

What is the practicality of US boats in the Persian Gulf; can air power alone provide safety, or is it boots on the ground?
An interesting time for war studies.

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/eliza...cB7hU2U_S8Iv3k

Two historical events come to mind... the dutch fire ships on the Thames that messed up the RN rather well, and the whole saga of the Russian fleets debacle from departing St Pete's and points north and blundering their way towards Port Arthur, to meet their destiny in the straits of Tsushima.

Plonking the USN in an area that requires the SoH to be open within range of every munition the Iranians own seems to be a gift to the recently departed ayatollah. Russia has shown how many drones Iran could produce for export let alone their own defence. Hope the USN has lots of reloads of their SMs and phalanx ammo and a means to get it to the target fleet.

The last couple of days there has been some heavy noise (different to the usual commercial stuff) overhead me in deepest Wiltshire, but unable to see anything due to cloud cover. However one day FR24 showed a single B-1 and yesterday were 3 KC135s' circling around. The B-1 associated noise has been heard again but no longer shows on FR24 surprisingly.

As noted later on another thread, two KC-135s and accompanying B-1s came over south eastern London on Saturday morning, the second B-1 was busy taking on four star and leaving a narrow stream of vapour in its wake. Quite a sight over a suburban area - rather noisy too; a 135 and three or four F-15s went right over the top a week or two earlier and seemed quieter - though they were higher and above cloud...

What is going on with shipping.
Latest update from Sal who has been doing a great job reporting on the Commercial Shipping.aspect of the “War”, “Military Operation” or “Excursion”. ( pick one or make up your own )

For those who wish too I highly recommend subscribing to his You Tube page

Commercial Shipping is vital, something that seems to have escaped the attention of folks in certain lofty positions of power.

Remember Winston Churchill’s statement in his memoirs, “The only thing that ever really frightened me during the war was the U-boat peril.”
Without the needed cargo, fuel, food and troops WW2 may have been lost or greatly lengthened.

Given that the US is currently self-sufficient in oil - and most of Europe isn't - I'd think it might be in NATO's self-interest to keep the Strait of Hormuz open.

I think I can sum up the Iran "expedition" from the European perspective as follows:

Week 1: We've won, we don't need any assistance"
Week 2: "We're still winning, we're the greatest"
Week 3: "Send help immediately"

A cynical view might be that assistance in keeping the Straits of Hormuz open is potentially exponentially more dangerous than anything that the US has carried out so far as it's been done entirely from the air and / or with stand-off missiles. So Trump's cunning plan is to put other nations assets and personnel directly into the firing line because any US casualties would seriously lose him support at home. Because after all the "we're winning / we've won" rhetoric, Iran is seemingly still able to fire missiles and drones at complete will and the narrow Straits of Hormuz would easily become a bloodbath.

So the card of "you need to do more, we've always been here for you" to other nations is being played so US assets and personnel are not in the front line and any casualties will not be American. Call us Europeans cynical....but many are much smarter than he seems to think.

Two questions.
1. Why can't shipping go around?
2. If we are to commit ships to opening the Strait how well equipped are they at defending against mines and mass drone attacks?
It's not like the old days where a few Destroyers and Mine Sweepers can keep a shipping lane open. We are fighting an enemy that is going to use asymmetric warfare against us. Carriers with aircraft isn't going to do a lot against mass repeated drone attacks.

Go around what?

May I suggest the simple act of "looking at a map" ...... :)

This might help you understand the statement... "The Strait of Hormuz is a strait between the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman. It provides the only sea passage from the Persian Gulf to the open ocean and is one of the world's most strategically important choke points."

Would it be rude of me to point out that the Strait of Hormuz would be open right now if the US hadn't crashed in to the region uninvited and unilaterally started a war?

Checks map...Ahh, I see. I'm confusing the Strait with the Suez Canal. Fair enougth, I'll get me coat.

Any western warships entering the Straits will be undoubtedly get the undivided attention of the Iranian regime, who would go all out to sink one.

Trump has clearly had this explained to him, hence his desire to get others involved to share the burden (AKA take a hit for Uncle Sam).

See reply 3901

You can put it in your history book as you'd like, but it doesn’t address TD's point.

Perhaps, but the simple fact remails, the US won't run short of oil if the Straits remain closed.
Europe can't say that.

It's not about running short, it's about the price of gas at the pumps. It doesn't matter if the US won't run short, if gas continues on it's current price trajectory then Trump will quickly lose support at home. To suggest that the US does not have any interest in keeping the Straits open is frankly laughable.

We do have an interest which is why Trump is calling out to NATO. The question is who will it have a greater impact on, the US or Europe?

NATO is a defensive alliance, it's charter is to spring to each other's collective defence after an attack on any one of it's member states. Not an alliance that one member can simply demand at it's will to assist in unilateral foreign adventures when said member acted as the aggressor.

Missed it by only about 1800 NM.

tdracer
You maybe surprised to know we don’t, it impacts further east and south from us currently. If Mr Trump wants the cavalry he will have to look further east and as 2 nations there are already getting their tankers though by arrangement then you may have to look at smaller nations. However the impact is on world oil price hence your own price rises.

Cheers
Mr Mac

What about Mr Trumps "Board of Peace"? Would this creation of his not be a logical place he could turn to in case of need?

After all, NATO is a defensive alliance. As none of its member states are under attack at the moment, it is not immediately obvious to me why it should ride to the rescue.

Also, the official way of setting NATO in motion is not a post on whatever that message board of Mr Trumps choice may be called at the moment, it requires formally invoking Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, to which the US as a partner in this treaty would have a right, were they so inclined. They did once already and had their friends and partners come to their aid, as we all remember.

What NATO is clearly not is a "Get out of Jail" card. It is a defensive alliance, never having been intended to ride to the rescue when someone, purely hypothetically, may have started a war that was later found out to have been ill advised, badly planned, and not going into the desired direction.

Matt Whittaker the US NATO Ambassador just a moment ago.

Ukraine is not a NATO issue but rather a European issue in which the US has been more than happy to assist.

Somehow the Europeans and the UK are saying Iran isn't a NATO issue so they won't get involved.

Imagine if the US had said that when Russia invaded the Ukraine.

NATO has been exposed as a one way relationship and I believe we were seeing NATO loosing cohesion as members no longer share the same general political aims.

Good grief. With friends like the US...........

I didn't say the UK, I said Europe.
If Europe can meet its own petroleum needs, why were they so dependent on Russian imports before the Ukraine war?

Yes, price is a concern, but shortages are completely different. I remember all too well, having to wait in long lines to purchase gas in 1973 and 1979, as well as having to limit weekend trips to a distance that I could cover without refueling when all the gas stations were closed on weekends. The US will suffer some pain from higher fuel prices, but nothing like what happens when you run short.

You're have a better case if the US hadn't been paying the lion's share of the cost of NATO for most of the last 80 years.
As Hangerless notes, this sort of Trump hatred is doing far more damage to NATO than Putin could ever dream of accomplishing.

How he can say this with a straight face is beyond me. One day back in 2022 we woke up with Russia invading Ukraine.

Three weeks ago we woke up to find one of us had ( bilaterally) attacked another country. And now because we won't join that offensive, the cohesion is damaged. Well maybe it is - but not for the reason stated..

Defense expenditure is not the same as NATO spending. What you're suggesting is that the USA has contributed more to NATO in the last 80 years than every other member combined. Which is wrong.

Please feel free to give ive us some numbers and references to support your assertion.

Please feel free to use Google. All the answers you seek are easy to find. As are the definitions of 'Defence Spending' and 'NATO spending'.

You will find the USA contributes approximately 15% of NATOs budget, similar to Germany. There is absolutely zero evidence that the USA has contributed more to NATO, over the last 80 years, than all other members combined and indeed several members had larger NATO contributions than the USA during the Cold War.

I don't know about the UK, but it's a well established fact that most members of NATO have frequently failed to meet the treaty obligation of 2% GDP spending on defense - and the US has had to make up for that. Trump brought that up during his first term - that the US couldn't afford to keep doing that - and the rest of NATO blew him off.
You didn't wake up until Putin invaded Ukraine.
The US has also contributed far more in dollar value to Ukraine that any other nation. There is a valid complaint that - as a percentage of the US GDP - it's less than some countries - but that glosses over the fact that we are still sending them more stuff.

td, I think they are still fast asleep and blissfully dreaming that it is Americas job to defend them.

Turns out 2 of the 3 US's Gulf-based minesweepers are currently in Malaysia. Couldn't make this up...

No, the USA, nor any other country for that matter, does not make up the shortfall if a country doesn't meet its 2% of GDP spend.

The 2% is also not an obligation it is a political commitment of a country to spend on it's own military. It is, therefore, not owed to, or paid by, anyone else.

Facts are bothersome aren't they?