undefined

points

[-]

Transiting by themselves is a lot different than escorting merchant vessels. By themselves warships are free to maneuver at any time and do so at military speeds. Convoy duty with merchant vessels requires repeatedly moving slowly along a predictable route for sustained periods. Mobility and speed are two of a warship's main strengths.

The extreme narrowness of the strait right next to so much enemy-controlled shoreline is a unique problem. All of the destroyers and frigates from all the world's navies combined couldn't sustain protecting the massive number of merchant vessels wishing to transit the Strait of Hormuz on a daily basis.

by overfeed4 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

> Transiting by themselves is a lot different than escorting merchant vessels

The second crossing was conformed to be such an escort mission. They shot down everything Iran threw at them, but the cost assymetry still holds.

> All of the destroyers and frigates from all the world's navies combined couldn't sustain protecting the massive number of merchant vessels wishing to transit the Strait of Hormuz on a daily basis.

My point exactly: the argument that the "US Navy isn't as large as it used to be" is moot

by michaelt7 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

Ships don’t need escort services because you don’t give command of oil tankers to risk taking thrill seekers. And insurance isn’t enough when the captain is literally on the ship, potentially getting killed.

Ships need a robust, sustained ceasefire.

by infamia7 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

Warships vs. insurers willing to underwrite a policy for merchant vessels to transit are definitely two very different things. The Iranian Government has a much higher pain threshold/resolve than Trump, but they're also in a lot more pain with the Gulf of Oman closed. Both sides are losing, who will get tired of it first?