• sodium_nitride [she/her, any]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    46
    ·
    2 days ago

    The only immediate solution to this spiraling crisis, according to oil executives, market analysts and diplomats, is a US Navy escort operation – something Trump promised last week would be available to protect shipping assets in short order.

    Lmao, I have not seen anything come out about an energy ration. Even in the time of crisis libs and caps can’t imagine not consooooooming

    • fox [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      43
      ·
      2 days ago

      If they tried to enforce an energy ration they’d immediately lose all of the squealing hogs who’d start pumping gas into their truck beds and lighting it on fire in protest

        • fox [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          32
          ·
          2 days ago

          You think those trucks were bought in cash? It’s the 21st century, we finance that shit. Need to roll coal in protest of energy rationing, you put split that three ways on your McDonalds credit card, your Amazon credit card, and barter with the cashier for ammunition or deer pelts

  • AernaLingus [any]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    50
    ·
    2 days ago

    As the conflict with Iran intensifies, the world’s energy arteries are constricting to a point of “nonlinearity,” where every day the Strait of Hormuz remains closed doesn’t just double the economic pain — it multiplies it exponentially.

    the math understander has logged on

  • D61 [any]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    56
    ·
    2 days ago

    The only immediate solution to this spiraling crisis, according to oil executives, market analysts and diplomats, is a US Navy escort operation – something Trump promised last week would be available to protect shipping assets in short order.

    “This is a matter that is being studied very closely by the military and discussed constantly,” a senior administration official told CNN.  “A lot of progress has been made in coming up with a plan that can do exactly what the president has suggested.”

    Step 1: Start war.

    Step 2: Plan for the war.

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmygrad.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      41
      ·
      2 days ago

      They also avoid discussing the elephant in the room which is the cost of these escorts. Running a bunch of war ships back and forth and using multi-million dollar interceptors would result in this oil being worth more than gold, and that’s assuming they can even guarantee passage. The math here doesn’t work.

      • AnarchoAnarchist [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        30
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        It also increases the burn rate on interceptor stockpiles.

        The US has two carrier task forces, and I think they’re sending a third, to the region. You’re talking about 11 to 15 destroyers In the area and iirc 3 littoral (edit) combat ships. which probably is not enough for this plan. They need to keep a few of those escorts near the carriers, 2 to 4 depending on how aggressive the Iranians are targeting them. At any given time a few of them are going to need replenishment and rearming of they are seeing persistent attacks. That only leaves a handful, to go back and forth through Hormuz, shooting $1,000,000 interceptors at $1,000 drones until their launchers run dry.

        And that’s even before we think about what Iran could do in retaliation to arleigh Burke class destroyers going through the strait. If they actually mine the strait of Hormuz, an already catastrophic situation gets even worse. At least Chinese owned and operated ships, seem to be able to make it through, a few other ships have snuck through at night by turning off all of their radio equipment. But as soon as Iran drops a single mine, nobody’s going to want to risk it.

        • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmygrad.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          29
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          Yeah, it’s unworkable, these ships can carry a limited number of munitions. And once they go through them, then they have to sail to a friendly port to restock, and then come back. And all that assuming that they can even survive the trip at all. The most likely scenario is that their defenses would be quickly overwhelmed, and they never make it through the strait.

            • thethirdgracchi [he/him, they/them]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              17
              ·
              2 days ago

              through the Suez

              damn, sure would be unfortunate if a plucky little group of chill guys decided to block the other strait that allows access to the Suez from the Gulf… nah that’d never happen, that’s too crazy

              • That’s like a 2-day trip, isn’t it?

                In a best case for the US:

                According to Google, you’re looking at over 1500 mi (assume 400 mi off the coast of Oman, and a straight line to Diego Garcia). if you’re going at 30 knots, which would almost be redlining their engine the entire way burning an ungodly amount of fuel, you’re talking about 40 hours of travel time. Even if it only takes 16 hours to refuel and rearm, which is impossibly fast, every time a ship has to leave the theater it’s gone for at least 4 days.

                More realistically:

                2,000 mi at 20 knots, which is a more realistic, is 4 days and 4 hours of travel one way.

                AB destroyers have at least 90 VLS cells, assume only half of those are anti-air missiles. Google says about a half hour to load each VLS, which means you’re talking at least 24 hours to rearm. If they pack the ship to the gills with anti-air missiles, it’s more like 48 hours.

                So you’re talking about 11 days to leave their formation, rearm, and get back.

                Most realistically:

                The US Navy has already said that they are not going to be escorting ships through Hormuz anytime soon, because even the most brain dead us admiral can do basic math. If you have 15 destroyers, you need to leave 2 or 3 fully armed with each carrier, that leaves 9 or 11 to run escort duty. If 1/3 of them are either going to rearm or coming back, that leaves six or eight to actually escort tankers. Six destroyers 20 miles apart. Could cover the whole straight, with one or two ships patrolling in between, but that still leaves massive gaps. Perfect for UAV, USV, UUVs to slip through.

                To paraphrase the IRA: to pull this off the United States Navy would have to be lucky every single time, Iran only needs to get lucky once, in order to stop practically every tanker from taking the risk even with US Navy escorts. Not to mention the fact, that those destroyers would be sitting ducks the entire time.

            • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmygrad.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              1 day ago

              US Navy have 14 Lewis and Clark-class dry cargo ships for large scale munition replenishment, those would need to be escorted too, and they would need to have ammo to replenish, and US already burned through quite a bit of their stock in war against Yemen.

            • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmygrad.mlOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              2 days ago

              As far as I know they need to dock, but resupplying at sea wouldn’t really change the overall dynamic that much. You’d still need ships constantly going back and forth to get these resupplies. And the resupplies themselves have to come from somewhere too. Given what we’re reading about existing stocks, it doesn’t sound like that would be sustainable for long.

        • miz [any, any]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          literal combat ships

          littoral? not trying to be annoying, but it reads differently if you meant literal

    • CyborgMarx [any, any]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      38
      ·
      2 days ago

      The only immediate solution to this spiraling crisis, according to oil executives, market analysts and diplomats, is a US Navy escort operation

      These dipshits are gonna get a Navy ship sunk lmao

    • Beaver [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 days ago

      All of Trump’s talk about blockade running has gotta have the US Navy sweating. As we’ve seen in the Black Sea and Red Sea, the current paradigm of warfare is not favorable for surface vessels operating near enemy shores.

  • Ildsaye [they/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    No mention that both could be avoided if all Epstein forces withdrew from the region and the entity was left to its self-made fate.