2026 Iran War Strategy and Analysis
- Thread starter plawolf
- Start date
2/3 implications you somehow threw in are false and worse.
First is *maybe*, we don't know. Now these forces are PoWs.
Second is ridiculous - gun is the instrument for the situation, ASCM is instrument to get civilians killed and property - destroyed.
Third one is just baseless. They absolutely do.
It's not the 19th century anymore, gun isn't even remotely the instrument of choice because if you have to sail up to within 1 nautical mile to interdict a ship and you only got 1-2 DDG in region you aren't interdicting any ship even if you maintain 30 knots. You either use helicopters or you use ASMs, if you can't do the former because of resistance and can't afford the latter, don't pretend to be a naval power.
Do you realize while they were doing 19th century gun fight with this ship, another Iranian tanker sailed right by? They don't even have enough ships to interdict Iranian ships in the same 5 mile area.
19th century, not 19th century, blockade is maintained, and there is absolutely nothing the tanker crew can do.
Assault helicopter is supremely vulnerable to ambush; you will easily get more KIA(or, worse, POW) in one ambush than the entire war produced for the US.
Sometimes I think people who use AI are insufferable. More insufferable are probably people who don't even do that, yet post.
There is well over a dozen US destroyers deployed to the region.
First of all, you do - the ocean is big, the route to East Asia is long. Venezuela tried mass breakouts - nothing reached its destination.
Moreover, tankers aren't exactly an infinite resource for Iran, nor are people stupid enough to gift their money to the US.
This, btw, is a warcrime. While the US does it all the time recently, in this case, it's a legal blockade.
There are more than enough ASCMs to attack all these ships; they are not some special or scarce resource. It'll just be lots of disproportional armed attacks against civilian vessels with civilian deaths, during peace negotiations.
Then get your oil by some other means, because the naval power pretender is still there. Unlike actual naval powers.
Link, please.
- You do realize when you asked AI how many destroyers are in the region, it tells you DDGs attached to CSGs including ones off the coast of Africa right now and ones in the Red Sea. But yeah why don't you take CSG DDGs off position to chase 24 knots tankers while going at 30 knots and see how many drones make it to the carrier.
- Route to East Asia is long but route to a random ship parked off the coast of Pakistan to do ship to ship transfer isn't
- Let's not pretend Americans care about warcrime okay, let's not insult everyone's intellgence.
Why don't you go ask your AI how many Burkes still have Harpoons on them, then ask it how many have NSMs which were suppose to replace Harpoons, yeah, that's your actual answer. Don't pretend to be a naval power if you only got helicopters and guns buddy.
How about you start following some actual primiary sources instead of just asking AI.
Meanwhile....
Maersk VLCTs? This is not a speed your average loaded tanker goes at.
For now, they did. This is a very unpopular war.
Light ASCMs on ships aren't fleets' primary means of attacking ships in the first place? They serve more or less the same role as torpedo tubes did in the past.
There are multiple flat decks in the region, each of which can deliver more harpoons than the entire Burke fl.I fleet. Or LRASMs. Or JSOW Cs. Or, or, or. If that is not enough, P-8s operating over the region are ASCM capable (up to 4 LRASM each).
Not enough? There is Diego Garcia right by. Its bomber force constites USAF's primary anti-shipping platforms: part of the B-52 fleet(Harpoon capable; not there, but can be); all B-1 force (LRASM carriers).
Still not enough? Tankers don't really fight back (and not like Iran has shown much capability to fight back v air targets, regardless). JDAMs work just fine.
Furthermore, US destroyers landed their Harpoons not because of some act of sabotage, they landed them in the early 2000s when SM-2MRs with double seeker arrived. These delivered the same OtH range as Harpoon in the first place in a limited swing role capability.
Now, US destroyers come equipped with SM-6s featuring a proper ARH seeker, which is perfectly suitable for attacking shipping over the horizon. Last step happens right about now, as SM-6 IB with multipurpose heavy warhead (more or less comparable to your usual ligh ASCM) comes online.
There's frequently this weird idea that the USN abandoned Harpoons on their destroyers as something consequential. When they're largely a weapon without a clear role, stuck on early destroyers as a legacy of another era.
Still not enough?
Currently delivered Block Va Tomahawks, which have just debuted in Iran, are called MSTs, or Maritime Strike Tomahawk. Do you have any ideas what it can mean?
If you seriously think USN has no ASuW firepower, that's fine, just please keep clear of any planning. US has a [certain] trouble with small swarming targets in the congested environment of Hormuz, if they're covered by IADs from the shore and AA FACs. Beyond that, it's a usual blue water theater, and there it's absolutely one sided.
Last edited:
Yeah and you can also nuke the ships or storm them with multiple helicopters and eat the loses. As I said pretty moot if you either can't afford to use those because your production is so low you have to save them for other fights, or you can't afford to lose jets flying next to Iranian coast.
And stop pretending its because US cares about war crimes okay, nobody believes it and it's really not helping your case.
Let me expand my statement a bit: if you don't have enough industrial capacity to use things or lose things, don't even pretend to be a global military power, because that's how you get into a situation where even New York Times is using Iran as a cope for how Taiwan could emulate Iran.
Last edited:
Are you saying if you are not willing to nuke a cargo ship running a blockade....you aren't a global power? That is...some logic for sure...
Guns are absolutely a viable tool for these kinds of missions, you aren't trying to obliterate the ship in question.
To flip your premise, why even have a naval gun at all, if you just want to use missiles for everything? Might as well just get rid of it since you're never getting in firing range anyway right?
You know you can just look at Iran on how you do a modern naval blockade, notice they don't even need ships and they can actually afford to use their missiles? Oh and if you follow TankerTracker, you might also notice Iran's blockade actually works.
Modern naval guns primary role is incoming missile and boat defence, you don't actually believe any modern warship expect to use their naval gun for offensive action do you? If you do why not use bigger calibre, you know, because armor, lol
Then again, Burke was designed in the 1970s so calling it modern is debatable.
Isn't having US special forces board and seize tanker ships is super risky. Who is to say these Iranian tankers don't have secret pop-up MANPADS or ship-based SHORADs to blow up these incoming US helicopters or small boats? Who is the say these Iranian tankers aren't booby-traped like crazy or set-up with IRGC special forces onboard that can lay an ambush? This pushes it to Close quarter combat really equalizes the two militaries and reduces US airpower/firepower/tech advantage.