Tankers Attacked In Gulf: Price of Oil Up

#226
#226
ETV said:
The fact that the Iranians fired on our drone while unprovoked is alarming. They were up to something and not just routine patrols.
Click to expand...

You can't even type that with a straight face. You were probably giggling like a sissy before you hit "Post reply".
 
#230
#230
davethevol said:
Why can’t one of our NATO allies handle this? Doesn’t the UK have escort ships they could send that way?
Click to expand...

The UK only has 19 escorts and most of them are tied up tracking Russian subs and part of NATO task forces in the Baltic. The French are patrolling the pacific
 
#231
#231
Well, I am sure the mighty French navy strikes fear in the hearts of the arabs en masse. Fortunately, none of the arab states have a real navy. India, actually having an aircraft carrier, has got to be the strongest navy in the sandbox region, right? Those little fast boats are cute, and enough of them at once could probably really harrass our larger vessels if left alone, but I would bet that we have some Apache Longbows nearby, as well as competent ground attack aircraft like the super hornets on the carriers. Small boats are just like tanks to an attack chopper or aircraft...easy targets.

Most people dont realize how many ships are in a carrier battle group also. Its closer to 20 than 10 if memory serves. Including guided missile destroyers which would love to get some target practice. I have no desire to go to war with Iran, at all , but I also have zero confusion about how a naval conflict between US and pretty much anyone else in the world would go. I read something the other day that said technically, China has more naval vessels than we do now...but I dont think they are anywhere near as capable as ours, and i know they have zero experience since to my memory, China has never fought a naval battle in the last century or so....
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orange_Vol1321 and AM64
#232
#232
marcusluvsvols said:
Well, I am sure the mighty French navy strikes fear in the hearts of the arabs en masse. Fortunately, none of the arab states have a real navy. India, actually having an aircraft carrier, has got to be the strongest navy in the sandbox region, right? Those little fast boats are cute, and enough of them at once could probably really harrass our larger vessels if left alone, but I would bet that we have some Apache Longbows nearby, as well as competent ground attack aircraft like the super hornets on the carriers. Small boats are just like tanks to an attack chopper or aircraft...easy targets.

Most people dont realize how many ships are in a carrier battle group also. Its closer to 20 than 10 if memory serves. Including guided missile destroyers which would love to get some target practice. I have no desire to go to war with Iran, at all , but I also have zero confusion about how a naval conflict between US and pretty much anyone else in the world would go. I read something the other day that said technically, China has more naval vessels than we do now...but I dont think they are anywhere near as capable as ours, and i know they have zero experience since to my memory, China has never fought a naval battle in the last century or so....
Click to expand...

I think I'd be looking real hard at some form or attack helicopter with anti-ship missiles. They'd be sitting ducks against a lot of militaries, but they could still maneuver and get somewhere faster than a surface ship, and might do well in an escort role. It might be a case for drones, too. Not a place to put all your eggs in one basket, but a force multiplier in some circumstances when other or maybe even better options are limited or just not available.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols
#233
#233
The objective has been fulfilled, gas prices are up. Why go to war over what most of the players are wanting, anyway.

Another observation, these missles/mines/bombs were apparently set higher up on the ship, which seems to suggest they weren't intended to be sunk. If the objective by whoever perpetrated it was war, the damage would be worse, or inflicted on a military target. I still don't see how these attacks would serve Iran's interest, though.
 
#234
#234
Stew Cook said:
The objective has been fulfilled, gas prices are up. Why go to war over what most of the players are wanting, anyway.

Another observation, these missles/mines/bombs were apparently set higher up on the ship, which seems to suggest they weren't intended to be sunk. If the objective by whoever perpetrated it was war, the damage would be worse, or inflicted on a military target. I still don't see how these attacks would serve Iran's interest, though.
Click to expand...

Possibly, but any time you start a fire on something carrying highly flammable material, it's iffy.

I agree the list of characters who want to see higher oil prices is long and hardly distinguished.
 
#235
#235
davethevol said:
They should show the boat leaving and returning to Iran’s base. That would do wonders for everyone on the fence such as myself.
Click to expand...

They should at least have video of where the boat went after leaving the tanker. As a matter of fact they should still have eyes on it. There's something amiss with our story here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: davethevol
#238
#238
AM64 said:
Possibly, but any time you start a fire on something carrying highly flammable material, it's iffy.

I agree the list of characters who want to see higher oil prices is long and hardly distinguished.
Click to expand...

True that.. It just seems odd to risk exposure setting a bomb up high like that
 
#239
#239
Rasputin_Vol said:
It makes no sense for Iran to suddenly be provocative now that US naval assets have moved into the area. Nor would it make sense for them to damage a Japanese commercial vessel while the Japanese are in Tehran cutting deals.
Click to expand...

This is a plausible theory.

 
#240
#240
carlos86 said:
I talked to a Navy friend. He told me that CENTCOM is trying to figure out how to escort the tankers out of the gulf. But here is the kicker. The navy doesn’t have enough escort ships so they are going to end up pealing off the carrier escorts. But even if they do that they won’t enough escorts. The Navy is unprepared for this scenario because they don’t have anymore frigates in service.
Click to expand...

The Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) design was for this specific environment, but not sure in an escort role. There are currently 16 commissioned, but the program has been very problematic with the interchangeable mission modules. "Modules include Anti-submarine warfare (ASW), mine countermeasures (MCM), surface warfare (SUW), and special warfare missions" (source Wikipedia). I have no idea if the they would be combat effective
and self supportive, but we spent a massive amount of money on the program.

Littoral combat ship - Wikipedia
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#241
#241
carlos86 said:
I talked to a Navy friend. He told me that CENTCOM is trying to figure out how to escort the tankers out of the gulf. But here is the kicker. The navy doesn’t have enough escort ships so they are going to end up pealing off the carrier escorts. But even if they do that they won’t enough escorts. The Navy is unprepared for this scenario because they don’t have anymore frigates in service.
Click to expand...

Buy more ships????
 
#242
#242
Orangeburst65 said:
The Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) design was for this specific environment, but not sure in an escort role. There are currently 16 commissioned, but the program has been very problematic with the interchangeable mission modules. "Modules include Anti-submarine warfare (ASW), mine countermeasures (MCM), surface warfare (SUW), and special warfare missions" (source Wikipedia). I have no idea if the they would be combat effective
and self supportive, but we spent a massive amount of money on the program.

Littoral combat ship - Wikipedia
Click to expand...

The LCS never lived up to its expectations. I think the Navy only ordered 15 and now they are going back to frigates.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#243
#243
T-TownVol said:
Buy more ships????
Click to expand...

The one thing I agreed with Trump about for different reasons was that the navy needed to increase in size. He hasn’t lived up to that promised but it would have been easy to accomplish by just bringing ships that are in the mothball fleet back active temporarily until they can be replaced by newer ships.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols, T-TownVol and AM64
#246
#246
carlos86 said:
The one thing I agreed with Trump about for different reasons was that the navy needed to increase in size. He has lived up to that promised but it would have been easy to accomplish by just bringing ships that are in the mothball fleet back active temporarily until they can be replaced by newer ships.
Click to expand...
Not enough costly manpower. Gonna take years and have to construct new ships with less personnel, like the LCS. Unfortunately seakeeping and battle damage control may be issues. USN procurement the last 20 years has been a cluster. $13 Billion for the Ford is ridiculous, and they are trying to shave off like 1000 personnel from the Nimitz design requirement. The $22 billion Zumwalt class was another overpriced disaster with 155mm guns that are cost prohibitive to use with like $1 million shells, and now only 3 will be built. $22 Billion for (3) destroyers, although they are huge.

About the only thing they have done right are the Virginia subs and Arleigh Burke updates and procurement.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols and AM64
#247
#247
Orange_Vol1321 said:
The boat next to the tanker is definitely a Iran fast attack boat.

If they have drone footage of all of this I would suggest them releasing it. I'd still like to know what Feinstein is talking to them on the phone about weeks ago or why Kerry continues to wine and dine them. When we know that and stuff like this happens it looks fishy.
Click to expand...
The video of the boat by the tanker is most likely mid wave IR imagery from the MQ-9.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols
#250
#250
Rasputin_Vol said:
It wouldn't be to hard for the CIA or other parties to fashion up a similar vessel.

It makes no sense for Iran to suddenly be provocative now that US naval assets have moved into the area. Nor would it make sense for them to damage a Japanese commercial vessel while the Japanese are in Tehran cutting deals.
Click to expand...

Honestly, this sounds like something from the Q thread or a twitter post in the Q thread. But they will say it’s the deep state actors embedded in the CIA. Just sayin...
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top