
No civilian ship company, or their insurance companies, want to use their ships as minesweepers. No civilian mariner crew wants to be employed on any ship being used that way. Finding any willing would involve paying them well above the "going rate." The risks and costs to the shippers is prohibitive.
The alternative is for the US government to obtain several tanker hulls, put on military crews, and fill their holds with "floatation material"...like styrofoam, or "whatever." Then just run them through. They would set off all types of mines, not just contact ones. And tanker hulls are large enough to sustain multiple hits.
I looked up whether Iran has deployed mines. Literally side-by-side were headlines blaring that they have and have not. Since China's tankers are still going in and out, it looks like they've not yet, but when we threaten to escalate, one of their threatened retaliations is to mine. So, the current blockage is not actually mines. Iran is attacking all tanker traffic "allied to the US." Which is why China's tankers are still running. They are customers of Iran. As above, no civilian companies, mariners or insurers wish to be attacked by drone and missile swarms. So, none are running except China's. Unlike with mines, where the solution is government run tankers hulls, running such things through does not "clear" drones and missiles. It depleats their arsenal, but doesn't eliminate the threat with a few passes.
That's "where it's currently at."
Previous Message
This occurred to me in the 80s during the last attempt to block the Strait of Hormuz. Since the mines used were, according to press reports, primitive WWI-type tether mines, and not complicated magnetic or acoustic mines, why weren't the tankers and warships rigged up with paravane gear, which certainly was not high tech, and could be easily mass produced? It seems to me this would have been an uncomplicated, and fast solution.
Now we are faced with the same dilemma. Why not use paravanes? What am I missing?
Responses