What if the U.S. Navy Had to "Open" the Strait of Hormuz by Force?

By Kris Osborn, Warrior

Iranian mines, small boats and ballistic missiles are now cited as one of many reasons the U.S. should not seek to “attack” or “seize” islands or coastal territory in the Strait of Hormuz. 

Americans remember Iraq and Afghanistan and have little tolerance for casualties or a prolonged ground-conflict engagement, yet there might be realistic military options through which the U.S. Navy could strike and forcibly open the Strait of Hormuz quickly through a focused, lethal, multi-domain amphibious operation. The Iranians are aware of U.S. military history as well, and they may simply be using "time" itself as a weapon of war, with the idea being to simply “survive” long enough to outlast an American military campaign by prolonging the conflict. The intent here would be to further strain and erode U.S. political support for the war effort and, in effect, force the U.S. out prior to achieving victory by helping to cause domestic political upheaval and unrest within the U.S. 

This circumstance, coupled with the economic necessity of opening the Strait, could well lead the Trump administration to see the racial value in a massive, quick and lethal amphibious military operation to “open the Strait.” 

Iran’s arsenal has been massively degraded, and if a combination of joint attack assets were integrated for a targeted island-seizure or coastal operation, then it seems realistic that a short, precise U.S. military attack operation might be able to quickly open the Strait of Hormuz.  A-10s have been patrolling and destroying Iranian small boats from the air, fixed wing aircraft such as fighter jets and B-2 and B1-B bombers have been destroying Iranian assets, weapons and stockpiles along the coast of the Strait of Hormuz, and U.S. Navy ships could deploy mine-detecting drone and laser technology to help “clear” water columns for assault. Any amphibious landing would likely begin with unmanned boats and drones to clear mines, identify defenses and create a clear landing pathway to a beachhead. Arriving force would need organic, built-in, closer-range drone and missile defenses networked to protect advancing forces. 

Most of all, the kind of amphibious attack the U.S. Marine Corps might pursue would not look anything like a linear, mechanized Iwo Jima operation. Today’s Marine Corps is lighter, faster, more agile and more lethal. The more modern approach to amphibious attack is explained in the much discussed Corps strategy document called “Marine Corps Force Design 2030,” a text which called for a more expeditionary, agile, island-hopping kind of sea-land-air force fortified by networking, manned-unmanned systems teaming, ship-to-shore precision weapons

Why the USS Tripoli 

Now, the USS Tripoli is in theater with more than 2,200 Marines. Years ago, U.S. Navy weapons developers and planners envisioned the first two America-class amphibious assault ships as "aviation centric," meaning they were built without a well-deck and primarily engineered to support maritime air attack with the arriving F-35B and high-performing MV-22 Osprey.  

The third America-class Amphibious Assault Ship, the USS Bougainville, does bring back the well-deck and is expected to arrive this year, so elements of water-driven manned and unmanned amphibious attack are going nowhere.  Yet constructing new "aviation-centric" amphibs was all part of the initial conception of the ship class, as it sought to leverage breakthrough air attack technologies in the short term, without forsaking or ultimately compromising the core concept of ship-to-shore amphibious assault enabled by a well-deck. 

Therefore, both of the first two America-class ships, the USS America and the USS Tripoli, were built with extra deck and hangar space to transport high-value aircraft such as the then emerging F-35B and high-performing Osprey.  The USS Tripoli, in particular, was given structural reinforcement and special non-skid, heat-resistant deck coating to better support F-35B operations.  The USS America and USS Tripoli can each travel with as many as 20 F-35Bs and up to 12 Osprey tiltrotors, supported by UH-60 SeaHawk helicopters. 

Air Attack With Osprey

The Concepts of Operation supporting these ships seemed to focus on bringing 5th-Generation stealth air-attack capability to the realm of amphibious warfare and leverage the transport, speed and weapons delivery abilities of the Osprey.  Small infantry carriers, mortars and groups of combat-ready Marines can travel hundreds of miles in an Osprey to deliver supplies, conduct forward reconnaissance or even perform what's called Mounted Vertical Maneuver -- the ability to drop self-sustaining forces in behind enemy lines for short-term clandestine, high-risk combat, scouting or rescue missions.   The Osprey can travel faster than 200knots in airplane mode, yet hover and maneuver close to the ground with the agility of a helicopter....all while operating with a combat radius of 450 nautical miles. 

The USS Tripoli is traveling with more than 2,200 Marines, yet by itself the ship does not seem fully optimized for ship-to-shore watercraft-driven amphibious attack, as it has no well deck. However, the ship could unleash F-35B 5th-generation air attack from closer in to shore and transport combat units and weapons "by air" with the Osprey.  

Air-Surface Ocean Attack

Since well-decks exist to a sufficient degree with the existing WASP-class amphibs, the idea was to architect a new class of amphibs uniquely positioned to project power ... from the "air."  After all, prior to the F-35B, amphibious warfare commanders had "no" built-in, organic 5th-gen air support.  Close-in, organic 5th-generation air support provides an entirely new dimension of amphibious warfare, particularly given the stealth, weapons and drone-like surveillance capacity of the F-35B. The decision to send the USS Tripoli, given this aviation-centric advantages, may indicate that Pentagon planners see more tactical merit in taking islands and coastal areas along the Strait of Hormuz … from the air. Should Osprey aircraft carry Marines, supported by Army paratroopers, Apache helicopters and F-35Bs, it could make tactical sense to seize coastal or island areas without having to fight through mines and small boats on the surface. Perhaps once island or coastal territory was secured, then additional assets could arrive in a more secure way through amphibious landing. An air assault would enable attacking forces to simply "jump" over or "avoid" many sea mines and swarming boat attacks likely to greatly challenge any kind of amphibious landing.

With 5th-generation air support and ballistic missile protective cover provided by Aegis-enabled destroyers and cruisers, the USS Tripoli could be well positioned to "take" or "secure" areas of the Iranian coastline bordering the Strait of Hormuz. Both the A-10 and F-35 are designed to perform close-air-support, so arriving units would benefit from close-in air-to-ground attack.  Such an effort would be well fortified by U.S. Army 82nd Airborne paratroopers, Marines traveling in Ospreys and of course drones and fighter jets. 

An air-focused attack on the Iranian coastline makes tactical sense given that the U.S. already has air superiority over Iran and could use ship-based ballistic missile defenses to support arriving forces along the Iranian coastline. 

5th Gen Close Air Support 

The units would need very strong 5th-gen close-air-support to defend arriving forces, and the Marines and soldiers themselves would be well advised to operate with organic drone-defenses in the form of mobile EW systems or small-to-medium caliber transportable surface-to-air counter drone swarm defenses. This could be done with weapons  such as small arms using "proximity" fuses to blanket an area with explosive fire and "stop" or "destroy" groups of incoming drone swarm attacks.  One fast emerging Naval drone-defense effort involves the maritime use of a combat-proved counter-drone “drone” called the Coyote. The Raytheon weapon can launch from armored vehicles as a drone-missile able to destroy drone swarms by detonating with a proximity fuse to release explosive materials across an “area” and destroy many drones at once. 

Now, U.S. Navy warships operate with ship-mounted Coyote counter drone swarm technologies, something which gives depth to the service’s ship-based drone and missile defenses. Any amphibious forces attacking Iranian islands or coastal areas in the Strait of Hormuz would benefit from the protective envelope of Aegis radar, ship based integrated radar, command and control and fire control technology engineered to track and destroy incoming ballistic missiles. Aegis-capable destroyers could, for example, easily operate within the ranges needed to track and intercept or destroy Iranian missiles aimed at forces arriving on land.  Landing forces would also need organic, built-in drone defenses in the form of portable EW or counter-drone small arms able to track and shoot down Iranian drone attacks. Then, if a landing corridor were established, mobile Patriot batteries and other surface-to-air defenses could be fast-tracked to forces holding territory on the ground. 

Kris Osborn is the President of Warrior Maven – Center for Military Modernization. Osborn previously served at the Pentagon as a highly qualified expert in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army—Acquisition, Logistics & Technology. Osborn has also worked as an anchor and on-air military specialist at national TV networks. He has appeared as a guest military expert on Fox News, MSNBC, The Military Channel, and The History Channel. He also has a Masters Degree in Comparative Literature from Columbia University