Hacker News Reader

Comment by cpgxiii | Hacker News Reader

There are a bunch of other problems with this comment, but this part in particular is laughably wrong.

> Our ships are designed to operate in the Pacific or North Atlantic, not the Persian Gulf.

Nearly every type of ship in the USN has spent considerable deployment time in the Persian Gulf. They are absolutely "designed" for deployment there. What "prevents" their deployment there is that it does not make tactical or strategic sense to put highly capable warships during a war in a tiny waterway when said warship is capable and effective at operating from outside said tiny waterway. Put a CBG in the Persian Gulf and it becomes just about as expensive to defend as an air base on land (much more so, given the logistics involved). That same CBG operating in the Indian Ocean against the same targets has tens of thousands of square miles in which to operate and avoid detection and attack, and never need to fire a missile in self-defense.

View on HN

In January 2026, the US Naval Institute wrote [1]:

> Rising ocean temperatures will change operating environments in every theater. But planning for specific effects requires first understanding the fundamental dynamics of warming seas. Two key indicators are the average sea surface temperature and the number of extreme-temperature sea surface events called marine heat waves.1 (See sidebar.)

> These conditions will affect four major aspects of Navy operations at sea: crew, equipment operability, ship maintenance, and environmental intelligence.

and (emphasis added)

> Carrier strike groups have reported environmental challenges while operating in the Arabian Gulf, Persian Gulf, and Gulf of Oman. Firsthand accounts from sailors describe crew members unable to stop sweating on the flight deck or in engineering spaces.

and

> As sea surface temperatures climb, ships will require more maintenance. Higher temperatures accelerate corrosion of ship hulls and ballast tanks and can lead to increased biofouling along the hull and in heat exchangers.

As for:

> That same CBG operating in the Indian Ocean against the same targets has tens of thousands of square miles in which to operate and avoid detection and attack, and never need to fire a missile in self-defense.

That's just another way of saying what I said: they can't operate at close range and must instead use stand off weapons instead of, say, gravity bombs. [1]: https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2026/january/navy...

"Crews can't stop sweating on the flight deck" is exactly like saying "the middle east is hot and people sweat in the sun there". It has very little to do with the ships and everything to do with a climate that is hot (which, rather obviously, effects almost everyone in the region). If you want an actual example of a meaningful operational problem cause by a warship not suited to operations in hot waters, see the Type 45 (and even that is finally being fixed).

> That's just another way of saying what I said: they can't operate at close range and must instead use stand off weapons instead of, say, gravity bombs.

It really isn't. Outside of rare cases where mid-air refueling is unavailable, standoff weapons are used to reduce exposure to enemy air defense, not to increase range. Your airwing uses exactly the same gravity bombs to strike a target 10 miles from the carrier as they do at 50 miles or 100 miles or 200 miles.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com