The Strait of Hormuz is just 35 miles wide, but before the war began, a quarter of the world’s seaborne oil and one-fifth of its gas traversed through the waterway. The choking off of that supply is creating economic shocks around the world. Even nations not heavily dependent on Gulf oil and gas are contending with the consequences.
International oil prices are at their highest levels in years. L.N.G. prices have soared. Rising jet fuel costs are causing flight cancellations. From Tokyo to Vancouver, driving has become considerably more expensive. In Bangladesh, garment factories have begun to sit idle. In Pakistan, the government has established statewide school closures to conserve power.
The price shock is depleting foreign currency reserves and stoking inflation in nations already struggling with rising costs.
Experts have called the current situation a “systemic collapse” of the energy security era established in the 20th century… [end quote]
An irrelevant statistic. The two shipping lanes are two miles wide
Total Width vs. Shipping Lanes: While the Strait is about 21 to 35 miles wide at its narrowest point (depending on the exact point of measurement), the navigable shipping lanes are significantly narrower.
Traffic Separation Scheme (TSS): To manage traffic and prevent collisions, vessels use a strict TSS. There are two, two-mile-wide lanes—one for inbound traffic and one for outbound—separated by a two-mile-wide buffer zone.
Total Navigable Corridor: The designated, safe shipping channels comprise a narrow corridor, often described as only a few miles across in each direction, situated largely between Omani and Iranian territorial waters.
U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) (.gov)
The Captain
was a consultant to the Venezuelan Instituto Nacional de Canalizaciones that maintains ports and shipping lanes.
It becomes quite relevant when you are targeting shipping with drones, and when you are requiring military escorts, and when there are or may be mines laid in the main channel - all of which are true in this situation.
Simple fact is there is no way to insure easy passage through this strait; we don’t have enough anti-drone missiles to make it worthwhile given the prodigious numbers of Shaheds that Iran has. Accompanying with military escort is fine in the vast ocean where your convoy can take any one of a dozen routes; not nearly ans effective in a narrow, pre-defined shipping channel. And running an escort has to be very slow and methodical if there are mines laid, which means you can traverse at less than 25% of normal speed - again making fat targets for the drones.
There are four basic kinds of mines and Iran, even without a Navy, could deploy many of them off of small fishing boats. You don’t have to put out hundreds; a few dozen would do for its discouragement effect on the insurance companies who decide if ships will pass.
And now Iran is giving a hall pass to certain tankers but not to others, what’s “our” response? Tell them they can’t pass either? After we’ve given a $15 billion pass to their already embargoed carriers? After we’ve removed sanctions from Russian oil? Blow up one or two of them because “manly man”?
Yeah, this is the tar baby, which is why the administration is now so desperate for “a deal”; people need to fill their cars. Aircraft need to fill the tanks. Trucks need to roll. Ho ho ho, he’s really stepped in it this time.
Yes, the U.S. has developed the Low-cost Uncrewed Combat Attack System (LUCAS), a superior, lower-cost alternative to the Iranian Shahed-136, specifically to counter its effectiveness. Estimated at $\sim$$35,000, LUCAS is faster, more precise, and uses advanced AI targeting (visual object recognition) over GPS.
[image]Phenomenal World +2
U.S. vs. Shahed-136 Comparison
Performance: LUCAS (US) offers higher precision than the Shahed-136, with superior navigation (AI/vision-based vs. static GPS) and, in many cases, multi-purpose modularity (acting as a sensor or jammer).
[image]Phenomenal World +1
Cost: While Shaheds are roughly $20k–$50k, the US adapted its manufacturing to produce the LUCAS at competitive price points (approx. $35k) while offering better technology.
[image]NPR +2
Role: LUCAS is designed for “kamikaze” strikes to win the war of attrition, allowing the U.S. to stop relying on million-dollar interceptors like the PATRIOT to take down cheap drones.
[image]Defense Security Monitor +1
The U.S. previously relied on far more expensive defense technologies (e.g., Coyote systems at $\sim$$126k+) to fight the low-cost Iranian drones. The LUCAS program enables the US to match Iranian volume with higher quality at a similar price.
As of March 2026, the U.S. military has a relatively small, growing inventory of LUCAS (Low-cost Uncrewed Combat Attack System) drones, described as being in “the dozens” rather than thousands. While not yet in full-rate production, these $35,000, Iranian-modeled, one-way attack drones are being deployed by CENTCOM for rapid, cost-effective combat strikes.
[image]centcom (.mil) +3
Key Details on LUCAS Drone Inventory and Deployment:
Production Status: Production is ramping up, but the current, early-stage stockpile meant officials “shipped what we had” to the Middle East, according to DefenseScoop.
[image]DefenseScoop
Combat Debut: CENTCOM confirmed the first combat use of LUCAS drones by the specialized Task Force Scorpion Strike in the Middle East.
[image]Fortune
Capabilities: Manufactured by SpektreWorks, these long-range, autonomous drones have a range of roughly 500 miles (approx.
[image]
[image]
).
[image]Wikipedia +1
Strategic Goal: The U.S. is adopting these to move away from using million-dollar missiles on low-cost targets, utilizing them for “drone dominance” under the Defense One reports.
[image]Defense One +3
While the immediate number is small, the U.S. is rapidly expanding its “one-way attack” arsenal, accelerating the acquisition of these drones to strengthen its position in DefenseScoop operations.
The US and Iran are in negotiations. The Iranians said no to us and offered five points for their terms. It was public as they denied talking to us. I do not know which is worse. But it is something else when you think the enemy is more honest.
Meanwhile we are now beginning this war. The fireworks are over, the boots will land. Terrible. We feel ashamed, but this war was going to happen. Better on our terms.
Yes, the U.S. Low-Cost Uncrewed Combat Attack System (LUCAS) drones are designed to counter enemy threats by operating as a low-cost, swarming, one-way attack system. Reverse-engineered from Iranian Shahed-136 drones, they are used to neutralize targets, including other drones. They are specifically employed to combat Iran’s drone usage at a low cost.
They are “anti-drone” in the same way as they are “anti-factory” or “anti-swimming pool”. They are NOT designed, nor can they intercept drones which are already fired. They can, like any other one-way system (artillery, missile, etc) be fired at known and stable targets. They cannot be used to “shoot down” other drones.
No, the [LUCAS] is not an anti-drone system designed to shoot down other drones. Instead, it is a low-cost, one-way "kamikaze" attack drone used by the U.S. military to destroy targets, similar to Iran's Shahed-136, intended to overwhelm enemy air defenses through high-volume, "affordable mass" strikes.
Wow. “Dozens”. Well that’s certainly going to scare the Iranians. It only goes to show what many of us have been saying for years ; the Pentagon is incapable of change, except under duress*. Drones aren’t big, they aren’t shiny, and nobody could see the future in spite of the fact that they have been significant in Ukraine since 2014. Yes, a dozen years. And now, grossly belatedly, we call for help from Ukraine on “Hey, tell us about this drone thing” and we send, oh, “dozens” to the Hormuz Strait, where they will be all but useless in trying to open it up to shipping.
*At the beginning of World War II, it was battleships, not aircraft carriers that got you promoted. Billy Mitchell tried to get the War Department to pay attention to bombing, but lost that fight, too. In the 1970s we were “counting bodies” in Vietnam rather than doing anything strategic. The only success we have had since the 1940’s was in Iraq 1, and that was a conventional style war with tanks and air power. We’ve learned nothing since, apparently.
