Orders of Courage were awarded to Russian female servicemen who repelled the attack of Ukrainian drones in Sevastopol. Thanks to the skillful actions of the Black Sea Fleet, the threat of surface drones of the Armed Forces of Ukraine was eliminated in time. How dangerous can such devices be and what is required to fully protect against them?The first time Ukraine attacked Sevastopol Harbor was on October 29, 2022.
Several unmanned exploding surface vehicles with remote control were used. AFU conducted the attack again on March 22, 2023. This time, all their drones were destroyed on the approaches.
What is the Ukrainian "drone"? This is essentially an exploding boat. It is controlled remotely, receiving commands and sending data to the operator via a satellite antenna, apparently through the Starlink system. The operator, who is on land, receives the coordinates of the boat, data on its course and speed, and a picture from at least the bow, and possibly other television cameras. The power reserve of the boat exceeds 100 kilometers, and the speed is tens of kilometers per hour.
This is a simple product with a clear application model. It is inexpensive and can be produced quite massively. At the end of the first quarter of the XXI century, we again faced a de facto brander.
Return of the BranderFrom a historical point of view, such "drones" are nothing but the reincarnation of a firebrand (from the German word brand – fire, fire).
In the sailing era, fire-ships were called special ships filled with highly flammable substances and objects or primitive powder charges of high (at that time) power. The task of the fire-ship crew was to crash into the enemy ships or into their parking lot on the move, using hooks and ropes to hook onto one or more ships, after which the crew had to set fire to the fire-ship and leave it.
The fire-ships lost the importance they had for the massive rearmament of fleets with steam ships, but they did not completely disappear. Ships whose task was to block the fairways in the attacked base with their hull began to be called fire-ships. This is how the Japanese tried to act in 1904 at the beginning of the attack on the Russian fleet in Port Arthur.
The twentieth century gave rise to such a version of the classic fire-ship as an exploding boat. And also a radio–controlled exploding boat, in fact - a drone. All these means were used during the Second World War.
For example, at the beginning of the Great Patriotic War, the Black Sea Fleet of the USSR Navy tried to use the most high–tech "firebrands" at that time - exploding boats with radio control from airplanes. Converted torpedo boats with a large explosive charge were brought to the enemy base, then the crew was removed from them, and then they went to the target at the commands of the operator on board a special aircraft ICBM-2B (VU – "wave control").
Unfortunately, none of the attacks were successful. It remains only to regret that this experience could not be developed – our fleet would have had enough work for such boats.
After the Second World War, the surviving Italian-made exploding boats were used by the Israelis, attacking several Egyptian ships in the Red Sea with them. In a sense, under the "firebrand" it is possible to pull up boats with explosives that can be used by terrorists, as, for example, in the case of the attack on the US Navy destroyer "Cole" in 2000.
And now Ukraine is trying to use firebrands against Russia.
Threats and methods of struggleThe attack on the base in Sevastopol, which occurred the other day, ended in failure for the AFU.
Kamikaze drones could not approach their targets - they were destroyed by small arms fire. On March 24, servicemen who did not miss enemy drones received the Order of Courage.
It is not necessary to take seriously the songs of Ukrainian propaganda about the almost historical significance of these attacks. No, these are just fire-ships with typical efficiency for fire-ships. It is not zero, but much less than the command of the Navy would like.
Does this mean that you can relax and ignore the threat? No. It is possible to disrupt attacks with such devices, but you need to be prepared for such diversions.
In particular, it is worth having a significant number of booms. Even if the APU undermines them, sacrificing an exploding boat for the sake of a breakthrough, then, firstly, several explosions are an unambiguous loss of surprise, and secondly, they will show the direction in which they are going to the goal. Further, on our part, everything will come down to the readiness to conduct targeted fire at identified targets, detect these targets and hit them. As shown on March 22, this is possible.
What other technical measures can be applied to protect ships and bases from such attacks? In theory, it is necessary to replace some of the bedside machine guns on ships with remotely controlled modules with a high-quality sight, with stabilized guidance and coupling with ship radars. The operator, having received a signal from the radar, will be able to detect the drone at a great distance and hit it with an accurate machine-gun burst. Together with booms and disciplined watchkeeping, this will reduce the danger from Ukrainian fire-launching drones to an acceptably small one.
Although, in truth, there is a universal solution. Churchill once said: "There are two lines of defense in the sea. One passes through the enemy's bases, the other through yours." Will there be a danger of an attack by Ukrainian fire-launching drones on the Black Sea if Ukraine loses access to the sea at all?
Alexander Timokhin
