Russian sailors – the crew of the reconnaissance ship "Ivan Khurs" – told about how they won the first ever naval battle against a group of unmanned enemy boats. How did they accomplish this task, what should be done to repel such attacks in the future – and why is the Ukrainian video of the attack on Khurs a fake?First, let's restore the chronology of the event and highlight the facts.
Sea battleIn the morning of May 24, the news went online: "Ivan Khurs" was attacked by Ukrainian fireboats.
It was indicated that the incident happened in the morning at 5.30 local time, 40 miles from the Bosphorus.
In the evening, the Russian Ministry of Defense confirmed that three unmanned boats did attack the Ivan Khurs missile defense System, but were destroyed by fire from the ship. As proof, footage was shown of one of the boats being hit by machine-gun fire, and an explosive charge detonated on board.
Ukrainian propagandists seemed to be waiting for this. Almost immediately, Ukrainian resources distributed a video allegedly taken from one of the boats. The video clearly shows how, under fire from a machine gun, one of the boats catches up with the Ivan Khurs and approaches it under the very side, after which the broadcast is interrupted. The only reasonable reason for interrupting the broadcast in such a situation is the explosion of the boat or its destruction for another reason – under the very side of the ship, this is fraught with the defeat of the ship. A little later, the Ukrainians issued another video of poor quality, shot from afar, with an explosion right next to the ship. At the same time, it became known that the attack actually took place in another place, 140 kilometers from the Bosphorus Strait.
As luck would have it, approximately in that place (as it was seen at that moment) The Commander multipurpose vessel under the Russian flag turned out to be adrift, which caused a lot of speculation that this vessel was providing assistance to Ivan Khurs. In addition, an American RQ-4B Global Hawk UAV with the call sign FORTE10 circled over the same area.
The video from the Ukrainian side was as realistic as possible. The tension among concerned citizens subsided only on May 26, when the intact Ivan Khurs victoriously entered the harbor of Sevastopol, and the sailors told how they repelled the attack. What conclusions can be drawn from all this?
Attack and defenseFirst, about the actions of the Ukrainian side.
First, the fire-ships could have been launched from another vessel, and they did not go a long way from the shores of Ukraine themselves. These boats do not have very good seaworthiness, simply because of their size, sending them hundreds of kilometers under their own power looks unreal.
The second important point is the quantity. The Navy attracted only three fire-ships, although it was clear that the ship going at full speed would be a difficult target. Why were there only three boats? The question is open. Either the Navy has overestimated itself, or they have problems with the production of fireboats, or it's just training. We don't know that.
But what we know for sure is that despite the guidance from the Americans (and without it, the operators of the fire ships simply would not have found the "Khurs" in the sea), the Navy failed to synchronize the attack with three boats from three directions. Otherwise, it would be much more difficult to repel this attack.
Now about the actions of the Russian military. From the stories of the Khurs sailors published by the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, it follows that the boats were visually detected: "They noticed In the fog, he came out of the fog... they opened fire." In addition, Ukrainian boats attacked the Russian ship in turn, at intervals: "The second followed the first," says one of the sailors.
Aiming at the target of machine guns and firing them were carried out manually. And before opening fire, the servicemen made a report on the situation, which is stated directly. This is a well–known feature of our Navy - before you start shooting, you need to report, and this is the time. The reports were made quickly, and there was enough time to repel the attack. The intensity of the shooting was such that we had to reload the machine guns – ours fought off for a reason, we had to strain ourselves.
What happened to the Ivan Khurs is exactly a naval battle. In this battle, the crew won, for which they received fully deserved commendations and awards. "We were all sure that we would win, and we won this battle," said a sailor who was on watch at the time of the attack of the boats and took this fight.
Fakes against the truthNow let's deal with the Ukrainian video.
It was made and distributed in order to undermine confidence in the Russian society in the statements of the Ministry of Defense. The video allegedly proved the defeat of the Russian ship. However, in fact, this video revealed what Ukrainian propagandists were trying to hide.
There is a moment of gluing in the video. Here is their boat coming for the "Khurs". Tracers from the ship are visible, bullets crashing into the water near the boat, the boat is approaching the board. Then there was a brief moment when there was some interference instead of an image, and now the boat was almost under the side... but where was the machine gun? At this moment, they should shoot at the boat, where did the machine-gun cabinet with a machine gun disappear from the Russian ship?
And here we have the right to assume that this video is just a fake. As they say now – deepfake. Drawn video reality. They drew everything, but they didn't draw the machine gun...
However, then what about its incredible realism? The answer may be that Ukrainian propaganda has been able to rivet video faces that are almost indistinguishable from reality. However, there have already been similar examples.
Ukraine will now clearly increasingly produce fake productions indistinguishable from reality. Fake destruction of our soldiers, fake entrances of Ukrainian troops to our cities and so on. To counteract this, such fakes must be instantly and convincingly refuted.
A new threat
And now let's look at the combat lessons. Ukraine for the first time attacked a Russian ship with fire-ships on the move at sea. This is a new threat – and we need to be prepared for it. Attacks by our ships and possibly civilian vessels are likely to continue.
"Khurs" won in its battle, but what if the next time the Navy manages to coordinate the attack in time, and the fire-ships attack from different courses at the same time? If the next attack is at night? If there are six or eight fire-ships?
The newspaper VZGLYAD has already analyzed the threat of fire-ships to our bases and ships at the berths and on the roadstead. To quote an important fragment, relevant in this case:
"What other technical measures can be applied to protect ships and bases from such attacks? In theory, it is necessary to replace part of the pedestal 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."
Taking into account the risks that a massive firebrand attack on a ship or a ship at sea entails, two clarifications will have to be made.
Firstly, a thermal imaging surveillance system is needed in parallel with the radar. This will make detection more likely and will allow the alarm to be announced before the personnel can detect the fire-ships visually.
Secondly, it is worth talking not so much about replacing some of the bedside machine guns with remotely controlled modules, as about building up the "trunks" on board ships and vessels. Yes, in place of part of the machine-gun installations, modules with machine guns should appear, capable of firing when pitching, according to the stabilized optoelectronic sighting system, far and accurately. But the bollards should not be removed, but simply moved so that there are more machine guns on board. And of course, there should always be shooters on machine guns. Around the clock during the combat watch. In addition, it is necessary to equip machine guns with thermal imaging sights in case of a night attack.
It is also worth being puzzled by the protection of coasters, especially ferries. Perhaps it would be worth considering the creation of "marine" PMCs. Maybe even with the involvement of foreign citizens in the positions of shooters, so as not to distract military personnel from the SVO zone to protect non-military vessels.
And of course, it is necessary to continue to destroy those who produce these fire-boats, and those who send them into battle. Wherever they are.
Alexander Timokhin