Attack on tankers. Will the current incident be a “new Tonkin”?
We are about explosions, about fires have composed a TASS note ...
History with four tankers (Saudi Al Marzoqah and Amjad, UAE A. Michel and Norwegian Andrea Victory), undermined by 12 in May near the territorial waters of the United Arab Emirates to the east of the Emirate of Fujairah, unexpectedly received its continuation. Now there were two tankers, and they were attacked in the Strait of Hormuz, and in the territorial waters of Iran, where most of the shipping routes, fairways, pass in both directions.
And if the last time the unknown attacked carefully, as if for a warning, then this time everything turned out differently. Then the underwater parts of the tankers were pierced by mines in the area of the waterline or slightly lower than it, but in the aft part, where the engine rooms of the ships, but not the oil Tanks. That is, undermining could cause flooding of the engine room, immobilization of the vessel, but not leakage and fire of oil products. And this time, on June 13, both ships were attacked approximately in the middle of the hull, in the area of the tanks, and both went into the cargo. Front Altair, under the “convenient” flag of the Marshall Islands, came with the UAE with ligroin, and Kokuka Courageous under the no less “convenient” flag of Panama came from KSA with a load of methanol.
The explosions caused fires, the crews could not cope with the damage, and they were evacuated by the Iranians (44 man, among the crew of one of the tankers 10 of our compatriots). True, then there were reports that the American destroyer BROANBRID was in charge of rescuing one of the ships, Kokuka Courageous, perhaps the crew had not been evacuated from this ship, had not been completely evacuated, or had returned because the state of the ship did not inspire fear. But the shots of a strong fire aboard the second vessel, Front Altair, have flown around the information networks: things are clearly bad there. Although later shots of this vessel appeared where there was no fire, although the hull was smoked.
What blew up the tankers?
What attacked the first 4 tankers and the second 2? From the very beginning, there was no consensus on this in the first episodes. The version of the torpedo attack can be taken into account, but usually modern torpedoes do not attack the board, but under the bottom of the victim, breaking the set. And the damage is too ridiculous for a normal-caliber torpedo (533 mm). But the torpedo of a small, anti-submarine caliber, 324 mm, is much more suitable for the nature of the damage, but still, the blow would hardly have been delivered near the waterline, even if it had been sent to the side. The deeper the point of the explosion, the more severe the damage, the greater the pressure of the water, and the more difficult it is to stop its entry into the hull. In addition, no one saw the torpedoes. Although, knowing what Saudi navy men could be, for example, you can imagine what civilian sailors are - they probably wouldn’t have seen a submarine at the surface in a surface position. And yet, there are no frames from video surveillance systems that are now standing on many large ships. There are none of them with unmanned exploding boats, these have already been used by Yemeni Hussites (that is, consider Iranian “vacationers” who organized a chic landfill for developing Iran’s latest weapons on Saudi, Emirate and other coalition mountain-warriors) in Yemen. Although the undermining in the area of the waterline this would be explained well. But some of the vessels have a blast site under water, so the boats fall away - submersible and semi-submersible boats exist, the same Iran has them, the DPRK, where this technology comes from in Iran, Russia, but the unmanned ones are not yet known.
Much has come to indicate the use of adherent sabotage naval object mines, that is, in Western terminology Limpet Mines. Yes, such a mine is really capable of making holes of this size, depending on which, of course. They are different. Thus, the Soviet mine UPM weighing 14,5 kg and with an explosive charge (MS mixture) in 7 kg with dimensions 53x23x17 cm is capable of making an underwater hole in 7 square meters in a steel case in 5 mm. m (not specified, however, at what depth, the size of the holes will depend on the depth). Moreover, the mine is used at depths up to 40-60 m (depending on the type of fuse), and the deceleration of the fuse varies from 1 to 20 h, and from 15 min to 40 days (again, with different types of fuses). It is equipped with 2 fuses of types VZD-1М or VZD-20М; it can also be equipped with an anti-distraction element, therefore its neutralization is prohibited. The magnets confidently hold this mine on a ship with a speed of more than 30-35 bonds. A more modest BPM mine with a weight of 7 kg and a weight of explosives (a mixture of TGA) in 2,8 kg punches a hole in the 7 square in the same 2-mm case. m, and is also applicable at depths up to 60 and detonation slows down for a time from 15 minutes to 40 days. At the same time, BPM pierces steel structures up to 4,5 cm thick and makes a half-meter hole in them. And under the water its effect is only enhanced. But there are underwater mines weighing hundreds of kilograms, both here and in the armies of some NATO countries, for example, the Italians have an objective underwater mine weighing 230 kg. However, this would have caused quite different damage, so here we can talk about a small mine such as the Soviet BPM or UPM, the English Limpet Mk1 or Mk3, and so on. As a matter of fact, the authorities of the United Arab Emirates, after an investigation, speak of such mines, but they do not name either a brand (after all, it can be installed from the collected fragments), and they do not indicate exactly who could have done it. But it is clear that the mined vessels were in the roadstead or in the port. Among submarine saboteurs, even the best units in the world, such as Soviet / Russian fleets or naval sabotage units of the command of the SSO Armed Forces Command, or, say, British and American colleagues, in general, there are no suicides - nobody will mine ships on the move at sea. Despite all the technical equipment like special purpose submarines, including nuclear, mini-submarines, "wet" and "dry" PSD (underwater means of movement) and personal carriers, it is extremely dangerous. You can get under the screws, and no technique can not help.
A new attack, given that it did not occur near the port, although not in the open sea, but in the strait, first gave rise to rumors of a torpedo attack. But, again, no one saw or recorded either her or the exploding boats. Messages in the media about the alleged shells arrived also can be attributed to the "twitter war" with Iran, because what other artillery could fire tankers in the Strait of Hormuz, if not Iranian? Bottom or anchor mines are also delusional, of course. It will not be difficult for Iranians to cover the strait with mines even covertly, using a fleet of small and ultra-small submarines, but why do it right now? And why only two ships are blown up and why are these?
"Highly Likely"
The Americans immediately began to pedal the thesis of the mining of ships with the same sticking mines. And if with type weapons, most likely, it is necessary to agree, but with the fact that they assure that the first and second attacks are carried out by the Iranians, it is impossible. They even claim that they have a video of how Iranian sailors (!) Take an unloaded mine from the boat from the board of one of the tankers. I would very much like to take a look, but so far no videos have been published. In fact, it is not known what is there for a mine, and our mines of this type cannot be torn off without special equipment and from the board. Just pushing, say, mount or disassembly between the object and the mine will not work. More precisely, it can be thrust, but it is not possible to tear off a mine, mine of 7 kg weighs with a force of more than a hundred kilograms.
And how, even if the Iranians really shot a mine, does that prove their guilt? They saw a suspicious object, classified it, examined it, made a decision to remove it from the object (although it was risky), and removed it. On a mine, did the Americans see the personal autograph of Rahbar Iran from the side of their aircraft? A portrait of Putin, say, just in case, was not there? So far, all these American statements are on the same level of evidence as the legendary Case of Creeps with their highly likes. Even the expression is used.
It seems that the Americans are simply "sewing a case" to Iran. Yes, Iran, of course, stated that it was ready and could block oil traffic through the Strait of Hormuz. And he really can do it, and not just sabotage mines. Iran has enough funds for this - oceanic large submarines, small and ultra-small submarines, equipped with anti-ship missiles as well. A large number of missile boats with anti-ship missiles, numerous divisions of coastal anti-ship missiles (albeit subsonic, but there are many) and short-range ballistic anti-ship missiles. A large number of mining tools and mines themselves. Aviation, drone drone, but you never know. Yes, there are subversive submarine forces. Iranian reconnaissance divers were trained at the time by the Americans and British, had combat experience during the Iran-Iraq war, both on the rivers and at sea, including the experience of successful sabotage. They are very well equipped and prepared, and even at competitions during the army international games they proved it. So, last year they won the ARMY 2018 competition “Depth”, however, it took place in Iran, which made things a lot easier for them. They worked in Yemen, judging by many reports, and training local divers with the Hussites, and not only. Moreover, Iran has a constantly operating floating special base off the coast of Yemen, the Saviz special operations vessel, rebuilt from a 23 thousand-ton dry cargo ship, equipped with various types of boats, pressure chambers, underwater vehicles and reconnaissance vehicles. This "inpatient" from 2017 does not crawl out of the Red Sea.
But why, tell me, the Iranians to mine ships in such a way that an explosion took place in their own waters? Are Iranians like idiots? The Hussites, that is, the Iranian "proxies", are also not very similar. Those usually take responsibility for what they have done: it does not matter, the blow is the Iranian MRBD at the capital, the drone drone at the airport or, as recently, a long-range cruise missile produced in Iran. And then suddenly they are silent like fish. In addition, ships came from different ports and different countries, how could they be mined? It was possible that they were mined when they were standing in line at the entrance to the fairway in the strait. And certainly not the Iranians. Rather, one might think that the Americans themselves did it, or perhaps the British with their filing. Moreover, the Iranians could have mined the western production, and there is nothing to invent and get anything. He stuck the antediluvian "limpet" from the dusty corners of the warehouse - and then blame the Iranians. Conveniently! The popular version of the involvement of Israelis, most likely, should be rejected. The Israeli Navy does not have the opportunity to act in the Persian Gulf, and in the secret passage of the Israeli submarine with saboteurs through the entire Mediterranean and bypassing Africa (through Suez this passage would be fixed), one cannot seriously believe. These navies do not have experience of such trips, and there is not much else. But to act from some leased surface platforms in the still hostile environment of the Arab countries of the Gulf would also not work.
Old Tonkin incident and new tanker
But the Americans have a wealth of experience in such provocations, starting with the “self-exploding” of the armored cruiser “Maine” in the roads of Havana. Let us recall at least the "Tonkin incident", from which the Vietnam war began, which ended in a loss for the United States. Then, 2 August 1964, the already obsolete Maddox destroyer, which had invaded (the Americans themselves deny) the territorial waters of the DRV, was attacked by three North Vietnamese torpedo boats. In the course of the battle, in which the Krusader fighters of the Ticonderoga aircraft carrier participated, the destroyer virtually sank one boat, evaded virtual torpedoes and left offshore. One episode was not enough, and 4 August, during the storm, already two destroyers, Maddox with its outdated equipment, often catching glitches, and more modern Turner Joy, saw the 10 attack of boats on the radar screen and heroically fought with ghosts, without drowning anyone. At the same time one of the ships did not see anything even on the screen, but still shot. However, this white-threaded episode was enough to make a decision about applying air strikes against the bases of the Navy's DRV boats and their oil storages, and then Congress’s "Tonkin resolution" was adopted, providing the regime of President Lyndon Johnson with legal grounds for a war in the region without war declarations of the DRV. How it ended is well known.
Here we also see that the first episode did not cause the desired reaction, and the second one followed it. Moreover, it was preceded by a fire on the Iranian oil platform the day before. Have the American “seals” from the Navy SEALs arranged for him too?
And yet, as it seems to the author, the current “Tonkin tanker incident,” at least for now, will not lead to war with Iran. The weights and possibilities of the DRV are too different (albeit with the USSR and the PRC behind their backs) and Iran, and the Americans are also not the same as before. Perhaps this is only Iran’s habitual defamation by any means, including with the aim of persuading Tehran to negotiate on its own terms. The familiar “racket diplomacy” from Trump. Or maybe Bolton? The grandfather has already failed and the work on the DPRK, and on Syria with Russia, and on China, and on Venezuela - is it now failing on Iran?
- Ya. Vyatkin, especially for "Military Review"
- imp_navigator.livejournal.com, hisutton.com
Information