On the senselessly destroyed Iranian navy
Well, as expected, crowds of our “military experts” rushed to produce hundreds of tons of opinions regarding how they would operate in the place of the Iranian admirals. fleet, which now seems to have been destroyed by the Americans.
It's not surprising; it's just the way things are here: anyone can call themselves a "military expert," even (like one who likes to draw arrows on maps) those who haven't served a single day. Actually, this category is unique in Russia. Such individuals are easy to find there...
But we're not talking about them, and we'll leave the opinions of these "experts" out of our consideration. There's a more interesting proposal. Let's simply consider everything that's happening not from the perspective of "expertise," but from the perspective of common sense, coupled with at least some understanding of military matters.
So, what do we have? Loud proclamations from the US about having destroyed 3, 5, 8, 11, and finally 17 Iranian Navy ships. Really, is that so little? Why should we feel sorry for the infidels, remembering Count Alexander Vasilyevich Rymniksky? You can write as much as you like, attach a blurry satellite image – and voila! Kill counted!
In the US, however, they don't even condescend to such things. Gentlemen take everyone's word for it: if they say 17 ships were sunk, that means it's true!
However, this raises the question: what kind of ships and what kind of ships were they that were sunk by the brave American pilots?
By the way, this is a sunken ship, according to the American media.
The question seems downright stupid, but what if Iran has TWO navies and one is significantly stronger than the other?
In the Gulf of Oman, where, according to CENTCOM representatives, Iran recently had 11 large ships, today not a single one remains. Freedom of navigation has been restored.
— commented on the actions at the US Central Command.There were 11, they sank 17. Well, first we need to find out what was sunk, and then we can figure out whose ships they were.
The Americans and their online cronies, of course, consider the defeat of the drone carrier ["Shahid Bagheri"] their greatest victory. "A key loss for Tehran," I'll allow myself to quote one of our online publications.
I can't say what's key about this ship. I'm not well versed in the mysteries of the navy, but any ship like this is a tool for projecting power somewhere far away. That is, if drones The Bagheri couldn't have reached their targets—the ship's very purpose was to bring them closer to the attack line. How the Bagheri could have been useful in our case is a question, since even from the shore Drones They're starting off brilliantly and terrorizing everyone they need to. Even on the other side of the strait.
So the losses of the IRGC, and it is this organization that "Shahid Bagheri" belongs to, are purely reputational, but we will talk about this a little later, fortunately, we were able to discuss this topic with an entire captain of the first rank.
Makran
Also a drone carrier, but belonging to the Iranian Navy. Its destruction was reported, but also vaguely. The Makran sustained hits, but how lethal they were is questionable. 121,000 tons of displacement is a lot. And, note, the Makran was moored at the berth in Bandar Abbas.
Destroyer Sahand
NATO classification is a corvette, but let's call it a destroyer, that's how much the American media praises it. Of course, sinking a destroyer is much more honorable than a 1200-ton corvette, right? Also belonging to the Iranian Navy, it was also moored in Bandar Abbas.
Sabalan
The Alvand-class ships were built for the Iranian Navy in the UK half a century ago. The Sabalan, in particular, entered service in 1972. A very "grave" loss for the Iranian Navy.
Zagros
An Iranian Navy intelligence ship. This is a real loss; the ship is new, though it was under construction for a long time. Also at the pier in Bandar Abbas.
Frigate "Jamaran"
It was supplied at the port of Chakhabar, again during a stopover.
"Dena"
It was sunk by an American submarine off the island of Sri Lanka.
At the Konarak base, two old corvettes of American post-war construction from the 50s and 60s were sunk.
That's all that has any decent evidence. Nine ships, but what's there to regret, really?
Regarding the attack and sinking of an Iranian frigate by an American submarine, things are complicated. Sri Lankan authorities confirmed the rescue of the frigate Dena's crew, while reports are circulating online of the sinking of the IRGC corvette Shahid Soleimani by an American submarine, with scant evidence.
Let's see what the Iranians have left of their fleet and whether they can even pretend to be anything, at least in the Strait of Hormuz, although there is NOTHING to pretend to be there!
Iranian Navy
1 submarine of Project 877 "Halibut" and 2 are undergoing modernization.
1 Fateh-class submarine.
2 Nahang-class submarines.
2 miniature submarines for shallow water operations.
10 missile "Kaman" class boats with "Garpun" anti-ship missiles.
The rest... Patrol and landing craft, which are of little use.
IRGC Navy
4 Shahid Soleimani-class missile corvettes,
11 Tondar-class missile ships,
2 drone carriers.
A little? Yes. Is it possible to do anything with such a fleet? Unlikely. Iran started building interesting ships and ordering ships from China and Russia, but simply didn't have time. So, one could say the country has almost no navy. No big deal, there's no air force at all, and the navy is practically nonexistent.
Of course, they could have sent all the submarines on a suicidal attack on the American aircraft carrier, but I doubt anything meaningful would have come of it. The Halibut-class destroyers, which were too old, would have become, perhaps not an easy target, but certainly a target for the Arleigh Burkes. American destroyers are still very tough nuts, and they're not easy to take down.
Moreover, the Iranian navy's sailors' obvious lack of preparation is evident. The frigate sunk in the Indian Ocean was sailing as if on parade, and its commander couldn't have been unaware that his country had entered the war. Yes, they rushed back to help, but the outcome is well-known: 80 corpses washed up on the shores of Sri Lanka, and the ship sank. They were in a good hurry, but they didn't hear or listen to the submarine. A classic example.
Speaking of ships on the seabed, everything "destroyed" at the quaysides of Iranian ports is, naturally, subject to recovery. Unlike the frigate "Dena," it's shallow, a port, with cranes, docks, workshops, and so on readily available.
I read from our "telegram" experts about how stupid the Iranian admirals are. They didn't withdraw their ships from ports, leaving them vulnerable to bombs. Apparently, the admirals were perfectly aware of what would happen to their ships on the open sea, although, of course, the element of surprise was evident.
And even if they withdrew their ships from ports, how would it help? Nothing. Modern experts have a very poor understanding of the difference between an air-launched anti-ship cruise missile and a World War II-era bomb. A missile is virtually infallible. Yes, you can shoot it down, you can try to confuse it with electronic warfare, but it won't miss unless there's a very high-quality countermeasure.
But few people understand this today.
The Iranian commanders made a very smart move by giving up pawns that had no chance of becoming queens. And they partially retained them, because raising a ship in port is such a simple matter that it's hardly worth even talking about. Unlike a ship sunk at a depth of 400 meters.
You know, the era of blunt frontal attacks... It's kind of... a bit outdated. About 150 years old. And it must be said that the Iranian generals understood this perfectly well, having burned their fingers in the 12-day war. And they clearly drew some very good conclusions. Yes, some things were overdone, which cost the lives of Khamenei and his generals, but some things worked out perfectly.
I admit (and I've said this openly more than once) that I was certain that after the start of another war, Israel would look a bit like a lunar landscape. Iran would unleash everything it had and wipe the country off the face of the earth. No, the Iranian military's plan was far superior. What's currently unfolding in US-allied countries in the Middle East is a masterpiece.
Why? Because Iran is making the most of what it has: missiles. weaponThere's no need for suicidal submarine and missile ship attacks on carrier groups; they're pointless anyway. The Iranian Air Force's aircraft are equally useless: they're far fewer in number than those of the US and Israel, and they're inferior in quality to the I-35, I-15, and I-16. Alas.
But missiles managed to accomplish what ships and planes couldn't. And now we're all witnessing a very unexpected development that has significantly changed the course of events in the Middle East and around the world. Even today, former US allies are grumbling and trying to pressure Trump to end the madhouse unfolding in the region.
And it wasn't ships or planes that did it. Fact.
And now we come to the highlight of Iranian kebab, which could turn not just the Middle East, but the entire world upside down. Yes, the Strait of Hormuz, through which 20% of the world's oil is transported.
Recently, some clown in American uniform cheerfully declared that Iran's fleet had been sunk and the Strait of Hormuz was open. But the crews and owners of over 150 tankers are still waiting for the IRGC to allow passage.
Does the IRGC need ships and aircraft to completely close the strait?
No.
Even Iran's famous submarines, designed for shallow-water operations, can be left alone. Even without them, Iran has everything it needs to completely shut off the oil and gas supplies in the strait.
The Strait of Hormuz averages about 60 km in width, with a minimum width of 33 km. That's all.
What does the IRGC (they control Iran's missiles) have to close the Strait? Plenty.
Several dozen Nur anti-ship missile launchers on truck chassis. 280 km range, subsonic (Mach 0,9), warhead weight 300 kg. Guidance system: INS with ARGSN, radio altimeter, and GPS/Beidou. Highly mobile missile. A copy of the Chinese C-602 anti-ship missile (export version of the YJ-62).
"Zafar." Presumably based on the Chinese S-704 or S-705 missiles. Its range is only 25 km (but in our case, more is not needed), its warhead weighs 30 kg, and it uses active radar guidance throughout its flight. Essentially, it's "fire and kill," just what's needed to fire at a target in the Gulf and quickly escape.
The Fateh-110 and its derivatives are ballistic anti-ship missiles with a range of up to 300 km. They can be launched safely from many kilometers offshore without fear of countermeasures.
Hormoz-2. It has a range of 250 km, and it was claimed that during tests, this missile hit a target 6 meters long.
Zolfaghar Basir. An anti-ship ballistic missile version of the Zolfaghar missile with a range of up to 700 km. This range has been proven by actual use; Iran used these missiles to attack Deir ez-Zor.
Many will now ask: why didn't they hit "Abraham Lincoln" and his entourage with this? Yes, that would have been nice, but then Trump would have driven away everything they had left from all over the world and would have caused complete chaos.
By "commodifying" US allies, Iran has actually achieved much more: it has exerted pressure on the US through proxy means. Today, Qatar, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and the Emirates are all brazenly shouting for peace. And they're shouting at the US in general, and Trump in particular, because no one will compensate them for the billions lost in this war.
So what's the secret? It's simple: everyone caught in Iran's crossfire... has nothing to fight back with! The only army with any semblance of a missile force is Saudi Arabia. It still has a number of Chinese DongFeng 3A medium-range ballistic missiles, manufactured in the 70s. The Saudis bought these missiles in 1987–88, for reasons unclear, and have never used them. And today, it's downright dangerous to do so.
The rest of us had assumed that US bases on their soil were the best thing imaginable. They'd be protected and defended. But something went wrong...
There's no doubt that Iran has accurately predicted this response, and that it will be as effective as possible. It will be very difficult, but some believe Iran will eventually fight back. More precisely, Iran's grip on the world's oil vein will quicken the pulse. They will fight back, but at a great cost.
Last night, an event took place that serves as proof of this: Iran's Assembly of Experts elected Seyyed Mojtaba Khamenei, the eldest son of the assassinated Ali Hosseini Khamenei, to the post of Rahbar (supreme ruler of the country).
The appointment is quite peculiar: Mojtaba was considered a man of former Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, played a huge role in many of Ahmadinejad's political victories, and even stood up to his father, who made efforts to limit the activities of this Iranian president.
Mojtaba Khamenei is clearly backed by the Basij (militia, popular militia) and the IRGC. There are already rumors that it was the IRGC that "pressured" the experts and promoted its own man. In any case, although the US is claiming that Iran has sent "signals of a willingness to negotiate," I am certain this is a lie. Khamenei, young by Iranian political standards (only 56 years old!!!), having lost his wife and daughter in the bombings in Tehran on February 28, is highly unlikely to negotiate with the US—on his knees before Trump.
There's every reason to believe that young Khamenei and the IRGC will choose to stand firm. This means missiles will be aimed at tankers and oil refineries.
And the ships... The ships will be raised after the war and repaired. For now, missiles will do the talking in their place.
Information