Whose mistakes are best to learn from?
Photo generated by AI
What is happening in Iran today simply must remain in the annals of military history. stories not only because it is one of the wars that has shaken our planet, but also because this war can be called a war of lost initiatives and destroyed foundations.
On March 4, the American submarine Charlotte torpedoed the Iranian corvette Dena, which fell victim to the American submarine simply because the Americans wanted it that way. The ship was lost, most of the crew perished, but most importantly, the ship was sunk in an undeclared war, a ship that was unarmed because it was returning from a parade.
March 4th became a kind of finale, because it drew a certain line under the beating of the Iranian fleetAnd on March 10, a US Air Force video appeared in the media, depicting how valiant US pilots sank Iranian minelayers at their berths, along with several other ships.
All this made me think deeply and recall some proverbs from the past. For example, the one about how smart people learn from the mistakes of others.
Was the corvette "Dena" of great value as a warship?
The Dena was equipped with a vertical launch system, the first ever installed on an Iranian ship. The ship was armed with anti-aircraft (Sayyad-2 SAM) and anti-ship (4) missiles. missiles "Nur" or "Gader") missiles.
The remaining armament consisted of a 76 mm Fajr-27 gun, a 40 mm Fath-40 anti-aircraft gun, a 30 mm Kamand anti-aircraft gun, two 20 mm Oerlikon cannons, two 12,7 mm heavy machine guns and two triple-tube 324 mm anti-submarine torpedo tubes.
But the story of the "Den" is a separate one. The sinking of an unarmed (and this was a condition of the parade in India), albeit a warship, by the "Charlotte" is treated in the same light as the sinkings of the "Athenia" and "Lusitania," and carries roughly the same level of honor.
Moreover, it wasn’t just the Charlotte that was hanging around in the area; there were at least three American nuclear submarines there, so the Dena was doomed anyway.
But another ship, also targeted by the US, is more complicated: the Shahid Sayyad Shirazi, which belongs to the IRGC Navy.
The ship is, shall we say, a controversial one. A 32-knot corvette-catamaran, equipped with the latest Iranian electronics and armed with a 30mm automatic cannon as its main armament, four triple-barreled 20mm Gatling guns, and missile armament:
- 6 anti-ship missiles (4 long-range, 2 medium-range);
- 16 surface-to-air missiles (Sayad2/3) and short-range air defense systems;
- 6 surface-to-surface missiles (SSM Abu Mahdi).
And here questions arise. Why were all the defensive capabilities of the newest Chinese-built corvette powerless against aviation ammunition?
Or, to continue, why did Iranian commanders allow their fleet to be so unceremoniously shelled? Bases must be protected from both naval and air attacks, as was clearly demonstrated in the conflict between Russia and Ukraine in the Black Sea, when the Russian fleet was forced to seek shelter beyond the range of Ukrainian bases. drones and unmanned boats.
It's difficult to say why Tehran ignored such valuable experience. But repeating the mistakes of 2023 in 2026 is, at the very least, illogical.
It seems that both the Iranian and IRGC naval command didn't take the US threat seriously. But this time, the Americans weren't joking, and the Iranian ships remained moored at their berths, where they began to be sunk.
Of course, it's much easier to fight for the survivability of a ship that's developed problems in a port where all the infrastructure is available than on the open sea, but this raises another question: what prevented at least some of the ships from being transferred to ports in friendly Pakistan, which most likely wouldn't have refused?
Khamenei Sr. did everything to die a martyr and thereby ignite the people's resistance. Today, this is completely understandable and, on the whole, quite logical. At the very least, Khamenei's sacrifice was certainly not in vain, and that's exactly what happened. Those who raged in the streets of Iranian cities just a month ago have fallen silent, and the country as a whole is unanimous, as is expected during an attack by an external enemy.
But sacrificing warships seems odd, especially given the ongoing standoff between Iran and the US in the Strait of Hormuz.
Yes, the Americans have disabled some of the forces of both Iranian navies, but Iran continues to blockade the Strait of Hormuz, making a point of punishing tankers attempting to transit. Last week, several tankers were attacked there, which clearly discouraged others from taking risks. The strikes were carried out using a wide range of weapons, from aerial drones and anti-ship missiles to unmanned boats.
All of this already feels less like a demonstration of Iran's capabilities than a test. However, the same applies to their adversaries. What could be a better way to truly test the armed forces and navy than a military conflict?
Here we can recall how long the Russian army prevailed over everyone in competitions designed primarily for the Russian army to win, and how useful these competitions were when it came to the Air Defense Forces. It's clear that, judging by how abruptly the "Army Games" were consigned to oblivion by the new Defense Minister Belousov, their value was practically nil.
The situation with the navy is roughly the same. Confrontations in the Strait of Hormuz and the Black Sea provide invaluable material for analysis, based on which one can draw conclusions about the direction in which any navy should develop.
The destruction of the corvette "Dena" once again confirmed that the most effective weapons Nuclear submarines remain a vital resource. They are capable of monitoring vast areas, doing so covertly, without surfacing for long periods.
It's worth considering that no more than three days passed between the receipt of the combat order and the destruction of the Den, which primarily suggests that the submarine that sank the Iranian ship was in the area long before that moment. In other words, it was on combat duty.
Well, it's long been known that American submarines have a quiet presence in areas of US interest. The fact that four submarines were in the northern Indian Ocean speaks volumes, but politics is beside the point today.
Some today express regret that Russian multipurpose nuclear submarines are encountered less frequently in the world's oceans—or, more accurately, practically never, unlike American ones. This is true: encountering Russian nuclear submarines in the Atlantic or Indian Ocean is practically impossible; the only question is the necessity of such missions.
However, these days, when anyone and everyone is engaged in piracy against oil and gas tankers, isn't ensuring the unimpeded navigation of tankers a task for a submarine, especially given the Russian Navy's severe shortage of ships?
This doesn't necessarily require sinking Western ships that are attempting to intercept Russian vessels. Indeed, surfacing and sending the pirates to a known location would be sufficient. And if that doesn't work, then sending a torpedo is perfectly justifiable. And after the first incident, the number of people willing to rip apart our tankers will be halved.
True, this requires a firm policy from the country's leadership, one that seeks to resolve problems with torpedoes rather than with worries and regrets. But that's much more difficult.
And one more thing. The "Dena" was sailing alone, without the slightest cover. In the style of the cruiser "Moskva," which also met a tragic end. Generally speaking, experience shows that all these solo voyages with "flag displays" and other such matters should be a thing of the past, as such activities are becoming unsafe.
Convoys are especially dangerous. It seems that oil transportation will be exactly that in the coming years—fraught with difficulties and dangers. It's all well and good if countries like the Baltics or Great Britain, which have boats and inflatable boats instead of warships, are planning to commit piracy, but a bad example is contagious, and it's being set by the United States, whose ships are still in good order.
Speaking of the USA
If you look closely at how the US Navy plans all its movements around the world, you'll see how the Americans plot their ships' routes, especially when they're traveling alone. That is, yes, American ships do travel alone, but they do so in a way that allows them to quickly receive assistance either from bases or from allies. And air cover is a must, if needed. So US ships feel quite confident in the world's oceans.
Perhaps only China and India can afford this; their naval strengths allow it. Other countries lack the capacity, but if necessary, it's worth considering preserving their ships under any circumstances. The time for solo voyages is over. There are too many dangers above and below the surface of the world's oceans, and we must take this into account. Otherwise, like the Dena, you'll sink to the bottom with most of your crew.
Countermeasures? Yes, quite possible. In World War I, German U-boats made life very difficult for the British Empire, and in the first half of World War II, they were even worse – they brought Britain to the brink of starvation. And what was the best way to preserve the convoy? The Asdic and escort ships.
Why Iranian ships, even after leaving their ports, began their solo voyages under American air strikes is a complex question. But the Shahed Shirrazi, for instance, failed to make any coherent statement: clearly taking advantage of its stealth, it left its base, evading air strikes, and headed out to sea. But the ship was unable to complete its mission (if it had one) or survive.
Sadly, just one drone (presumably an MQ-4C Triton) sealed the fate of the newest corvette. The base processed the data and directed aircraft at the Shirazi, but the corvette was powerless to counter it.
And that's strange. A ship is a stable combat platform, energetically stable. That means more powerful radars, more powerful computers, more powerful systems. EW, compared to aircraft. The Shirazi was equipped with the latest Iranian and Chinese electronics, as well as at least short-range air defense systems. But in reality, neither the electronic warfare, nor the missiles, nor the numerous automatic cannons saved the Shirazi.
And here, parallels are necessary, as the Shahid Shirazi is a direct analogue of our small missile ships of Project 21631 Buyan-M and Project 22800 Karakurt. Essentially, they were all built around the same naval warfare concept: to operate covertly in confined waters like the Baltic or the Persian Gulf, primarily with missile weapons.
And here two problems arise: aviation and unmanned combat aircraft. The Shirazi seemed to be equipped with everything necessary, moreover, as for unmanned combat aircraft, compared to Russian ships with their artillery It actually looked like a Terminator. Karakurts with the naval version of the Pantsir-S1 were okay, but the Buyan-Ms... Anyway, let's not dwell on the sad stuff. The sad thing is that our ships, for the most part, are practically defenseless against aircraft. Or rather, underarmed, that would be more accurate.
After all, it's not the numbers in the performance specifications that make war; it's the weapons that make war. And since the US calmly sank 16 Iranian ships without losing a single aircraft, this suggests that the plan Defense Things are very bad for the Iranian fleet.
The fact is, experience has shown that a "mosquito" fleet is incapable of defending itself against air strikes, and often even against naval strikes (BEC). Much has been made about the advisability of protecting borders using small ships armed with large missiles, but, alas, experience in both the Black Sea and the Persian Gulf has shown that aviation continues to solve and create significant problems for the enemy.
Lesson: Even the newest ships can only operate if they are reliably covered by aircraft or air defenses. Otherwise, once they are detected, their destruction will be a matter of the near future.
Russia (and Ukraine, too, could have done the same, had it possessed a navy) and Iran confirmed the truth of this conclusion firsthand, and, moreover, it was astonishing to watch Iran repeat, centimeter-by-centimeter, the mistakes made by the Russian admirals. True, the Black Sea Fleet's losses were not as significant, but Kyiv also lacked the might of the US Navy's strike group.
Preliminary result:
- US aviation has an advantage in the air;
- Iranian aviation and air defense are engaged in shooting drones and the fight against missiles;
- Iran's fleets have lost a number of ships and are not demonstrating combat effectiveness.
The Strait of Hormuz remains closed
No aircraft, no ships. In other words, all these costly US missile and bomb strikes on Iran have failed to achieve their main success. The tankers remain idle, and some of them, which Iranian intelligence has learned belong to the United States, are being attacked and burning.
Paradoxically, the task of countering US and Israeli forces is accomplished not by ships and aircraft, or even by UAVs and unmanned aerial vehicles, but by the most common mobile coastal missile systems, and not the latest generation at that. Copies of Chinese and Soviet anti-ship missiles accomplished the task with maximum effectiveness.
It should be noted that since February 28 there has not been a single report from the American side about the defeat of even one Iranian missile system.
The US military was initially skeptical of coastal missile systems. It was believed they had tactical options that could reliably counter such a threat: a combination of UAVs and strike aircraft.
In other words, the UAV detects and guides aircraft, which solves the problem. However, as practice has shown, UAVs cannot fly properly over Iranian territory and conduct reconnaissance. Something is blocking them, specifically Iranian anti-aircraft missiles. Meanwhile, on the other side of the Strait, the Houthis are having a similar fun, no less effectively driving Hermes and Reaper missiles into the ground.
Aircraft... But yes, American aircraft don't demonstrate miracles of bravery and operate from maximum range to avoid being hit by air defenses. Hence their successes, exclusively along the coastal strip and with cruise missiles deep into the country.
What lesson can be learned from all this chaotic listing:
- a ship, large or small, is still an easy target for aircraft. Mainly due to its low speed (again, compared to an aircraft) and maneuverability;
- the ship can become an effective combat unit in the absence of enemy aircraft or reliable cover from air threats;
- missile systems, covered from the air, can perform the task of keeping the enemy at a distance from the coast, blocking the strait, and so on.
In general, lessons can be learned from any military conflict.
Ships should not be positioned in full view of the enemy. This makes them targets, and easy targets at that. This was proven by Kronstadt, Pearl Harbor, Bandar Abbas, and other, albeit lesser-known, places.
A large ship (unless it's a vessel like the Shahid Bagheri) has a chance of fending off attacking aircraft, while a small ship's chances are slim. But a small ship costs less, so Iran will recoup the loss of its minesweepers within a few years; corvettes are a bit more expensive and complicated.
A single ship has practically ceased to be of combat value. This was proven by the Argentine-British conflict of the last century. Today, even more so, a single ship (except perhaps a destroyer) must be used in combat under the "umbrella" of air power, with missile cover from the shore. Otherwise, it will be like the Iranian corvettes.
Some will learn their lessons, while others will breathe a sigh of relief and forget it like a bad dream. To each their own, as they say. The US sank 16 Iranian ships. Did this have any impact on the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz? None. Did this affect the price of oil? Yes, it's surpassed $100. And it will continue to do so, because tankers are still burning in the Strait.
So it turns out that without any air power to begin with, with some hodgepodge of air defenses, and a half-submerged navy, you can tenderly hold half the world by the throat. With missiles alone, which, let's admit, are far from the pinnacle of technical perfection.
There's something for everyone to learn. And there's something to think about before tomorrow, because what could start tomorrow (and as practice shows, anything can start) must be thought through today.
Information