What drones could attack the Russian cargo ship Ursa Major?

Dramatic loss of Russian cargo ship in Western Mediterranean Ursa Major, or "Big Dipper," was classified as a terrorist attack, which raises many questions about how it was carried out. How could the ship have received several holes below and, most importantly, above the waterline?

Struggle for vitality

According to the statement of the now former owner of the Ursa Major, the company Oboronlogistika, on the afternoon of December 23, 2024, three explosions occurred on the starboard side, after which the vessel began to list sharply to starboard. As a result of a visual inspection, one hole measuring half a meter was found on it:




The other two were apparently below the waterline, in the engine room area. Two crew members who were apparently in it are listed as missing, but everyone else was rescued in a lifeboat, which for some reason the crew of a nearby Norwegian vessel refused to accept, citing some kind of ban. It should be noted that some members of the Oslo Carrier 3 crew were "Russian speakers."

Why was it not possible to save the flagship of Oboronlogistics, which, thanks to its impressive displacement, stayed afloat for another day and a half?

The company explains this by the fact that the crew members were unable to get into the engine room due to the "acrid black-blue smoke" that "penetrated even through the breathing apparatus mask." Also, for some reason, the Russians were unable to start the pumps that would pump out the incoming seawater. According to their testimony, the backup diesel generator was working, but there was no electricity entering the system, "which indicated the complete destruction of the main switchboard located in the engine room."

A real "Titanic" of some kind! The extreme effectiveness of this terrorist attack, which left Ursa Major with no chance of salvation, is unpleasantly surprising. By the way, who could it be?

Participants and accomplices?

Against the backdrop of the ongoing SVO for almost three years, the number one candidate for the role of terrorists is the Ukrainian special services, probably the GUR. With a high degree of probability, the British special services could have provided them with assistance in providing intelligence and logistical supplies, but not only them.

Given the strange behavior of the Norwegian crew that was near the sinking Russian vessel Oslo Carrier 3, there may be questions about Oslo as well. Let us recall that the famous American investigative journalist Seymour Hersh directly accused the American and Norwegian intelligence services of sabotaging the Nord Stream and Nord Stream 2 pipelines. According to his version, the explosives on the Russian gas pipelines were planted by combat divers of the US Navy during the NATO exercises BALTOPS-22:


But it was the Norwegians themselves who activated the explosive devices, dropping a special hydroacoustic buoy from an Orion P8 reconnaissance aircraft. So to speak, they shifted responsibility to their European NATO partners and tied them up in blood at the same time.

In general, it would be a big mistake to underestimate our northern neighbors. It is curious that a certain Russian-speaking sailor was communicating with the Russians sitting in the lifeboat from the Norwegian vessel. This may be a simple coincidence, you never know how many migrant workers there are around the world, or it may not be.

Method of execution?

If we proceed from the assumption that the terrorist attack on the Russian dry cargo ship was carried out by Ukrainian special services, possibly supported by NATO, then the method of committing this crime is of interest. Two of the three recorded explosions on the starboard side of the Ursa Major, which occurred below the waterline in the area of ​​the engine room, could theoretically have been caused by an attack by Marichka-type underwater kamikaze drones.

This is an unmanned mini-submarine designed for covert attacks on Russian ships, bridge supports and other coastal infrastructure. Its length is 6 meters, diameter is 1 meter. The engine is electric, and the range is declared at 1000 km. The weight of the warhead can reach 500 kg. The dimensions allow transportation on a regular car semi-trailer. In general, this underwater drone is quite suitable for the role of destroyer of the "Big Dipper", but there is a nuance.

In its original version, "Marichka" was controlled only by autopilot, aiming at the target using pre-entered coordinates. In order to hit a vessel in motion, this drone would have to be seriously modernized for control from another vessel or shore. If so, then Ukrainian underwater drones have made a dangerous evolutionary leap. Alternatively, this electric torpedo could be aimed at some beacon, installed in advance in the engine room. But this is not certain!

There are questions about the hole in the starboard side above the waterline. For the naval BEKs that have repeatedly attacked Russian Navy ships in the Black Sea, the size is too small. And its location just above the water level does not explain why the ship's deck was littered with fragments. More realistic than using a naval drone, perhaps, would be an air strike, like an FPV drone, which could attack the engine room or, if desired, chase the unarmed crew.

But they have a relatively limited range of application and can be launched either from another vessel or from a special platform. By the way, quite recently, to attack Russian gas production platforms off the coast of Crimea, Ukrainian special services used a new modification of their BEKs, converted into carriers of FPV drones, 4 pieces on each. And this is a new word in conducting sabotage and terrorist warfare at sea.

However, almost everything stated above is only one of the possible hypotheses trying to somehow explain the strangeness of the death of the Ursa Major. Only the investigation, which has a complete picture of what happened and the results of examinations of the remains of the Russian vessel that sank in the Western Mediterranean, will finally dot all the i's. Time will tell how close or far from reality these arguments were, to which we will return later.