Coastal defense in the modern world: recent history

Coastal defense in the modern world: recent history

Coastal defense. This, if you look at the glossary of terms, is a combination of forces and means fleet with fortifications and a system of anti-airborne and anti-aircraft installations designed to protect naval bases, ports and important coastal areas.


Bulky. Let’s also take a look at the airborne defense?

Coastal airborne defense (PDO) - a set of measures aimed at defending a coastal strip (coast) by coastal troops (coastal missile and artillery troops) or land forces in cooperation with the navy and aviation (Air Force) in order to prevent the landing of enemy naval and airborne assault forces.

Already more or less clear.

It turns out that coastal defense - if the fleet is involved, anti-airborne defense - if it is without it.

The airborne defense as such, in my opinion, was formed during the Second World War. A classic example is the events on the coast of France, with the help of which the Germans wanted to prevent the Allied landings.


It looked ominous, but did not help much during Operation Overlord, as we all remember.


Coastal defense is a very ancient thing. As well as the BO troops are very old. In general, as soon as humanity fell off the coast and began to swim along it, almost immediately this coast had to be protected and defended. Because everyone turned out to be smart, and rafting to a neighbor to get something fired became good form and easy money at the same time.

Well, in Troy or in Syracuse, rafting to fight is generally a classic.


So, most likely, coastal defense troops appeared long before all kinds of artillery and other newfangled stuff.

But their role has not changed very much since the times of Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome: to prevent the enemy fleet from approaching their shores, preventing the landing of enemy troops with the subsequent robbery or seizure of territories and the fire action of enemy ships on their ground targets.

Only the ancients attracted ballistics, catapults and scorpions to the "fire effect", and today, of course, toys are more interesting.


Until the middle of the last century, the concepts of “coastal defense” and “coastal artillery” were synonymous. There was simply nothing else out of armament; accordingly, they defended their shores with all cannons put into batteries.

Batteries were installed in forts covering ports on coastal areas where it was possible to land. Naturally, the batteries were stationary, since the guns on them were used ship. And the farther to the middle of the 20th century, the worse the coastal batteries began to look, on which gun turrets came from heavy cruisers and even battleships.






The latter turned out to be quite good and effective. weapons against ground forces that would like to approach defended objects.

As examples, one can easily cite the batteries of Sevastopol and Leningrad, which quite successfully and efficiently fired at the advancing troops of the European team led by the Germans. Among the allies, one can recall Fort Drum as part of the Philippine archipelago.


In general, artillery fought on coastal defense for several centuries from Dover to Cartagena. And she fought well.


There was even such a class of ships as coastal defense battleships.


After World War II, coastal artillery batteries began to be replaced with anti-ship (RCC) missile divisions. As a rule, all countries that started such a replacement, let the same anti-ship missiles that were on their ships to defend their shores.

RCCs were no less, and in some cases, more effective weapons. And - not least - cheap. That is, the coastal installation of anti-ship missiles was definitely cheaper than a ship armed with such missiles. But the radius of action was more modest, since anti-ship missiles were installed on the shore.

But the coastal installation of anti-ship missiles could be masked and covered with air defense systems. Or make it maneuverable by installing on mechanical traction. But if it arrived, then it arrived.

And then, all the same, the coastal installation of anti-ship missiles (and any coastal defense system of the past) is still passive, and the initiative in the battle has always belonged and will belong to the attacking fleet of the enemy.

By the way, this is precisely why some countries generally abandoned coastal defense or left the main role in the defense of the fleet, and the BO assigned the role of support.

But it is one thing if the country's coastline and budget are similar to Estonian or Lithuanian, and another thing if it is Russia or the USA. Which have a coastline from one ocean to another.

The United States will be left alone for now, their coastal defense has generally gone its own way of development, and we will take the USSR.

When the leadership of the already-dead country realized that the country would not be able to compete on equal terms in a possible conflict with the NATO fleet, then, given the experience of the Great Patriotic War, when the coastal defense showed itself well, they decided to strengthen the fleet precisely with the help of the BO.

And the coastal defense, which was part of the Navy of the USSR, began to develop at a very rapid pace, the benefit of such costs as the construction of missile cruisers was not required.

And one of the first in the world (perhaps the very first one), the coastal defense of the USSR Navy began to switch to rocket weapons.

This did not mean at all that the artillery was scrapped, no. Onshore batteries lasted until the 70s of the last century. But in the 50s, missile systems began to be registered on the Soviet shores.

I am sure that among readers there will be those who aspirally recall how they served on this “miracle weapon”.

The first-born of the Soviet coastal defense was the Sopka missile launcher with the Comet anti-ship missile system, adopted for service in 1958.


In 1966, the more advanced Redut missile launcher with the P-35 supersonic anti-ship missile launcher stood on the coastal defense. The same missiles were carried by the Project 1134 missile cruisers, the Berkut code, which now has become history.


In 1978, the coastal PKRK Rubezh with the P-15 anti-ship missiles entered service. These missiles were armed with missile boats of projects 183 and 205. Products were tested in battle, with these missiles the Egyptian and Indian (especially) fleets successfully fought against the Israeli and Pakistani fleets.


As you can see, every 10 years, the BKPRK was replaced by a more modern one. But alas, when at the next change of course in the USSR they still began to create an ocean fleet and overcame this, naturally, coastal missile systems were also affected.

As a result, we came to the collapse of the USSR without ships, and without the BKPRK. And the situation worsened every year.

The breakthrough came only in 2008, when 30 years later the coastal defense of Russia received the new Ball complex with the X-35 anti-ship missile.


And two years later, in 2010, the Bastion, the most modern complex with the most advanced, in my opinion, Onyx anti-ship missile system, was adopted.


Today, coastal missile brigades of the Russian Navy are on duty to defend the coastline and facilities, which are armed with both types of BPCRK. This is logical and justified, since the brigade consists of two divisions of the Bastion BPCRK with a range of up to 500 km and the Bal BPCRK with a range of up to 260 km.

In the “Bal” PKRK division there are 4 launchers with 8 anti-ship missiles each, in the “Bastion” division - 4 launchers and 4 TZM - 2 anti-ship missiles each.

True, the brigades are not enough.

536th brigade of the Northern Fleet (deployed in the village of Guba Olenya, Murmansk Region).
25th brigade of the Baltic Fleet (Donskoye settlement, Kaliningrad region).
11th brigade of the Black Sea Fleet (Utash village near the city of Anap, Krasnodar Territory).
15th brigade of the Black Sea Fleet (Sevastopol).
520th Pacific Fleet brigade (Anglichanka village near Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky).
72nd Pacific Fleet brigade (settlement Smolyaninovo near Vladivostok) Pacific Fleet brigade.

Moreover, the 72nd Pacific Fleet brigade scattered. Vladivostok itself covers one Bastion division, the second Bastion division is sent to Iturup island of the Kuril ridge, and the Balov division to Kunashir island.

In addition to these brigades, there is also a separate battery of the Bastion PKRK (2 launchers) on the Novosibirsk Islands. If you look at the map, it will become completely clear that the complexes there are not in vain.


There is also the 51st coastal missile division of PKRK “Bal” as part of the Caspian flotilla.

In general, sparse, to be honest. Given the length of our coastline ... But it’s better than nothing, better than the old cruisers who are not out of repair, and aircraft carriers that are handsome only on paper.

And meanwhile, the Black Sea Fleet still has the 11th brigade, which is armed with two divisions with Reduts and (!) The 459th separate coastal artillery division. In service with the 459th roundabouts are 130-mm guns A-222 "Coast".


This is the last artillery unit in our coastal defense.

True, the Black Sea Fleet also includes the 15th brigade deployed in Sevastopol. The brigade is armed with one Bastion division and one Balov division. The third division of the brigade is armed with PKK "Utes" with PKR 3M44 "Progress" mine-based.


For comparison: the coastal defense of the PLA of China has 10 brigades.

But in NATO, only three countries have coastal defense forces.

Spain is a unique country, it is armed with coastal defense forces, which, incidentally, are part of the ground forces, only coastal artillery from 155-mm guns SBT155 / 52APUSBTV07). There are no rockets at all.

The Polish Navy recently adopted two batteries of the Norwegian anti-ship missile system NSM (12 launchers of 4 anti-ship missiles).

Croatia is armed with three Swedish RBS-15K SCRK batteries and 21 artillery batteries.

The Swedes themselves have 6 launchers RBS-15KA, as well as 90 launchers RBS-17, this is actually an anti-ship version of the American Hellfire anti-tank systems, which are dangerous only for small-sized targets like MRK.

Finland has 4 RBS-15K launchers and coastal artillery - 30 guns K-53tk, 72 K-54RT (Soviet M-46), 1.130K90-60 (130 mm).

If you look at the European theater of operations (we don’t take the Asia-Pacific region, we are not there in fact), then in comparison with the NATO countries we are all right.

However, who will attack Spain, and Sweden in principle, too?

As for our two puddles, the Black Sea and the Baltic, everything is in order there. I mean, if you have to fend off anyone, that is what. I’m silent about the Caspian at all.


But about the cover of the Northern Fleet and the Pacific, I would not be so optimistic. The spaces are huge, and the Pacific Fleet also has neighbors such that a couple more - and no enemies at all. And the islands seem to be controversial for Japan, and the coastline is so ... rather big.

In general, there is no end in work in terms of (in good terms) the formation of at least four SCRC brigades, two per fleet.

And here he is, the question.

Dear readers, who is in the wheelhouse. We bring to your court such a thoughtfulness: is it worth it?

Is it worth it to build all these indistinct and incomprehensible mosquito RTOs, underdevelopes and so on? And different projects, with different propulsion systems, and even with eternal problems with the engines? We cannot build it ourselves, we are buying from China, since at least it is still selling.

Isn't it better to stop the process of frankly stupid (but profitable) budget development when building very strange corvettes with Caliber cruise missiles, but with absolutely no anti-submarine weapons and very weak anti-aircraft?

The INF Treaty is no longer there, and all these “mosquitoes” were designed to bypass this Treaty, so is it worth it to make a fuss of everything?

Indeed, in theory, it is possible to solve just a bunch of problems: not to build ships that we are not able to build, not to "import substitute" unsubstituted diesels, but just to take and make SCRC, placing them in key areas?


Plus, of course, mobile PUs based on wheeled platforms.

How do you like that?
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

36 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. The leader of the Redskins 18 March 2020 05: 51 New
    • 4
    • 1
    +3
    Guns from the pier scorching
    The guns are ordered to OVERLOAD?! ...
    laughing
    This is a departure from the classics, and so, thanks for the article. I never knew about the difference between coastal and anti-airborne defense.
  2. 27091965 18 March 2020 06: 11 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    And the farther towards the middle of the 20th century, the worse the coastal batteries began to look, on which gun turrets came from heavy cruisers and even battleships.


    If on the bill it is “worse”, then in our modern opinion these are the times of defense of Port Arthur, where coastal artillery was divided into three groups of long-range combat, close combat and internal combat. For these purposes, ship guns, mortars and artillery mounts of a special design were used.
  3. tlauicol 18 March 2020 06: 25 New
    • 6
    • 1
    +5
    On the contrary, I would concentrate PBRK on inland seas, leaving only corvettes and RTOs there. But the ocean fleets need big ships: all navigating cruisers, EM, BOD and frigates based on the Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet - Balls and Bastions cannot control the ocean
    1. Uncle lee 18 March 2020 07: 10 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Quote: Tlauicol
      control the ocean
      Coast Defense + Ocean Fleet + Littoral Fleet
      1. tlauicol 18 March 2020 07: 29 New
        • 8
        • 1
        +7
        Quote: Uncle Lee
        Quote: Tlauicol
        control the ocean
        Coast Defense + Ocean Fleet + Littoral Fleet

        yeah: it's better to be rich and healthy ... yes
        I'm talking about modern realities
        1. Uncle lee 18 March 2020 07: 44 New
          • 4
          • 0
          +4
          And the prospects for life are very gloomy,
          I will solve a sore point -
          And die under a country train,
          Smiling all in between the wheels.

          I didn’t say that ... crying
          Oh and dream impossible
    2. Alex777 18 March 2020 19: 28 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      base all cruisers, EM, BOD and frigates on the Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet - Balls and Bastions cannot control the ocean

      And they will be around the world in the only really necessary so far (there are no hostilities anywhere else) Does the Mediterranean Sea go?
      In the open ocean, who are you going to control? laughing
      And pushing the AUG in the Mediterranean is a very important task.
  4. alma 18 March 2020 07: 20 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Isn't it better to stop the process of frankly stupid (but profitable) budget development when building very strange corvettes with Caliber cruise missiles, but with absolutely no anti-submarine weapons and very weak anti-aircraft?

    In my opinion, to complete the construction of Karakurt that has already been laid. Well, saturate the fleet with PLO ships, though they are expensive. MPK with diesel M507 not to offer.
  5. Cowbra 18 March 2020 08: 04 New
    • 4
    • 2
    +2
    On the Far East will not work. It will be just like the Germans under Overlord - out of 4 landing zones, only one had an airborne defense in general, and there the coastline was shorter and simpler. And yet - the horseradish will be there too, especially in Chukotka.
    Then missiles on the plane - and go
  6. Potter 18 March 2020 08: 19 New
    • 22
    • 0
    +22
    And you will sit on the shore and watch as destroyers with Aegis complexes, ready to intercept our missiles at the initial stage of the trajectory, roam a little further than the range of coastal defense. And a little further onboard are the underwater strategic missile carriers, ready to shoot at our targets.
    The fleet should be, including mosquito fleet ships. Just these ships we can build and are building. Yes, and with the frigates the problem is solved - the Rybinsk turbines went to serial ships.
    Reducing the coastal defense only to the airborne defense will not work now. Well, someone will land troops - on the shore with modern means of influence they can also localize and destroy ground forces.
    But the tasks of ensuring the release of their own strategic submarine missile carriers to combat duty areas and control of these areas, as well as the removal of enemy submarine and surface forces from their shores without a balanced fleet, including short-range forces, cannot be solved.
    1. 5-9
      5-9 18 March 2020 11: 00 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      I directly imagine such an oil painting as 500 km from our coastline of the crowd of Burkov, who during the ballistic missile launcher fired anti-missiles at our ICBMs into the sky ....
      And with the last paragraph regarding the SSBN exit, I completely agree ...
      1. antivirus 18 March 2020 19: 54 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        all .. and minusers and neutral warriors ---------- we build on what money is (and the profit is calculated in the project of the ship), psychology changed 30 years ago. We will not torture Kuzyu2 --- 7 at a loss .
        for understanding, give lectures on the economics of the Higher School of Economics (?) there is already a general class of managers studying (and learned 5-15 -25 years ago). There are no projects "to revive the fleet at any cost"
        + NO ALREADY GENERATED SHIPPED JUNE 22.
        the task of mastering the dough is, there is patriotism is, and 2-5 billion dollars in your pocket (like Roma Abramovich's) on military orders (see USA) - STILL NOT.
        the structure (not the Navy and Sukh Put Put MO) of the economy will be "like in the democratic, developed OECD countries."
  7. 5-9
    5-9 18 March 2020 10: 50 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Separate Bastion PKRK battery (2 launchers) in the Novosibirsk Islands. If you look at the map, it will become completely clear that the complexes there are not in vain.


    I can be stupid, but not. No, it’s beautiful on the map ... but ... how many times in the last thousand years did an enemy military surface ship approach at least 1 thousand km to these islands? About the radius of the SCRC and I’m not saying ....

    And so - let them be .... much cheaper than carrier ships, more secretive. To protect the homeland from the NK, the adversary is certainly far-fetched, but without their possession they cannot be sold for export, and what should be brought to Syria (if the ATS itself did not buy them) if necessary? The World Cup is again almost covered with the Bosphorus ... you can put it on the Kuril Islands and wave the nippons in front of your nose.
  8. Operator 18 March 2020 11: 03 New
    • 2
    • 3
    -1
    The best coastal defense is Zircons at PGRK.
    1. SVD68 18 March 2020 12: 35 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      The Su-30 is even better.
      1. Operator 18 March 2020 12: 52 New
        • 2
        • 5
        -3
        The Su-30 is the VKS (which is also useful), and not the Navy.
    2. bayard 20 March 2020 00: 56 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Operator
      The best coastal defense is Zircons at PGRK.

      So maybe because the new PGRK brigades are not deploying, that they are waiting for Zircons? In any case, the order to prepare Zircon for ground based was already issued a year ago ... With their range of one brigade for 4 (not 2) divisions, you can cover the entire Pacific line - from Kamchatka to Primorye.
      And on the Su-30 Zircon there will be a horosh.
      And on the Su-34.
      And even on MRK, corvette, frigate ...
      But to make a maneuver by forces along a terribly long, uninhabited, rocky shore ... better still with the help of RTOs, a corvette or a frigate.
      Why
      Because the expanded PGRK division needs to be covered from the air (to the medium-range air defense division), otherwise it will be carried out in the very first minutes of “hour X”.
      And he will also need to provide ground defense proper (company \ guard battalion), otherwise a group of saboteurs will easily disable all this beauty.
      And now a grouping of up to a combined (from dissimilar forces) regiment is already dancing out. For which infrastructure is needed - barracks, warehouses, parks, workshops, housing for officers and their families, warrant officers ... access roads (road / gi) or the organization of other logistics, if this group is deployed on the island / islands).

      And if you calculate the cost of all this pleasure, it turns out that it would probably be easier to kick out one or two RTOs / corvettes to the area from time to time.
      Coastal complexes are certainly needed and even necessary, but BALANCE IS NEEDED FOR ANY GOOD MATTER.
      Here on about. Matua such a group (PGRK, SAM, airfield, marines in combat guard) is fully justified. And along the entire coast ... hardly. One such combined regiment with all the infrastructure and contents will be more expensive than a pair of RTOs.
      It’s better to deploy a network of over-the-horizon radars and react with aviation. More efficient, reliable and less expensive.
      1. Operator 20 March 2020 02: 34 New
        • 1
        • 2
        -1
        Formally, you are right - Navy PGRK for coastal object defense, Su-30 for coastal coastal defense.

        But taking into account the absolute futility of landing on the uninhabited coast of the Pacific / Arctic Ocean or, conversely, multiple overlapping combat radii of the Zirkon target PGRK on the Baltic / Black Sea coast, we can talk about the use of the Su-30 only for the long-range interception of enemy naval groups.
        1. bayard 20 March 2020 03: 23 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: Operator
          But taking into account the absolute futility of landing on the uninhabited coast of the Pacific / Arctic Ocean or, conversely, multiple overlapping combat radii of the Zirkon target PGRK on the Baltic / Black Sea coast, we can talk about the use of the Su-30 only for the long-range interception of enemy naval groups.

          You very accurately caught my thought.
          But add:
          - for additional exploration and "retraining" of the affected, but not sunk targets (missiles X-31, X-35, etc.);
          - to increase the productivity of fire in a specific direction, where the capabilities of the coastal / out complexes will not be enough;
          - to defeat coastal and ground targets that constitute a threat in the unfolding conflict;
          - and of course, to destroy remote targets at a range of 2000 - 2500 km or more (with refueling) from their place (Su-30 and Su-34) based.

          And for the cover of the Pacific Frontier, 4 divisions of coastal Zircons are really enough - Kamchatka, Primorye, Matua, Sakhalin.
  9. mik193 18 March 2020 11: 43 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Yes, coastal defense is needed and useful. But I still cannot do without OVR ships. True, you do not need to stupidly cram on each side of the "Caliber". It seems that in the first place, the tasks of PLO, PMO and air defense of the near sea zone should be solved. Well, the fact that the industry collapsed in such a way that we can’t do our diesel engines was mentioned earlier - each problem has a name, surname and position.
  10. Alka Ponne 18 March 2020 12: 08 New
    • 4
    • 8
    -4
    what the hell .... with a smart look, lay out the well-known facts, then turn everything upside down, and then ask an idiotic question ...
    got a lot of experts ...
  11. Fitter65 18 March 2020 12: 24 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Dear readers, who is in the wheelhouse. We bring to your court such a thoughtfulness: is it worth it? .... How do you like this option?

    So we have useful prospects, never opposed! laughing Only after all, thanks to your version of “thoughtfulness”, the children of “budget planners” can be left without “sweets”, but this is impossible. good
  12. SVD68 18 March 2020 12: 46 New
    • 10
    • 2
    +8
    Alexander Timokhin published a number of very competent articles on naval theory on the site.
    So, the defense of the coast by the fleet is an erroneous theory. And it is doubly wrong for our country, which in fact has isolated maritime theaters.
    The purpose of the fleet is the struggle for supremacy at sea. Let this domination be local at first, only near the coast, but at sea! And coastal land and air units should primarily help in the struggle for supremacy at sea.
    And the airborne defense ... no one will dare for a landing operation in the zone where the enemy secured supremacy at sea.
    1. Gust 18 March 2020 12: 57 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      "Thousands of times true !!" Fleet ships and submarines in conjunction with naval aviation defend only the SSBN duty area, the rest is the business of fighters and bombers.
  13. Aleksandr1971 18 March 2020 13: 39 New
    • 5
    • 1
    +4
    Thanks to the author for the article.
    BPCRK "Bastion" and "Ball" - this is of course correct. It seems that it would also be useful to place at least the BPCRK division in Kaspiysk and Paramushir. And maybe on about. Matua, since a military unit is being restored there (to protect the straits from the Pacific Ocean to the Sea of ​​Okhotsk - the place of combat duty of the RPKSN Pacific Fleet). While near Murmansk and in the Avacha Bay, coastal defense should be strengthened from the level of brigades to the level of divisions.
    At the same time, in my opinion, the best defense of the coast against attacks from the sea is not the BKPRK or even the fleet, but the naval aviation, which has weakened incredibly in recent years due to underfunding. Although the amendments to the Constitution money in the amount of 14 billion rubles. found in the treasury
  14. xomaNN 18 March 2020 13: 49 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    At the beginning of the 80s I applied my skills in the production of the launcher launcher Rubezh in one post box. He tested the lifting mechanism in the combat radar antenna. (This is from a nostalgic winked )

    Given the defensive strategy of our coast and the apparent shortage of not only money but also resources, Brav is undoubtedly a more correct option. When recalculating the effectiveness of one active missile launch, anti-ship missiles from the coast with launchers are better than similar anti-ship missiles from the corvette. After all, it is clear that it will not be necessary to cover the entire coast, but individual objects on the coast.
  15. alexmach 18 March 2020 14: 26 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Indeed, in theory, it is possible to solve just a bunch of problems: not to build ships that we are not able to build, not to "import substitute" unsubstituted diesels, but just to take and make SCRC, placing them in key areas?

    How do you like that?

    The author himself answered his question from the beginning of the article and answered
    And then, all the same, the coastal installation of anti-ship missiles (and any coastal defense system of the past) is still passive, and the initiative in the battle has always belonged and will belong to the attacking fleet of the enemy.
  16. ser56 18 March 2020 16: 23 New
    • 7
    • 2
    +5
    "Is it worth it to build all these indistinct and incomprehensible mosquito IRAs, underdevelopes and so on?"
    Of course you should not build these RTOs - you need a normal corvette for PLO ...
  17. Old26 18 March 2020 18: 45 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    Quote: Aleksandr1971
    It seems that it would also be useful to place at least the BPCRK division in Kaspiysk and Paramushir.

    In Caspian stands "Ball"
  18. svp67 18 March 2020 19: 34 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    It turns out that coastal defense - if the fleet is involved, anti-airborne defense - if it is without it.
    Not quite correctly formulated. Rather, coastal defense is involving ship composition fleet, and anti-landing - without their participation. So if you carefully read
    Airborne Defense (PDO) of the coast - a set of measures aimed at the defense of the coastal strip (coast) coastal troops (coastal missile and artillery troops) or ground forces in cooperation with the navy and aviation (air force) in order to prevent the landing of enemy naval and airborne assault forces.
    This definition refers to "coastal troops (coastal missile and artillery troops)", and so BV and BRAV belong to the fleet.
    And yet, during the Soviet era, all fleets had coastal defense divisions transferred to the fleets from the Ground Forces, they were completely subordinate to the naval command and included separate missile divisions with Tochka-U, and these divisions were VERY popular with the naval, since the ability to counter enemy naval groups immediately increased sharply. By the way, during the dissolution of the RBS (Coast Defense Divisions), these divisions remained and were transferred to the BRAV.
  19. Alf
    Alf 18 March 2020 21: 26 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    As I think, the coast should be guarded by a bunch of coastal artillery and missiles and ships. The first is the support, the second is the necessary flexibility of defense.
    1. Aleksandr1971 19 March 2020 04: 48 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      add naval aviation to the bunch, since it has a larger combat radius - 1 - 1,5 thousand km. If the coastal defense will be only with the coastal fleet and the BKPRK, then such a defense will first be destroyed by long-range forces, which only aviation can handle
      1. Alf
        Alf 19 March 2020 19: 12 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Aleksandr1971
        add naval aviation to the bunch,

        You are right, I forgot about naval aviation.
  20. exo
    exo 21 March 2020 08: 04 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Instead of strange corvettes, it is necessary to build coherent MPCs. And missile systems, in addition to large ships, should be based on the shore.
  21. Eskobar 21 March 2020 19: 52 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    In my opinion, it is impossible to make a bias in the development of the fleet, or coastal defense. Due to the SCRC, it is possible and necessary to quickly plug gaps on the shore. This is the last line of defense. But small missile ships / corvettes allow you to push the enemy fleet a greater distance from the coast and reduce the area being shot through. Concerning the START Treaty. RTOs carry anti-ship missiles. If you give the corvette 20380, and even more so 20385, as the leader of an MRK group, for air defense / anti-aircraft defense, you can get a fully combat-ready compound for defense.
  22. Pavel57 2 May 2020 21: 27 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    In fact, if we take everything together, then we must consider aviation.