What changed in the spring of 2026
In April 2026, two Okhotnik-class border patrol ships of the Russian FSB Coast Guard, Project 22460, were confirmed to have been hit in Sevastopol. The Ukrainian side published photographs of the damaged wheelhouse of one of them; according to Ukrainian data, the same series of raids included a massive attack using 43 drones overnight. This isn't the first attack on the Sevastopol outposts, nor the most high-profile. But this particular series raises a question that has been brewing since 2022: can the naval base's traditional multi-layered defense cope with what's coming at it today?
The short answer: it does partially. And that's not enough.
What the naval base defense used to look like
Since the World Wars, the traditional defense of a major port has been based on the "corridor" principle: the closer the threat approaches the berths, the denser the fire. Booms and nets were placed at the entrance to the bay to prevent submarines, saboteurs, and torpedoes from penetrating. Patrol ships and boats were stationed in the outer roads, conducting surveillance and initial countermeasures. Anti-aircraft weapons of varying ranges, from large complexes to deck-mounted machine guns, operated over the waters and the port. A command post stood in the center, linking all echelons and assigning targets.
This scheme worked against aircraft, torpedoes, and small saboteur vessels. It rested on two assumptions. First, attacks were few and far between, and each one was costly to the attacker. Second, each threat had its own range and its own echelon, which it targeted.
In 2022–2023, both premises began to fall apart in the Black Sea.
Naval drones and unmanned aerial vehicles have broken the logic of echelons.
Over the course of three years, the Ukrainian side has built what Western analysts call a “virtual fleet"This is a combination of unmanned naval boats (UNB), attack and reconnaissance drones, FPV-drones and electronic countermeasures. Russian military experts agree with the description of the phenomenon itself, but differ with the Ukrainian and Western sides in their conclusions about its consequences.
What's fundamentally new about this combination? First, the targets have become cheaper. An unmanned boat with a 200-300 kg warhead and an attack drone cost orders of magnitude less than the weapons required to engage them. Second, the targets have become small and low. The unmanned boat flies at 15-20 knots, almost at the water's edge, with a radar signature similar to that of a fishing boat. A kamikaze drone flies at altitudes of tens of meters, its plastic hull weakly reflecting radio waves. Third, targets arrive in swarms, dozens at a time, from different directions, distributed by altitude and speed.
The logic of "every threat has its own echelon" doesn't apply to this type of attack. Booms don't block the airspace—drones can fly freely above them. Anti-aircraft systems don't work against the unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) in principle: these are surface targets, against which naval and large-caliber small arms are routinely used. artillery, aviation, attack drones and weapons EWLong-range anti-aircraft systems perform poorly against low-flying UAVs for another reason: they have a lower limit of the engagement zone, a limited field of view near the water, and unacceptable economics—they have to spend rocket It's not profitable to spend millions of rubles on a ten-thousand-dollar drone. Close-combat naval artillery like the AK-630M can fire at a single target, but switching to the next requires a transfer of fire, which wastes seconds, which are critical in a swarm attack.
Expert Alexey Vasiliev, author of the channel "Russian Engineer", formulated it briefly: systems Defense They were designed for manned aircraft and cruise missiles, but now they have to operate against a completely different threat profile. Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Missile and Artillery Sciences (RARAS), Konstantin Sivkov, puts it even more bluntly: if the current economy continues, the defender loses the game, even if he shoots down most of his targets.
What April 2026 showed
A series of raids on Sevastopol in April provides a good snapshot of how the old model is breaking down. According to official data, eight drones were shot down over the city and its surrounding waters in one night. A few days later, according to Ukrainian reports, the number had risen to 43 in a single attack. In absolute numbers, the air defenses performed well: the vast majority of targets failed to reach their target. But in relative numbers, debris fell on the city streets, wounded people appeared in civilian neighborhoods, and, according to Ukrainian data, two Project 22460 ships were hit.
The series didn't stop there. On the night of April 18, the Ukrainian side reported simultaneous strikes on two Project 775 large landing ships—the Yamal and the Azov—and several coastal infrastructure facilities, including a communications antenna unit and fuel terminal tanks. The Russian side denied some of these strikes, while others were assessed as repelled. But the operation's nature is telling. It involved simultaneous attacks on ships, command and control units, and logistics. These weren't random hits. This was a planned attack on the base's infrastructure.
And this is a characteristic feature of a saturation attack. The calculation isn't that everyone will break through, but that at least a few will, and that's enough to blow up a ship at the pier or damage infrastructure. Booms slow down the first wave of unmanned aerial vehicles, but with repeated attempts, at least one will break through. Anti-aircraft systems run out of missiles on decoys. Crews at their control panels work night after night and grow tired. Somewhere in this chain, there's always a weak link.
Structurally, such an attack has several layers. First, there are reconnaissance drones, which trigger radars and record their positions. Then, they launch cheap decoys, which consume expensive missiles. Then, the main strike assets arrive—through the already depleted and exposed system. And, in parallel, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) arrive from the sea, breaking through the weakened booms.
Russian military publications, including those in Military Review, describe this scheme in exactly the same terms as Western analysts. The divergence begins with the next step: what to do about it.
Where is Russian adaptation heading?
The defense restructuring is proceeding simultaneously in several directions, and they are not equal. Two of them form the foundation, without which the rest of the system cannot be assembled. The other three form the superstructure, which only functions with the foundation in place.
Foundation One. Mass Electronic Warfare. The logic is straightforward: it's cheaper to disrupt a drone's control than to hit it with a missile. Sivkov directly cites electronic warfare as the primary means of combating swarms. When the communication channel is disrupted, the swarm disintegrates into isolated units, which lose their target. The KILOVATT Association supplies directional jamming stations instead of simply increasing their power. In 2026, a modification of the Shtora-M system appeared, featuring a single-unit architecture and multiple active jamming generators. This approach has a weak point. Modern attack drones are partially switching to inertial systems and autonomous flight based on coordinates. Electronic warfare is less effective against them. The race is on to get ahead.
Foundation two. Network circuit for target detection and distribution. This isn't there yet, and it's the main loophole. More on that below.
Superstructure one. Saturation of the near zone. The naval version of the Pantsir, the Pantsir-M (export designation Pantsir-ME), is entering service. KBP's stated specifications include two six-barreled automatic guns instead of two twin ones, eight ready-to-launch missiles, an additional thirty-two in the magazine, and the ability to engage four targets simultaneously. The system's purpose is clear: to cover the area previously occupied by the AK-630M alone and to add a cost-effective missile component against targets beyond the reach of artillery. This is an attempt to improve the economy of a ship's close-range missile system.
Second superstructure. Own drones for defense. Izvestia is developing the idea, citing the Ministry of Defense and Captain 1st Rank Vasily Dandykin. The logic is as follows: an unmanned boat itself becomes part of the base's security. It patrols the waters, sees what coastal radar misses, rams enemy unmanned boats if necessary, or carries light weapons. A whole family of drones is being commissioned: the heavy multifunctional Vizir and Vizir-2M from the Kingisepp Machine-Building Plant, the Oduvanchik strike unmanned boat from the same base, and the Murena-300S from Tula. FPV drones are also being added to this category. Dmitry Kuzyakin, CEO of the Center for Integrated Unmanned Solutions, speaks about training Navy operators to use FPV against naval targets. The logic is the same: hit a ten-dollar target with a ten-thousand-dollar device.
Superstructure three. Counter-UAV units. According to Izvestia, specialized counter-drone units (referred to in the publication as "anti-drone companies") have been created in all fleets. These units are equipped with large-caliber machine guns on UAZ Patriots, portable air defense systems, shotguns, and hand-held electronic warfare systems. Concealed observation posts are manned around the clock. Two-stage training is required: individual firing at low-flying targets and group actions. Colonel Alexander Perendzhiev, in an interview with the publication, formulates the objective bluntly: to relieve the burden on expensive air defense systems and close the "lower tier" where they are ineffective.
Above all this, there's the strategic level. The Navy Development Strategy to 2050, approved in 2026, and the newly adopted FSB Naval Development Strategy explicitly state the protection of coastal infrastructure as a priority. The threat this is designed to address comes from unmanned boats and drones. A separate clause concerns the reconstruction of naval bases. This means that not only the security system, but the very model of basing large ships in traditional ports is at risk.
Where is the network hole?
The Pantsir-M is powerful on its own. The anti-UAV unit is powerful on its own. The Shtora-M station is powerful on its own. But without a unified early detection and target distribution system, all these systems operate, as military publications themselves describe, in independent search mode. Each system sees only what falls within its own sector and reacts with a delay because it receives no targeting orders from above.
Normally, the upper echelon is made up of long-range early warning radars. According to Ukrainian statements, various types of radars are regularly damaged in Crimea. This refers to more than twenty air defense system elements reported to have been damaged during two weeks in March 2026, according to reports from the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense. The Russian side has denied some of these claims, while others assess the damage as quickly repairable. But the fact of targeted strikes against the upper detection echelon has been established. And the enemy's logic is clear: knocking out the "eyes" is cheaper than trying to penetrate all the lower layers at once.
Without the upper echelon, the lower echelons lose reaction time. The Pantsir-M, with its five seconds from detection to launch, only operates at its stated effectiveness when the target is transmitted to it from outside. If the crew is searching for the target using the system's radar, that's a different matter and requires different numbers.
The Navy Technical Council, led by Navy Commander-in-Chief Admiral Alexander Moiseyev, was established in 2025. According to official statements, it is intended to cover the network layer and integrate data from various detection systems into a single system. The pace set in the technology selection plan for October 2025 and the actual speed of fleet saturation remain divergent.
Geography versus Defense
Sevastopol Bay is a long, narrow sac with several internal bays. A ship at berth has virtually no room to maneuver. Within this enclosed waterway, the shock wave from an explosion is reflected and strikes nearby vessels. A breach by even a single unmanned submarine in such a bay creates a cascade effect that would be impossible in open water.
Therefore, according to Russian and Western sources, some Black Sea Fleet ships have been relocated to Novorossiysk, while others have been relocated to eastern ports. This is not a "retreat," as Ukrainian sources claim, nor a "victory over the fleet," as Carnegie writes. It is a forced dispersal, which comes at a price.
This cost is threefold. Logistics are stretched: ships travel further from combat zones, increasing the supply chain. Response times are reduced: a ship travels longer from Novorossiysk to the western Black Sea than from Sevastopol. Coordination is more complex: when units are spread across multiple bases, unified tactical training and mutual support require more effort.
And Novorossiysk itself, as Russian military commentators note, is now within range of Ukrainian assets. Dispersal reduces the risk of cascading losses from a single successful airstrike, but it doesn't solve the problem of vulnerability. It only spreads it.
What history shows
The picture that is emerging in the Black Sea is structurally similar to what has already happened.
On November 12, 1940, British Swordfish torpedo bombers from the aircraft carrier HMS Illustrious attacked the Italian fleet in Taranto harbor. Twenty-one aircraft in two waves disabled three battleships: the brand-new Littorio, the modernized Caio Duilio, and the Conte di Cavour. The British lost two aircraft. The main lesson of Taranto is simple: a small number of relatively inexpensive weapons, used at night and in concert, can inflict damage on a fleet in harbor that previously could only be achieved by a general engagement.
On December 7, 1941, Japanese carrier-based aircraft repeated the Pearl Harbor attack—on a larger scale and with more serious consequences. One hundred eighty-three aircraft in the first wave, followed by the second wave, resulted in the loss of several battleships and other ships by the United States. The Japanese lost twenty-nine aircraft.
Structurally, the current raids on Sevastopol reproduce the same logic, taken to the next level. Only the weapons have become even cheaper, even more widespread, and even less visible. The conclusion that follows from stories, unpleasant for any defending side. A concentrated fleet in port in an age of cheap weapons is always vulnerable. The only question is how much the defense forces the attacker to pay for each hit and how quickly the damage is repaired.
What to measure by after a year
Rebuilding a naval base's defenses in the drone era takes years, not months. To determine whether it's moving in the right direction or stalling, it's worth monitoring three specific markers over the next 12–18 months.
First marker. Serial production of key assets. Not just samples at exhibitions, but thousands of units in the military. If significant numbers of the Vizir, Oduvanchik, and Murena naval drones, new-generation electronic warfare systems, and Pantsir-M systems are produced by the end of 2026, it means the industry is keeping pace with the threat. If these products continue to be used primarily in the news about exhibitions and tests - does not have time.
Second marker. Filling the network hole. Will there be public announcements about the deployment of unified air defense control systems across the fleets, and the integration of ship-based, coastal, and airborne detection assets into a single system? Without this, the superstructure doesn't become an architecture, but remains a collection of individual assets.
Third marker: Frequency of successful Ukrainian strikes. If the number of confirmed hits on ships and infrastructure at Russian Black Sea bases remains at the spring level or increases in 2026, defense is not catching up. If it decreases, it is catching up. This marker is the most honest, because it measures results, not intentions.
In this picture, Sevastopol isn't just a base being hit. It's a testing ground for the Russian side, where it's testing whether its military and industry can adapt to the new threat profile. For now, the gap remains. Whether it closes will be determined by these three figures.
Information