Are shore-based anti ship missiles a good deterrent for invasion for a country without a real navy, assuming they're part of a larger defense strategy?
Hard mode; assuming the 'defending' country has no good airforce either
>>30582708
Its a decent deterrent as long as you dont piss off somebody enough that they decide that its worth the risk. Doubly so for hard mode.
If you are shooting at ships in a wartime scenario from land, you already lost, because the ships have been shooting at you for a long time.
>>30582708
They need defending and targeting, which is going to be a problem if you don't have any air power to do so.
Very cost effective. Minimal upkeep. Can be hidden. Cover them with SAMs too and you got all your bases covered.
>>30582750
except from submarines-launched missiles
if they've got subs, anyway
>>30582750
SAMs without air cover are just buying time.
Maybe it's outdated but in the Falklands war the argentine airforce caused a fair bit of damage with exocets launched from jets. And these jets were limited in the amount of missiles they could carry and the flight time to and from the islands. Batteries on land could put out a greater volume of fire, assuming ships get in range. Which they would eventually have to in some sort of invasion was happening
>>30582753
Missile launchers can shoot and scoot. Sub land cruise missiles are for static placements.
>>30582763
If the invading force comes only from sea, SAMs can practically deny air access since aircrafts have to return and refuel from long distances, which is inefficient. Putting carriers close to shore exposes them to anti ship missiles.
>>30582843
>If the invading force comes only from sea, SAMs can practically deny air access since aircrafts have to return and refuel from long distances, which is inefficient. Putting carriers close to shore exposes them to anti ship missiles.
"Inefficient", doesn't mean it doesn't work. SAMs don't deny air access to anyone with any kind of SEAD/DEAD ability, which is basically every naval air arm.
Doing this is basically exactly what the USN trains to do. With no air cover its a piece of fucking cake.
>>30582858
>"Inefficient", doesn't mean it doesn't work.
It does mean the attacking force will have a high attrition rate. This all depends on how bad the invading force wants it and how big the defending force is. If it was USA invading China without their air force, not even USA can tolerate the losses from Chinese shore weapons that can resupply in a pinch. Of course, a smaller country would be overwhelmed eventually because they run out of weapons.
>>30582922
>without their air force
without factoring the Chinese air force, I mean
>>30582858
>SAMs don't deny air access to anyone with any kind of SEAD/DEAD ability, which is basically every naval air arm.
Russia's entire air defense doctrine is wrong then I guess
>>30582708
Ocean and ocean/shore based combat seems this hellish combination of luck, knowing where the enemy is first and then throwing masses of shit at the enemy and hoping something hits. Within that consideration they seem to have a use.
>>30582938
Aside from the fact that the Russians do have air power, yes. Its a shitty defensive doctrine just like they've always had.
Nations that have tried to emulate it have regularly got their shit kicked in.
>>30582808
Yeah, because the Brits didn't have an air arm aside from a handful of Harriers. They couldn't establish air superiority, let alone go on enough missile hunts to accomplish anything.
And even then, they only lost 2 to Excocets and continued to rape the Argies on the ground. Not exactly a huge number or huge loss.
>>30582922
>s. If it was USA invading China without their air force, not even USA can tolerate the losses from Chinese shore weapons that can resupply in a pinch.
Wew lad.
You completely underestimate the force disparity here, along with the tech advantage the US has on average.
MALD's alone, ALONE, completely fucks a IADN.
>>30582987
ok now consider that the defender isn't limited to the handful of missile-armed jets flying hundreds of miles offshore at their maximum range, having to continually return home to refuel and re-arm, and having a tiny stockpile of missiles to boot
Even with these problems the argies got 2 ships and hit another (at least)
A navy that had to run the gauntlet of shore based missiles would take higher casualties. And OP talking about deterrence, which is what that would offer.
>>30582982
But is it really that shitty? Russians make sure to throw in AA units and systems left and right to deter or outright destroy any air force that might try and bomb them.
Seems to me that its quite a valid strategy and not as shitty as most people think, than their is also the cost offset; planes cost a shitload more than AA-systems right?
>>30583061
>Russians make sure to throw in AA units and systems left and right to deter or outright destroy any air force that might try and bomb them.
This is what they hope to make happen.
It is not what history has repeatedly told us does happen.
>>30583061
S300 and S400 are extremely expensive
Just not F35 tier expensive
