Is coastal artillery still a good thing?
Would they help a relatively small nation defend from an invasion from a bigger and stronger nation?
If not, what kind of things are good for stopping invasions?
If they don't have air cover to protect the coastal guns, they're dog meat against enemy air, and if the defenders have that much air, no one is going to be making any kind of coastal landing. So, no, they're not a thing.
>If not, what kind of things are good for stopping invasions?
Not having anything worth stealing
A combination of these have led to relative world peace over the last 50 years.
For some reason it still exists but it's pretty pointless in an age where the only way artillery survives is either to be extremely mobile or to have complete air dominance, and the two countries I know of that still field it (Finland and Taiwan) can't hope for air dominance over their nearest threat (Russia and the PRC)
Not really. It's pretty easy to destroy.
Nowadays you would mainly use AshM trucks, or SPGs.
Artillery, cruise missiles, sabotage, or simply avoiding the batteries.
Look, it's moot without looking at a specific tactical threat environment compared against assets on hand, but as far as practical applications of coastal artillery, pretty much >>28543975. Both Taiwan and Finland have pretty decent air forces for their GDP, but neither of them is stopping a large invasion from angry neighbors. The first thing to go will be the air forces, and then either amphibious (Taiwan) or ground invasion (Finland).
Coastal batteries are static, easily mapped and easily destroyed by air even without completely rolling back IADS and destroying enemy air capability. There are only very limited applications where they make sense, and those have absolutely nothing to do with large scale invasion.
As far as amphibious defense, you'd be much better off saving that money on coastal batteries for easily transportable artillery, booby trapping landing areas and extra IADS investment.
No. Unless it's part of a highly mobile and well decoyed/camouflaged artillery force which is well covered by IADS and allied air. Even that would be very difficult to keep alive in the scenario you propose past the initial volleys.
Really depends. Look up SEAD, it's actually hard as fuck and requires experienced pilots and advanced equipment to pull off.
Half the point of air defence is to make attacking you so costly and difficult the enemy doesn't even bother.
Sorry. Read that initial post and was thinking MLRS for some reason. Anti-air rockets are part of the IADS (Integrated Air Defense System) and is absolutely essential in any sort of invasion defense scenario. Even if air superiority can't be achieved, significant air denial capability is essential for even delaying such an enemy.
This. Depends on the enemy. For Taiwan/Finland? It would be absolutely essential for delaying the PLA/PLAN and Russian forces long enough for the US/NATO to get significant forces in play.
This is the only reasonable way to conduct coastal artillery in this day and age, small teams deploying man portable missiles that are hard to locate to deny a lot of freedom of movement to anything operating in your littoral area.
Finland's game is to make a Russian invasion too costly. The Russians don't even have a reason to mess with Finland since Finland isn't NATO or anti-Russian.
Ukraine and Georgia were attacked because they changed allegiances. Finland has been Western since 1945.
Also, most of Finland's tactical weaponry is desu, trash. Even compared to Russia's junk.
Taiwan's game is to hold out long enough for America, but even they realize that Taiwan would fall before a US force able to defeat the PLA would arrive.
So their plan is to make it costly by resorting to anti-naval missile spam and guerilla warfare on land.
Oddly enough their missiles suck compared to the PLA's though.
Here are the current fielded units that I know of, this is the Finnish 130 TK located near Helsinki
And here's a Taiwanese position on the Kinmen Islands, very primitive compared to the Finnish positions
Easily countered by mini-drones with thermal imaging. They mark the position and a cruise missile/airstrike hits a minute later.
Russia has already utilized this in Syria to great effect.
Perhaps if you have the capability to flood hundreds of square miles with thermal-imaging capable UAV's, it's still not going to be easy especially if they're surveillance aware which Nordic coastal artillery forces are and fire from a hidden position.
Cherry picking for sure.
But yeah, Taiwan is wayyyyyyyyyyyyy behind in military tech. The PLA frontline forces are better armed and trained nowadays. Sorry Taiwanese bros.
And just for interest here's a Swiss artillery position. The "hotel" was a fire control bunker and the "villa" was an artillery position.
>Is coastal artillery still a... thing?
Tripod-launched Hellfire in a coastal defense role
Japan's Type 88 Surface-to-Ship Missile
240mm Howitzer M1 operated by Taiwan
Pic: Poland's land-based carrier for Kongsberg NSM
You may have noticed a theme here - coastal artillery is almost entirely missiles now. They range from repurposed ATGMs hiding in the tight confines of a Norwegian Fjord, to medium-range ballistic missiles with maneuverable anti-ship RVs, waiting along China's coast.
These mini-drones are essentially tiny global hawks. An RC drone with a gps, a camera, and a satellite link.
Modern thermal detection can detect through rocks and most barriers. A well developed and hidden defensive position would be the best cheap defense in my opinion; but nothing beats expensive air, information, and missile superiority.
The Finnish versus Taiwanese positions.
Taiwan's Kinmen islands are the islands expected to fall first. They put their worst units and almost no investment in them.
Why? Because the Taiwan-US alliance does not cover those islands.
>You may have noticed a theme here - coastal artillery is almost entirely missiles now.
That's not really traditional coastal artillery per se. OP seemed to be asking about traditional fixed/bunker position coastal gun emplacements. In every one of the examples you post, the nation has some significant form of naval presence to help defend the coast as well (with the arguable exception of Taiwan), whereas OP implies that land based assets are the only tools the defenders have.
>Modern thermal detection can detect through rocks and most barriers.
It really can't.
If a surface can stop infrared wavelengths, you can't see thermal through it. It's pure physics.
The Bosphorus is so narrow that with modern AShM and ASROC munitions they can hit anything in it from vehicles based in half of Turkey. They don't need permanently sited defenses on it.
Stationed only on the main island and the few small islands covered by the treaty.
>You may have noticed a theme here - coastal artillery is almost entirely missiles now.
Also almost entirely truck-based platforms that can me moved around.
So yes, coastal artillery is still around, but it's had to adapt and evolve with the times.
Pic: "Bastion" Coastal Defense System, which fires Onyx/Yakhont
your mini-drones are easily jammed.
Also thermal imagin can´t see through thick foliage - like spruce trees.
In a war between Finland and Russia there would be so much jamming going on that no drones will be airborne.
In Georgia they managed to jamme not only the Georgian coms, but also their own.
If it's camoflaged then air forces won't have a precise target to hit, harderned means you need big bunker busting munitions to kill it
It's th e same concept of a tank, armor is always better than no armor.
>If it's camoflaged then air forces won't have a precise target to hit, harderned means you need big bunker busting munitions to kill it
When you can look it up on fucking Google Earth throwing a sheet over it isn't going to do much good.
Finland has been decommissioning fixed artillery for some time now, should be finished about 2020. Future coastal artillery units will use mobile artillery and missiles
The Bosphorus is extremely narrow. They could just put people with RPGS on the beaches if they wanted.
In the case of a Russian/NATO war Russia would likely take most of its naval ships out the Black Sea before then. Or they would stay next to the Russian/Ukrainian coasts.
But that second option is extremely unlikely because it would kill the underarmed Black Sea fleet.
Dude, me, a random military nerd on the internet, found the exact location of the cannon used in this webm >>28544276
It took me ten minutes and all I had was Google and Wikipedia. Imagine what national intelligence agencies would be capable of.
>In the case of a Russian/NATO war Russia would likely take most of its naval ships out the Black Sea before then. Or they would stay next to the Russian/Ukrainian coasts.
Either way, they're screwed. An Ohio class SSGN conversion can pop a whole bunch of juicy C4SIR, IADS, basing and other targets with Tomahawks in Western Russia from the Black Sea. Even if they send three per target from each boat to account for air defense, that's still 51 high value targets per boat.
As easily jammed as a small airplane with the same equipment. Drones save the manned weight and are hard to spot.
The issue with jamming the drones is that soon enough SEAD will come fuck up your jamming sites.
I don't think anyone is going to be doing much until SEAD has at least created a small opening.
What kind of jamming capabilities does Finland have?
Kek. You don't really understand subops, do you?
In a warshot situation, there will be 2-3 Ohio SSGN conversions immediately available, and their entire job will be to get into range and launch on high value targets. If a war with Russia actually went hot, and Turkey maintained control of the Bosphorus, you can bet your ass one of them would be unloading from inside the Black Sea, probably with a VA along for escort.
Nobody except Taiwan and Finnland even have coastal artillery which likely still only exists because dumbass politicians insist that it exists
In an actual war situation they wouldn't be manned.
Not really, I ram a scenario in cmano where a civilian freighter ran through the strait of Gibraltar while being targeted by dozens of nork coastal arty batteries, and even after expending a thousand rounds they could barely hit the ship, let alone do meaningful damage to it.
CIWS wouldn't help against even three simultaneous missiles. Even subsonics cross the engagement envelope too quickly. You'd need AWACS aloft plus long range SAMs to stand off even a moderate attack.
Pretty hard to build a huge concrete bunker on top of it without anyone knowing. You just have to accept the fact that every nation knows exatly where your static emplacements are all the time
>but any post about what could be used instead is good too since the question was mostly a part of trying to figure out how to defend well.
Well, here's my coastal defense dream sheet, arranged in concentric rings -
Not even a war ring: we Sun Tzu 'n shit
>good diplomacy and/or posturing to head off threats before they gain strength
Proactive defense ring: keeping them away
>have bigass oceans in between you and the guys that hate you most
>a decent navy to tie up the enemy's navy far away from your own shore
>air power esp. in recon/patrol
>air defense of some sort
>space recon assets
Offshore ring: uncomfortable proximity
>all the same kind of naval, air, and space assets as above
Inshore ring: alhamdulillah why did you let them get this close
>all of the above plus attack helicopters sneaking around terrain
>ATGMs, tanks, even mortars and other crew-served weapons if close enough
Mines are the most cost effective way for coastal defense. I'd like to see China invade a Taiwan surrounded by millions of mines. They'll spend the next decade having to clear all that shit.
Brahmos being launched from a land-based TEL
You could go buy 1000 tons of concrete tomorrow, the fucking chinks & russians wouldn't be keeping track.
They certainly wouldn't know where you put it.
Knowing "vaguely in this area" doesn't work when they need a direct hit with large bunker busting munitions to kill it.
Costal artillery would be effective against the renewed BB programs that /k/tards are pushing from time to time.
Waiting for people here to suggest a return to pike squares as an infantry deployment tactic.
>the renewed BB programs that /k/tards are pushing from time to time
Ahh, the "muh armored gunboat for supporting amphibious landings" idea. The autism is palpable in those posts.
>what kind of things are good for stopping invasions?
terror units ready to hit the enemies infrastructure and the population centres most loyal to the enemy govt. When middle-class towns are having mass casualty events weekly your enemy govt is going to fall in rapid order. Also backpack nukes for negotiations: you'll prob have to demonstrate them on a bit of the enemies country thats uninhabited.
>Is coastal artillery still a good thing?
It could be on mobile launched ASMs, kinda like using the ASTROS 2020 platform being developed by the Brazilians with the AVMT 300 cruise missile.
I'm hoping to see a GMLRS/HIMARS launched AShM make it into US inventories in the next 15 years. Not counting that Israeli thing since I don't know anything about it and USA will never buy it anyway.
Larger missiles such as SA-11 which is installed on tracked armored vehicles or NAMATS 2 FIN, which is transported by speciai-built armored 8 x 8 trucks? These two are the heavy anti-aircraft missile systems used by Finnish military - and neither system is static.
Thats a death sentence for Island nations
If you mine your entire coastal waters you're basically trapping yourself within your own castle, these nations rely heavily on imported resources such as food and metals, if they cut themselves out the chinks will just have to wait till they starve
Link the coastal guns to radar & give them airburst weaponry to shoot down inbound missiles
The real problem is that almost noone has any specific coastline they need to defend, so no money is spent on this sort of thing
you don't need advance military tech when all you need to do is blow a small hole in pic related and cause more damage than a nuclear bomb
No. Aerial weapon systems > Ground based systems.
Why exactly do you think there is more development in aircraft than ground based anti-aircraft artillery? This isn't something you've thought of that all the military forces in the world have somehow missed.
>not always based on reality
Take a big look in the mirror brah. Your autistic emotional states are affecting your logical judgment.
How would MOP do? Edumacate me I don't know shit about 3 Gorges
In actual situation they would be manned, but as saying goes "You only leave as victors or in casket"
If you don't radiate and stay hidden, how can SEAD hit you?
This is the new strategy. Teams hidden in islands looking at sea lanes and denying amphibious forces.
Static coastal artillery is obsolete, but manning them in wartime is useful as it forces OPFOR to spend their forces against them. Countered either by cruise missiles or by air usually. If OPFOR is forced to spend missiles or planes, those can be then countered by AA or Missile Boats.
Hiding from drones is simple, you go innawoods and cover your equipment with camo netting and tree branches. IF your equipment or heat signal is covered by IR blocking material you cannot be seen.
Layered air defense by Fighters, G2A Missiles, Guns and Manpads supported by different types of radar can be effective way of making it too hard for enemy to operate in your airspace.
Neither interceptors nor AA systems can form an impenetrable defense. Ever. In fact, even with a GOOD air defense network, you'd be lucky to stop 10% of interdictions.
Stop being naive, the both of you.
>The Three Gorges Dam wall is made of concrete and is about 2,309 meters (7,575 ft) long, and 101 meters (331 ft) high. The wall is 115 meters (377.3 ft) thick on the bottom and 40 meters (131.2 ft) thick on top. The project used 27,200,000 cubic meters (35,600,000 cu yd) of concrete, 463,000 tons of steel, enough to build 63 Eiffel Towers, and moved about 102,600,000 cubic meters (1.342E+8 cu yd) of earth.
You don't have your radars on all the time or you can have only part of your radar force on radiating. Those who radiate can then forward the information to Missile batteries. If long range radar inland can spot enemy planes moving towards missile battery. The battery can then act when the time is right and minimize the possibility of SEAD. Both newer missile systems FDF use are not slaves to their own radar systems, NASAMS II uses AMRAAMs which are fire and forget missiles and ASRAD-R is laser beam rider. Older Crotales need radar to be on to operate.
Radars of FDF is somewhat "hidden" subject, most of the information is in finnish and requires little bit of googling around. Here is partial list of radars in usage.
Thomson TRS 22XX
range: 500km, height 30km
Thales-Raytheon Systems GM403
range: about 500km, height 30km
range: 100km, height 5km
From those Giraffe and GM403 are mobile
Come on goy, sail into that archipelago with missiles on every island and do an amphibious assault for us
Go ahead goy, the "modern thermal detection" we sold you is really expensive, so you know it will work!
Funny thing. I know the guy who convinced Taiwan (even though he didn't mean to and just gave the guy his honest opinion on his view of what they needed in a tank) to buy the M60A3's and helped train them to use them.
I don't see the US adopting anything like that, considering the idea of an Invasion of CONUS is the least likely scenario facing the country.
>inb4 Mudslime refugees
Different issue. Also, why would the US procure a weapon system like that when they have the US Navy and US Coast Guard, along with the Chair Forceand their ooldes or planes? It'd be a redundant strategy for an extremely unlikely scenario. For exporting on the other hand...
I would argue that they could, providing they're integrated with the Air Force. The smaller air force would have a hell of a time trying to defend with planes or SAMs alone, but putting the two together can make a world of difference. At least, especially if the SAMs can be cued from the aircraft. The smaller airforce can make itself last with SAM support, and it can protect those SAMs from SEAD aircraft- to a degree. Enough concentrated enemy air might be able to break through, however.
>realize we're still using static fucking howitzers for coastal defense
>realize we only got like 50 or something mobile defense (missiles, SPGs, etc)
Fucking fuck, fucky fuck.
Where the fuck does our entire defense budget go?
go ahead and tell me how much territory Syria has taken back since Russia got involved? absolutely nothing has changed in Syria other than russia clearing its inventory of old dumb bombs.
Probably because on paper they're both dirt cheap and can reliably penetrate most ship classes attempting to enter the littoral zone (including the LCshit), even though in practice no military would actually send in ships to those areas before sending in air to wipe them out.
So, they're cheap plane fodder.
>man portable Hellfire
So they chuck it in air and it fires its engines or what?
One man holds it on his shoulder whist the other hits the base of the missile with a sledgehammer to ignite the rocket motor, which has the benefit of pushing it forwards to a safe distance before it launches.
Pretty impressive way to take out a ship.
>Daisy cutter vs concrete dam
A Daisy Cutter is a weapon that relies on it's massive airblast and fireball to clear out dense pieces of forest back in 'nam to make helipads
The airforce just did that for shit's and giggles and to clear out space in their inventory for the new and improved MOAB based on a Fuel-air design. A daisy cutter is around the size of what your mother drives you to your D&D meetings. (A minivan). That's a lot of space for an old weapon.
The shockpressure in the tunnel caused by exploding a DC near the entrance of the cave will make your ears bleed, even if you're a mile in to the mountain.
>you don't need advance military tech when all you need to do is blow a small hole in pic related
You're talking as if anyone could just waltz right up to it as if it wasn't defended.
If they were actually hardened installations, with better howitzers, like people built in WW2, they would be ok.
If the US or anyone else built battleships for going into contested litoral waters, they would be useless vs that anyways.
Like said, even if fixed coastal artillerybatterys are almost obsolete, they are still very usefull in wartime. Just being there, they effectively deny enemy using waters near coastal line. Enemy has to actively try to destroy them burning missiles to both real and decoys. Then enemy has to get intel if those batterys in matter of fact have been killed because hardened targets need perfect shot. When confirmed, enemy will proceed to make an amphibious assault. In the meantime mobile missile based artillery can take its turn and make assaulting forces life very miserable. Yes, you need mobile AShM for effective coastal defence but having fixed coastal artillery (if already existing) will make enemy to burn lots of missiles and not everynation have the luxury to do that. There are lots of more important targets and you just dont have missiles for everything. This is not like USA against third world country where you can spam JDAM to every mudhut you see dangerous.
Hardened locations need special bunker busting munitions anyways. Can't just JDAM it
Says china has DF-21's with a CEP of 20 meters. That's going to miss more often than hit any small hardened bunker.
I would imagine that self-propelled howitzers would take the role.
I would think if someone was gonna send shit to take that beach they would initiate with at least a bunkerbuster bomb/missile to take out that position out, then it's free parking at the beach for amphibious craft
Very few Finnish coastal forts are in active use during peace time. Much of them are so-called "cold forts" - when not in active use (rarely - for example wargames on location or having their regular inspection & maintenance) everything is locked down and are guarded, but there is no gun crews or other activity directly related to guns to observe. When inspection & maintenance the crew doing that is going to check that the decoy guns look ok as well. Assuming decoy turrets were installed around the same time as the real ones and neither have any real peace time activity related to them, how are you going to spot from a satelite or recon aircraft which one is decoy and which one in real? If the coastal fort becomes active (mobilisation or wargames) with its gun turrets being taken to use all they need is to drop some sort of heat source inside decoy turrets & rotate them every now and then and they look kosher. I am not talking about separate decoy gun batteries - what I am talking about is decoy turrets mixed among the real things. These are steel turrets on top of underground concrete bunkers - only way destroying them with non-nuclear weapons is direct hit to each turret, hence one does not need to spread them that far from each other for the thing to work.
Reality check. Bombing all buildings which or might not contain a bunker would be waste of resources with you probably running out bombs before suspicions buildings. Bombs that you could otherwise use to more important targets. Hence rather solid choice from their part.
I think those guns are big enough to fit entire bedrooms in.
Just throw a space heater in there and you're good.
Come to think of it, you could set up some bottles on the gun and plink from up there
The solution to a good coastal defense is simple.
All you need to do is give oil companies incentives to drop wells in your coastal waters, once they drop all the money to open up 100s of wells you destroy them all BP horizons style where they just continuously dump oil into the water.
Then you light your whole fucking coast on fire.
Not many people are willing to spend 3,5 years digitizing some 160 000 old photos, and that's not even all.