You're not getting any sort of meaningful air defense on a corvette, let alone a missile boat.
true but atleast in a purely defensive role the corvettes would be under the umbrella of shore based interceptors
I should also note that the P-15 Termit is the first surface-launched antiship missile the Soviets made that was small enough to mount on a missile boat/corvette. And it entered service in 1960. The Komars actually began life as torpedo boats before being converted to missile boats.
will it be possible to mount a ship launched version of KS-1 komet and KSShch on ships that are bigger than FAC but about WW2 destroyer escort size ?
One more thing: Soviet bastion defense strategy isn't a thing at this point in time. That strategy was to defend their ballistic missile submarines - and their ballistic submarines are, in this era, Golf and Hotel-class submarines that need to travel almost to the American coast to hit any targets of worth. It wasn't until the Deltas and their R-29 missiles arrived in the 1970s that Soviet ballistic missile subs could hit targets from the Arctic, making the Bastion strategy viable.
valid point and I defiantely overlooked that but maybe the soviet navy should not have relied on the earlier SSBN to conduct attacks on North america but retained them as assets to conduct attack on western southern europe and Japan [ essentially the role given to them after Delta/typhoons came into service]
To summarize what I'm suggesting is that [ it seems to me that ] resources of soviet navy were spread too thin to effectively perform any of its essential roles in 50s/60s so much so that the most basic role of any navy to protect its shores and its army from flanking operations could not be reliably performed.
So even if they do choose to build hundreds of DE boats as in OTL , they could have been more useful in sea denial role in coastal areas and seas surrounding the USSR effectively preventing the carriers and US submarines from getting too close to attack the homeland.Also here some of their flaws could have been minimized e.g noisy boats are probably better off in coastal areas than in vast open expanses of atlantic and their range /speed would not have been such disadvanatges
I doubt it. Both are nearly 1000 pounds heavier than the Styx; the Komet probably can't be surface-launched at all without an unacceptable reduction in range. In fact, the Scrubber was not mounted in anything smaller than a destroyer, and even then only two of them.
The Soviets don't have enough options for attacking the continental US to retain their Hotels and Golfs for attacking Europe, where they have plenty of shorter-range bomber aircraft and intermediate-range missiles anyway. They're only just getting the Tu-95 bomber and their first ICBMs into service, have a limited number of M-4s, and none of them are viable second-strike platforms. Getting the Yankees in the water changes the calculus somewhat, but those subs still need to pass through the GIUK gap to attack targets in the US. Tl;dr the Soviet Navy, for a variety of very good reasons, are not going to just sit on the ability for submarine launches against the continental US until 1972.
Okay, first of all, of all the flaws of Soviet SSKs in this period, range was not one of them. Anyway, for the rest...
The Soviet Navy, as of 1960, has north of
200 diesel attack submarines, 90 modern destroyers, 70 modern ASW frigates with torpedo capability, have a truly staggering number of coastal ASW and torpedo combatants, eighteen decently modern gun cruisers, and whole mess of missile boats and missile-armed destroyers and cruisers under construction. Oh, and they're converting their force of Badger bombers to cruise missile carriers for attacking American carrier groups. Even with most of the diesel subs attacking NATO SLOCs... what the hell else do you think the Soviets
need to defend their coasts? For a coastal defense force this is a truly, spectacularly large force.