Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Buk SAM system General Thread

    Share

    collegeboy16
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1207
    Points : 1234
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 20
    Location : Roanapur

    Re: Buk SAM system General Thread

    Post  collegeboy16 on Sun Mar 16, 2014 5:56 pm

    Hehe, attack drones are just that - drones. And the most effective attack drones cost even more than an equivalently sized piloted aircraft, while being less effective. Also, cruise missiles are still by far the most efficient of all 'drones'- 1 million bucks a pop and a small building sized problem is gone. I wonder if in the future you can have a cruise missile strike package delivery service by phone-  Twisted Evil 
    Not only those- SAMs being cheaper would allow as much as hundreds of missiles per target.

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 737
    Points : 920
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Buk SAM system General Thread

    Post  Mindstorm on Wed Mar 19, 2014 5:20 pm

    Vann7 wrote:The problem however will continue to be .. Offense > defense.

    Taking into account a large scale conventional scenario between highly advanced opponents all the results coming from the most advanced simulation's models suggest the exact opposite of this assumption  Smile  

    Highly advanced defense systems (and with that i don't refer exclusively to high-end SAMs) don't only allow to completely neutralize or apply hindering losses on the entire spectrum of the most crucial offensive/ISR elements of the enemy forces (such as ballistic missiles, cruise missiles , aircraft, gliding bombs, helicopters, UAV/UCAV, AWACS, airborne jammers,  decoys and so on.......) but also to maintain integer the bulk of theirs own offensive means so to achieve a progressively faster degradation of opponent's offensive capabilities.

    Very advanced defense systems don't only allow to fend-off attacks or completely prevent them but also allow to the offensive elements to survive.

    That is even more true with Air Forces, representing effectively motionless targets for enemy offensive elements.
    All airfields…… and in particular NATO ones, lacking often the most elementary guise of passive hardening measures and of IAD coverage…. represent in facts for the enemy very easy targets, with well-known coordinates , characterized ,moreover, by high concentration of : delicate and very soft skin targets (aircraft) , exposed fuel stock and ammo depots in a forcibly compressed area;  all factors rendering them one of the most trivial targets in modern warfare , except when inserted in a very solid, high-end, dense and multilayered IAD.

    Even more ,we cannot stress enough how the more advanced, extensive and dense is a sector of enemy  IAD defending critical assets the more attacking Air Forces become exponentially vulnerable to “beheading” attacks; with offending Aviation forced effectively to bring and concentrate in the close-theater's airfields a very high number of Aircraft, ammunitions and corollary assets in order to even only prepare an attack against a particular IAD’s sector with some chance of success.

    etaepsilonk
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 717
    Points : 699
    Join date : 2013-11-19

    Re: Buk SAM system General Thread

    Post  etaepsilonk on Wed Mar 19, 2014 8:56 pm

    To mindstorm:

    You forgot to mention that medium/high tier SAMs actually work most effectively with friendly fighter CAP overhead.
    The best example for that is Iran-Iraq war, using this tactic IRIAF managed to pretty successfully defend themselves against numerically and sometimes, qualitatively superior enemy.


    And yeah, lack of NATO attention towards SAMs is pretty disturbing. They basically follow by the letter Luftwaffe's WW2 concept of "airforce wins it all".

    magnumcromagnon
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4468
    Points : 4659
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: Buk SAM system General Thread

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Wed Mar 19, 2014 9:06 pm

    etaepsilonk wrote:To mindstorm:

    You forgot to mention that medium/high tier SAMs actually work most effectively with friendly fighter CAP overhead.
    The best example for that is Iran-Iraq war, using this tactic IRIAF managed to pretty successfully defend themselves against numerically and sometimes, qualitatively superior enemy.


    And yeah, lack of NATO attention towards SAMs is pretty disturbing. They basically follow by the letter Luftwaffe's WW2 concept of "airforce wins it all".

    No kidding, the gap between Russian SAMS and NATO SAMS is staggering!

    etaepsilonk
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 717
    Points : 699
    Join date : 2013-11-19

    Re: Buk SAM system General Thread

    Post  etaepsilonk on Wed Mar 19, 2014 9:10 pm

    magnumcromagnon wrote:
    etaepsilonk wrote:To mindstorm:

    You forgot to mention that medium/high tier SAMs actually work most effectively with friendly fighter CAP overhead.
    The best example for that is Iran-Iraq war, using this tactic IRIAF managed to pretty successfully defend themselves against numerically and sometimes, qualitatively superior enemy.


    And yeah, lack of NATO attention towards SAMs is pretty disturbing. They basically follow by the letter Luftwaffe's WW2 concept of "airforce wins it all".

    No kidding, the gap between Russian SAMS and NATO SAMS is staggering!

    Well, exactly opposite is the case for airforces, isn't it? Smile

    It's not like NATO is defenceless in AD field, in a war those tasks would be mostly performed by fighters.
    For example, I think that F-15 could be a very good anti-CM platform- good range, lots of ordnance, AESA radar.


    Last edited by etaepsilonk on Wed Mar 19, 2014 9:18 pm; edited 1 time in total

    magnumcromagnon
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4468
    Points : 4659
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: Buk SAM system General Thread

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Wed Mar 19, 2014 9:17 pm

    etaepsilonk wrote:
    magnumcromagnon wrote:
    etaepsilonk wrote:To mindstorm:

    You forgot to mention that medium/high tier SAMs actually work most effectively with friendly fighter CAP overhead.
    The best example for that is Iran-Iraq war, using this tactic IRIAF managed to pretty successfully defend themselves against numerically and sometimes, qualitatively superior enemy.


    And yeah, lack of NATO attention towards SAMs is pretty disturbing. They basically follow by the letter Luftwaffe's WW2 concept of "airforce wins it all".

    No kidding, the gap between Russian SAMS and NATO SAMS is staggering!

    Well, exactly opposite is the case for airforces, isn't it? Smile


    The exactly opposite for airforces? I strongly disagree, Russian fighter jets are as capable as any other country's jets in the world.

    etaepsilonk
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 717
    Points : 699
    Join date : 2013-11-19

    Re: Buk SAM system General Thread

    Post  etaepsilonk on Wed Mar 19, 2014 9:23 pm

    magnumcromagnon wrote:
    etaepsilonk wrote:
    magnumcromagnon wrote:
    etaepsilonk wrote:To mindstorm:

    You forgot to mention that medium/high tier SAMs actually work most effectively with friendly fighter CAP overhead.
    The best example for that is Iran-Iraq war, using this tactic IRIAF managed to pretty successfully defend themselves against numerically and sometimes, qualitatively superior enemy.


    And yeah, lack of NATO attention towards SAMs is pretty disturbing. They basically follow by the letter Luftwaffe's WW2 concept of "airforce wins it all".

    No kidding, the gap between Russian SAMS and NATO SAMS is staggering!

    Well, exactly opposite is the case for airforces, isn't it? Smile





    The exactly opposite for airforces? I strongly disagree, Russian fighter jets are as capable as any other country's jets in the world.  


    I meant numerically.
    Heck, I'm sure that the best 4th gen fighter is Su-35 Smile

    But keep in mind that NATO's F-15s are nearly as good and much more numerous.
    And those are just the fighters, there're also AWACSs, tankers, recon, comm planes, all of which contribute to battle effectiveness as much as fighting systems themselves.

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 737
    Points : 920
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Buk SAM system General Thread

    Post  Mindstorm on Wed Mar 19, 2014 11:55 pm

    etaepsilonk wrote:It's not like NATO is defenceless in AD field, in a war those tasks would be mostly performed by fighters.


    In this world that represent a complete fairy tale  Rolling Eyes

     

    I try to explain the absurdity of this apologetic concept with a very simple example :

    A NATO Command Center receive data from early warning radars /AWACS that four groups of enemy "intruders", still at several hundreds km of distance are in route at high subsonic speed toward several possible critical NATO targets in the theatre of operations (C4 center ,a main radar, some main military airfields) ,let put that the contacts in each group are 25, 20, 21 and 30.

    Any NATO general, well aware that its "IAD" (if would be even serious employ in that instance this term.....Laughing ) lack any dedicated and optimized interceptors such as MiG-31 ( designed to greatly dilute cruise missile PGM Attacks), any system like S-300 family, any system like BUK-M family, any system like TOR-M family, any system like Tunguska-M or Pantsyr-S, high power ECM vehicles, dedicated decoy and masking systems, for not say the entire structure of passive and active network of overlapping sensors and command posts, purposely conceived to allow the repulsion of air attack some order of magnitude bigger than this one and well knowing that allowing the enemy to coordinate a saturating attack on the not-hardened airfields would lead to a catastrophic outcome , order all the interceptors capable to scramble toward an useful and far intercepting point of those enemy squadrons to urgently take-off.

    Alarms in all possible airfields potentially targets of a possible cruise missile/PGM attack by part of those enemy squadrons is immediately risen, AWACS  in the area recede in a sure position and jamming aircraft take-off while all possible fighter in the theatre airfields take the air in the attempt to intercept the menace ; theirs failure would mean the entire NATO Air Force structure in the area to literally collapse, with the utter loss of all aircraft, weapons and material that those air bases contain; a true disaster.


    At 400-500 km from the potential target airfields ,each of those enemy squadrons change suddenly route , now two groups are directed at north-east and other two toward west/north-west for the possible cruise missile delivery toward other two main NATO airfields.

    NATO generals orders all the intercepting squadrons  (likely 100-150 fighter aircraft) ,obviously not more able to execute a successful engagement to return to theirs respective bases and order to the aircraft present in the possible targeted airfields to instead immediately take-off.  

    All the aircraft of the first NATO Air Force's squadrons land and begin the slow repair and re-fuelling operations , when ,suddenly, one of the AWACS detect an enormous number of small RCS contacts incoming at very low altitude and high subsonic/supersonic speed toward all NATO airfield in the sector , NATO General's blood literally freeze in the veins while dozen after dozen of Kalibr missiles ,shot from more than 2500 km of distance , proceed totally undisturbed at destroy all main air bases in the theatre.

    The four "attacking" squadrons can U-turn from their mission : it was  not necessary to shot even only a single missile neither put a single aircraft in danger of enemy interception in order to completely crumble the enemy ridiculous air defense concept of operation.  Razz 


           
    Fighter aircraft are totally incapable to provide any kind of real defense in a modern conflict against an advanced opponent, and without this critical "defensive screen" theirs same survival and that of the asset at the base of theirs operation result impossible .

    collegeboy16
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1207
    Points : 1234
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 20
    Location : Roanapur

    Re: Buk SAM system General Thread

    Post  collegeboy16 on Thu Mar 20, 2014 5:09 am

    etaepsilonk wrote:
    I meant numerically.
    Heck, I'm sure that the best 4th gen fighter is Su-35 Smile

    But keep in mind that NATO's F-15s are nearly as good and much more numerous.
    And those are just the fighters, there're also AWACSs, tankers, recon, comm planes, all of which contribute to battle effectiveness as much as fighting systems themselves.
    Hahaha, Su-35 need not fear any F-15- the only F-15s that can actually cause trouble are murican and we all know if it comes to that its nuketime, other operators are not worth mentioning since against them lower aircraft would suffice.
    Also, F-15 cant be better than F-35 and we all know Su-35 is more than a match for the F-35.

    Vann7
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3231
    Points : 3355
    Join date : 2012-05-16

    Re: Buk SAM system General Thread

    Post  Vann7 on Sat Mar 22, 2014 8:34 pm



    I meant numerically.
    Heck, I'm sure that the best 4th gen fighter is Su-35 Smile

    But keep in mind that NATO's F-15s are nearly as good and much more numerous.
    And those are just the fighters, there're also AWACSs, tankers, recon, comm planes, all of which contribute to battle effectiveness as much as fighting systems themselves.


    Actually in comparison with all US 4generatin fighters ,Not only the Su-35 is superior but also all thousands of SU-27s and MIg-29 with upgraded avionics that Russia have.. because they can see first and attack first.. and in the case of the Sukhois they have thrust vectoring engines.. means that no F-15-f-16-f18 stance a chance in visual combat against any Sukhoi.. this was even confirmed by an American pilot of an F-22 ,who saw how India wiped
    all their 4gen planes in RED FLAG exercises in 2008.. So he told that is was scary how Russia technology dominate their 4th generation planes. in a dogfight you cannot win a sukhoi super maneuverable using linear thrust engines.. pilot skills being the same.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNRMO70Hw0s&index=134&list=FLwGYjBaQ5y2UY3gKVsOTACw

    When it comes to F-22 raptor and F-35.. Their numbers are not good enough to make a difference , major problem the raptor will face is that it will be detected as soon launch a missile and the the SU-35 can jam the raptor missiles with its very advanced ECM capabilities. SO the raptor will see first ,first first but will not score a hit ,and once the SU-35 short the distance is game over for the raptor.. since lose a lot of energy when doing tight turns ,major weakness confirmed by Rafale and Eurofighters pilots who already defeated it. SU-35 in the other hand is a True vector engine fighter , not only 1 Y axis dimension but in X dimension too. With its infrared passive sensors (that the raptor dont have) the Su-35 can see the raptor easily at up to ~50km-80km according to Sukhoi claims. That is very decent medium ranges of interception.

    US strong point vs Russia is in the navy vs navy in open sea when using their aircraft carriers + combat jets(away of Russian territory).. and also strong in intercepting ICBM with their navy ,also geographics/political advantage in first strike capability,can use any territory in Europe to attack Russia.. Russia cannot use Mexico or canada to attack US.The US navy can overwhelm any navy in the world including Russia for sure albeit not without suffering massive losses.. But its army is mediocre at best ,specially its missiles forces.

    In a conventional only war ,Lets say US choose to invade Ukraine with its army and tanks with Russia threatening to fight them if they do it. And US deploy all their impressive number of massive Airforces Poland and Romania..
    The major problem they will face is that Russia Kaliber missiles have 3,600km range and can hit any part of Europe ,and any airforce military base. So Russia can do direct hits on their military bases anyplace in europe and just using their land missiles forces the most powerful in the world...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drlreb9-fXQ


    NATO will need to move their airfoces not only away of Russia combat range but away of their combat range too. It means that in a war between USA and RUssia their airforces will play no role at all. because will be at range of Russian cruise missiles or at range of S-400s. It means the NATO will no longer be able to count with air support in a war against Russia. And then when NATO armies gets closer ,Russia will start firing iskanders with 500km range and 5m precision. This means Russia can do Direct hits on the supply lines of NATO in their operation bases..

    Russia also have a huge advantage on Sam Defenses and mobile sam defenses ,not a single American slow tomawahk missile will bypass a zone protected with highly mobile Pantsirs ,Tors and Buks. In the other hand US and Allies will have a pain dealing with Supersonic mach 3 missiles hugging terrain and coming from all directions *at the same time*.

    Russia army is very dynamic can move every thing with their foot soldiers to any place ,that is sams ,electronic jammers and offensive weapons to any part the army move, NATO army is very static and purely offensive.they depend on airforces for their defenses 100%.


    Simply NATO is not prepared to fight Russia in a conventional war (specifically in the case they fight near Russia) main land. All western tanks will be useless if Russia can knockdown them from 90km away with Smerch drone+lazer guided rockets. This is why NATO tactics is 100% based in weakening RUssian economy. To give them another Afganistan. That is a proxy war.. NATO instigate revolutions and arm radicals with weapons in nations important for Russian interest. Weapons clients like Syria ,Iran or major trade partners like Ukraine,this way they can avoid a direct war with Russia that they can't win. US can be more effective with sabotages to Russian economy and Sanctions. This is the Reason Syria but also Ukraine is attacked.. they want to use Syria discovered Gas fields to supply Europe and cripple Russia economy. They also after Ukraine because Russia pipelines pass through Ukraine and large part of Russia economy depends of their business with them.

    here is a comparison of US vs Russia airforces.. and why in a fight vs Russia or China they will NOT have air superiority..

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNRMO70Hw0s&index=134&list=FLwGYjBaQ5y2UY3gKVsOTACw







    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Buk SAM system General Thread

    Post  TR1 on Sat Mar 22, 2014 9:16 pm

    Russia does not have thousands of MiG-29s and Su-27s.

    And far from all of them are upgraded.

    Vann7
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3231
    Points : 3355
    Join date : 2012-05-16

    Re: Buk SAM system General Thread

    Post  Vann7 on Sat Mar 22, 2014 10:18 pm

    TR1 wrote:Russia does not have thousands of MiG-29s and Su-27s.

    And far from all of them are upgraded.


    Your correct.. still doesn't matter.. NATO will not have air supremacy in a conflict with Russia. The
    several hundreds strong war planes they can get combined with S-400s,S-300s and mobile buks and tors can pull back any NATO airforce. Russia have airforce range advantage and Sam advantage and counter measure advantage. Just days ago the US airforce lost 2 drones in crimea ,against Russian electronic counter measures.

    http://news.yahoo.com/russia-says-intercepted-us-drone-over-crimea-arms-180430584.html;_ylt=At_B0i8Ttqvgrn8ZH8ESDpzQtDMD;_ylu=X3oDMTBsdmNodWplBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMzBHNlYwNzcg--

    US deny the claims they lost drones,just like they did when lost drones in IRAN ,and later it was proved IRAN downed a stealth drone capture and obama change their version asking for a return.  A real Combat simulation done by Pentagon between NATO and Russia+China airforces combined shows the problem of air supremacy even in the case they use F-22 and F-35.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITbGBmaqQkk

    Simply NATO will never send an army with tanks to any place ,that they do not have air supremacy first.
    Their armies not prepared to fight Russia in a conventional war ,specially when Russia have the option to get assistance of China . But even without any China help , Russia can counter NATO numbers with superior weapon advantage ,that can allow any combat plane , to snipe all NATO forces from a safe distance and also bomb their military bases in any part of europe from where their airforce take off day and night.


    Last edited by Vann7 on Sat Mar 22, 2014 10:42 pm; edited 2 times in total

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Buk SAM system General Thread

    Post  TR1 on Sat Mar 22, 2014 10:30 pm

    To be quite frank until I see photos of the drones I am skeptical the event ever happened.

    Regular
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1955
    Points : 1962
    Join date : 2013-03-10
    Location : Western Hemisphere.. mostly

    Re: Buk SAM system General Thread

    Post  Regular on Sun Mar 23, 2014 2:36 am

    Vann7 wrote:NATO army is very static and purely offensive

     sunny You made my day!

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Buk SAM system General Thread

    Post  GarryB on Sun Mar 23, 2014 8:47 am

    NATO had serious trouble with the mobility and skill of the Serbian air defence forces... I would suggest that the Russian air defence forces would be equally as challenging, but also far better equipped with systems and weapons that can reach out and touch.

    And then they have the Russian Air Force to deal with which includes its own SAMs and radars, and the Russian Army which again has its own SAMs and radars and of course the Russian Navy which also has its own SAMs and radars...

    I don't see any Rush to send NATO forces to deal with the evil Russians invading and annexing Crimea...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Djoka
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 13
    Points : 13
    Join date : 2013-01-21

    SAMs

    Post  Djoka on Sun Mar 23, 2014 9:57 am

    GarryB wrote:NATO had serious trouble with the mobility and skill of the Serbian air defence forces... I would suggest that the Russian air defence forces would be equally as challenging, but also far better equipped with systems and weapons that can reach out and touch.

    And then they have the Russian Air Force to deal with which includes its own SAMs and radars, and the Russian Army which again has its own SAMs and radars and of course the Russian Navy which also has its own SAMs and radars...

    I don't see any Rush to send NATO forces to deal with the evil Russians invading and annexing Crimea...
    Not only that Russian forces would be equally if not better trained than Serbian forces,but they unlike Serbia would have thousands of latest sam's like s-300,s-400,buk's,tor's,pancirs.....We in Serbia used sam's that were from Vietnam war era.Not to mention the difference in the size of the territory and the number and quality of the air force.Serbia had 10 mig 29s out of which majority didn't have spare parts or working radars.And dodnt forget the upcoming s-350,s-500....

    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3052
    Points : 3150
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Buk SAM system General Thread

    Post  medo on Sun Mar 23, 2014 12:37 pm

    GarryB wrote:NATO had serious trouble with the mobility and skill of the Serbian air defence forces... I would suggest that the Russian air defence forces would be equally as challenging, but also far better equipped with systems and weapons that can reach out and touch.

    And then they have the Russian Air Force to deal with which includes its own SAMs and radars, and the Russian Army which again has its own SAMs and radars and of course the Russian Navy which also has its own SAMs and radars...

    I don't see any Rush to send NATO forces to deal with the evil Russians invading and annexing Crimea...

    Don't forget, that NATO need to have troops in Africa, ME and US have to have large capabilities around Iran, China, Pakistan, Latin America, etc. They could not just take all forces from all around the World to challenge Russia, because China will fill this vacuum with their forces and many places around the World will become free of Westerners and trade with others without western influence. On the other hand, unfortunately, stupidity and greed don't have limits.

    magnumcromagnon
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4468
    Points : 4659
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: Buk SAM system General Thread

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Sun Mar 23, 2014 8:39 pm

    TR1 wrote:To be quite frank until I see photos of the drones I am skeptical the event ever happened.

    Alleged video of American drone over Crimea:


    Regular
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1955
    Points : 1962
    Join date : 2013-03-10
    Location : Western Hemisphere.. mostly

    Re: Buk SAM system General Thread

    Post  Regular on Mon Mar 24, 2014 10:16 am

    Ukrainain DA42 used by border guards are not UAV.

    mack8
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 923
    Points : 983
    Join date : 2013-08-02

    Re: Buk SAM system General Thread

    Post  mack8 on Thu May 22, 2014 12:56 pm

    Buk-M3 among others:

    http://bmpd.livejournal.com/861728.html


    magnumcromagnon
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4468
    Points : 4659
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: Buk SAM system General Thread

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Fri May 23, 2014 11:52 pm

    mack8 wrote:Buk-M3 among others:

    http://bmpd.livejournal.com/861728.html





    +1, it's surprising not many people have commented on the fact that we see interesting variations of Kurganets, Boomerang, and Koalition as well as Buk-M3.

    Morpheus Eberhardt
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1967
    Points : 2092
    Join date : 2013-05-20

    Re: Buk SAM system General Thread

    Post  Morpheus Eberhardt on Sat May 24, 2014 1:03 am

    mack8 wrote:Buk-M3 among others:

    http://bmpd.livejournal.com/861728.html


    Here is a better picture of 1V197, Kanonada.

    Have they misspelled the nickname in the poster?


    RTN
    Sergeant
    Sergeant

    Posts : 185
    Points : 170
    Join date : 2014-03-24
    Location : Fairfield , CT

    Evading BUK - Is it possible for flights like the MH 17 civil airliner to evade the BUK ?

    Post  RTN on Sat Jul 19, 2014 8:54 am

    Could Missile deflection devices such as the chaff or flares or electronic counter-measures saved the Malaysian airliner MH-17 from being hit by the missile ?

    Israeli civilian aircrafts uses the Flight Guard anti missile defense system to save their aircrafts from missile hits .

    http://www.defenseworld.net/news/10826/Countermeasure_Systems_Could_Possibly_Save_MH_17#.U8oVyOOSyfl

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5391
    Points : 5640
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Buk SAM system General Thread

    Post  Werewolf on Sat Jul 19, 2014 11:19 am

    Flares will have absolutley zero effect on radar guided missiles and i am not sure how effective chaffs are, but i doubt that they would have much effect, since BUK is a complex consistent of 3 vehicles, the TELAR BUK with the missiles a commanding vehicle that passes the data feed and a radar that is usually located further away from the missile launcher, depending on the position of BUK missile launcher and the radar i would say there is low probability for chaffs to actually fool the missile and radar.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Buk SAM system General Thread

    Post  GarryB on Sat Jul 19, 2014 12:03 pm

    Unlikely.

    BUK is a modern capable missile system that is designed to be used against small nimble fighter aircraft that will also use ECM.

    It would be incredibly expensive to fit countermeasure systems on any civilian airliner capable of defeating BUK or Patriot or S-300.

    The best solution is to not fly over combat zones at all.

    The best thing a civilian airliner can do is still to commercial flight paths and keep its civilian transponder on... if it starts popping chaff and flares and trying to jam the system that will likely just confirm to the SAM crew the target is military and they would likely switch to optical guidance... against which flares, jammers, chaff, etc are all useless.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Sponsored content

    Re: Buk SAM system General Thread

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 5:05 pm


      Current date/time is Thu Dec 08, 2016 5:05 pm