BUK SAM system Thread

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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

But then Garry if Airlines are spending $ 250 million to purchase a Boeing or Airbus obviously they will not mind spending $2 million - $ 3 million more to fit countermeasure systems on their aircrafts .

BTW - Which countermeasures are you referring to ?

RTN wrote:

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

But then Garry if Airlines are spending $ 250 million to purchase a Boeing or Airbus obviously they will not mind spending $2 million - $ 3 million more to fit countermeasure systems on their aircrafts .

BTW - Which countermeasures are you referring to ?

The costs are more intensive, since you need military personal who actually can maintain,install and also know how to use it. The problem is like Garry pointed out, if you see a suppossedly civilian aircraft that out of the sudden starts to chaff and flare that would give everyone only one conclusion that this is a military plane that is used as a spy plane with civilian transponder and appreance and imo everyone who possess SAM or any kind of AA weaponary will try to shoot it down. Flares and chaffs like on Israeli machines are only for landing and starting against old MANPADS they are surely not effective against more modern MANPADs with 2-3 light spectrum filtration that can differ from decoys and actual engines. If you speak about real modern countermeasure systems like DIRCM, then yes they would have better chances to protect aircraft even from modern IR seeking missiles, but you will not get such equipment with 2-3 mln USD and for BUK missiles you would need highly sophisticated ECM equipment that probably costs a big chunk of what the civilian plane would cost.

RTN wrote:

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

But then Garry if Airlines are spending $ 250 million to purchase a Boeing or Airbus obviously they will not mind spending $2 million - $ 3 million more to fit countermeasure systems on their aircrafts .

BTW - Which countermeasures are you referring to ?

turning a civil plane into a ECM platform is what would be required to lower the percentage of probability to get shoot down. Obviously thats not an option as in that case you could

not carry passengers   

Viktor wrote:

turning a civil plane into a ECM platform is what would be required to lower the percentage of probability to get shoot down. Obviously thats not an option as in that case you could  

I suspect that the Boeing 777 can use it's Huge radar to fry the small radar of the 9M38M1 missile .

RTN wrote:

Viktor wrote:

turning a civil plane into a ECM platform is what would be required to lower the percentage of probability to get shoot down. Obviously thats not an option as in that case you could  

I suspect that the Boeing 777 can use it's Huge radar to fry the small radar of the 9M38M1 missile .

With the civil purpose radar that is only facing to the front? No it won't.

The best countermeasure for airliners is to respect no-fly zone.

Apparently, no. It's not possible. 
Even fighter jets could have hard time evading it

But then Garry if Airlines are spending $ 250 million to purchase a Boeing or Airbus obviously they will not mind spending $2 million - $ 3 million more to fit countermeasure systems on their aircrafts .

BTW - Which countermeasures are you referring to ?

The problem is that the game of measure and countermeasure is continuous... something that is effective in one part of the world might be totally useless in another.

Features like home on jamming capability and optical backup guidance systems leads most civil users on a hiding to nothing.

Few airlines could afford a decent ECM budget... Israel does so out of necessity.

In fact most airlines just lease aircraft because profit margins are so slim.

Claiming the aircraft was shot down because Malaysia Airlines didn't spend enough on electronic countermeasures is a pathetic argument that borders on the offensive... no airline in the world has ECM kit fitted for that job... the only civilian aircraft that come close would be the air force one of the US and Russia and probably a few ... very few other countries with lots of money.

Not sure how many of you got a chance to read this latest Aviation Week article on the BUK ( not that it's worth reading) .

http://aviationweek.com/awin-only/missile-system-loopholes-could-be-mh17-factor


I understand that there are people in the Western media who gets paid to write anti Russia stuff but I fail to understand why do they peddle such garbage globally ? They probably feel that people who are not Westerners are devoid of all intelligence .

Take a look at some of the criticism of the BUK . Does any of these criticism / allegations mentioned below hold any weight ?

The Buk-M1 (SA-11 Gadfly to NATO) can be used by minimally trained operators to deliver a lethal attack, without the safeguards built into other comparable Gbads.

The feature that makes the Buk-series weapons uniquely dangerous is that they can launch and guide missiles without access to procedures and technologies that can discriminate among hostile, friendly and commercial traffic.

But the Soviet military and the designers installed a set of backup modes that would permit the Telars to detect and attack targets autonomously, in the event that the Snow Drift was destroyed, or forced to shut down, by NATO’s rapidly improving anti-radar missiles.

The autonomous modes are intended for last-ditch use by the Telar operators, not the more highly trained crews in the battery-command vehicle.

Critically, these backup modes also bypass two safety features built into the 9S18M Snow Drift radar: a full-function identification friend-or-foe (IFF) system and non-cooperative target recognition (NCTR) modes.

The Buk’s combination of lethality and lack of IFF/NCTR is unique.

What pleasure these people get in broadcasting their ignorance to the world at large is a probably a closely guarded secret .

Surely that aims for stupid and very naive people. Non of that is true and mostly twisted. First point is just facepalming stupid and the last point too.

Werewolf wrote:Surely that aims for stupid and very naive people. Non of that is true and mostly twisted. First point is just facepalming stupid and the last point too.

Especially look at this idiotic remark -

The feature that makes the Buk-series weapons uniquely dangerous is that they can launch and guide missiles without access to procedures and technologies that can discriminate among hostile, friendly and commercial traffic.

Which SAM system in the world can distinguish between a friend & foe ? You can identify the friend but how do you identify the foe ?

Seems some people celebrates Fools Day on a daily basis .

They are posting that in light of MH-17, as the West is "certain" (we all know what that means....) that a Buk shot it down. So ignore that article, it is propaganda.

And what makes it so much funnier is that the US Patriot system managed to shoot down an allied plane in Iraq in automatic mode and was only stopped from shooting down another one because it fired upon the Patriot battery and destroyed the radar it needed to complete the second kill.

And that Patriot system was manned by professionals...

And that is of course not even mentioning the AEGIS class cruiser Vincennes that can't tell a climbing Airbus from a descending F-14 and managed to shoot down said airliner from Iranian waters. Did the guilty party get in trouble? No, they got told they did a good job and got medals.

Sujoy wrote:Not sure how many of you got a chance to read this latest Aviation Week article on the BUK ( not that it's worth reading) .

I was reading Aviation Week until I totally stopped reading it in July 1994. It is garbage now.

Before totally stopping to read it, I had read every issue starting with, I believe, issues from 1940s.

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:I was reading Aviation Week until I totally stopped reading it in July 1994. It is garbage now.

Before totally stopping to read it, I had read every issue starting with, I believe, issues from 1940s.

And in large parts of the Western World , Aviation Week is the last name in Aerospace & Defense .

In the meantime some sensible journalism

Comparison of BUK and the US HAWK


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dana-t-blackmore/russian-buk-missile-syste_b_5606487.html

Missile system like the BUK are no longer required by armed forces anywhere in the world , therefore, no one is developing any kind of new-generation radar-guided SHORADS.

Today, with advances in fire-control systems & engagement radars, the task of Cold War-era radar-guided SHORADS like BUK is being taken over by MR-SAMs. That’s why one is witnessing the development of new-generation MR-SAMs like the IRIS family from Germany’s DIEHL, the Vityaz from Russia & the Barak-2 .

IIR-guided SHORADS are already replacing the need for radar guided SHORADS.

A SHORAD is a short range weapon. BUK is a medium range system designed to kill a variety of targets out to up to 75km range and 15km altitude in all weathers and conditions.

BTW IIR guided weapons are nice but in a heavy monsoon rain or heavy snow storm would be useless...

Please don't try to compare Soviet/Russian SAMs with western SAMs as they are totally conceptually different.

The US army has a short range AAM (Chapparal/Sidewinder) and a MANPAD (Stinger) as its standard short range air defence army missiles. HAWK was never mobile enough to be useful in that role.

In comparison the Russia and Soviet Armies had a wide range of missiles from the Igla right up through Strela-10M, Tunguska, TOR, BUK, and S-300V for their Army.

S-350 is an airforce/air defence force system BTW.

You see the Russian and Soviet Army knows what it is like to fight without the protection of an air force above them and they are prepared. the western armies have no idea what they would face without the support of their air forces... and so the western armies are only weakly protected from enemy air power.

GarryB wrote: A SHORAD is a short range weapon. BUK is a medium range system designed to kill a variety of targets out to up to 75km range and 15km altitude in all weathers and conditions.

Basically they mean the same thing . Some countries use the terms SHORADS others call it Medium range SAM . Even Almaz markets the BUK-M2 as a SHORAD in various defense expos abroad.

GarryB wrote:BTW IIR guided weapons are nice but in a heavy monsoon rain or heavy snow storm would be useless...

That's not true Garry .

During bad weather, all airborne aerial campaigns are grounded & that includes cruise missiles since they’re as vulnerable to lightning strikes as any manned aircraft is.

And have you ever come across cloud cover just 50 feet above the surface (the terminal cruising altitude of any cruise missile) over any plain or plateau?

Even in top-attack mode, where a cruise missile uses X-band SAR seekers & cruises at a higher altitude, it will be easily visible to IRST sensors at an altitude of at least 10km despite cloud-cover or mist or smog.

Lastly, while radar-guided SHORADS/ Medium range SAMS can be neutralised by standoff jamming, IIR SAMs cannot since the cruise missiles don’t have intregral decoy dispensers.

During bad weather, all airborne aerial campaigns are grounded & that includes cruise missiles since they’re as vulnerable to lightning strikes as any manned aircraft is.

There are all weather weapons like the F-111 and Su-24/Su-34 that would actually be more effective in bad weather because they would be safer from enemy air defences.

And have you ever come across cloud cover just 50 feet above the surface (the terminal cruising altitude of any cruise missile) over any plain or plateau?

Have you ever heard of mist or fog?

Most cruise missiles get their long range by flying at medium altitude most of their flight to the target area.

And yes, plains and plateaus don't all occur at sea level...

Even in top-attack mode, where a cruise missile uses X-band SAR seekers & cruises at a higher altitude, it will be easily visible to IRST sensors at an altitude of at least 10km despite cloud-cover or mist or smog.

The main problem there is that most SHORADs can't reach very high and the bigger systems that can reach that high are big enough to be seen easily and avoided in the mission planning stage.

Lastly, while radar-guided SHORADS/ Medium range SAMS can be neutralised by standoff jamming, IIR SAMs cannot since the cruise missiles don’t have intregral decoy dispensers.

IIR SAMs still need a line of sight lock... if it is behind a line of hills how will you know when to launch and what to launch at?

GarryB wrote:
IIR SAMs still need a line of sight lock... if it is behind a line of hills how will you know when to launch and what to launch at?

The GUARDIAN passive anti-missile countermeasure system used on some aircrafts here in the US can protect aircrafts from missiles using DIRCM