Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Buk SAM system General Thread

    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 22003
    Points : 22547
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Buk SAM system General Thread - Page 8 Empty Re: Buk SAM system General Thread

    Post  GarryB on Fri Aug 08, 2014 11:56 am

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

    And new Russian helos have DIRCM turrets for the same purpose, but very few current Russian missiles actually use IR guidance.. Igla, Verba, Strela-1oM, and that is about it for SAMs. SOSNA-R is beam riding, as is Kornet-EM, but most are command guided like Tunguska, Pantsir-S1, TOR.
    George1
    George1

    Posts : 13753
    Points : 14246
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Buk SAM system General Thread - Page 8 Empty Re: Buk SAM system General Thread

    Post  George1 on Wed Dec 03, 2014 9:26 am

    “Buk-M1″ Went on Duty in Altai Region
    Stealthflanker
    Stealthflanker

    Posts : 872
    Points : 952
    Join date : 2009-08-04
    Age : 31
    Location : Indonesia

    Buk SAM system General Thread - Page 8 Empty Re: Buk SAM system General Thread

    Post  Stealthflanker on Sat Dec 13, 2014 7:43 pm

    Well apparently BUK M2E didn't perform good in Syria.

    Just wondering what the hell was wrong with Syrian IADS ? Gratz to Pantsyr anyway.
    Viktor
    Viktor

    Posts : 5678
    Points : 6311
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 38
    Location : Croatia

    Buk SAM system General Thread - Page 8 Empty Re: Buk SAM system General Thread

    Post  Viktor on Sat Dec 13, 2014 8:36 pm

    Stealthflanker wrote:Well apparently BUK M2E didn't perform good in Syria.

    Just wondering what the hell was wrong with Syrian IADS ? Gratz to Pantsyr anyway.

    We are just not able to analize anything because all we have is a few photos from lucky camerman who took few shots and placed them on the net.
    Stealthflanker
    Stealthflanker

    Posts : 872
    Points : 952
    Join date : 2009-08-04
    Age : 31
    Location : Indonesia

    Buk SAM system General Thread - Page 8 Empty Re: Buk SAM system General Thread

    Post  Stealthflanker on Sat Dec 13, 2014 8:44 pm

    Viktor wrote:

    We are just not able to analize anything because all we have is a few photos from lucky camerman who took few shots and placed them on the net.

    Yes. that's true, Nonetheless just saw some ppl "celebrating" It in social media..calling Buk perform worse.. etc.. Without any further criticism on what happened.

    Viktor
    Viktor

    Posts : 5678
    Points : 6311
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 38
    Location : Croatia

    Buk SAM system General Thread - Page 8 Empty Re: Buk SAM system General Thread

    Post  Viktor on Sat Dec 13, 2014 8:50 pm

    Stealthflanker wrote:Yes. that's true, Nonetheless just saw some ppl "celebrating" It in social media..calling Buk perform worse.. etc.. Without any further criticism on what happened.

    When has logic or intelligence for that matter stood in a way of emotional delirium Very Happy
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 22003
    Points : 22547
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Buk SAM system General Thread - Page 8 Empty Re: Buk SAM system General Thread

    Post  GarryB on Sat Dec 13, 2014 9:43 pm

    BUK is designed to shoot down aircraft primarily, and as a secondary feature protect itself from HARM type weapons.

    No SAM will be 100% effective all the time, it is the force multipliers like higher and lower level SAMs (S-350/S-400, and Pantsir/TOR) as well as jamming, concealment, and of course decoys that improve protection but even then nothing is perfect and a determined and skilled enemy will still breach defences occasionally.
    TheArmenian
    TheArmenian

    Posts : 1812
    Points : 1963
    Join date : 2011-09-14

    Buk SAM system General Thread - Page 8 Empty Re: Buk SAM system General Thread

    Post  TheArmenian on Sun Dec 14, 2014 4:00 pm

    Stealthflanker wrote:Well apparently BUK M2E didn't perform good in Syria.

    Just wondering what the hell was wrong with Syrian IADS ? Gratz to Pantsyr anyway.

    How do you know it was BUK?

    How do you know whatever missile actually hit or missed the Israeli Popeye?

    How can you make conclusion based on almost zero information?
    Stealthflanker
    Stealthflanker

    Posts : 872
    Points : 952
    Join date : 2009-08-04
    Age : 31
    Location : Indonesia

    Buk SAM system General Thread - Page 8 Empty Re: Buk SAM system General Thread

    Post  Stealthflanker on Sun Dec 14, 2014 7:22 pm

    TheArmenian wrote:
    How do you know it was BUK?

    How do you know whatever missile actually hit or missed the Israeli Popeye?

    How can you make conclusion based on almost zero information?

    From what is available.

    http://imp-navigator.livejournal.com/306202.html

    The other side..

    https://medium.com/war-is-boring/four-israeli-f-15s-dodged-syrian-missile-fire-to-attack-urgent-targets-a28cff11323d


    TheArmenian
    TheArmenian

    Posts : 1812
    Points : 1963
    Join date : 2011-09-14

    Buk SAM system General Thread - Page 8 Empty Re: Buk SAM system General Thread

    Post  TheArmenian on Sun Dec 14, 2014 7:46 pm

    There is zero confirmation that the missiles fired where BUK and not something else.

    There is zero information confirming that a Popeye was hit or missed.

    Sorry mate, everything is based on shady information and a lot of speculation.

    Please don't make conclusions based on this sort of info.
    Viktor
    Viktor

    Posts : 5678
    Points : 6311
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 38
    Location : Croatia

    Buk SAM system General Thread - Page 8 Empty Re: Buk SAM system General Thread

    Post  Viktor on Wed Jan 21, 2015 10:47 pm

    BUK-M3

    Buk SAM system General Thread - Page 8 9ct4wvM

    Buk SAM system General Thread - Page 8 DcGqOTi
    sepheronx
    sepheronx

    Posts : 7094
    Points : 7362
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 30
    Location : Canada

    Buk SAM system General Thread - Page 8 Empty Re: Buk SAM system General Thread

    Post  sepheronx on Wed Jan 21, 2015 11:15 pm

    Any reason why they didn't make it a vertical launch system? Obviously it can be done since Shtil for navy ships is vertical launch BUK.
    mack8
    mack8

    Posts : 953
    Points : 1009
    Join date : 2013-08-02

    Buk SAM system General Thread - Page 8 Empty Re: Buk SAM system General Thread

    Post  mack8 on Thu Jan 22, 2015 12:27 am

    When  are they going to start delivery to the troops, and when is Buk-M3E is going to be offered for export? Very Happy

    And yeah regarding Sepheronx's query, imo perhaps they wanted to re-use as much Buk-M2 parts as possible, probably a VL system would require a different vehicle altogether.


    Last edited by mack8 on Thu Jan 22, 2015 12:36 am; edited 2 times in total
    TR1
    TR1

    Posts : 5556
    Points : 5566
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Buk SAM system General Thread - Page 8 Empty Re: Buk SAM system General Thread

    Post  TR1 on Thu Jan 22, 2015 12:30 am

    Poor mans S-350 at this point.
    flamming_python
    flamming_python

    Posts : 3550
    Points : 3634
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    Buk SAM system General Thread - Page 8 Empty Re: Buk SAM system General Thread

    Post  flamming_python on Thu Jan 22, 2015 12:58 am

    TR1 wrote:Poor mans S-350 at this point.

    With all due respect TR1, this is the most ridiculous thing I've heard in quite a while - and for russiadefence.net that's saying a lot.

    The S-350 is a strategic SAM system.
    It's bulky, it's heavy, due to its length it's harder to hide & camoflage.
    As the equivalent of a semi-trailer truck (being wheel mobile and having considerable ground pressure) - it's more limited in terms of its mobility.
    It is vulnerable without a supporting air-defense network; a battery of S-350 launchers likely has slower reload times than a Buk battery and the 9M96 missiles probably have worse SHORAD performance than the Buk-M3 missiles; not to mention that they really are too valuable to waste on shooting down incoming missiles albeit it will be done of course if there is nothing else around.
    The battery itself is also less survivable; it likely has longer set-up/tear-down times, it is also more dependent on several critical vehicles; if a couple of those get taken out the S-350 battery will be forced to datalink to other assets or good-bye air defense; and the S-350 battery will then be completely dependent on the rest of the air defense network to defend it.

    It certainly has its place though. Albeit, if anything, it is the 'poor man's version' of some alternatives here, designed as a cheaper strategic SAM system to replace all the S-300s that will be going out of service. Of course the 9M96 missiles have active seekers and are superior in other ways to Pechora missiles, Buk missiles, etc... and that should not be discounted too.
    So long as it fits snugly into an existing, developed air-defense system - it should perform so well that no-one will be the wiser.

    The Buk-M3 on the other hand is not a poor-man's version of the S-350 - it is a rich man's version of a tactical medium-SAM system such as the Pechora-M1, earlier Buk systems, etc...
    All vehicles are fully tracked and can keep up with an army's advance in any terrain. They are light & compact enough to be airlifted or strategically redeployed without much hassle. From the air their profile does not stand out especially compared to other military vehicles; they can be more easily camoflaged to look like something else, or hidden.
    A Buk-M3 battery is pretty independent; it can operate well-enough without a supporting air-defense system as witnessed in Georgia 2008; even being able to adopt guerilla warfare tactics if the situation is dire enough; or splitting the battery and having each vehicle operate more autonomously. This is due to their large number of multiple redundancies and the precense of fire control radars on each vehicle. A battery will not cease being a threat until its last TEL vehicle is destroyed in fact - a task that can take potentially weeks even for an experienced airforce; given that each vehicle is basically capable of operating independently until its ammo/fuel is exhausted - albeit their effectivness will certainly be much reduced if their search radar vehicle is destroyed and they aren't able to link to another one.
    The Buk missiles are cheaper than the 9M96 and thus its more economical to use their missiles against direct threats and for SHORAD if neccessery.
    TR1
    TR1

    Posts : 5556
    Points : 5566
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Buk SAM system General Thread - Page 8 Empty Re: Buk SAM system General Thread

    Post  TR1 on Thu Jan 22, 2015 1:36 am

    How is an S-350 THAT much more bulky than Buk? The tracked footprint is large by itself. Buk also does not have a single multipurpose Radar unit unlike S-350E, so in terms of total vehicles you might have an even bigger footprint.
    Yes, there are mobility differences between wheels and tracks, but actual system components are not much larger. Hell, the 9M96 is a smaller missile.

    Most export operators take wheeled units in any case, so in that case the Buks tracks work against it. In any case, you can put Buk on a wheeled MZKT chassis.

    S-350E is sold with 60km range, Buk was, what, 70km last I checked? Of course we all know S-350 range can be extended to 120km+ with ease, unlike Buk which is already at the limit of its envelope.

    Their up time form march is probably identical- old S-300 could do it in 5 minutes.
    Reload time? S-350 has 12 rounds PER VEHICLE, Buk has only 6.
    Buk-m3 is supposed to have active-seeker missiles...just like S-350. If bought without them....seems an awful lot like a poor-mans S-350.....

    Obviously there are differences, but the two overlap massively as well.

    If I am an export buyer, both would be considered, since they roughly have the same range and footprint size. Buk has worse characteristics almost across the board, from radar to missiles.
    Yes, it has the advantage of radar on every TEL vehicle....but that makes each battery very expensive....might end up costing as much as the conceptually much newer S-350E.

    Yes yes I am well aware of the Russian military reqs these vehicles came from (though this is yet another symptom of Russian inability to standardize anything), but if you are looking for a Russian SAM bellow the S-400....it would be these two. I personally would be more interested in putting S-350E on tracks and calling it a day.
    flamming_python
    flamming_python

    Posts : 3550
    Points : 3634
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    Buk SAM system General Thread - Page 8 Empty Re: Buk SAM system General Thread

    Post  flamming_python on Thu Jan 22, 2015 3:03 am

    TR1 wrote:How is an S-350 THAT much more bulky than Buk? The tracked footprint is large by itself. Buk also does not have a single multipurpose Radar unit unlike S-350E, so in terms of total vehicles you might have an even bigger footprint.
    Yes, there are mobility differences between wheels and tracks, but actual system components are not much larger. Hell, the 9M96 is a smaller missile.

    Most export operators take wheeled units in any case, so in that case the Buks tracks work against it. In any case, you can put Buk on a wheeled MZKT chassis.

    S-350E is sold with 60km range, Buk was, what, 70km last I checked? Of course we all know S-350 range can be extended to 120km+ with ease, unlike Buk which is already at the limit of its envelope.

    Their up time form march is probably identical- old S-300 could do it in 5 minutes.
    Reload time? S-350 has 12 rounds PER VEHICLE, Buk has only 6.
    Buk-m3 is supposed to have active-seeker missiles...just like S-350. If bought without them....seems an awful lot like a poor-mans S-350.....

    Obviously there are differences, but the two overlap massively as well.

    If I am an export buyer, both would be considered, since they roughly have the same range and footprint size. Buk has worse characteristics almost across the board, from radar to missiles.
    Yes, it has the advantage of radar on every TEL vehicle....but that makes each battery very expensive....might end up costing as much as the conceptually much newer S-350E.

    Yes yes I am well aware of the Russian military reqs these vehicles came from (though this is yet another symptom of Russian inability to standardize anything), but if you are looking for a Russian SAM bellow the S-400....it would be these two. I personally would be more interested in putting S-350E on tracks and calling it a day.

    So your beef is actually with the difference between a strategic SAM and a tactical one.

    Yes it's true that technology has narrowed the differences between them.

    But S-350 batteries would be very hard pressed to keep up with a fast moving armour formation.. crossing over rivers in barge vehicles.. or taking to the hills and forests to wage a constant war of aerial attrition, always on the move and laying low when neccessary.
    Can you even picture a S-350 battery doing anything like that?

    Putting a S-350 launcher on tracks? You can't.
    Maybe you can if you were to cut down the number of missiles from 12 to 6. Then redesign the missile containers to swivle out and raise rather than plant into the ground and erect. Then integrate the cabin into the body of the vehicle or rather get rid of it altogether and just put the driver and commander in the hull. Now you can add tracks. Congrats - you've now ended up something like a 9M96 missile version of a Buk-M3, minus the vehicle-mounted radar. Yes it is purely a conceptual difference - but an important one.
    Bulky, heavy, road-mobile vehicles with a greater amount of missiles and better characteristics, versus a nimbler, more flexible, more survivable system but a less capable one in some parameters.
    In fact their relative costs and expenses have nothing to do with it. Neither is Russia's inability to standardise everything (something the Russians are actually going for more ambitiously than any other military in the world at the moment). Not even their similar range is relevant here. Nor any other perceived overlap.
    They are just 2 different systems for 2 different sets of situations, requirements, use cases, that's all, and there's no real way of getting around that. If you try to place one in the role of the other they will perform poorly, and if you try and make a unified system to fulfill both roles; it will end up as mediocre in everything. Hence you have 2 seperate systems instead.

    5-minute tear-down/set-up times? It wouldn't surprise me actually if a Buk-M3 TEL could fire right on the move if need be, or at the very least immediately upon reducing speed and stopping. Unlike a S-350's search radar, the Buk-M3 radar vehicle is always looking around; and the TEL's own radars won't be idlying either.
    Hell even the Buk-M3 reload vehicles are capable of launching missiles by themselves. With that sort of flexibility, having 12 ready to fire missiles is superflous. The S-350 needs such a capacity. The Buk-M3 doesn't.

    First I heard about Buk-M3 missiles being active-seeking. If such missiles are bought then it would ruin the point - the Buk has many reduncancies, sensors channels making it hard to jam and counteract even with just passive missiles. It's the S-350 that has foregone some of that stuff - as it has active-seeker missiles to make its life easier instead.
    In addition, with the cheaper, passive missiles the Buk makes more sense for the universal, independent role that it seems to be designed for, able to guarantee its own defense if neccessary with less worries about how much more expensive the missile it's firing is compared to the projectile it's targetting is.
    TR1
    TR1

    Posts : 5556
    Points : 5566
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Buk SAM system General Thread - Page 8 Empty Re: Buk SAM system General Thread

    Post  TR1 on Thu Jan 22, 2015 3:57 am

    If S-300V can be put on tracks, you can bet S-350E can. They might need to shave down on missile number per TEL, but I would bet they can stuff 12 on each one.

    Buk-M3 should be able to fire just using its TEL but keep in mind the radar is fairly limited on its own, as it is meant to have battery level early warning and tracking sets.

    If it was up to me, I would dump Buk altogether. Instead, integrate S-300V4 with 9M96 missiles, and buy tracked Pantsir-S1 for close in defense and attach it to S-300V4 units.
    flamming_python
    flamming_python

    Posts : 3550
    Points : 3634
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    Buk SAM system General Thread - Page 8 Empty Re: Buk SAM system General Thread

    Post  flamming_python on Thu Jan 22, 2015 10:52 am

    TR1 wrote:If S-300V can be put on tracks, you can bet S-350E can. They might need to shave down on missile number per TEL, but I would bet they can stuff 12 on each one.

    Buk-M3 should be able to fire just using its TEL but keep in mind the radar is fairly limited on its own, as it is meant to have battery level early warning and tracking sets.

    If it was up to me, I would dump Buk altogether. Instead, integrate S-300V4 with 9M96 missiles, and buy tracked Pantsir-S1 for close in defense and attach it to S-300V4 units.

    Can you imagine a lone S-300V4 vehicle having an adventure like that the Buk TEL enjoyed this summer in the Donbass?

    Well I don't actually know if the story is true or not, but everything told is well within the realms of possibility.
    avatar
    Mindstorm

    Posts : 866
    Points : 1033
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Buk SAM system General Thread - Page 8 Empty Re: Buk SAM system General Thread

    Post  Mindstorm on Thu Jan 22, 2015 11:18 am


    sepheronx wrote:Any reason why they didn't make it a vertical launch system?


    Way lower transition times Wink

    It is an Army AD system threfore transition time from march to air defense readiness have to be shortened at maximum to remain within limit of ground forces operational tempo and pace of advancement ; the same is true obviously for the reverse operation.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 22003
    Points : 22547
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Buk SAM system General Thread - Page 8 Empty Re: Buk SAM system General Thread

    Post  GarryB on Thu Jan 22, 2015 11:30 am

    Any reason why they didn't make it a vertical launch system? Obviously it can be done since Shtil for navy ships is vertical launch BUK.

    For a land mobile system, only very small systems like TOR or stationary systems like S-300 will have vertical launch missiles.

    BUK is likely to be operated from short stops operating with an armoured unit... so being able to slew the missiles onto the target and elevate them 30 or 40 degrees to fire is faster than having to elevate them 90 degrees to vertical to fire.

    Poor mans S-350 at this point.

    It is an upgraded Army system.

    Hell, the 9M96 is a smaller missile.

    Both missiles in the S-350 family will be smaller and wont have the 70kg warhead of the new BUK, which might effect their performance against some types of targets.

    Most export operators take wheeled units in any case, so in that case the Buks tracks work against it. In any case, you can put Buk on a wheeled MZKT chassis.

    BUK is an Army system... there is a reason it is mounted on tracks... just the same as Tunguska, and S-300V4.

    S-350E is sold with 60km range, Buk was, what, 70km last I checked? Of course we all know S-350 range can be extended to 120km+ with ease, unlike Buk which is already at the limit of its envelope.

    S-350 has two missiles... a smaller missile and a larger missile.

    BUK is designed for a specific role... medium range defence of mobile armour units.

    Their up time form march is probably identical- old S-300 could do it in 5 minutes.

    I rather suspect launch times from a short halt are measured in seconds... not minutes.

    the fact that they don't have vertical launch tubes suggest they don't want to spend time raising the missiles 90 degrees every time they stop.

    If it was up to me, I would dump Buk altogether. Instead, integrate S-300V4 with 9M96 missiles, and buy tracked Pantsir-S1 for close in defense and attach it to S-300V4 units.

    That sort of logic sounds good, but you can end up with... hey... lets replace all those 4th gen fighters with the F-35...

    The Russian Army already has BUK in service... replacing it with S-350 wont actually help in standardising because they don't already have the S-300 or S-400 in service which the S-350 is related.

    If you want to dump the BUK then why keep S-300V4? Dump them too and introduce S-400 and just have the Air Forces SAM set.

    The Russian Army understands standardisation, but it also understands that its specific needs are not the same as the other branches, so having two different families of SAMs between four branches of military (ie PVO and VVS have one family, while the Army has its own family and the Navy has a mix of the two different families....)
    George1
    George1

    Posts : 13753
    Points : 14246
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Buk SAM system General Thread - Page 8 Empty Re: Buk SAM system General Thread

    Post  George1 on Mon Mar 09, 2015 4:27 pm

    Russian Armed Forces to receive Buk-M3 air defense missile system before yearend — source
    TR1
    TR1

    Posts : 5556
    Points : 5566
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Buk SAM system General Thread - Page 8 Empty Re: Buk SAM system General Thread

    Post  TR1 on Sat Apr 04, 2015 9:18 am

    Buk SAM system General Thread - Page 8 6pKCt
    Viktor
    Viktor

    Posts : 5678
    Points : 6311
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 38
    Location : Croatia

    Buk SAM system General Thread - Page 8 Empty Re: Buk SAM system General Thread

    Post  Viktor on Sat Apr 04, 2015 10:53 am

    Extremely good article about the BUK capabilities in regard to low flying cruise missiles and HARM like targets from the

    "Alexander G. Luzan - Doctor of Technical Sciences, State Prize of the Russian Federation in the field of science and technology, Lieutenant General in retirement, from 1982 to 1992 - deputy commander (chief) of the Air Defense Forces Land Forces for armaments - chief engineer troops CB defense"


    Aerospace attack

    Whole article is great but I will copy-paste the part about the BUK from shity google translator but you will get the point:

    Research and experiments, including the conduct of experimental firings show that quite effectively and with minimal financial and time-consuming to solve this problem is possible by using modern multi-channel anti-aircraft missile system of medium-range (AAMS DM) "Buk-M2", and short term - "Buk-M3."

    AAMS firing system "Buk-M2" as part of a multi-channel radar illumination and guidance (RPN) and puskozaryazhayuschih units (ROM) provides for the passage of fire zones 8-12, and with the self-propelled fire installation (SDA), a member other than RPN and ROM in the antiaircraft missile batteries - 12-18 cruise missiles at the height of their flight 10 m or more. A total of S "Buk-M2" (anti-aircraft missile battalion) provides 24 target channel, ie it can simultaneously bombard 24 air targets, and for the passage of the affected area - 32-46 aerial targets.

    By American standards, worked out as a result of combat use of cruise missiles "Tomahawk" and spent the estimates "... to defeat the object of the" medium-sized enterprise "or" airport "is required from 8-10 to 15-20 cruise missiles with the possibility of opposing forces and air defense systems. Consumption needs of these weapons to destroy target area of ​​the "terrorist camp" with the destruction of up to 70% situated therein personnel may be from 4-5 to 10-11 rockets. "

    Thus, the AAMS "Buk-M2" certainly capable to reflect the expected raid outfit KR operating at extremely low altitudes. In this case, the probability of hitting one of the KR-Zour in the system "Buk-M2" is higher than that of S family of S-300P, due to the implementation in the tap changer (SDA) mode recognition target type and adaptation of military equipment under the recognized type of missiles hitting targets. The same mode reduces the average consumption per missiles hit by a goal. In addition, AAMS SAM "Buk-M2" cheaper than the main rocket family of S-300P, which is important.

    BET Russian producers

    Compare the capabilities of S "Buk-M2" and the family of S-300P With anti-cruise missile makes sense because only these vehicles have special devices to raise a considerable height (20-30 m) antenna systems-fire radar systems to extend the range line of sight, and thus enhancing the far boundaries of the affected area of ​​cruise missiles operating at extremely low altitudes.

    According to the maximum range of the defeat of these goals possible commensurate systems (AAMS "Buk-M2" only 6% loses S-300PM2 by hitting range). However, the deployment of towers to lift the antenna systems in S-300PM2 almost 20 times, and its cost - 7.8 times higher than that of the telescopic tilt-up devices AAMS "Buk-M2". In addition, the tower, which is equipped with S-300PM2 commercially manufactures and supplies from abroad (Kramatorsk, Ukraine), and tilt-telescopic device AAMS "Buk-M2" produced in Russia.

    AAMS "Buk-M2" also provides an effective fight against tactical ballistic missiles and tactical classes and a high probability of their defeat, again due to the implementation of the system mode type detection purposes and adaptation of military equipment SAM. The studies were conducted by experienced combat shooting at targets not only imitating these ballistic missiles, but even on a relatively small-sized rockets MLRS "Smerch".

    Of adopting the new generation of SD AAMS "Buk-M3" has even higher performance. In our country and abroad anti-aircraft missile systems "Buk-M2" and "Buk-M3" counterparts do not have. Has not yet passed the test of S-350 "Vityaz" in the fight against the above objectives, as shown by analysis of a priori will have a lower combat capabilities due to the peculiarities inherent in her technical solutions.

    The application of the system of protection of critical facilities of S-range C-300PM2 "Favorite" and S-400 "Triumph" as unpromising and unjustified, since such systems are expensive, redundant on a number of non-critical characteristics Parry BSU and as a result essentially lose protection systems based air defense missile systems "Buk-M2 - M3" in terms of "cost-effectiveness".

    In this regard, it is necessary to consider the AAMS CD "Buk-M2" basic building block for high performance CVD critical facilities (areas) and it is advisable to consider extending the series production of S DM "Buk-M2" and equipping them as the Air Defense Forces Land Forces (in modification "Buk-M2") and troops EKO (a modification of "Buk-M2-1"). In the short term, these functions must be performed AAMS "Buk-M3" various modifications. On the same system must be in the future and to assign functions to combat future space-planning system and other hypersonic means.

    Combat stability SPECIAL PROTECTION SYSTEMS

    The system of protection of critical facilities (districts) should be not only highly efficient but also have a high combat stability when subjected to special means of combating it appointed to its defeat in the initial period of operations (for example, a special tier suppression of air defense of the "Wild Weasel" ). Saving combat performance ("survival") must provide reliable protection system recognition of further major shocks SVKN and WTO covers the object. This is clearly confirmed the war in Yugoslavia.

    Research and practical experiments have shown that achieve high survivability homogeneous grouping of air defense and its efficiency is not possible. The creation of so-called mixed groups in the classic sense, when dissimilar air defense assets are used with different positions (position areas) and controls each with their command post, fundamentally does not solve the problem.

    Solution to the problem of survival of air defense and defense systems based on them have been found by the joint use of these funds in a specific combination, that is based on the creation of homogeneous (monogamous) SAM and SAM systems combined (polygamous) reconnaissance and fire fighting equipment (modules).

    Polygamous combat modules allow defense at times to increase resistance against shocks anti-radar missiles (PRR) and the WTO, to maintain the system's ability to protect securely covered up to defend the object of subsequent major strokes SVKN and generally increase the efficiency of their defeat in typical raids (such as Iraq, Yugoslavia , Lebanon) to 0.9 or more.

    Naturally, air defense systems that are part of a polygamous defense system should function in a unified information-management space, created as part of the same automated reconnaissance and fire defense groups and managed from a single command center.

    Research, natural-digital simulation and a number of experimental firings showed that almost create a polygamous defense system most appropriate by the introduction of the AAMS CD "Buk-M2" combat vehicles short-range air defense missile systems "Tor-M2" (two MB SAM "trafficking in M2 "rather than two SDA and two ROM AAMS" Buk-M2 ") and completion of S KP" Buk-M2 "for combat operation" Tor-M2 "in a single information-management space. This can significantly increase the chances of a polygamous system of self-defense in the fight against the RDP type "Harm" to maintain its fighting capacity and combat potential.

    Calculations and fragments of field tests show that polygamous (joint) use of non-upgraded even AAMS "Buk-M1-2" and "Tor-M1" in a single information space control improves the efficiency of groups of more than 2.5 times, and the stability of the defeat anti-radar missiles (PRR) of the "Harm" - 8-12 times. Joint combat use SAM AAMS and new modifications "Buk-M2" and "Tor-M2" will achieve even better results and save for such means polygamous status of modern weapons to the level of 30-35-ies.

    By the way, this question back in 1998 to report to the Chief of the General Staff, was it approved, planned for implementation, but later "successfully swing" military officials.

    A further increase in the combat capabilities of systems to protect critical facilities-based air defense missile systems "Buk-M2" + "Tor-M2" is possible by introducing a missile seeker AAMS "Buk-M2" ("Buk-M3"), a special regime of passive DF producer of active interference and homing in on him. This offer is for a long time and is considering offers for sale here, but was virtually done by Chinese specialists in imported from Russia S-300PMU (Chinese name of S - FM-2000). The introduction of such a regime in the AAMS "Buk-M2 - M3" will dramatically change the balance of combat potentials in favor of air defense and make problematic use of active interference with the offensive boards manned and unmanned aircraft, as itself an obstacle becomes a source of information.

    The structure of "Tor-M2" (in the SAM), the introduction of a functional means of destruction (explosion generators). This will ensure effective control of such specific purposes as midget and small unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), acting directly on critical facilities in the immediate operational and tactical depth.

    It should be emphasized that this study, natural-digital simulation and experimental firings, which were mentioned above, showed that significantly improve survival systems protect critical objects in a massive impact on them PRR type "Harm" and other WTO was only when introduced into the composition of these groups BM "Tor - M2".

    Multifunctional system

    As part of a polygamous CVD critical facilities-based air defense missile systems (SAM) "Buk-M2" + "Tor-M2" is supposed to create a multi-site reconnaissance and targeting (URC). System of communication and data exchange URC and the GCC as a whole to have an open, envisaging it as a "gateway" means of obtaining information from early warning systems, regional formations and units of EKR and air defense military commands.

    The structure of the GCC PSBs should also include means for creating interference and reduce the effectiveness of space-based navigation systems such as GPS and avionics manned and unmanned SVKN (EW equipment). Previously, units and parts EW, although included in the Air Defense Forces, are fairly autonomously, and from the Air Defense Forces Land Forces have been withdrawn, are included in the Ground Forces as an independent branch of service and also used virtually autonomously. This has led not only to improve the efficiency of air defense groups, as to the need to address additional problems encountered by agreement of hostilities.

    However, the possibility of EW on the joint fight against SVKN, especially when coordinated action together with the AAMS (SAM) for CVD in a single information space control appreciated enough, major integrated research on this subject has been conducted, although the contribution of EW in improving the efficiency of security systems expect.

    However, information on the composition and construction of EW subsystems, including SVKN using these systems GPS, enough is confidential and may be viewed and discussed the formation of the tactical and technical specifications for concrete protection system.

    The same applies to the subsystem protection of critical facilities from terrorist attacks and attacks enemy ground. But not because of confidentiality, but rather a feature of the construction of a security subsystem depending on the dislocation of the object cover in a particular region or a country. However, such a subsystem in the protection of the PSB should be and function in a single information space with the control by other means.

    SOME RESULTS

    In conclusion, we must again emphasize the fact that in modern conditions the creation and deployment of highly specialized systems for the protection of critical (critical) sites is extremely important.

    This approach is precisely focused on countering asymmetric development and deployment of expensive high-precision weapons systems, cruise missiles, including long-range, and unmanned aerial vehicles (drones fighting) in most advanced countries, and the possibility of applying a material (unacceptable) impact on our strategic nuclear forces and other critical facilities.

    Proposals for the establishment of special protection systems are based on the use of commercially available weapons and actually do not require significant additional financial and material costs.

    It is hoped that the need for special protection systems particularly important (critical) sites (areas) will be evaluated, offers them demanded and accepted for implementation in our armed forces, and interested foreign customers, and build the structure, the basics of combat employment and functioning as part of the GCC troops EKR and defense in the theater - be the subject of discussion in the media.

    Morpheus Eberhardt
    Morpheus Eberhardt

    Posts : 1929
    Points : 2040
    Join date : 2013-05-20

    Buk SAM system General Thread - Page 8 Empty Buk-M3

    Post  Morpheus Eberhardt on Wed May 20, 2015 1:44 pm

    Buk-M3 launcher or transloader-launcher:


    Buk SAM system General Thread - Page 8 Xgn9hie

    Sponsored content

    Buk SAM system General Thread - Page 8 Empty Re: Buk SAM system General Thread

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Mon Oct 14, 2019 9:04 am