BUK SAM system Thread

medo wrote:I don't think, this could be a problem. Just integrate 9M96 missile to the Buk and you will get the number of missiles as well as range with long range one.

Maybe integrating missiles that weren't developed for the army and are developed from different people, could be even more difficult.
9M317M can't stand Shtil I am sorry don't need to show me the exit.

The Pantsir will replace the Tunguska in army units plus the new model TOR extends its range to about 32km with a small compact and cheap missile.

There is a TEL for BUK that has 12 missiles ready to launch if numbers are an issue, and Pantsir-SM with a range of 40-45km... so they have plenty of options and choices...

GarryB wrote:The Pantsir will replace the Tunguska in army units plus the new model TOR extends its range to about 32km with a small compact and cheap missile.

There is a TEL for BUK that has 12 missiles ready to launch if numbers are an issue, and Pantsir-SM with a range of 40-45km... so they have plenty of options and choices...

I doubt Pantsir will be adopted by the Russian army, what do you mean with this"the new model TOR extends its range to about 32km with a small compact and cheap missile."?

The new Buk that Almaz-Antey is developing they can go for more missiles per year, they can go for increase range, or they can go the Buk-M3 way...more missiles with more range.

I doubt Pantsir will be adopted by the Russian army

Their regiment level vehicle is Tunguska which has turned in to Pantsir... it will of course be a tracked Pantsir, but it will perform the role of Tunguska... it will probably keep the 30mm cannon (with new air burst shells) and have the 2S38 57mm AA gun vehicle join it as the air defence vehicles...

Motor Rifle divisions and Tank divisions normally have a missile and a gun/missile regiment... traditionally the missile regiment was OSA and then TOR, and the gun/missile regiment originally had Shilka and SA-9/13, and then got Tunguska. The new divisions will likely replace any remaining OSA units with TOR-M3 and the gun missile regiment will replace the old vehicles with Pantsir-SM on a tracked vehicle and 2S38 with a 57mm AA gun.

what do you mean with this"the new model TOR extends its range to about 32km with a small compact and cheap missile."?

Sorry... I have seen a lot of articles on the TOR system talking about 32km, but that is the detection range against munition type targets. I thought I had seen an article talking about them ramping up dramatically the number of missiles they have in each regiment and I think it was basically the same way they did with Pantsir with mini missiles for closer range use against small light targets, but also towed trailers that can carry bundles of vertically arranged missiles ready to fire connected to the battery and available for use by the transporter launchers...

In that article I thought I read that for their future development they were planning to extend the missile engagement range of the missile to 32km but I don't seem to be able to find it now, so maybe I am mistaken.

TOR missiles are command guided missiles and in the original models were similar in size to the OSA missile which has very similar form and function, but the current missiles are smaller and more compact and extend the engagement range from 12km to 16km and don't have any expensive sensors or seekers... just simple cheap command guidance that is very accurate and precise.

The new Buk that Almaz-Antey is developing they can go for more missiles per year, they can go for increase range, or they can go the Buk-M3 way...more missiles with more range.

The Russian Army has S-300V4 above BUK for longer ranged stuff... giving the BUK longer range means making it bigger and heavier and more expensive, which would make it worse not better...

GarryB:

The Russian Army has S-300V4 above BUK for longer ranged stuff... giving the BUK longer range means making it bigger and heavier and more expensive, which would make it worse not better... wrote:

Agree with the first part, the second not necessarily.
They were able to develop a new missile for Buk-M3 with more range an increasing the number of missiles per Telar.
We know that Almaz-Antey is developing a fifth generation medium range SAM( Buk) and it depends what the Russian MOD wants, they prefer more range, or more missiles per Tel? With the Buk-M3 they got both, compared with Buk-M2.
I think it's more important range and speed, because of the end of the INF treaty, having more SAM being able to destroy ballist missiles with increase range is important.
I am not saying they will take the job of the S-300V variants, but they could do some in the future, at least against the shortest range ballist missiles.
For numbers they have Tor.
I remember reading that the future 5 generation Air defense systems could integrate in the same vehicle both missiles and EW.
Something like a Buk-M3, mixed with krakushka-4 in the same vehicle, and if KRET develops Rofar for ground vehicles we will have a super SAM, that nobody can buy

I guess they will quickly make a buk-M3M or buk-M4 with the results of the syrian buk-M2 against israeli jets, missiles and jamming.

Maybe we will see another small missile like on pantsir to counter PGM and drones.

After all, that's the best experience for an AD system as israeli use NATO weaponery and jets.

Isos wrote:I guess they will quickly make a buk-M3M or buk-M4 with the results of the syrian buk-M2 against israeli jets, missiles and jamming.

Maybe we will see another small missile like on pantsir to counter PGM and drones.

After all, that's the best experience for an AD system as israeli use NATO weaponery and jets.

Unfortunalely we cannot make any computation on the numebrs of israeli aircraft downed by syrian operated Бук-М2Э or others export versions of relatively up-to-date air defense systems simply because IAF's aircraft , since several years from now , when some very old soviet-built models was modernized by Federation's specialists and IAF lost almsot immediately an F-16 and an F-15 in theirs last mission in Syrian air, have stopped to conduct any aircraft penetration mission in syrian airspace.

Since then we have instead very extensive data on the performances of those export version SAMs (including performances of the anti-jamming/decoys discerning algorythms of theirs radars ) against an incredible variety of not-export version of western and israeli built PGM including the most advanced ones and results sizeably surpass the parameters validated in the tests for the export patent of those systems.

Almost always in those stand-off missile attacks by part of IAF a single launchers (not batteries) of Бук-M2Э or Панцирь-C1 destroy all the PGMs entering in theirs coivered area delivered by israeli aircraft ,to the point that the extensive israeli HUMINT network of in syrian territory concentrate majority of its time and resources just in collecting informations about the overall movements and mission patterns of those few TELARs (including in-field refueling or maintenance or better some unprofessional behaviours of specific SAM's operators) so to provide the possibility for IAF aircraft to program the flight pact of theirs PGMs so to have reduced chances to pass in area defended by those more advanced systems and assure so that at least a part of the strike salvo will reach some of the targets.

If we should judge the performances of those export versions basing the opinion on theirs performances against domestic, not-export, US and Israeli-built PGMs, there wouldn't be any need to offer in the international market any more advanced model than those or even only develop an export passports for the most up-to-date domestic versions.
But in reality is necessary to take into account that those foreign buyers often operate in conditions of enormous numerical and economical disparity of forces against a western aggression and therefore those SAMs operate as single vehicles and therefore models with increased performances can aid them to partially plain the field in theirs area of operations.

They were able to develop a new missile for Buk-M3 with more range an increasing the number of missiles per Telar.

They have, but there are such things as design limits... the original BUK, SA-11 had pretty ordinary performance, but carried one extra missile and had better range than the SA-6 it replaced. It also had target tracking for each TEL so unlike the SA-6 it could continue to defend itself if its main search radar was taken out.

SA-17 improved range and added the ability to shoot down ARMs and its optical backup system was greatly improved too... but still only four missiles per launcher.

The current model has added 50% more missiles or 300% more missles depending on the version... the transport/loader carries extra missiles too.

The point is that they are not going to find they can add talcum powder and boost rocket performance by 1,000 percent... I rather suspect the next iteration will go back to the SA-6 rocket ramjet propulsion... except this time with rocket scramjet propulsion... much higher rocket speed and range... but probably not tiny slim missiles...

I think it's more important range and speed, because of the end of the INF treaty, having more SAM being able to destroy ballist missiles with increase range is important.

For most really long range ballistic weapons the trajectory is not a smooth curve... it normally has a rather steep terminal dive... why do you think PAC-3 only has a range of 20km? The range against ballistic targets is nothing like the max range of the missile... S-300PMU upgraded missiles could only hit ballistic targets to 40km... S-400 can reach 60km in range for ballistic targets... and for Antei-2500 (S-300VM) it is 30km for ballistic targets.

The range is not so important... the important features are that the S-300VM could intercept targets moving at 4.5km per second with an ERA of 0.02m and can engage 16 ballistic targets at once...

BUK-M1 (SA-17) could engage Lance II type ballistic missiles at 20km range... I would expect BUK M3 to do rather better, but it will be hitting other targets too.

Maybe we will see another small missile like on pantsir to counter PGM and drones.

I suspect they will do that with TOR, but possibly not with BUK because it would effectively be another S-350 equivalent anyway...

Like that, it eliminates the need for a crane truck and crew to reload the transporter launcher in the field, potentially under fire. Should work with any shortish missile, say under 2m. Take it one stage further and make that a potentially disposable trailer. Makes supply of reloads much more flexible.

One of the advantages of the TOR is that the missiles are placed together rather compactly and efficiently already so rather than reloading them into the launch vehicles... having them in pallet/containers ready to fire... just have a transmitter unit and power supply you plug the extra launch bins in to and they are connected with the local launch vehicles and ready to launch....

In fact for a large area target like an airfield you could station fixed radar platforms that can turn and follow targets on high ground around the airfield and have areas where trailers can be parked and plugged in to the network... they could be below ground level with the missiles launched up into the air and directed to the target by the fixed control/launch platforms... they could share information with the airfields radars too... the radars on the TORs are very high spec and well able to detect and track drones... they have mentioned they are updating the missiles for shorter range targets with perhaps what are the equivalent of the tiny quad missiles of the Pantsir... for literal point defence... such weapons with a range of perhaps 3-4km at most could be useful on ships if you can fit four to a tube.

Remember the Kuznetsov carried 192 Klintok missiles which were the old models equivalent to the 8 missile loadout on TOR so even just using the current missiles that have 16 missiles in the same space they can have 384 missiles ready to fire with longer range (15km vs 12km) and more accurate guidance... if they have special quad models for very close in self defence then even just loading half the tubes with the quad missiles means 192 x  15km range missiles plus 768 very short range defence missiles... and we haven't even replaced the 6 AK-630 turrets with Duets or the 8 Kashtans with 8 Pantsir missile/gun mounts...

Plus they could put further trailer launchers on empty parts of the deck with extra trailers for more missiles...

Geeze... these US swarm missiles had better be good and cheap...  

western aggression and therefore those SAMs operate as single vehicles and therefore models with increased performances can aid them to partially plain the field in theirs area of operations.

And it is to the credit of BUK and TOR and Pantsir that they seem to be able to hold back what is normally seriously overwhelming western superior firepower and air power...

against an incredible variety of not-export version of western and israeli built PGM including the most advanced ones and results sizeably surpass the parameters validated in the tests for the export patent of those systems.

Well, that's the thing. Modern air forces win't go inside an IADS zone and will try to destroy it with PGM and drones.

You can't have a tor or pantsir battery to protect each buk battery and each s400 battery...

The biger and longer range is the AD system the less missiles it has. Abd you clearly don't want to use a buk or s-400 missile to destroy a PGM or a drone. That's why IMO russian will adapt the same tactic they use for pantsir of incorporating smaller missile against such threats on every AD system. They already have the 9m100 that can go on s400 and s-350. They could just add another very light launcher with such missile (Morphey system in dev).

And it is to the credit of BUK and TOR and Pantsir that they seem to be able to hold back what is normally seriously overwhelming western superior firepower and air power...

The thing is that such systems can be considered as fix systems. The enemy, if he has good intel, can know where your systems are and program its attack with more missiles/bombers to still overwhelm them.

Any system can be overwhelmed.

That's why you always need a powerfull air force to disrupt ebemy operations. Even locking with a radar on them will force them to go lower, change course, lose fuel...

But if the enemy uses all his recon assets to find a few of your mobile SAM systems and has to use most of his fighters jets to attack them you already have won the first round of the fight. The main point of a good air defence is that your enemy has to fight it before he can attack your more important assets. And he will loose a lot of his firepower in doing so.

Hole wrote:But if the enemy uses all his recon assets to find a few of your mobile SAM systems and has to use most of his fighters jets to attack them you already have won the first round of the fight. The main point of a good air defence is that your enemy has to fight it before he can attack your more important assets. And he will loose a lot of his firepower in doing so.

Depend.

Generally countries can't afford to have a very good AD and a very good air force. If the enemy destroys your AD and you are left with outdated mig-29 then he will be free to use dumb bombs against anything he wants and you loose the war (what US did in Iraq even if the scale is not respected as they had overwhelming power).

Look at Israel for exemple. They have very good radar intel and know what syrian have and where they have it and all their attacks are successfull even if syria downs some missiles.

I must admt that wouldn't be so easy in a real war as israel isn't fighting a total war against Syria but AD alone can always be overwhelmed or kept away from your jets.

IMO they should advertize a "connected" mig-35 (or a yak 130) with the IADS they sell worldwide. A plane connected and sharing radar data and making it able to guide ground based missiles from S-350/400. That's the last piece of the A2/AD. I know it's already able but they don't sell it like that. An air defence jet.

GarryB

I understand your point, but I think you're missing mine
I don't knowbut I guess the difference in price between S-300V family and Buk-M3 should be pretty big
My idea when I saw that with a slightly thinner missile they can "easily" fit 2 more missiles, one above and one in the row below in the Telar was just pointing that this is one of the paths that Almaz-Antey and MoD can choose. We know that they are developing a new Buk, so they don't have got to a roadblock, they even said something like "if they want us to fight in space we will go to space", the development of these systems take 8-10 years, and of course, they can't always make big increases in performance.
Other thing is that I think they don't have a lot of the S-300V types.
I hope is more important for Buk to get more close to S-300V family than Tor, meaning more range and speed vs more missiles per Tel, just this.
The height and speed will be very important, because of the future Hypersonic weapons.
I completely agree that Buk doesn't need a small missile against UAV.

Isos wrote:Well, that's the thing. Modern air forces win't go inside an IADS zone and will try to destroy it with PGM and drones.

If those become the premises the air component of the conflict is already lost from the beginning.

Isos wrote: You can't have a tor or pantsir battery to protect each buk battery and each s400 battery...

C-400 batteries have much , much more than Панцирь-C or Тор-M at theirs defense , they have specialized EW brigades, elctromagnetic emitters/modulators , dedicated decoys, radar/IR opaque camonets, multispectral area masking systems, hardened egression and coverage structures and a friendlly Air Force operating under guidance and coverage of those same systems.

Domestic airfields have simillar or even better coverage and are heavily hardened, i am curious to know what are the defenses against stand-off weapons available to western airfields hosting the same carrying platforms of those stand-off weapons.....

There is only ONE possibility for western air centric structure to not result completely disfunctional and ineffective against a peer enemy and is that "stealth" technology would work against such a major enemy as portrayed by the MIC's lobby behind it........but unfortunately for them we have already all the responses to this question since at least two decades.

Isos wrote:Abd you clearly don't want to use a buk or s-400 missile to destroy a PGM or a drone

Depend on the range of those PGM/UAVs and theirs sophistication.

If that PGM/drone must have a range of hundreds of km, incorporate highly sophisticated navigation and homing systems (like those necessary to be capable to detect/discern/home on mobile/redeployable vehicles at hundreds of km of distances) and for UAVs IA for authonomous operations (today remotely controled UAVs would be completely irrelevant in an attack against Federation) destroy one with a Бук is incredibly advantageous.

Probably you do not take into account this but not only the cost but the time of construction of Israeli stand-off PGMs are much more than an order of magnitude greater than the interceptors that destrooy them.
In a war against an enemy that would also attack your airfields (where you have concentrated all your military potential) not having the necessary defenses, you lose the capability to attack the enemy in just few days.

When you cannot penetrate with your aircraft enemy air space the entire air war is decided by the level of the respective defenses against enemy salvo; the losisng side in this comparison is forced to expend immense and ever growing amount of resources to obtain minimum damages.

Well, that's the thing. Modern air forces win't go inside an IADS zone and will try to destroy it with PGM and drones.

So current Russian IADS rendered HATO air power impotent... that is an achievement....

You can't have a tor or pantsir battery to protect each buk battery and each s400 battery...

Of course you can.... there will be a TOR battery and a Tunguska battery for each Russian armoured division... that is both tank and motor rifle...

The biger and longer range is the AD system the less missiles it has.

Again... true... but Russia has more big missiles than HATO has aircraft and more small missiles than HATO has aircraft long range standoff weapons... which is all they need.

Abd you clearly don't want to use a buk or s-400 missile to destroy a PGM or a drone.

Not normally, but if a BUK missile or an S-400 missile is all that stands in the way of a drone or PGM destroying its target or the BUK or S-400 vehicles then of course you would use it.

That's why IMO russian will adapt the same tactic they use for pantsir of incorporating smaller missile against such threats on every AD system. They already have the 9m100 that can go on s400 and s-350. They could just add another very light launcher with such missile (Morphey system in dev).

The thing is that rather than make a small 9M96 missile and mount it on the TEL for the S-400 battery it is actually much more efficient to actually assign an S-350 battery to protect the S-400 battery and whatever it is defending... the S-350 will have a more suitable radar for the job of point defence... as would a few TOR vehicles and trailers...

It would be the same for BUK... why develop a mini BUK when you could just operate a TOR-M3 battery to operate with it... especially when it moves because the TOR-M3 vehicles can fire on the move unlike the BUK in any model.

The thing is that such systems can be considered as fix systems. The enemy, if he has good intel, can know where your systems are and program its attack with more missiles/bombers to still overwhelm them.

That is true, but this is for Russia... not for Syria... if you want to send enough bombers and missiles to overwhelm a Russian defence force you will also need to deal with the fact that you are going to get Iskanders and cruise missiles and enemy fighters attacking you in return and that while Syria is not able to shoot down Israeli aircraft amongst the mountains of neighbouring countries the Russians certainly could use their S-400s to engage and destroy such aircraft... the S-400 is an active radar homing missile that does not need a lock on before launch... if you know there are planes in mountains out of line of sight you can launch an A-50U and based on where the incoming missiles come from determine a very likely area where the launch aircraft must be and launch your huge S-400 missiles to scan for themselves... or you could wait for the aircraft to cross the border and enter Israeli airspace and shoot them down then... and then start shooting down any other Israeli military aircraft that take off after that...

Any system can be overwhelmed.

Of course it can but it is easier to overwhelm a passive system that does not return fire and ignores enormous numbers of enemy aircraft and ship and sub platforms launching these weapons. When you start actively defending yourself... shooting down planes and sinking ships the cheap overwhelm them with numbers of munitions strategy breaks down because cheap munitions mean nothing if you have no platforms to deploy them from.

That's why you always need a powerfull air force to disrupt ebemy operations. Even locking with a radar on them will force them to go lower, change course, lose fuel...

There is no substitute for a good air force, or a good air defence capacity.... Russia is getting better and better all the time with the first and already has an outstanding air defence that is getting even better all the time...

HATO has a good air force but its air defence capacity is based around its good air force so if it ever needs both then its capacity to do both jobs at once greatly diminishes...

Generally countries can't afford to have a very good AD and a very good air force.

HATO can't either...

If the enemy destroys your AD and you are left with outdated mig-29 then he will be free to use dumb bombs against anything he wants and you loose the war (what US did in Iraq even if the scale is not respected as they had overwhelming power).

Yeah, such an example is meaningless, and even with its meaninglessness Iraq didn't lose all their aircraft and continued to harass the US to the last day...

Serbia was an even clearer example... their aircraft capacity was weak, and despite the bravery of the pilots going up against the best of HATO in aircraft that didn't have functioning radar they were on a hiding to nothing with air power, but with air defence aircraft were in serious danger from day one right to the last day of the conflict... about day 78 wasn't it? And they didn't have any BUKs or Pantsirs or Tunguskas... their equipment would have been familiar to the Vietnamese from the Vietnam war against the US...

Look at Israel for exemple. They have very good radar intel and know what syrian have and where they have it and all their attacks are successfull even if syria downs some missiles.

All of their attacks are successful my ass. They have been repeatedly cowardly attacking from one country away with stand off weapons and they claim to have hit two Pantsir vehicles that were on their own and out of missiles... and most of the rest of the missiles were either jammed or shot down... how can you possibly call that success?

It is not even close.

It is a pathetic failure and they should be scared of their other neighbours spending money on Russian air defence systems because I suspect their days of operating under air superiority is over and they are much much less capable without air control...

I must admt that wouldn't be so easy in a real war as israel isn't fighting a total war against Syria but AD alone can always be overwhelmed or kept away from your jets.

If Israel started targeting Russian targets in Syria and Putin gave them the go ahead to respond Israel would be in serious trouble... they might not have line of sight over Lebanon but over Israel it would be a turkey shoot... and not to mention using various missiles they could use... even just using S-400 in Syria to shoot down any AWACS platforms the Israelis choose to get airborne low flying subsonic cruise missiles could be used to devastate Israel...

IMO they should advertize a "connected" mig-35 (or a yak 130) with the IADS they sell worldwide. A plane connected and sharing radar data and making it able to guide ground based missiles from S-350/400. That's the last piece of the A2/AD. I know it's already able but they don't sell it like that. An air defence jet.

Most countries have nothing like an IADS... even the US only really has it on their AEGIS class ships... the Russian Navy are introducing it on all their ships right down to corvette.

[qutoe]I don't knowbut I guess the difference in price between S-300V family and Buk-M3 should be pretty big[/quote]

I don't know but would expect that is a very safe assumption.

My idea when I saw that with a slightly thinner missile they can "easily" fit 2 more missiles, one above and one in the row below in the Telar was just pointing that this is one of the paths that Almaz-Antey and MoD can choose.

Making a missile thinner requires a complete redesign... and there is always the argument that they could fit two more missiles here or there... usually it comes down to volume or weight... the extra two missiles might make it too heavy to do something it needs to be able to do, or it might mean it wont fit inside a transport aircraft...

We know that they are developing a new Buk, so they don't have got to a roadblock, they even said something like "if they want us to fight in space we will go to space", the development of these systems take 8-10 years, and of course, they can't always make big increases in performance.

The next BUK might have air intakes...

Other thing is that I think they don't have a lot of the S-300V types.

They provide top cover for deployed armoured formations and also critical infrastructure... they will generally be shooting down bombers and aircraft and ballistic missiles... smaller weapons will take on aircraft and bombers and shorter ranged ballistic missiles and of course cruise missiles and munitions launched by aircraft and enemy ground forces.

I hope is more important for Buk to get more close to S-300V family than Tor, meaning more range and speed vs more missiles per Tel, just this.

I suspect the solution for numbers will be a 100km range surface to air variant of Hermes with ground based trucks with 40 tube launchers looking like a large calibre Grad with missiles that could be directed by Pantsir or other units.

BUK needs a nice big solid warhead to take out bombers and fighters and ballistic missiles... which means it needs to stay big.

HATO can't afford more planes than the Russians can afford heavy SAMs... all the previously made heavy SAMs over the past 40 years can still be used against secondary targets... SA-3 can still shoot down cruise missiles and drones and they are already paid for...

The height and speed will be very important, because of the future Hypersonic weapons.

Hypersonic weapons would be better engaged using big heavy missiles rather than smaller lighter ones...

GarryB:Hypersonic weapons would be better engaged using big heavy missiles rather than smaller lighter ones... wrote:

But big heavy missiles translates to few expensive missiles.
I think in the future one of the big changes in Russian air defense doctrine is the move for everything that have missiles have the ability to engage hypersonic missiles, or HGV.
Pantsir, Buk, S-350, S-400, S-500.
And if know the structure of the Russian AIDS is to see what system engage subsonic precision guided munitions and ballist missiles, according to the cost-effective method, this will change from top to bottom (S-500 to Pantsir-SM) in regard to Hypersonic threats. Not forgetting EW.
The ability to engage Hypersonic threats should be the decisive parameter in the design of the next Russian systems.

But big heavy missiles translates to few expensive missiles.

That is right.

Do you think it makes sense to not bother making An-124s because they are big and expensive and you wont be able to buy them in enormous numbers... instead of having a transport fleet of 200 An-124s to move cargo around the place instead have 10,000 An-12s.

If you work out the crew costs and maintenance costs and operating costs 10,000 An-12s wont be cheaper than 200 An-124s and more importantly there are a lot of cargos that can't be split down small enough to fit in an An-12... just like intercepting a target at 60km altitude flying at mach 12... a nice slim little missile like Pantsir is not going to cut it... even if you have millions.

It just makes sense to get the right tool for the job... they don't make the big missiles big on purpose... that is how big they need to be to get a specific job done... and of course the claims that scramjet powered missiles could be small and cheap and overwhelm them is just nonsense... simply because the next generation heavy SAMs could also be made smaller and lighter and cheaper with the same propulsion technology...

Reminds me of the bullshit western strategy of swarms... but when it comes to WWIII the obvious solution to an enormous swarm of locusts moving across country heading for your territory is to nuke it when it gets started over your enemies territory and take down all his delivery platforms at the same time...

I think in the future one of the big changes in Russian air defense doctrine is the move for everything that have missiles have the ability to engage hypersonic missiles, or HGV.
Pantsir, Buk, S-350, S-400, S-500.

Future? S-400 already can engage targets travelling at 4.8km per second which is faster than most weapons... only ICBMs would be faster so it could probably also engage SLBMs already. S-500 will engage targets moving at 7km/s and will likely evolve to be able to engage targets in orbit fairly quickly... being air launched from a MiG-31 would probably extend its interception range capacity from 600km to 1,500km at least...

For Pantsir and BUK they can probably already do that but only over very short distances... and S-350 was part of S-400 so likely has the radar and sensors for the intercept of high speed targets too.

And if know the structure of the Russian AIDS is to see what system engage subsonic precision guided munitions and ballist missiles, according to the cost-effective method, this will change from top to bottom (S-500 to Pantsir-SM) in regard to Hypersonic threats.

Whether fighting third world terrorists like ISIS or the US military or a modern capable state the vast majority of threats come from subsonic drones and low speed missiles and bombs... it is like Armour... there might be Javelins and Hellfires around the place but RPGs and IEDs are vastly more likely and more common.

The ability to engage Hypersonic threats should be the decisive parameter in the design of the next Russian systems.

S-400 has been in service for quite some time already and even old S-300PMU1 and 2 can engage targets moving at 2.8km/s and S-300V could engage targets moving at 4.5km/s for the last four decades too.

I know that Russia already has from some time systems that can theoretically intercept hypersonic threats, but what I am trying to say is that the new Russian defense systems should have as a first priority in their design characteristics the ability to intercept hypersonic vehicles.
If the S-400 can intercept some hypersonic vehicles, in the future should increase that capacity, this is truth for all the other systems I talked above.
The other threat are the small UAV that Pantsir-SM and Tor should engage with the 4 small missiles in place of one.
Hypersonic, ballist missiles, small drones, this is where the Russian systems should improve, I am not saying they are bad.
And I like the big expensive missiles, but they will have a limited, but important, mission.

The targets those big expensive missiles are going to be engaging are orders of magnitude more expensive and will never be in service in the sort of numbers these Russian SAMs will be purchased in.

Russian SAMs cover speed beyond those any man made object can achieve that threatens Russia.

Manouvering targets are more difficult to engage than ballistic ones and they will need to work using their own new hypersonic manouvering weapons systems to determine what they need to do to counter such threats but as the only existing such weapons are Russian they have both the time and the examples to work with to get the job done.

The pantsir and tor missiles are simple and cheap so they can and will be made in enormous numbers. The new Pine missiles are also cheap missiles... Pantsir and TOR are command guided, while Pine is laser beam riding and can also be made in enormous numbers. Their standard IFV turret will have four Kornet missiles and 8 Bulat missiles.... both are laser beam riding weapons that can be used against targets with no radar or IR signature... a video autotracker can follow their video image in IIR or just digital video... the guidance systems can be sophisticated and powerful but the missiles are simple and cheap and produced in enormous numbers.

The big expensive missiles shoot down the big expensive force multipliers... without which the attack will quickly collapse or become too expensive to sustain.

Their Air Force add an extra layer to this defence with aircraft, and the Air Force and the Army and the Navy have their own air defence networks working together.

GarryB wrote:The targets those big expensive missiles are going to be engaging are orders of magnitude more expensive and will never be in service in the sort of numbers these Russian SAMs will be purchased in.

Russian SAMs cover speed beyond those any man made object can achieve that threatens Russia.

Manouvering targets are more difficult to engage than ballistic ones and they will need to work using their own new hypersonic manouvering weapons systems to determine what they need to do to counter such threats but as the only existing such weapons are Russian they have both the time and the examples to work with to get the job done.

The pantsir and tor missiles are simple and cheap so they can and will be made in enormous numbers. The new Pine missiles are also cheap missiles... Pantsir and TOR are command guided, while Pine is laser beam riding and can also be made in enormous numbers. Their standard IFV turret will have four Kornet missiles and 8 Bulat missiles.... both are laser beam riding weapons that can be used against targets with no radar or IR signature... a video autotracker can follow their video image in IIR or just digital video... the guidance systems can be sophisticated and powerful but the missiles are simple and cheap and produced in enormous numbers.

The big expensive missiles shoot down the big expensive force multipliers... without which the attack will quickly collapse or become too expensive to sustain.

Their Air Force add an extra layer to this defence with aircraft, and the Air Force and the Army and the Navy have their own air defence networks working together.

Excellent point and I agree. What I am trying to say probably without using the best words, is that Russia should bring some of those top characteristics in the 48N6MD, 40N6, 9M82MD, to the Buk and Pantsir systems, some of the characteristics, not duplicate the missiles. More precisely not bring some of the characteristics but decreasing the gap between them.

Think of the missiles as forming different layers... the best way is to look at a cruiser like a Kirov.

An old Corvette had short range air defence systems it would be seriously vulnerable because aircraft would sit just outside its max range for engagement and launch missiles at it... Say it had an AK630 and OSA on board...AK630 had a range of 4km for guns and OSA had about 12km for missiles, so aircraft attacking it could launch missiles from about 20km with no chance of being shot down, so you fly your aircraft to 20km and launch all the missiles it is carrying and then go away and reload and come back.

If you can stop any ships from resupplying the Corvette it is only a matter of time before the air defences are penetrated and you start getting solid hits... in fact it wouldn't take very long at all because the air defence capacity of a Corvette is limited by its size and cost.

Buying lots more Corvettes is not the solution.

Destroyers add medium range missiles so most aircraft can't attack from standoff ranges and attack with impunity... if you want to sink a destroyer you are probably going to lose aircraft.

And of course Cruisers add area defence missiles and together with a group of destroyers and other ships can actually go hunting for enemy carriers or operate in enemy waters.

The best naval groups have aircraft carriers so they have their own mobile fighter aircraft that can be responsive and move 1,000km closer to the target to launch their air to air missiles... a naval Su-57 armed with R-37M missiles with a missile range of 400km is the equivalent to an S-400 TEL that can fly around at mach 2 to launch attack on enemy aircraft over a 1,000km radius... even if it does not launch any missiles its stealth and its radar and communications systems mean it can detect targets below the radar horizon 400km away and provide target data for ships 400km away to launch SAMs at them with a good chance of success...

The thing is that now the threat is coming from high altitude very high speed threats like Zircon... the best solution would be S-400 and S-500... Pantsir and TOR would not be effective and likely couldn't be made to be effective unless those weapons are located right next to the target.

If they are under the flight path of a Zircon their chance of interception would be zero... Zircon will be flying at 50-60km altitude and no model of TOR or Pantsir could reach them without serious modification... modification that makes them totally incompatible with standard launchers... they would need enormous solid rocket boosters and scramjet sustainer motors to even have a chance... it makes no sense to modify them for a job they are not suited to.

They are excellent for the jobs they do... don't break that.

Right now the number of American or HATO Zircons is zero and will remain zero for the next 5 years at the very least... by that time they will have had Zircon in service and tested all sorts of attack flight profiles and their air defence forces will have analysed such attack methods and developed solutions to deal with them.

The solution might be radar and IR sensor early detection and nuclear detonation over enemy territory before it enters Russian airspace... so for instance a US B-52 launches a hypersonic missile at Russia from over the Med... on detection the solution could be a launch of a hypersonic interceptor missile based on Zircon with an airburst very large nuclear warhead... at 60km altitude perhaps somewhere over Bulgaria...

The characteristics of those big missiles is size and speed and range and altitude capacity.... it would be difficult to transfer those features to smaller cheaper simpler missiles without making those smaller cheaper simpler missiles bigger and more expensive and more complicated... it is better to keep them small and cheap and simple and make them in eye watering numbers.

The performance for smaller missiles has increased... mainly through precision and accuracy increases... a 150kg HE warhead to shred a scud type missile or large bomber like the B-52 means you need 90-150km range missiles the size of the S-300. Improved accuracy and warhead technology means you can do the same job with a 50kg warhead so the S-350 missiles can be much much smaller and lighter, though the active radar seekers they use are not cheap... but being much smaller and lighter more missiles can be made and you can have them in much greater numbers and over time the active radar seekers become cheaper and smaller and lighter.

The BUK has also become smaller and lighter but with better range and performance against a range of targets...

And Pantsir is becoming a much more flexible system with tiny cheap missiles for hitting drones and full sized missiles able to reach further an further against a wider range of targets.

GarryB

I said that the threats Russia will face is Hypersonic , ballistic missiles and small UAV, this is where in my opinion the Russian IADS needs specialization.
And I agree that Pantsir and Tor should maintain cheaper missiles, against those small UAV and all the other subsonic precision guided munitions.
But Pantsir-SM and Tor could have very different paths, I think Tor can't can't engage Hypersonic vehicles in a cost-effective way, if at all. Pantsir-SM can.
To summarize Pantsir-SM and the future Tor, can intercept small UAV with their 4 small missiles in the place of the regular one. That's cost-effective. But Pantsir-SM should be also intercept some hypersonic missiles. Pantsir-SM would be the last layer of Hypersonic defense against a massive hypersonic attack, maybe EW will be the last.
What I expect is the new Buk being developed have as specified targets ballistic missiles (because of the INF treaty end) and hypersonic vehicles. He would be another layer of defense against the attack I talked above, that's why I said it's important to increase the height and the speed.

If the Russian IADS was designed in the past against an combined massive subsonic missile attack, supersonic fighters and ballistic missiles, in the future some of the threats are different. And because the Russian IADS is so massive it takes time to modernize. Earlier they start better.
I agree that Tor because of the limited compartment would not be part of this transformation, at least in the wheeler and tracker version, that's why I didn't talked about him previously.

Right now the number of American or HATO Zircons is zero and will remain zero for the next 5 years at the very least... [b]by that time they will have had Zircon in service and tested all sorts of attack flight profiles and their air defence forces will have analysed such attack methods and developed solutions to deal with them.[/b] wrote:

5 years it's been nice, we don't want that very true the bold part.

They are excellent for the jobs they do... don't break that. wrote:

I don't want that's why I agree with your last sentence, that explains a bit what I am trying to say. Pantsir not only it's becoming more flexible, it's becoming more specialized.

Difference in size of the missiles of buk m2 and m3 is huge knowing that the latest has almost twice the range.

Using the fuel of the m3 inside the m2 missiles can bring their range to almost 100km.

I said that the threats Russia will face is Hypersonic , ballistic missiles and small UAV, this is where in my opinion the Russian IADS needs specialization.

But don't you see the difference... small UAVs will be flying low and slow and hard to spot... hypersonic and ballistic missiles will be high and glowing... you are not going to see low flying targets at enormous ranges... that is the whole point of flying low and one of the penalties of flying low is that you can't go super fast... flying very fast at low altitude consumes enormous amounts of energy... the fastest low level threat is currently and will probably remain the supersonic model of Club with a solid rocket fuelled terminal phase at mach 2.9 and it wont glide at that speed very long at all... a 5.56mm rifle bullet from an American rifle leaves the barrel at roughly that speed and is subsonic by about 600m range.

Hypersonic and ballistic targets will be up high and easy to detect from enormous ranges... why would you bother to wait until they are within 20km before opening fire on them with TOR or Pantsir?

More importantly unless the TOR or Pantsir are located directly on top of the target then those ballistic missiles or hypersonic missiles will blow past at 60km altitude or more so neither in their current form could reach them anyway... it would and does make sense to engage such targets with existing high altitude and long range weapons like S-400 and S-500... that is what they are for.

The Russian IADS covers everything from tiny little hand held drones with Pine and TOR and Pantsir and even Kornet-EM and probably Bulat too... in fact I would say Bulat would be an ideal anti drone missile that could be carried in enormous numbers. Right through to cruise missiles with similar systems as well as Igla-S and Verba, up to helicopters and aircraft with BUK and S-350, and then longer ranged against aircraft and a range of ballistic threats... theatre ballistic missiles with S-350 and BUK and long range ballistic missiles including SLBMs and ICBMs with S-400 and S-500... and in addition they have the missiles used in the Moscow ABM system including the new mobile Nudol which might be deployed to other places like major naval bases... Murmansk, Sevastopol, St Petersberg, and Vladivostok... and on top of that you have the aircraft of the Air Force and the air defence missiles and ground forces of the Army...

I would say they have things pretty much sorted right now.

Making a TOR or Pantsir be able to hit a hypersonic target would be like making an S-500 be able to hit a hand held 600 gramme drone... they could probably do it... but there are other tools available to do the job that would be much better suited to the job....

Equally on paper having a TOR missile that can intercept an incoming ICBM warhead would be useful.... you could sit them on top of hardened silos that need direct hits to penetrate and the TOR could set off the incoming missile before it hits the silo... but even with a nuke warhead how will it fare with the second and third incoming targets after it has had an enormous nuclear explosion occur directly above it?

I would say add a Bulat launcher with say 60-80 missiles on it with a 2A38 vehicle with 57mm air burst HE shells and she'll be right when it comes to drones... and any munitions can be handled by TOR and Pantsir batteries...

Difference in size of the missiles of buk m2 and m3 is huge knowing that the latest has almost twice the range.

It probably also has active radar homing which makes it more accurate and so because of that they probably reduced the weight of the payload which meant a smaller lighter rocket motor burning a lot less fuel could be used which is why it is much smaller...

Having 6 missiles ready to fire is more valuable than having 4 missiles with longer range ready to fire... and with the loader reloader vehicles having twelve missiles ready to fire instead of eight with four ready to launch and four more on the vehicle makes enough of a difference to not want to use the older missiles for anything other than what they are... cheap missiles already paid for that still have rather good performance against most targets including Lance II type ballistic missiles.

GarryB

But don't you see the difference... wrote:

I see

And I agree that Pantsir and Tor should maintain cheaper missiles, against those small UAV and all the other subsonic precision guided munitions. wrote:

and I said

I think Tor can't can't engage Hypersonic vehicles in a cost-effective way, if at all wrote:

Pantsir-SM already uses an Hypersonic missile, I think he should be able in the future to engage some hypersonic missiles, and I am not saying he should shoot down small UAV with this missile, I said exactly the opposite.