Russia Defence Forum

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    BUK SAM system Thread

    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 28085
    Points : 28615
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    BUK SAM system Thread - Page 3 Empty Re: BUK SAM system Thread

    Post  GarryB Thu Feb 02, 2012 12:28 am

    So russian army will base in S-300V, Buk-M2 in AD brigades, and Tor-M2 in the AD regiments?

    Motorised brigades will consist of Tor-m2, Strela-10, Tunguska?

    Yes, though for the future there will be S-300V4, and Buk-M3, an TOR-M3.

    And of course TOR-M3, Morfei and a new laser beam riding missile called Baikanuk or something, and Pantsir-S1.

    Also Igla-S is supplimented with the new Verba MANPADs.
    TR1
    TR1

    Posts : 5552
    Points : 5560
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    BUK SAM system Thread - Page 3 Empty Re: BUK SAM system Thread

    Post  TR1 Wed Jul 25, 2012 10:50 pm

    Had a question about the utility of BUk-M3- from what I understand now there will be a potent battery engagement radar, individual TEL phased arrays AND active seekers on each missile?

    Is such redundancy really necessary, for a system that does not have that much range by Russian standards, and would that not make each battery very expensive?
    Why are active seekers not being sought for S-300V and S-400?
    flamming_python
    flamming_python

    Posts : 4171
    Points : 4253
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    BUK SAM system Thread - Page 3 Empty Re: BUK SAM system Thread

    Post  flamming_python Wed Jul 25, 2012 11:21 pm

    TR1 wrote:Had a question about the utility of BUk-M3- from what I understand now there will be a potent battery engagement radar, individual TEL phased arrays AND active seekers on each missile?

    Is such redundancy really necessary, for a system that does not have that much range by Russian standards, and would that not make each battery very expensive?
    Why are active seekers not being sought for S-300V and S-400?

    Well I think the point is, is that these things are designed to be very hard to all track down and kill. Even if all of the S-300s batteries and Radar stations get taken out by the enemy, these BUKs (each one of them completely independent if need be) can still run around, hitting and hiding again and playing hell with the enemy, almost like vehicle guerilla warfare. Just look to the Georgia conflict for confirmation. No way anything else will be able to pull that off.

    Of course while the air defense umbrella holds and Russian forces have the long-range, short-range, etc... SAMs to back-up the medium-range ones like the BUK; a Pechora-2M will be able to do much of the same job and much cheaper. However, if the Russian air defense is really pressed, assaulted and is hit by everything a powerful adversary has; the Pechoras would be in great trouble. The BUKs however would not be; and this is what makes them a valuable asset; they have less range than the S-300 but are more survivable and harder to find.
    TR1
    TR1

    Posts : 5552
    Points : 5560
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    BUK SAM system Thread - Page 3 Empty Re: BUK SAM system Thread

    Post  TR1 Wed Jul 25, 2012 11:37 pm

    I just don't see the point of Active Seekers on the missiles if each TEL has more channels than it actually has deployed missiles.

    Buk TELs never operate on their own in any case, and even if the battery level radars are attacked, there is still redundancy with the on board + on missile tracking.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 28085
    Points : 28615
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    BUK SAM system Thread - Page 3 Empty Re: BUK SAM system Thread

    Post  GarryB Thu Jul 26, 2012 8:27 am

    The whole design focus behind the BUK was experience with KUB in the Middle East.

    It was found that if the battery radar of the KUB system was taken out using UAVs and HARM or something similar then the entire battery became sitting ducks that could be taken out by F-16s with dumb bombs because the TELs had no search or track capability so the missiles on them were useless.

    Newer ARH seekers are not as expensive as they used to be, and actually high frequency Ka band (MMW) transmitter/receiver seekers, or ARH seekers are not very expensive at all.

    For a system like BUK having active radar homing seekers has many of the same advantages for the SAM system as it would for an aircraft using ARH R-77s instead of SARH R-27s. Remember the performance of radar drops off at the square of distance, so flying the radar seeker right up close to the enemy target means a better lock, and of course for low flying threats an active radar homing missile can be directed by off platform sensors to targets out of the line of sight of the SAM site yet the missile can still be directed to the targets vicinity and it can be engaged by that missile.

    An example of that would be the first test of the R-37 where the Mig-31M that was used to launch the missile still had an old model radar with a lock on range of about 120km for fighters and about 200km for bombers, but with an Su-30M flying within 100km of the target passing target data to the Mig-31M it was able to launch its missile and direct it to the vicinity of the target without actually detecting and tracking the target itself. The result was a kill with a missile flight distance of 300km... which is pretty impressive.

    For BUK with low flying threats, they won't be hitting targets 300km away, but missiles could be directed to places where targets have been detected and tracked by other nodes on the network and missiles can be fired to intercept targets on the other side of mountains or hills that would otherwise be safe from that battery if it has SARH missiles.

    ARH missiles also often have much better terminal phase accuracy because the radar is in the nose of the missile instead of 60-70km away on a vehicle, so often the warhead weight can be reduced to allow an increase in flight performance. The BUK carries a 70kg HE warhead which makes it a big missile.

    It will be interesting to see if they go to vertical launch tubes in the later models like they do with the naval Shtil-1.

    Another advantage of vertical launch is engagement time... though with a vehicle like TOR you need to use the datalinking capacity of the 6 TELs because although they can each control multiple missiles at a time the tracking radar that controls the engagement is on the front of the turret so vertical launch in any direction means the vehicles must coordinate the directions their turrets face so they cover all potential threat directions... if all turrets are facing in one direction then their vertical launch capacity to engage from any direction becomes moot.

    With ARH missiles there is less need to continue tracking though performance is certainly improved if the target is tracked and flight command updates are datalinked to the outgoing SAM to make sure that when it gets to its intercept point the target is nicely centred in its view so it can have maximum terminal manouver performance... if it reaches the intercept point it was given at launch with no updates because the target wasn't tracked after launch then you might find the target is not directly in front of your missile so your missile might have to turn hard just to acquire the target... if the target manouvers in the correct direction at the correct time even a very manouverable missile might not be able to turn fast enough before it blows past the target and loses lock.
    avatar
    Austin

    Posts : 7618
    Points : 8015
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    BUK SAM system Thread - Page 3 Empty Re: BUK SAM system Thread

    Post  Austin Thu Jul 26, 2012 10:28 am

    TR1 wrote:Had a question about the utility of BUk-M3- from what I understand now there will be a potent battery engagement radar, individual TEL phased arrays AND active seekers on each missile?

    Is such redundancy really necessary, for a system that does not have that much range by Russian standards, and would that not make each battery very expensive?

    Yes it would make system expensive specially the cost of the missile will shoot up by atleast 50 % if they opt for Active Radar but it would also make the entire BUK-M3 more potent and flexible.

    SARH missile like Command Guidance and limited to LOS targets once the target gets out of TEL Phased arrays the missile cannot track and target the aircraft , with ARH once the seeker goes active it is autonomous and in case the target gets out of TEL Radar they can rely on Missile radar to track the target.

    An Active radar seeker would also allow more engagement of targets possible then what is limited by BUK-M2 and its TEL Phased Array radar.

    I have read BUK-M3 is designed to engage BM corresponding to 1000 km range or capability like ERINT PAC-3



    Why are active seekers not being sought for S-300V and S-400?

    Ideally they should opt for Active or IIR Seeker on S-300V and S-400 that would make the system very very potent but then cost is a key factor and these missile are really fast making it possible to engage more targets.

    But 9M96 missile in S-400 have active seekers and they are HTK type , we dont know about 40N6 and 48N6 of S-400 uses SAGG guidance
    TheArmenian
    TheArmenian

    Posts : 1883
    Points : 2030
    Join date : 2011-09-14

    BUK SAM system Thread - Page 3 Empty Re: BUK SAM system Thread

    Post  TheArmenian Thu Jul 26, 2012 11:59 am

    This is how I see things:

    Command guidance and ARH have different sets of advantages and disadvantages.
    For example, with command guidance the operator has more control over the system. With ARH the system is more SEAD immune.
    Despite its multitarget capability BUK-M3 (and BUK-M2) can still be overwhelmed by a large mixture of SEAD aircraft, UAVs and PGMs. Adding ARH guidance increases their survival chances and enhances the ability to inflict damage to the attacking aircraft no matter how much numerical superiority they have.

    In addition, I would think that there would be some sensor fusion technology involved where input from the main radar and the radar on the missile can be "fused" together giving the operator a better fighting ability in a complex environment where jamming and decoying is at maximum levels.

    Also let us remember that the S-300 is something in between: it is command guided, but has a receiver on the missile which gets the return radar signal (that reflects from the target) and passes it to the operating center. Since the missile is closer to the aircraft, the signal strength and quality is better.The ARH missile on the BUK-M3 can do that too without switching on the radar that is found on the missile head.
    medo
    medo

    Posts : 4057
    Points : 4141
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    BUK SAM system Thread - Page 3 Empty Re: BUK SAM system Thread

    Post  medo Thu Jul 26, 2012 5:00 pm

    As I know Buk-M1-2 and Buk-M2 could engage ballistic missiles with speed of target up to 1200 m/s.

    9M317 missiles,which both Buk-M1-2 and Buk-M2 use could have both SARH and ARH homing head, but I think Buk-M1-2 use SARH version, because of mechanical radar and could engage 1 target, while Buk-M2 could use both versions, because it have PESA radar and could engage 4 target simultaneously. Don't forget, that Buk also have TV sight in all versions, what means it could also work in passive optical mode, what means missiles should also have radio command link for radio guidance.

    Having three different modes of guidance and working in combination with Tor-M1 or Tor-M2, Buks will be vary hard nuts to any opposing air force.
    avatar
    Austin

    Posts : 7618
    Points : 8015
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    BUK SAM system Thread - Page 3 Empty Re: BUK SAM system Thread

    Post  Austin Thu Jul 26, 2012 5:39 pm

    BUK-M3 can engage target with a maximum speed of 3000 m/sec
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 28085
    Points : 28615
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    BUK SAM system Thread - Page 3 Empty Re: BUK SAM system Thread

    Post  GarryB Fri Jul 27, 2012 2:23 am

    The Soviets and Russians have a history of choosing solutions that work but are simple and cheap.

    A SAM battery might have a range of targets and threats which can mean that a choice of guidance makes sense in terms of the overall effectiveness of the system.

    It is certainly possible for ARH missiles to be used together with SARH missiles, and under some conditions using an ARH in a SARH mode makes sense too as the enormous radar on a TEL is going be more sophisticated and capable and have better ECCM capability against certain targets than the little radar set in the nose of a missile.

    Having said that the investment in radar technology and its miniaturisation along with mass production can reduce the costs of ARH seekers to the point where there is not that much difference in actual price and in situations where ARH will get a kill and SARH wont then it becomes a case where the slightly more expensive option actually works out cheaper.

    The focus of course is that at the end of the day you have the best tool for the job, but also that you have a tool that is cheap enough so that all your workers have enough tools for the worst possible work day imaginable...
    avatar
    Austin

    Posts : 7618
    Points : 8015
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    BUK SAM system Thread - Page 3 Empty Re: BUK SAM system Thread

    Post  Austin Sun Feb 03, 2013 7:49 am

    TheArmenian wrote:Shown Aero-India 2013
    BUK SAM system Thread - Page 3 98116_original
    TOR-M2KM


    New models shown to Sergey Shoigu last week:
    BUK-M3 in the foreground.
    Antey-2500 behind (missile tubes seem to be thinner than the S-300V (but I am not sure).

    BUK SAM system Thread - Page 3 97924_600

    So now 8-10 BUK-M3 can be carried on tracked chassis ?
    TheArmenian
    TheArmenian

    Posts : 1883
    Points : 2030
    Join date : 2011-09-14

    BUK SAM system Thread - Page 3 Empty Re: BUK SAM system Thread

    Post  TheArmenian Sun Feb 03, 2013 8:46 am

    I created a better picture with an arrow pointing to the BUK-M3

    BUK SAM system Thread - Page 3 Zzzzzzzznbv
    avatar
    Austin

    Posts : 7618
    Points : 8015
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    BUK SAM system Thread - Page 3 Empty Re: BUK SAM system Thread

    Post  Austin Sun Feb 03, 2013 9:11 am

    Cool , Looks like BUK-M3 is a VLS system now.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 28085
    Points : 28615
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    BUK SAM system Thread - Page 3 Empty Re: BUK SAM system Thread

    Post  GarryB Sun Feb 03, 2013 9:46 am

    Nice... it seems they are using the tube launched Shtil-1 missiles for the land based system.

    This also bodes well for the naval version of the vertical launch system getting into service to replace the single arm launcher.

    The latter of course makes sense as the amount of machinery needed to mechanise the missiles under deck so they can be moved from where they are all stored to below the one armed launcher to be launched in addition to the articulated single arm launcher it is all very complex and takes up space and weight. In comparison a bin with ready to launch missiles takes up a lot less space and if there is a failure with one missile then the other missiles should still be available for use. Rate of launch should be faster too and with vertical launch you can engage targets from any direction without having to aim the launcher.

    Regarding the ground launcher it will mean that apart from the first few seconds to raise the tubes to vertical they should have the same all direction capability which is good for a SAM system to deal with sneak attacks from unexpected directions.

    Thanks for posting.

    BTW in the smaller photo it actually looks like there are 6 tubes in two rows... will be very interesting to get a better view.
    Zivo
    Zivo

    Posts : 1488
    Points : 1514
    Join date : 2012-04-13
    Location : U.S.A.

    BUK SAM system Thread - Page 3 Empty Re: BUK SAM system Thread

    Post  Zivo Sun Feb 03, 2013 10:05 am

    That's an economical approach, it looks like they just stuck one of the 6x2 naval launcher modules on a tracked chassis. Whatever, it works. Laughing
    avatar
    Austin

    Posts : 7618
    Points : 8015
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    BUK SAM system Thread - Page 3 Empty Re: BUK SAM system Thread

    Post  Austin Sun Feb 03, 2013 10:31 am

    Guess its not surprising some time back they showed drawing of BUK-M3 on truck with VLS launcher.

    I hope they release the specs officially at MAKS this year
    TheArmenian
    TheArmenian

    Posts : 1883
    Points : 2030
    Join date : 2011-09-14

    BUK SAM system Thread - Page 3 Empty Re: BUK SAM system Thread

    Post  TheArmenian Sun Feb 03, 2013 10:34 am

    Austin wrote:Cool , Looks like BUK-M3 is a VLS system now.
    I am not sure about that.
    By looking at launcher elevating mechanism, I would say it is not VLS.
    We will have to wait for a final answer.
    As for the number of tubes, I would say 2 rows of five missiles, but we need a better picture.

    avatar
    Austin

    Posts : 7618
    Points : 8015
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    BUK SAM system Thread - Page 3 Empty Re: BUK SAM system Thread

    Post  Austin Sun Feb 03, 2013 10:38 am

    BUK SAM system Thread - Page 3 Img_9710

    BUK SAM system Thread - Page 3 Bukm3
    TheArmenian
    TheArmenian

    Posts : 1883
    Points : 2030
    Join date : 2011-09-14

    BUK SAM system Thread - Page 3 Empty Re: BUK SAM system Thread

    Post  TheArmenian Sun Feb 03, 2013 10:40 am

    That is the missile reloads transporter. Not the launch vehicle.
    medo
    medo

    Posts : 4057
    Points : 4141
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    BUK SAM system Thread - Page 3 Empty Re: BUK SAM system Thread

    Post  medo Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:02 am

    It seems Buk-M3 will be developed from Buk-M2 with new missiles placed in containers. Maybe those missiles will be the same as those Russian navy will use on Grigorovich class frigates Buk VLS. I wonder if Buk-M3 will use same PESA radar as Buk-M2 or it will be newer AESA.

    Is Buk-M2 still in production for Russian army or they wait for Buk-M3?
    avatar
    Austin

    Posts : 7618
    Points : 8015
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    BUK SAM system Thread - Page 3 Empty Re: BUK SAM system Thread

    Post  Austin Sun Feb 03, 2013 4:42 pm

    The cannister itself is an indication its a VLS launcher , The tubes are wodden round that are sealed and cannisterised

    These would be cold launched sytem launched vertically , IF these were like previous system they would have been on rails like BUK-M2
    Viktor
    Viktor

    Posts : 5814
    Points : 6449
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 40
    Location : Croatia

    BUK SAM system Thread - Page 3 Empty Re: BUK SAM system Thread

    Post  Viktor Mon Feb 04, 2013 12:27 am

    I believe it is not VLS but standard BUK with more missiles all in containers.

    Here is one more picture. Check the lower right corner.

    BUK SAM system Thread - Page 3 35i7kgz
    avatar
    xeno

    Posts : 167
    Points : 172
    Join date : 2013-02-04

    BUK SAM system Thread - Page 3 Empty Re: BUK SAM system Thread

    Post  xeno Mon Feb 04, 2013 2:55 am

    good picture. BUK M3 is not VLS.
    avatar
    Austin

    Posts : 7618
    Points : 8015
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    BUK SAM system Thread - Page 3 Empty Re: BUK SAM system Thread

    Post  Austin Mon Feb 04, 2013 7:08 am

    Do we have picture of the BUK pictures/chart behind the model ?
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 28085
    Points : 28615
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    BUK SAM system Thread - Page 3 Empty Re: BUK SAM system Thread

    Post  GarryB Mon Feb 04, 2013 9:08 am

    The fact that they are using launch tubes suggests commonality with the VLS naval systems.

    Whether the land based systems are raised to actually vertical or just near vertical for launch is not actually that important... these missiles are medium range and are not short range point defence quick reaction missiles.

    The question is, are these missiles Shtil-1 missiles in the same container/launcher tubes as the naval model, or are they new developments?

    It would make a lot of sense for there to be unification between Army and Navy missiles in terms of missiles and sensors and systems to reduce costs and get better value for money.

    If the Army can get away with using launchers that don't raise the missiles all the way to vertical for launch then that has ramifications in terms of potential to fire on the move for the launch platforms. I suspect with such a large missile that is only a remote possibility, but then the Army will be interested in the evolved systems which stretch back through the SA-17, SA-11, to the SA-6, which had four, four, and three ready to launch missiles respectively... even assuming two rows of five that is a serious increase in ready to fire missiles for each battery.

    Sponsored content

    BUK SAM system Thread - Page 3 Empty Re: BUK SAM system Thread

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sun Mar 07, 2021 12:34 pm