BUK SAM system Thread

The BUK would not be protecting one unit, they would likely have a brigade or group of brigades to protect and would more accurately be protecting the ground being covered by those brigades.

As the friendly forces move the Buk batteries would move... but strategically and certainly not all at once to ensure proper coverage... but you already know that.

Of course we know that. Fire, while battery is on move, is still important plus in defending large units in case of attack, because batteries on the move could still engage attacking planes together with batteries on defending positions and still keep moving on their defending positions to cover protected units.

9C36 radar, with the 22 meter mast.
Target RCS 1m2-2m2 : 120km detection range if target is 3km high, 30-35km if target is 10-15 meters high.
10 target tracking, 4 engaged at one time.

Excellent pictures TR1.

And excellent specs from low attitude 9S36 PESA. Old Kupol radar has also received upgrades so its newest iteration detects RCS-1-2m2

at 160km. Interesting enough as Russia operates 7 brigades of BUK-M1 I bet west was happy to see its capabilities diminish in

21st century air defense arena. As a highly reliable AD system and extremely mobile, BUK-M1 can go and disappear and reappear where it

wants to. With the new modernization BUK-M1-2 Russia can upgrade existing BUK-M1 thus vastly improving its air defense capability.

Number of guidance channels was doubled per battalion, ECM vastly increased, new missile with new ranges, increased low altitude

acquisition and engagement etc. With the introduction of BUK-M2 and as we saw BUK-M3 situation is only getting worst for the "west".

Modernized Kupol radar

do we have any Buk-M3 deliveries?

New models of BUK-M2 with 6 missiles. Interesting thing is that missiles are now stored in tubes.

Nice find Viktor.
Are you sure its M2 and not M3?

TheArmenian wrote:Nice find Viktor.
Are you sure its M2 and not M3?

Im not sure. But based on what I saw, I think this could be further modernization of BUK-M2 with perhaps technology from BUK-M3.
As I remember, models of BUK-M3 have more missiles per TELAR.

Yup 12 missiles per TELAR: Here is the picture.

Thanks.
I hope MAKS-2013 will clarify things. But, I am afraid (as per previous shows) it will raise more questions than provide answers.
We will see.

Pictures from BUK-M2 simulator

So Buk-M2 will be able to use new missiles from Buk-M3? they will improve its capabilities in range and in number of targets as there will be more missiles on launchers.

medo wrote:So Buk-M2 will be able to use new missiles from Buk-M3? they will improve its capabilities in range and in number of targets as there will be more missiles on launchers.

We have seen the same thing with BUK-M1-2, where BUK-M1 was  modernized with the BUK-M2 missiles and was renamed BUK-M1-2  

BUK missile system is excellent base for all sorts of modernizations as technology advances and that is what is making it so dangerous.

Imagine hundereds of BUKs in Russian inventory (which is 5 minute system and one of the most mobile AD systems in the world) suddenly modernized with active guidance, longer ranged

missiles on a TELAR that now has more target guidance channels and is much better integrated within new command structure with new Baikal-1ME ASU. All of the sudden western defense

planers will wake up in horror only to realize they have one more extremely dangerous air defense system to count on just as they thought several years back from now that BUK missile

system will take its honourable place at the dump yard of the history

I suspect the new tube will likely be the same as the new tube for the naval shtil-1, so they can just make one missile for existing and new Buk batteries and also for new and upgraded Shtil systems.

The new tubes will protect the missiles from damage and better allow for stacking on launchers.

Its new version of BUK-M2

In Moscow, presented a new version of the self-propelled SAM firing units for Buk-M2

Thanks for the clarification Viktor.

Hopefully this MAKS will clarify if the missiles are the 9M317 or the 9M317M ( which i suspect because of the tubes, but i might be wrong). And looking at the little there is on Buk-M3, man i'm looking forward to it, 12 ready to fire missiles! It appears it will be arranged the same as a Buk-M2 with missiles and radar on a common rotating assembly, is that right ?

mack8 wrote:Hopefully this MAKS will clarify if the missiles are the 9M317 or the 9M317M ( which i suspect because of the tubes, but i might be wrong). And looking at the little there is on Buk-M3, man i'm looking forward to it, 12 ready to fire missiles! It appears it will be arranged the same as a Buk-M2 with missiles and radar on a common rotating assembly, is that right ?

So far we have only this. Missiles 9M317ME. System identify as BUK-M3 by Said is most likely wrong.



http://saidpvo.livejournal.com/207029.html

Interestingly the TELAR has 6 road wheels on each side while the model shown few posts above has 7. If this is not Buk-M3, then it's perhaps Buk-M2-3?

Viktor wrote:New models of BUK-M2 with 6 missiles. Interesting thing is that missiles are now stored in tubes.

How about it being the Mysk missile system which was a follow-on to Ural (AKA Buk-M2)?

good ,finnaly they have come to some senses , this tubes could be from naval version -- shtil ,which is in tubes and already has 50km range which is good enough for medium sam.
so just from there 1 unified system and savings. and with 6 missiles compared to 4 that is better.
i think this missiles are hot launched. with arh and ir homing it would be hell of a system.
what i still think is bad and lacking is the vehicle where there is no improvement, where is 3 faced AESA!! and better irst package with more cameras and with better coverage , the search radar could que aesa into designated area od the sky where is could use lpi mode all the way from the start to the succesfull intercept.

This system is an evolution of the KUB system, where experience showed in the Middle East that when the central radar vehicle is destroyed each of the transporter erector vehicles becomes vulnerable to even F-16s with dumb bombs as they had no way to guide their missiles themselves.

In BUK each TEL vehicle has a guidance radar so it can guide missiles to targets using either radar or optical guidance which means the battery can't be taken out with a single HARM... especially when each vehicle can shoot down HARMs as well as aircraft and ballistic missiles.

Each battery will have 6-8 launch vehicles which means with each vehicle pointing its missiles in a different direction that 360 degree coverage can be achieved without multi face radar antenna on each vehicle.

Unification of missile design should allow cost savings, but also means they could have different variants too... for a wheeled battery operating with a medium wheeled unit they could attach a truck based vehicle TELAR with rather more launch tubes, or they could indeed develop a trailer with its own TEL for towing behind tracked and wheeled BUK systems.

It doesn't need an AESA radar to cue missiles to specific areas without emitting lots of radar energy. It could get target information from the IADS from other platforms without turning on its own radar and launch its own missiles to an intercept point where the missiles will go live and start looking for targets itself with ARH or IIR seekers... or a combination seeker.

more radars working in lpi mode and datalinking is a much safer and better option . nad thats even more redundancy. this new version is dissapointing in many respects like i already pointed out.

This system is part of the mobile IADS of the Army that moves with the Army. It doesn't operate on its own and will get target data from other platforms/sources so it could operate without emitting any radar radiation at all... ie not LPI... No probability intercept... NPI... because it is just receiving target data.

Russian people are so unbelievable, they have kept secret for so long, which can be leaked so easily by some souvenirs.
First colour photo of a real Buk M3. Actually a very awesome photo.

Why even keep that a secret is my question.


Good find.