BUK SAM system Thread

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

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.

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.

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

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...

TheArmenian wrote:Shown Aero-India 2013

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).

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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?

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

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.

good picture. BUK M3 is not VLS.

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

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.

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

Not Really a tube launched is a wodden round that are stored in sealed cannister that increases the longivity of missile and prevents the exposure of the SAM to atmospheric elements.

Tube launch has nothing to do with Naval or Ground capability.

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

Shtil-1 Missile is based on BUK-M2 and Shtil is based on BUK-M1 SAM.

BUK-M3 from unofficial specs that i have seen is a new missile which has ARH seeker and a range of 70 Km and can intercept MRBM class missile with a range of 1000 km.

I would still wait for them to release the official specs on BUK-M3 system.

Yes a non VLS system would allow the Tracked or Wheeled TEL to fire the missile on the move which is a critical feature for any ground forces on the move.

Tube launch has nothing to do with Naval or Ground capability.

The switch to a container suggests that it is no longer rail launched, which is a significant change for the missile in terms of design. The fact that the naval model is moving to VLS tube storage and launch and now we see a model of the land based missile in a sealed container is important and suggests this new missile is also no longer rail launched.

Russian ATGMs include rail launched missiles like AT-1, AT-2, and AT-3 types, and also tube launched weapons (AT-4/5/6 etc)... none of which are vertical launch, but adopting a new launch method for air and land launched missiles suggests and change towards commonality that seems to be a goal at the moment.

Yes a non VLS system would allow the Tracked or Wheeled TEL to fire the missile on the move which is a critical feature for any ground forces on the move.

I would be more cautious in that area... heavy missiles can damage the launcher if the vehicle hits a bump or lurches during the launch of such a heavy missile... I would expect it would be stationary for launch.

I would be more cautious in that area... heavy missiles can damage the launcher if the vehicle hits a bump or lurches during the launch of such a heavy missile... I would expect it would be stationary for launch.

Agree. It will for sure need short stop to launch missile and than continue to go further. It is big success for such system, if the launcher could move and guide missile to the target, considering this missile will need some time to rich target 50 km away.

Yes, mobility will be increased, but launching would warrant a short stop.

Of course having said that mobility is a good thing but even fairly old aircraft radars had functions to detect and track moving targets on the ground, so continuously moving is not a good thing either.

When a vehicle does something to betray its position like scan for targets with a radar, or launch a huge missile, then moving to another location quickly is a very good idea, but driving around all the time can make you visible to the enemy too.

Ask any hunter and often the first thing you are scanning for is movement... or should I say the first thing you see/the first thing that draws your attention to things that are hiding is movement.

True, but Buk is intended to protect ground forces units, so its moving also depend on moving of protected unit itself. When protected unit is on marsh, Buk is on the marsh with it. Bite when unit is stationary, than Buk moves are limited in changing positions.