BUK SAM system Thread

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.

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.

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.

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.