BUK SAM system Thread

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.

Bwahaha, hell of a slip-up
Nice catch, someone had a good eye and paid attention to details

Has implications about rate of fire and performance of the land units that receive it I guess.

Also implications about rate of production of the systems and how quickly the upgrade can be deployed.

the missile doesnt have mid-finns like older buk missiles, maybe 8 tube hot launched shtil?

Naval vertical launched Shtil also doesn't have fins like older Buks, so most probably Buk-M3 and Shtil VLS have same new missile.

so now the russians are copying the chinese hq-16 launch system....

I see you went full retard with your trolling RPG.

Weak.

The Russian plans for unification of weapons for their Navy, and Army and Air Force are extensive and include the Buk, which is a Russian Army and Navy system that is not used by the Russian AF.

The fact that new Chinese missiles look like new Russian missiles is no surprise because the new Chinese missiles were developed WITH Russian help based on new Russian missile design.

Next you will be crowing about India being able to make Su-30MKIs that are better than the Su-27, or indeed Brahmos that is better than Yakhont.  

the point is TEL and launch inovation in chinese hq-16 tube launched sam and korean km-sam (which use same missiles as russians) is ahead of the complacent russians who are being left behind...

Rpg type 7v wrote:the point is TEL and launch inovation in chinese hq-16 tube launched sam and korean km-sam (which use same missiles as russians) is ahead of the complacent russians who are being left behind...

You do know that the S-300P, S-300V, S-350, and S-400 are all tube-launched, right?

Want to know why the Buk-M3 can be tube-launched, like the KM-SAM and the HQ-16, while earlier tactical SAMs like the Kub and Buk-M1/2 could not?

SARH guidance.

SARH guidance, depending on the SAM, either always requires or sometimes requires the seeker to be able to see the target to lock on prior to launch, depending on the launch mode and the guidance system design.

Which is, you know, hard to do inside of a sealed container.

It's entirely unsurprising that the new active radar missile for the Buk-M3 is now inside of a launch tube.

And seriously, what's innovative about the HQ-16 TEL? It's basically a shrunk version of the HQ-9 TEL, which is no different in concept than the MAZ-543 based TEL for the S-300P/400.

GarryB wrote:Next you will be crowing about India being able to make Su-30MKIs that are better than the Su-27, or indeed Brahmos that is better than Yakhont.   

Those Hindoos stole the design of the Su 30 and came up with their own home made version . Needless to say they are crashing on a regular basis . Brahmos is another example of Russian guidance codes that Indians obtained by bribing a few officials in NPO Mashinostroyeniya . It's widely known in Russia .

NickM wrote: Those Hindoos stole the design of the Su 30 and came up with their own home made version . Needless to say they are crashing on  a regular basis .

...except they're building them under license, unlike the PRC who builds them without a license. And Russia is upgrading them. And two of the four crashes had nothing to do with anything related to the quality of the aircraft: one was because of crew error in turning off the FBW, and one because jet engines can't eat things that aren't air.

How is four crashes in over a decade a "regular basis"? India isn't the graveyard of the MKI, it's the graveyard of Empire.

Why can missiles like Sea Sparrow(SARH guidance) be inside of sealed containers?

xeno wrote:Why can missiles like Sea Sparrow(SARH guidance) be inside of sealed containers?

Because they can be launched with either programmable or datalinked midcourse guidance. Standard is the same way.

SOC wrote:...except they're building them under license, unlike the PRC who builds them without a license.  

Don't fall into their trap . I realize these are the concocted news that they excel at spreading . They take licence for building 10 units and eventually produce 20 units .

SOC wrote:How is four crashes in over a decade a "regular basis"?

Again don't go by what these Indians tell you . The actual figure is a lot higher which they do not disclose for obvious reasons.

SOC wrote: India isn't the graveyard of the MKI, it's the graveyard of Empire.

That's not true . The Empire left India after we realized that no matter how hard we try a civilization that has historically been un civilized cannot be made civilized .

Don't take my words .Since you are in the US , just look around you and see what these dotheads are doing . Skilled only for 7/11 jobs they rejoice in stealing jobs from the locals . No wonder unemployment among locals is so high in the US . All the locals hate them.