BUK SAM system Thread

Nice ... 

SAM "Buk-M3" will begin to enter the army in 2016

"Now there is a planned upgrade with" Buk-M1 "to" Buk-M2 ". Later in 2016, we plan to get" Buk-M3 "

Wow, maximum target speed: 3000 meters per second.

Is that right?

With the footprint of Buk-M3 I guess army doesn't need its own "version" of Vityaz, this slots nicely under S-300V4.

Very curious about the missiles energy characteristics.

With those caracteristics Buk-M3 will have same capabilities in range and ABM as old S-300V. Actually, this will be better for army than army version of Vityaz, because every launcher have its own engagement radar.

Specifications from the NIIP (BUK-M2)

BUK-M2



Specification on BUK-M3

AM "Buk-M3" - further development of the complex and can be adopted in2009. as a complex military army air defense unit. To effectively countering possible threats from the air in the next 12-15 years when it is created using new technologies and developments. It is expected that the "Buk-M3" will be able to destroy air targets, operating at speeds up to 3000 m / s at a range of 2.5 -70 km and altitudes 0,015 -35 km. Antiaircraft battalion will target 36 channels.


http://www.arms-expo.ru/055057052124057052049.html

TR1 wrote:Very curious about the missiles energy characteristics.

Indeed I'm too. However, it's me or judging by the videos Buk m-1/2 and Shtil-1 (the second one even more) are already very fast missiles, especially in acceleration?

Will these new build bukm3 meant for 2016 have the new arm/kur/bmr chassis?

BUK-M3 or modernized BUK-M2 to M3 standard who knows in the left corner

Is it me or does the BUK TEL in the rear have 12 missiles   



Black - 12 missile TEL

Red - 12 missile reloader truck

Blue - 6 missile TELAR



LINK

Gold find Viktor.  

I went "ahhhh, i get it" seeing this...remember the Pantsir-SM shown recently, and it's configuration with 2 vehicle with 12 and 24 missiles respectively for a total of 36? Well, i believe that Buk-M3 will also be made of 2 vehicle teams (within a battery), one vehicle with the radar and 6 SAMs and the other (mysterious so far) vehicle with 12 SAMs, so that is 18 ready to fire missiles on just 2 vehicles (you need FOUR Buk-M2s now for just 16)! Am i off the mark here ? It appears (well, actually it's clear) now the russian concept of SAM operations seems to move towards repelling mass attacks, hence so many missiles in a fire unit on the newest systems (Pantsir-SM, Morfei, now apparently Buk-M3, maybe the latest Tors too, maybe others?)

Yes, i probably wasn't clear enough, didn't meant a battery being made of just two vehicles, but two vehicles (with 6+radar and 12 SAMs respectively) being the smallest "team" within a battery if you know what i mean. If it will be still 6 vehicles (plus the battery radar and associated support vehicles etc.) in a Buk-M3 battery, that would be say 3 TEL and 3 TELAR, totaling 54 ready to fire missiles, compared to just 24 in a Buk-M2 battery! Also, this can be varied too, one can have more TELARs or more TELs (for even more ready to fire missiles) etc.

The concentration of more missiles into less vehicles does concern me though.

And for those 18 ready to fire missiles - there is only one radar unit

This all makes the BUK battery more vulnerable, not less.

Well, as i said above, and as Viktor explained, there would probably still be 6 vehicles in a battery, but imo in 3 two-vehicle teams (totaling 54 ready to fire missiles-at least), so there will be 3 radars instead of six, a reduction indeed, but i'm sure they thought of it all, they're obviously not planning to have the radars taken out that easily! Besides, with all this networking, i'm sure any TELAR can guide any TEL missiles within the battery etc.

Your eyes are not deceiving you Viktor. I also see 12 missiles on a radar-less vehicle.
The more I think about it, I am suspecting that BUK-M3 may have Active Homing version missiles as well that do not need fire control radar.
Anyways my vote to you.

Nice find Victor... but then the top photo in your other post ( Post number 80) also seems to show a vehicle with two hydraulic ram arms raising each holding up a pack of 6 launch tubes... it is very fuzzy and hard to see the front of the vehicle.

In the BUK system there are two TELs... one with a radar on the front and one without, though the one without has a full reload of missiles on board.

Perhaps there are two BUK-3 vehicles... one with double the missiles but no radar and the other with radar and single load of 6 missiles.

TheArmenian wrote:Your eyes are not deceiving you Viktor. I also see 12 missiles on a radar-less vehicle.
The more I think about it, I am suspecting that BUK-M3 may have Active Homing version missiles as well that do not need fire control radar.
Anyways my vote to you.

Tnx TheArmenian. I think that new BUK missiles will have active guidance but nevertheless BUK-M2 TELAR already provides info and target calculations for TEL fired missile.

GarryB wrote:Nice find Victor... but then the top photo in your other post ( Post number 80) also seems to show a vehicle with two hydraulic ram arms raising each holding up a pack of 6 launch tubes... it is very fuzzy and hard to see the front of the vehicle.

In the BUK system there are two TELs... one with a radar on the front and one without, though the one without has a full reload of missiles on board.

Perhaps there are two BUK-3 vehicles... one with double the missiles but no radar and the other with radar and single load of 6 missiles.

Yup, Post No: 34 and 80 show TELAR with 10+ missiles. I dont know what to think about it. Are there two different versions of BUK-MX (one with clearly 6 missiles and one with 10+ missiles

on TELAR) in development or whats going on. I guess we have to wait a bit longer to find out.


Also what is interesting is that now reloader truck has its own crane so there is no need for separate truck with crane.   

M3

Neat, the more the merrier as they say- I wonder how will A-10s fare when one of these bad boys hit them  .
flying tank my ass. If this can down a much larger tupolev recon plane anything smaller will be disintegrated.
Also, I wonder if this can engage F-22 - you never know if you need to avenge the S-300V4, not that it will likely happen

A-10 might be gone within a year or two, so no need to shoot it at all.

right, its gonna be replaced by F-35- stealthy yes, but impoving the Buk so that it can detect F-35 would be orders of magnitude cheaper still.

AFAIK it has optical backup guidance channels, which should allow engagement of things you detect with your thermal imager...

TR1 wrote:A-10 might be gone within a year or two, so no need to shoot it at all.

I'm not so sure about that, if the West is serious about sanctions than the cost of a F-35 may very well skyrocket even more due to Russian titanium being embargoed, unless it's like the situation with the SR-71 were the U.S. bought the titanium from the Soviet Union anyway.

A-10's early retirement is to cut savings, not due to F-35 replacement. It was due to be axed, but not this soon.
The argument is the F-16 can do most of its duties.

It would be interesting to see all those existing BUK-MX variants being modernized to BUK-M3 standard together with the new ones that will roll out of factories - huuuge increase in firepower

and capability.

Buk-M3 among others:

http://bmpd.livejournal.com/861728.html