BUK SAM system Thread

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:
The technologies used to achieve these hypersonic speeds include one or more of the following. With all of these technologies, the speed after the reentry can be higher or lower than the reentry speed.

1- Very low-drag RV design with exotic heat-resistance techniques.

2- RVs with propulsion systems like scramjet engines and/or rocket engines.

3- Variable-geometry RVs.

Great input as always Morpheus. Many Thanks.

This is just going to open up into a long line of questions. .I don't want to bother you. Last one, though. I am venturing to guess you won't have the time to explain each of these technologies in details, so can you please share some links, from where I can read about these technologies? Thanks again.

jhelb wrote:

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:
The technologies used to achieve these hypersonic speeds include one or more of the following. With all of these technologies, the speed after the reentry can be higher or lower than the reentry speed.

1- Very low-drag RV design with exotic heat-resistance techniques.

2- RVs with propulsion systems like scramjet engines and/or rocket engines.

3- Variable-geometry RVs.

Great input as always Morpheus. Many Thanks.

This is just going to open up into a long line of questions. .I don't want to bother you. Last one, though. I am venturing to guess you won't have the time to explain each of these technologies in details, so can you please share some links, from where I can read about these technologies? Thanks again.

Thanks, jhelb,

I'll continue this topic in some future posts.

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:

jhelb wrote:

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:
The technologies used to achieve these hypersonic speeds include one or more of the following. With all of these technologies, the speed after the reentry can be higher or lower than the reentry speed.

1- Very low-drag RV design with exotic heat-resistance techniques.

2- RVs with propulsion systems like scramjet engines and/or rocket engines.

3- Variable-geometry RVs.

Great input as always Morpheus. Many Thanks.

This is just going to open up into a long line of questions. .I don't want to bother you. Last one, though. I am venturing to guess you won't have the time to explain each of these technologies in details, so can you please share some links, from where I can read about these technologies? Thanks again.

Thanks, jhelb,

I'll continue this topic in some future posts.

jhelb,

I moved this topic to https://www.russiadefence.net/t2758p200-russia-us-and-other-developments-in-hypersonic-research#157844

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:
jhelb,

I moved this topic to https://www.russiadefence.net/t1247p225-strategic-missile-troops-icbms-discussion-news#157844

Sure Morpheus, makes sense.

It seems that BUK-M2 is entering service en masse

The anti-aircraft missile compound BBO Transbaikalia set SAM "Buk-M2"

jhelb wrote:

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:
jhelb,

I moved this topic to https://www.russiadefence.net/t1247p225-strategic-missile-troops-icbms-discussion-news#157844

Sure Morpheus, makes sense.

jhelb,

It's now at https://www.russiadefence.net/t2758p200-russia-us-and-other-developments-in-hypersonic-research#157844

Viktor wrote:It seems that BUK-M2 is entering service en masse

The anti-aircraft missile compound BBO Transbaikalia set SAM "Buk-M2"

True. I think they will produce them parallel with Buk-M3 until Buk-M3 reach needed production level.

medo wrote:

Viktor wrote:It seems that BUK-M2 is entering service en masse

The anti-aircraft missile compound BBO Transbaikalia set SAM "Buk-M2"

True. I think they will produce them parallel with Buk-M3 until Buk-M3 reach needed production level.

Whats the point? That would be a huge waste of money. Just go straight for the Buk-M3 IMO as it is already going through trials. Might as well wait rather than spend money.

sepheronx wrote:

medo wrote:

Viktor wrote:It seems that BUK-M2 is entering service en masse

The anti-aircraft missile compound BBO Transbaikalia set SAM "Buk-M2"

True. I think they will produce them parallel with Buk-M3 until Buk-M3 reach needed production level.

Whats the point?  That would be a huge waste of money.  Just go straight for the Buk-M3 IMO as it is already going through trials.  Might as well wait rather than spend money.

I am quite certain that many of the deployment related announcements merely constitute retcon situations.

sepheronx wrote:

medo wrote:

Viktor wrote:It seems that BUK-M2 is entering service en masse

The anti-aircraft missile compound BBO Transbaikalia set SAM "Buk-M2"

True. I think they will produce them parallel with Buk-M3 until Buk-M3 reach needed production level.

Whats the point?  That would be a huge waste of money.  Just go straight for the Buk-M3 IMO as it is already going through trials.  Might as well wait rather than spend money.

You know, that production line for new product need time to reach full capacity and it also depend on production of new components for them. Buk-M2 is also already established in Russian military, they have crews for them and units could take them quickly in combat duty. On the other side Buk-M3 is new, although very similar to Buk-M2 and will take some time to become fully operational. Times are not nice now and it is better to produce more Buk-M2 for some time and deliver them to combat units, than to loose time and wait for full production of Buk-M3. Buk-M2 is still excellent SAM and Buk-M3 will come in the same time to units. It's nothing wrong to have some more Buk-M2, which could still cover some less important units, when there will be enough Buk-M3 in army.

sepheronx wrote:

medo wrote:

Viktor wrote:It seems that BUK-M2 is entering service en masse

The anti-aircraft missile compound BBO Transbaikalia set SAM "Buk-M2"

True. I think they will produce them parallel with Buk-M3 until Buk-M3 reach needed production level.

Whats the point?  That would be a huge waste of money.  Just go straight for the Buk-M3 IMO as it is already going through trials.  Might as well wait rather than spend money.

In cases like this its mostly issue with new components that are installed and which companies that produce them still didnt manage to put in full scale production.

Yeah... it is like the Panther problem... changing to produce Panthers they stopped production of perfectly effective Panzer IVs so because Panthers could not be made at the rate the Panzer IVs could be made when Panzer IV production stopped the Panther production was slow so in effect the front troops got neither tank.

Plenty of older BUK systems in service on land and at sea so production of the older missiles should continue but steps should be taken to convert the existing launchers on land and sea to the new missiles and then old production lines can then be converted to the new missile and there needs to be no shortages of missiles.

Buk-M3 test http://tass.ru/en/defense/884398

The Buk-M3 system has a range of 70 kilometers ... a maximum firing altitude of 35 kilometers

Isn't this using 9M317ME missile same as Shtil-1 on Grigorovich?
Numbers quite a lot bigger than I've seen for that, namely 50km range & 15km vertical, is this dodgy numbers or a Domestic vs Export difference?

hoom wrote:Buk-M3 test http://tass.ru/en/defense/884398

The Buk-M3 system has a range of 70 kilometers ... a maximum firing altitude of 35 kilometers

Isn't this using 9M317ME missile same as Shtil-1 on Grigorovich?
Numbers quite a lot bigger than I've seen for that, namely 50km range & 15km vertical, is this dodgy numbers or a Domestic vs Export difference?

One whole brigade of BUK-M3 will be delivered in 2016 or 3 BUK-M3 regiments. BUK systems deliveries largerly goes under the radar unnoticed but they act as a Dark Knight od the Russian air defense systems

I have no idea how many launchers/sites that is

But yes its very easy to underestimate Buk, I thought poorly of it until very recently due to being a big old-style exposed missile.
More recently I've learned that the fire director radar is not an old dish but a PESA & also that Buk actually has a very good record vs low, fast targets which is altogether a much better class than I'd thought.

Gur-khan seems to be quoting same press release http://gurkhan.blogspot.co.nz/2016/06/3_24.html
Has this pic

I'd expected more of a difference since M3 is said to be a complete rework but does make more sense as an upgrade rather than fully new system.

hoom wrote:I have no idea how many launchers/sites that is

But yes its very easy to underestimate Buk, I thought poorly of it until very recently due to being a big old-style exposed missile.
More recently I've learned that the fire director radar is not an old dish but a PESA & also that Buk actually has a very good record vs low, fast targets which is altogether a much better class than I'd thought.

Gur-khan seems to be quoting same press release http://gurkhan.blogspot.co.nz/2016/06/3_24.html
Has this pic

I'd expected more of a difference since M3 is said to be a complete rework but does make more sense as an upgrade rather than fully new system.

The new Buk-M3 has very comparable characteristics to the old S-300 (PS, PM), with the exception that one of the Buk-M3 vehicles is capable of holding 12 missiles compared to the 4 missiles on the early versions of S-300...that's a 3-fold increase in firepower btw!

It makes sense to now cover a different aspect in the Army's air defense capabilities since Tor's newer missiles also fly quite high and far. This Buk-M3 gives it capabilities that at least meets between S-300V series and Tor. But something is needed between Tor and Buk and that is of course the possible track version of Pantsir (since Pantsir does outdo Tungushka quite a bit).

Look forward to hearing test results (if it becomes public info).

So the Bastion-Karpenko page on Buk-M3 (which I really should have checked before previous post   ) does quote the same 70km range/35km height & 9M317M/ME missile.
Its in several year old quotes too so apparently is legit.

hoom wrote:So the Bastion-Karpenko page on Buk-M3 (which I really should have checked before previous post   ) does quote the same 70km range/35km height & 9M317M/ME missile.
Its in several year old quotes too so apparently is legit.

Yes its legit. It was also mentioned previously in several other publications.

One brigade should have 36 launchers (24 TELAR and 12 TEL)

^^

That configuration with 12 launch tubes is monstrous...can we expect it rolling out in numbers or is it merely a demonstrator?

Is there any official information on what kind of Guidance does BUK-M3 uses , Does it uses similar guidance like BUK-M2 which is SARH or they use newer ones like Active Radar Homing ?

franco wrote:

Skandalwitwe wrote:^^

That configuration with 12 launch tubes is monstrous...can we expect it rolling out in numbers or is it merely a demonstrator?

That is the loader launcher version or TELL. It has no attack ability on it's own but it's missiles can be launched as long as there is a TELAR (the 6 tube version which also has the tracking control radar) to control them. A normal battery has 2 TELAR's and 1 TELL. Three batteries with a TAR and C3 vehicle make up a battalion. Scheduled to deploy a brigade this year which normally is 3 battalions.

So a normal battery has 24 missiles ready to launch? Something like 6 per TELAR (x2), and 12 per TELL (x1), giving us 24?