Talk:Buk missile system

Propulsion

This wikipedia article indicate that SA-11 has a liquid ramjet sustainer. I think it is a mistake. SA-11 uses a solid fueled rocket.

It says: "Propulsion is via a solid fuel rocket booster, the empty container at burnout forming the combusion chamber for a liquid fuel ramjet sustainer." So the solid rocket is in there. - Aerobird ^{Target locked - Fox One!} 16:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)::I read various sources and found no hints on the ramjet, they all speak of "solid-fuel" only. Furthermore I don't see any air intake (like the SA-6). So I removed the ramjet remark from the german de:SA-11 Gadfly article and would like to read your sources before inserting it again. --Bernd-vdb 23:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The information should be corrected in the english WP as well. Any sources for "ramjet" found? --Bernd-vdb 15:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Changed that now. --Bernd-vdb 20:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Pictures

The ones of the radar vehicles, have nothing to do with the BUK, as they are of SA-6, and the vehicles and the antennas of SA-11 / BUK type are totally different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.248.159.240 (talk) 20:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Only used by Russia and Ukraine?

I saw in one internet site, years ago, that Finnland was looking for to buy, this weapon.Beyond doubt, this is a SA-6 system, with many upgrades.Agre22 (talk) 22:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)agre22

Finland operates 3 missile batteries, received in mid-1990s as debt-payment, but the Finns are considering the missile to soon become outdated (I think it is some electronics issue that was the main concern). They are currently looking into options for replacement/modernization, one of these is the M2 version, but a totally new system is not ruled out.

Found it: http://www.defensenews.com/ Finland Looks To Replace Russian SAM System (12.3.2008)--MoRsE (talk) 22:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was merge into Buk missile system. -- ŦħęGɛя㎥ 03:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

---

Taken from an earlier discussion on the SA-15.

The article currently does not comply with the developed name convention of Russian SAM systems, should be "9K330 Tor" as opposed to "Tor Missile System" like "9K37 Buk", "9K33 Osa", "9K22 Tunguska" etc. --Typhoon9410 (talk)

I partially agree : The Tor Missile System (SA-15) is the 9K330. but here is a little problem :

Tor

9K330

Tor-M

9K331

Tor-M1

(no name) 9K331M

Tor-M2

9K332

All those variants would also require a separate article... What I suggest is to keep the current name and use it as a system family (a little bit like the S-300 family).

By the same token, The SA-6, SA-11 and SA-17 could be merged as the same system family... It kinda annoys me too to have multiple standards.

--Ŧħę௹ɛя㎥ 21:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Thats a good point, its the problem of dealing with all these changing designations (had this problem with radars), even Tor Missile System is quite specific to one particular system, the 9K330. Though I agree it is the better "catch all" name for the whole family and that we should probably keep the current name. Merging SA-11 and SA-17 under "Buk Missile System" sounds good though I would be inclined to keep the Kub Missile System seperate, though they are closely related.Typhoon9410 (talk) 15:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. But we will need to fix the three articles as they talk a lot about each other. Same problem with SA-7,SA-14, SA-16, SA-18 and SA-24. --Ŧħę௹ɛя㎥ 03:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, so things look set to propose a merge for all of the Buk articles into "Buk missile system"?Typhoon9410 (talk) 11:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, before we forget and the articles get too complex... I will put the merge tags.--ŦħęGɛя㎥ 13:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Buk missile system (9K37 Buk) and 9K37M1-2 Buk-M1-2

• Re: I don't think we really need this to be merged. Remember, it's a different system SA-17 against SA-11 and not only because the newer missile it incorporates. --Yuriy Lapitskiy ~ 08:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
• But I'm against splitting Buk, Buk-1 and Buk-M1, as they shared a codename of SA-11 --Yuriy Lapitskiy ~ 09:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
• Pro-Merger, since coming to the consensus that Russian systems should use Russian rather than NATO designations there has been a huge problem around finding a consistant naming convention for SAM's, radar etc. This has not been helped by the multitude of designations and varients generated by the Russians. All of the above should ideally be treated as seperate versions but this has generated a lot of small articles all discussing what is essentially the same system. They do however all share the same Buk name despite the changes in radar, missiles and designation over the years, as a result I think we would get a much better article by merging them all into one article like the Tor Missile System, which nicely covers all 4 varients of the system. I think the Buk missile system covers 3 good reasons to merge in that the current articles are duplicate, overlap and text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Typhoon9410 (talk • contribs) 12:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
• Pro-merger, as per previously discussed, and as per the Weaponry Task Force, if an aricle is about a variant of another system, it should be a section from the main article. The fact that it has a different NATO designation has absolutely nothing to do with having an article by itself. Look at the SA-10/SA-12/SA-20 article. Since they are in the same family, share a common history and are really similar, they are in the same article, which look way more complete. Same deal with the Tor Missile System (which has many variants and upgrades) and any other weapon systems. The Buk missile system should be merged. --ŦħęGɛя㎥ 13:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• That's not a matter of NATO classification or other indices! The Buk-M1 and -M1-2 are different. The way I count the missile system equal or different is the structure of it. Buk-M1-2 have a different structure, it got rid of the older Kub radar vehicles (Kupol, I mean) and incorporated new redesigned vehicles. And, as I mentioned before, it was designed for a different rocket. And this case should not be compared with Tor or S-300/400 or Strela, they are totally different designs and should be discussed separately. Strongly oppose the merge --Yuriy Lapitskiy ~ 21:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• And a word about Tor. It's not the problem. the main GRAU designation is 9K33, 0 means the first Tor, 1 is the first modernization (Tor-M), 1M is the redesign of it (Tor-M1) and 2 is the most recent Tor-M2. --Yuriy Lapitskiy ~ 21:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

  Still Strong Pro-Merger, first acording to my information the "9K33" designation refers to the Osa missile system rather than Tor. Secondly its interesting to note that even GRAU classes the Buk-M1-2 as just a modification of the original since it still carries the "9K37" designator, its only Buk-M2 that earns a new designator the "9K40" but even so retains the "Buk" name. Basically all the Buk systems are very similar and though modified over time there is no great change as seen between Kub and Buk or Osa and Tor which do justify seperate articles. Plus we will get a much better article out of the merger, I cannot wait to start on it but its impossible while its so fragmented.Typhoon9410 (talk) 11:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

  OK, you partially convinced me, let's try to merge. Buk-M1-2 is in fact a transitional variant between Buk-M1 and Buk-M2. You've mentioned correctly that Buk-M2 carries a different GRAU designator, but as to my knowledge it's 9K317. So, I think that it would be more or less correct to mention M1-2 in 9K37 Buk article as well as in the future 9K317 Buk articles.

  About the GRAU codes. Please, always check Russian sources, because sources in English appears to be erroneous. For example, here we can read "Launch System: Buk-M1. Complex: 9K40. Missile: 9M38M1", and here - "Launch System: Buk-M1-2. Complex: 9K40M. Missile: 9M38M2". And even in Janes': "9K40 Buk-M2 (SA-17/'Grizzly')". As to me, that's just bullshit, you know. Buk-M2 is often cited as 9K37M2 as well as 9K317.

  Now let's check Russian sources. [1]: "9K317 «Buk-M2»", [2]: "9К317 Buk-M2", and even the [3]: "Buk-M1-2 9K317" How is that? Buk-M1-2 was a transitional complex (9K37->9K317), it's development started a next generation of Buks. That's the root of our problem. --Yuriy Lapitskiy ~ 14:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It looks like we are all violently agreeing on the fact that all those weapon systems share a common developmental history and should be merged as the "Buk missile system". --ŦħęGɛя㎥ 21:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes we seem to have a consensus! My bad on the Buk GRAU, designation systems has been very reliable in the past. Checked around 9K37M2 and 9K317 seem to be commonly used on russian websites with no referance to 9K40. The existance of the 9K37M2 designation provides good grounds for the merger.Typhoon9410 (talk) 13:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I have saved both articles at this location. Please feel free to help in the merge. I will try to complete it this week. Thanks, --ŦħęGɛя㎥ 03:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Post-merging

TODO:

• create a vehicle infobox
• create a missile(s) infobox(es)
• improve structure
• find more picture Create picture galleries
• include both missile systems histories
• Fix 9K37 occurences and fix them to be more precise (Buk, -M1, -M1-2, -M2)

Anything more to add? --ŦħęGɛя㎥ 20:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

And we need to add info about every separate entity of the complex, maybe it should be the tables like in S-300? --Yuriy Lapitskiy ~ 22:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I have a pictures of Buk-M2E TELAR 9А317 and 9М317 missile from 2007 MAKS and will add them later. --Yuriy Lapitskiy ~ 05:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Also we should check all 9K37 occurences and fix them to be more precise (Buk, -M1, -M1-2, -M2) --Yuriy Lapitskiy ~ 06:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

We seem to have many lists of battery structure compositions, since a lot of this information is very similar do we think it would be good to insert all the information into a table similar to what has been done with the missile data, I think it would improve the structure of the article and be more helpful for the reader, opinion?Typhoon9410 (talk) 12:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I said earlier about the tables. Of course, it's perfectly reasonable. --Yuriy Lapitskiy ~ 06:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Things seem to be going well with this article, the graph showing the relationship between the different varients is a great addition. Just a few corrections since there is no Buk-1M or Buk-M3 that I can determine, Buk-M3 is I believe a mis-identification of the Buk-M2, I think it stems from the use of the cyrillic character Э which actually stands for E for Export as in Buk-M2E which then appears as Бук-M2Э which generates confusion in the media!Typhoon9410 (talk) 20:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Good point! I agree that often the media try to report a good story, even if they are absolutely not technically competent! One of the only sources that I trust (RIA) reported that it existed... a year ago! --ŦħęGɛя㎥ 23:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Good Job to all those that helped improve this article from Start-Class to B-Class since last August. --ŦħęGɛя㎥ 00:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes much improved, now feel it is on a similar level as the Tor missile system and 9K22 Tunguska articles! Just needs to be polished now really.Typhoon9410 (talk) 21:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

"Polishing" of the article

I've added a Buk-M1-2A (utilizing a 9M317A missile) into the Buk development tree. It's very little information about it available on the net, but it's existence is perfectly real - see ref no. 13 (Financing statement of the OJSC Dolgoprudny Scientific Production Plant about the balance of the work in 2006) and 14 (Annual statement of the OJSC Tikhomirov Scientific Research Institute of Instrument Design in 2005). --Yuriy Lapitskiy ~ 20:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Amd sa11.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Amd sa11.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:13, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

To change positions-enabled equipment takes only 20 seconds.

Why they removed this revision?--Rqasd (talk) 15:13, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

the structure of the Buk-M2 http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/buk-2m/buk-2m.shtml

isn't this source worse than any other?

• this source will NOT infringe the copyright and this

http://www.niip.ru/ data from the developer in concrete terms

• http://www.niip.ru/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=17:-q-2q-9317&catid=9:2011-07-06-06-33-50&Itemid=9 the structure of the Buk-M2

--Rqasd (talk) 18:59, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

command post

try to write.--Rqasd (talk) 15:09, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Сommand post

• Management tools (compulsory for working only as part of Buk * as there are * that is divorced from army of): command post 9С510 (9K317 Buk-M2), 9S470M1-2 (9K37M1-2), 9S470 and ASU Polyana-D4(9K37 Buk).
• Stereotype command post - Buk missile system (all option) may be controlled by an upper level command post system 9S52 Polyana-D4 integrating it with S-300V/S-300VM into a brigade. As an option: combining the brigade a few Buk, but not mixing in uniform into a unified battery.
• Possible the command center in the event of a decision to create a mixed grouping of air defense forces.

Perhaps the use of the system: №1(("Baikal"*command post)+("Ranzhir"*command post))+ №2(("Baikal"*command post)+("PPRU"*command post))+ №3("Baikal"*command post)+ №4(9S52 "Polyana"-D4*command post) = №1+№2+№3+№4.

This union is a mobile command headquarters for a mixed grouping of air defense forces, such as: (SA-N-1 Goa, SA-N-2 Guideline, SA-5 Gammon), and SA-8 Gecko, SA-10 Grumble/SA-20 Gargoyle, SA-11 Gadfly, SA-12 (Gladiator/Giant)/(SA-23 Gladiator/Giant), SA-15 Gauntlet, SA-16 Gimlet/SA-18 Grouse/SA-24 Grinch, SA-17 Grizzly, SA-19 Grison and radar stations/complexes, into a brigade. "Baikal"*command post or "Senezh"(an automatic control system)+are various other command posts can combine (to mix) with others systems, including the air force and systems interference/anti-jamming.

These air defense systems and command centers exist in various embodiments and not everyone version of any system (air defenses or command of)can work with any version air defenses or command of.

Used in this chapter sources cover most of Air Defence command posts (not the main/additional) and smaller portion they are using funds. In addition, they are all united with the forces of the Air Force.

First, Baikal and Ranzhir are not part of the Buk SA missile system and they should not be stressed in the article on the first place.

Second, no revision was deleted, your info was refurbrished and included into the description section.

Sources you've been providing are good, but most of them don't really belong to this article. Try to add them into corresponding pages. --Yuriy Lapitskiy ~ 17:30, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

• nobody in the army of ruska will not ESPECIALLY FOR YOUthe unused all these KP
• can you write a all these articles themselves (more than 40 pieces on the 3 different topics). ooh ooh.

Rqasd (talk) 05:54, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

• There's already a page about Polyana-D4 and Ranzhir. I can imagine the articles about Baikal, PPRU-M1 and Senezh. --Yuriy Lapitskiy ~ 07:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

+added to string

             management tools 

are you satisfied? or maybe call your in Russia, in the a defense system, and ask them delete these external funds?Rqasd (talk) 06:00, 30 December 2013 (UTC) --Rqasd (talk) 06:00, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

• No, I'm not satisfied. Management is wrong term in case of military technology, more correct would be Command and control. Your edits were moved to Integration with higher level command posts section of the page. --Yuriy Lapitskiy ~ 07:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• Why you removed more than half of external funds? This is the same as the delete list aerodomov of articles about the Military Air Force.

Or maybe in an article about * internet * you delete a chapter on communication satellites, because satellites except the Internet still transmitting TV (not just online). Rqasd (talk) 10:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Using external funds (Baikal CP (control group of people operators) and Senezh manual (automatic)) allows to mix all / any air defense systems, the Air Force Communal enterprise, as well as means electronic warfare / anti-jamming. And any outside radar complexes.

This correction should reassure you Rqasd (talk) 10:23, 5 January 2014 (UTC)