Talk:Buk missile system

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history (Rated B-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Russia / Technology & engineering / Military (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia.
To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the technology and engineering in Russia task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Russian, Soviet, and CIS military history task force.


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)


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 (talk) 20:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Only used by Russia and Ukraine?[edit]

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: Finland Looks To Replace Russian SAM System (12.3.2008)--MoRsE (talk) 22:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Link before dead unfortunally, but here is finnish link. [1] It says (in finnish) that here in Finland has been BUK systems since 1996, and to be replaced soon (2014) with norwegian-american NASAMS 2 systems. --Tutkamestari (talk) 20:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC) Typo-fix --Tutkamestari (talk) 18:10, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Merger proposal[edit]

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 :
(no name) 9K331M
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 (talkcontribs) 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. [2]: "9K317 «Buk-M2»", [3]: "9К317 Buk-M2", and even the [4]: "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 above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.



  • 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[edit]

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[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg 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.[edit] Why they removed this revision?--Rqasd (talk) 15:13, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

the structure of the Buk-M2

isn't this source worse than any other?

  • this source will NOT infringe the copyright and this data from the developer in concrete terms

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

command post[edit]

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

Сommand post[edit]

  • 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[1] into a brigade.[2][3] 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[4])+("Ranzhir"*command post[5]))+ №2(("Baikal"*command post)+("PPRU"*command post[6]))[7]+ №3("Baikal"*command post[8])+ №4(9S52 "Polyana"-D4*command post[3]) = №1+№2+№3+№4.

This union is a mobile command headquarters[9] for a mixed grouping of air defense forces, such as: (SA-N-1 Goa, SA-N-2 Guideline,[7] SA-5 Gammon),[4] 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,[10] into a brigade. "Baikal"[7]*command post or "Senezh"[11][12](an automatic control system)+are various other command posts[13][14] can combine (to mix[15][16][17]) with others systems, including the air force[5][11] and systems interference[17][18][19][20]/anti-jamming.[8][21][22][23]

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)

Malaysian Flight MH17[edit]

Early reports suggest that the system was employed against Malaysian flight MH17 from Amsterdam. Twobells (talk) 16:20, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

(Merging with prior section)

Malaysian passenger plane ‘shot down’ in Ukraine near Russian border with 295 people aboard National Post Wire Services | July 17, 2014 | Last Updated: Jul 17 12:16 PM ET ... "Anton Gerashenko, an adviser to Ukraine’s interior minister, said on his Facebook page the plane was flying at an altitude of 10,000 metres when it was hit by a missile fired from a Buk launcher. A similar launcher was seen by Associated Press journalists near the eastern Ukrainian town of Snizhne earlier Thursday. The Buk missile system can fire missiles up to an altitude of 22,000 metres". Much too early to add this to the article, but wanted to provide what should be a Reliable Source. JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:26, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Editors should please STOP edit warring over this topic. In or out doesn't matter as much as article stability. There's no deadline, so please leave things however they are at this point. Thanks!!!!
I'm giving it up, I couldn't defend and editors keeping it repeated over and over without proving a proof that Rebels used this weapon, But mostly are “claims” to be used in this incident which isn't really necessary… --Prince Sulaiman Talk to me 19:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
It has not been established whether the Donetsk Peoples republic possesses this type of weapon. Please do not take one-sided reports as evidence. Both The USA and the Ukrainian government are stakeholders in the conflict and can therefore not be trusted! (talk) 16:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

The reports have now stabilized to the point where it is appropriate to say that the system is suspected of being involved in the crash. We can leave it at that for a bit. AldaronT/C 20:27, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually, Eurocontrol and the US now confirm that MH17 was "shot down", so I think "suspected" is now entirely uncontroversial and fully document by trusted sources. AldaronT/C 20:47, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Pindos these experts - did not show anything to anyone, just words = falseCalo yronili (talk) 14:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC) many words. many words = bad translation. BUT. a lot of photos)) briefly - use a big rocket, missile defense, missile Buk, Buk-M1 used nor any other (a fragment planted 6 months later for the Netherlands also claims this version)

If you want to have a version - Russian rocket is launched can think of - missile can maneuver but if not then it does not matter a rocket. The plane can not fly in a combat zone (Ukraine this is a problem). — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


In reference to the suspected involvement of the downing of MH17, I am wondering whether the Buk (or similar SAM systems) have any IFF or any other means of identifying aircraft. Or do they only have a simple radar, which gives them the position, but not the nature of the aircraft. Is there any knowledge on how this would work? Lalucre (talk) 09:52, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

  • A bit out of scope, and very doubtful that reliable sources would exist. That is precisely the kind of information that would be Top Secret, as the knowledge of the exact or even general methods used would allow enemies to create counter measures, making the system less effective. There is a lot of speculation, but the real "how" could only be answered using primary sources and the Russians aren't very chatty about these things. Dennis Brown |  | WER 13:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • See Washington Post: Did the Ukrainian rebels even know they were shooting at a civilian aircraft? and Eurocontrol: Principles of Mode S Operation and Interrogator Codes. JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:28, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
As article says, radar has two antennaes. Bigger lower is PSR (primary) and smaller upper is SSR (secondary) antenna, which is IFF too. In this reference [5] officer says (in finnish) that fire unit can fire 4 missiles by itself, without targeting radar, with its own radar (big plastic bulb in the tower). That radar has no any SSR or IFF.--Tutkamestari (talk) 20:30, 23 July 2014 (UTC) Typo-fix --Tutkamestari (talk) 18:05, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Lord. Well, it's obvious. the size of of the aircraft 100+ meters, you understand that the screen-locator for your eyes will spot-hugeis many times larger than than that from combat aircraft (10 meters)

is nothing harder to see the difference for arrow = point and a huge stain, you do a lot of again to see the screen locator on television Calo yronili (talk) 14:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Speculation and not facts on downing of MH17![edit]

As of now, we do not know who or what brought down MH17 - and to state that the pro-Russian rebels "did it" is also not neutral, but siding with the Ukrainian government's version of events. It is not an established fact that the pro-Russian rebels "did it" and any reference to there statements must be removed! Citing newspaper articles is to cite just one sources and a possibly biased source!

Wikipedia doesn't work in "truth", but rather "verifiability." If a source is a reliable source, then statements may be made in the article that are supported by that source. If other sources say other things, and if those sources pass the WP:RS test, then of course they may also be used. If sources support different theories, than multiple theories may be covered in the article, perhaps illustrating the controversy that surrounds the theories (if verifiable in itself).
I'm guessing that that is the situation we find ourselves in here. Their is a war/insurgency going on, with geopolitical machinations between two large countries (Ukraine and Russia). We have a verifiable downed plane, with a large loss of life. It should surprise noone that in a conflict, whomever is responsible may not want to be forthcoming about it. Cheers. N2e (talk) 12:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

As far as I see the questions of who shot, and why, are not only uncertain, but out of place. The event has its own article, and all such questions belong there and not here. There isn't even complete agreement that a Buk was the weapon. Russian sources, against most other opinions, are still professing an open mind. Perhaps when the circumstances are crystal clear, they can get a mention here. Maybe even then, such details won't belong. Certainly, for now, there should be a brief sentence that does little more than direct the reader to the event article. Jim.henderson (talk) 15:23, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I Deleted the "pro-Russian Ukrainian separatists" part in the sentence about MH17. of note is whether or not the Buk missile system was used. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 00:33, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I removed the sentence concerning Russia as an operator where it states "supplied by Russia and operated by Russian military personnel as one of the cited articles does not make that claim but states IF it is proven. It now reads 9K73 was probably used — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:32, 6 June 2015 (UTC) look — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I think now that the Dutch Safety Board released their report we will see an influx of twisting of the information there. It would be great to see the non-biased part of WIKI community that focuses on facts not speculation to monitor this page and remove any speculative information being added. If anyone managed to read through the report your support for sure will be appreciated. I have read through only some of it, specifically regarding geography and warhead used.
Link (Full report):
Link (Summary report):
Link (Other documents):
Hammer5000 (talk) 13:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC)


in german it is being dicussed if a rocket laucher can be operating on its own.

it is claimed that 9A310 is capable of "seeing" with its radar in a small Angle. The Radar of 9A310 can operate a sector search of 120° (side) and 6°-7° (vertically) within 4 seconds, permitting (as in the follower system 9A317) to search if a rough angle of approach is known. This would mean 9A310 AND 9A317 would be able to fight on their own (?) Техника и вооружение, Edition 05-06 1999.--Anidaat (talk) 21:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC) but not greater than 6 km (not 10) (talk) 19:07, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Ukraine has a maximum Buk-M1 um no higher. there are other all the elements throughout it is weaker. You're talking here about the parts of the Buk-M2, but part of Ukraine Buck M1 is not higher than 6 km. (talk) 20:44, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Why has information been removed from this article?[edit]

Why has information been removed from this article? Previous versions contained information of the range of the BUK system _without_ the additional radar vehicle. Why has this information been removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:31, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

There is a separate article on Marine Buck (version Uragan)[edit]

There is only one verified fact of application Buk[edit]

Everything else should be removed in general212.119.233.82 (talk) 13:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC) !!

Combat service[edit]

  • Abkhaz authorities claimed that Buk air defense system was used to shoot down four Georgian drones at the beginning of May 2008 (In the opinion of dependent[1][2] media source).[2] An official certificate use of Buk not testify.
  • Analysts concluded that Georgian Buk missile systems were responsible for downing four Russian aircraft—three Sukhoi Su-25 close air support aircraft and a Tupolev Tu-22M strategic bomber—in the 2008 South Ossetia war.[3] U.S. officials have said Georgia's SA-11 Buk-1M was certainly the cause of the Tu-22M's loss and contributed to the losses of the three Su-25s.[4] According to some analysts, the loss of four aircraft is surprising and a heavy toll for Russia given the small size of Georgia's military.[5][6] Some have also pointed out, that Russian electronic counter-measures systems were apparently unable to jam and suppress enemy SAMs in the conflict[7] and that Russia was, surprisingly, unable to come up with effective countermeasures against missile systems it had designed.[3]

Georgia bought these missile systems from Ukraine which had an inquiry to determine if the purchase was illegal (An official certificate use of Buk testify[8]).[9]

  • On 29 January 2013, the Israeli Air Force launched an airstrike on a convoy in Syria believed to have missiles (SA-17 Air defense missiles and other ground-ground missiles) bound for Hezbollah in Lebanon. The Syrian government denied that a shipment of weapons had taken place (An official certificate use of Buk not testify).[10]


  1. ^
  2. ^ a b "SA-11 'Gadfly' Used to Down Georgian Drones". Abkhaz FM, Civil Georgia (in Georgian). The Georgian Times. 2008-05-06. 
  3. ^ a b "Air Defense: Russia Takes A Beating Over Georgia". August 14, 2008. Retrieved December 30, 2013. 
  4. ^ Georgian Military Folds Under Russian Attack By David A. Fulghum, Douglas Barrie, Robert Wall and Andy Nativi, AW&ST, 15 August 2008
  5. ^ War Reveals Russia's Military Might and Weakness By Vladimir Isachenkov, Associated Press, 18 August 2008
  6. ^ Georgia war shows Russian army strong but flawed, Reuters, 20 August 2008
  7. ^ Russian Army's weaknesses exposed during war in Georgi, Nikita Petrov, RIA Novosti), 9 September 2008
  8. ^
  9. ^ "Yushchenko may have to answer for illegal arms sales to Georgia" (in Russian (English Translation)). Voice of Russia. 26 October 2010. Retrieved 27 October 2010. 
  10. ^ Israeli Air Force targets a convoy of SA-17s in Syria –, 31 January 2013
  11. ^ ABC News. "Buk Missile Suspected in Malaysia Plane Disaster". ABC News. Retrieved 14 November 2014. 
  12. ^ a b
  13. ^
  14. ^
  15. ^
  16. ^

20.03.2015 Netherlands officially denied media reports.[edit]

Then it was announced a refutation[1][2][3] Media again all said lies. Netherlands officially denied media reports.[4][5]

http://www.****.ua denied media reports http://de.****.com denied media reports http://www.*****.nl denied media reports http://***.tv (rus)denied media reports — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:20, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


I looked into a Dutch newspaper from 20 March 2015, De Volkskrant. It states in Dutch that a journalist has found a metal scrap three months after the crash in a part of the fuselage. The journalist took the piece with him. It has appeared to be a part of a Buk. The Dutch government has not commented yet, at least, I could not find any formal reference, so I am quite sure there is no official publication from the goverment. The "Onderzoeksraad" (research council for accident investigation) says they will study the material as soon as it is handed to them and cannot draw conclusions before they have done their own research. Ellywa (talk) 15:32, 22 March 2015 (UTC) + = fake (and shit) + official denial

Why not added rebuttal?[edit]

Spokesman for the Dutch Public Prosecutor, Wim de Bruin, echoed Dutch Safety Board’s comments after being contacted by RT.

“I can tell you the same thing I told RTL yesterday – that our criminal investigation is still ongoing,” de Bruin said.

“We’re investigating many things. And it’s not a secret that we’re also investigating the possibility that MH17 was downed by a Buk missile. But it’s much too early to draw any conclusions – that’s why we have to wait,” he added.

+ -> = Nobody and have never seen did not hear launch rocket flight and Explosion BUK, You can see this very very much significantly noticeably, but no one has seen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:33, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

(The fragment was recovered by a Dutch journalist from the village of Hrabove several months ago near to where the plane was brought down last July)[137] Evidence includes missile fragment (exclusively 1[138] fragment) found on site including fragments of warhead, which were stuck in the wreckage and non-explosive parts of the missile with parts of its serial number. [139] and 6 months later! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:46, 5 April 2015 (UTC) - Joint International Team completed its first phase of investigation on MH17 shot-down, which occured in 17 July 2014, and concluded that the aircraft was shot down by Buk-M1-2 surface-to-air missile. [136] But - Spokesman for the Dutch Public Prosecutor, Wim de Bruin, echoed Dutch Safety Board’s comments after being contacted by RT. “I can tell you the same thing I told RTL yesterday – that our criminal investigation is still ongoing,” de Bruin said.[137] (The fragment was recovered by a Dutch journalist from the village of Hrabove several months ago near to where the plane was brought down last July)[138]

Refutation long done, Jane has published fake (false RTL) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:07, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Warhead Error[edit]

The article says "Frag-He"

But one of the sources cited actually says the 9M317 missile uses a rod(e.g. continuous rod) warhead.

"(see. photo ). Warhead: rod, weight - 70 kg, the radius of the affected area goals - 17 m. The flight speed - up to 1230 m / s, overload - up to 24 g. Rocket mass - 715 kg. Wingspan - 860 mm. Engine - dual-mode solid propellant. The missile has a high level of reliability, fully assembled and curb rocket does not require inspections and adjustments during the lifetime - 10 years." — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

This source suggests that buk can use an interchangeable warhead, firing either fragmentation or continuous rod.(continuous rod being the more common variant) Are there any sources indicating that the Buk only has fragmentation warhead variants? (talk) 17:19, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Every modification of the missile has different toppings (fragments always, but different: the weight and Amount and laying and shape (triangle cube, etc.)). + — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:52, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

  • buk-2m Warhead = Боевая часть: стержневая, масса – 70 кг, радиус зоны поражения целей – 17 м.

  • Warhead buk-m1 + buk-m1-2

Поражающими элементами формы «двутавр», которые изображены на фото, начинены только одни ракеты - ракеты ЗРК «Бук-М1», которые как раз и стоят на вооружении у Украины. А вот поражающие элементы «Бук-М1-2» представляют собой небольшие параллелепипеды, никаких двутавров там нет и быть не может.

trollface for delete/ 15,16,17 date — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

"Zenith-rocket division"?[edit]

What does the 'zenith-rocket division' mean, precisely, in English? AFAIK adjective 'Зенитный', translit. zenitnyi etc. is the Russian army name for anti-aircraft (somewhat similar to what the Royal Navy used to call 'High-Angle [Mounting]') weapons, and дивизион - (transl. 'divizion') is traditional title for a battalion-sized unit in Russian artillery/rocket troops, but literal word-to-word translation makes very little sense in English, at least to me. Sorry if I'm missing something, neither English nor Russian is my first language.-- (talk) 14:19, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Russian=division + in English = Battalion (it is often used for translation). — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:54, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I still don't get your point. (Perhaps even less now, than when I was asking first) Regards -- (talk) 14:48, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

okay. (For English) A literal translation = bad. For English BATTALION = good. For Russian 'divizion'= good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:26, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, the I'd propose to change "zenith-rocket division" to "anti-aircraft missile battalion", as more usual term in English.- (talk) 15:02, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Continued edit warring over unencyclopedic edits[edit]

More unclear edits. WP:3RR appears to have been violated. Here you introduced unclear language: [6], then you edit warred to keep reintroducing it: [7], [8], [9], [10]. What are you trying to say?

</ref> The BUK missile manufacturer revealed its own findings into the flight MH17 downing over Ukraine was been used and Buk-M1 missile 9M38M1[1][2][3][4]

see — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:45, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

In '92, the system has proven the ability to destroy Scud missile R-17 and rocket MLRS caliber of 0.3 meters.[edit]

Chance to destroy aircraft 0,7-0,93 maneuvering the aircraft 0.6 (missile 9M38). In '92, the system has proven the ability to destroy Scud missile R-17 and rocket MLRS caliber of 0.3 meters.,1,19626-armeyskiy-samohodnyy-zenitnyy-raketnyy-kompleks-buk.htm

wiki&&?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:55, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:NPOV, WP:EXCEPTIONAL and a flock of other wiki rule violations...[edit]

A successful manufacturer must produce and then promote their product. Grand assertions, such as "It has no analogues in the world", may indeed boost domestic orders and export sales.

An entity, after funding the long-term development of a product and purchasing it in quantity, would desire to convince others of the wisdom of their actions. Claims such as: "exceeds a target-destruction probability of 0.9999 virtually guaranteeing one missile will destroy the target" may help advance the careers of those in the Defense Ministry.

Unverified, exceptional statements from biased sources should not be presented unquoted in an article as if they constituted encyclopedic fact. (talk) 14:49, 14 October 2015 (UTC) Paul

Various References[edit]

  1. ^
  2. ^
  3. ^
  4. ^