AustinHi Indian1973,
Trishul will definately have reload , below deck , The launcher is similar to the one you see in Godavari,with the SA-N-4 stored below deck , except the launcher is twin arm in Trishul’s case and each arm carries 2 missile , in a round shape cannister , so its (2+2) missile . This was from the pics I had seen few years back of a P-16A model , I am not sure if they have modified the launcher lately , Vayu has lately changed its name to “Vayu Aerospace2000 , Aerospace and Defence Review ” , They have small news section dedicated to Army , Navy & Airforce , Lately I have seen dedicated articles on the Navy and the Army , I guess things are changing for them, Always carries some excellent quality pics with them.
AustinAustinIndian Navy To Lease Russian
Nuclear-Powered Submarine
2-6-2
London (PTI) – India Navy will lease two Russian nuclear-powered submarines (SSNs) to meet its expanding operational responsibilities and counter the increasing Chinese presence in the Indian Ocean and Bay of Bengal.
The lease will continue till indigenously-built nuclear-powered submarine – the Advanced Technology Vessel (ATV) – enters service, ‘Jane’s Defence Weekly’ has reported quoting official sources.
Indian Navy will lease two Akula (Bars)-class Type 971 SSNs for five years after financing their construction under an agreement currently being negotiated with Rosoboronexport, Russia’s state-owned arms exporting agency, the report said.
The SSN’s are expected to enter service of the Indian Navy during 2004, although the contract is still to be approved by the Indian government.
Reports from Moscow say the Type 971 programme has been frozen because of funding problems. Fourteen submarines have been built and the last one was commissioned last December.
The leasing deal with India will help Russia finance construction of the fourth generation Severodvinsk-class SSN (Type 885) already underway at the Sevmash shipyard, according to Russian sources.
Negotiations for the two Type 971 SSNs gained momentum during Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee’s visit to Russia last November.
This deal was given added impetus following the admission by Indian Navy officials that the ATV’s development faced technological and financial problems and was nowhere near completion.
The ATV design is believed to be based on the ex-Soviet “Charlie” class SSN, one of which the Indian Navy leased for three years in 1988.
Copyright © 2002 Press Trust of India Ltd. All rights reserved.
AustinFound An Article , which confirms IN intention for Akula-2 subs.
Indian Navy trains on Russian N-sub
Vishal Thapar and Fred Weir
The Hindustan Times
New Delhi/Moscow, February 21: An Indian Navy submarine crew has been training in Russia for the last one year. The training included sea time in an Akula-II SSN nuclear-powered attack submarine.
According to highly-placed sources in New Delhi and Moscow, India is negotiating with Russia the lease of an unfinished Akula-II Bars class nuclear submarine. Work on this submarine was about 85 per cent complete when its construction stopped in 1996.
This unfinished submarine is reportedly “sitting” at the Amur Shipbuilding Plant at Komsomolsk-na-Amur in eastern Siberia. Negotiations for its lease have been going on for over three years.
The Akula-IIs are the fastest Soviet-designed submarines with enhanced combat potential. These are known to be armed with up to 12 Cruise missiles, as well as Starfish and Stallion anti-ship missiles.
Significantly, India and Russia are jointly producing the Brahmos PJ-10 Cruise missile. This was successfully test-fired over 300 km last year.
The only time India operated a nuclear submarine was between 1998 and 1991, when it leased from Russia a Charlie class nuclear-powered submarine (SSN). The Indian Navy operated this under the name INS Chakra. The vessel was returned in 1991, and subsequently decommissioned.
A nuclear-propelled submarine gives a navy an ability to stay underwater for operations for a long period of time without having to surface for replenishment.
After 1991, little was done by the Indian Navy to retain its skills for operating a nuclear submarine. Till 1998, there was no effort to procure even a nuclear propulsion simulator for training.
Former Naval Chief Admiral Vishnu Bhagwat claims that there was a deliberate policy to de-skill the Indian Navy. “Most personnel who operated the Cha-kra were boarded out,” he says.
On January 16, Naval Chief Admiral Madhvendra Singh said it would take two-and-half years to reskill the Indian Navy to handle a nuclear submarine. The training in Russia is seen as preparation to acquire one.
Three Akula-II subs – Viper, Nerpa and Gepard – are already commissioned in the Russian Navy. These were inducted in 1995, 2000 and 2001 respectively. Three more – including the one India’s interested in – are reported to be in various stages of completion in Severodvinsk in Russia’s far north and Komsomolsk-na-Amur in the far east.
AustinA Barak with twice the existing range would hardly be in the SM-2 class.
Why does Aster.15 automatically imply EMPAR or Arabel? Surely these active radar homing missiles can be (relatively) easily made to work with other radars. Unless you mean that the french would in turn try to get their extra pound of flesh by linking Aster.15 sale to Arabel.
Dude if you want to integrate a third partys missile , with yours or some one’s else radar , you need to have the source code for the radar and the missile , the french will suerly not give you the source code for the missile , and hence you are limited to their Radar , ie Arabal or Empar , most likely the Empar.
As far as the Barak issue goes , I have the Statement of the IAI president in a magazine called Vayu , in which he clearly states that the Barak will be in the class of SM-2 and will have some capabilities being developed for Arrow-3
It is preferable not to have the gun and missiles on the same mount – downtime or snafu on one could traslate into no close in defense at all for such ships. Separate mounted systems afford two advantages – graceful degradation plus its easier to accomodate two smaller, less bulkier systems than a single large one. Note that separation of mounts does not preclude their close integration.
All military systems have redudancy and certain degree of reliability , so Downtime and other Hardware issue are taken care of in design stage , in every military system , I still believe that tke Kashtan-M concept of Gun/Missile system is the right approach.
AustinI think all that the P-15A shares with the P-15 is the machinery spaces and some common components. The hull is different. The superstructure is different. The internal compartment layout is completely different. Sensor and armament fit as well as their layout is different
Tuollaf43 , for you to know that the P-15A is entirely different it terms of hull and superstructure is entirely absurd , do you have access to IN P-15A design and drawings ??? Is it so, But if past experience is any thing to go by and if you compare the P-16 to P-16A or the Talwar to P-17A you dont find any radical changes in design , It just an enhancement over present wepons and sensors and learing what they had gathered and experienced while maintaining previous class of vessel , I dont expect P-15A to be radical different than P-15 except in Displacement , Sensors , Wepons system and some angled and smooth surface , more or less it should look like the delhi but for the changes mentioned above .
Regarding Brahmos; high speed is most useful when you have a target that is mobile – example a ship. For a static target whose coordinates are fixed a slower but stealthier weapon might be more suitable – viz 3M-14E. Unlike the PJ-10 the 3M-14E can cover the 300km distance at a low altitude all the way through.
I doubt that four or six or even eight PJ-10 would make any difference to Kahuta. To neutralize Kahuta you definately need the weight of attack as well as the precision of airpower. PJ-10 lacks both the accuracy as well as the penetrative power to do anything but cosmetic damage to Kahuta – large, hard target penetrating LGBs is probably what is required.
According to the Bhramos Project Director a supersonic cruise missile is 8 times more powerful than a subsonic crusie missile with the same warhead weight, sheer kinetic energy is what makes the difference , where does the question arise whether the target is static or movable , its more of a quetion of guidance , Bhramos is not only supersonic , but also has stealth features and is intelligent , also other RCS reduction measures like applying RAM are being undertaken ,its a generation ahead as compared to the SS-N-22( which has huge radar crossection and bulky ) , Ofcourse there is this subsonic , stealthy missile vs supersonic missile going on , but with good guidance , supersonic missile will be devestating , 3M-14E is a good missile no doubt , but Bhramos is class apart. also the Bhramos are not only accurative enough for stationary targets with known co-ordinates( Kahuta) but has the greatest chance of penetrating any air defence.
I am afraid I dont share your enthusiasm about the Shtil-1 System. It is wholly inadequate for both anti-air and anti-missile duties. I dont think that the Shtil-1 is the first, second or even the third choice of the IN. It was procured probably because of Russian hard sell and arm twisting that has become public in the Gorshkov saga.
On Kashtan-M , I will go with Glenn’s argument a Missile/Gun Combo is much more effective than just a short range missile system , Barak main stong points are its Modular and VLS capability and can be plugged in, in little space , and in a way dosent require radical design in present structure , More ever its acurate , carrier a bigger warhead and for a VLS Point defence sam , having a mimimum intercepting range of 500meteres is an achievement , although in intercepting cruise missile its capability is limited to sub-sonic sea skimmers , no issues coz most of the curent missile in the world and in the region are subsonic ones , china being the only exception.
Anyone got new info on Trishul, last heard passed all developmental trials again and DRDO and the Navy were hapy with it, and entering user trials soon. Even heard about a VLS system for trishul…anymore???
Trishul is again on IN road map , afer sucessful trail in recent months ,I didnt see Barak guidance on Betwa pics , so i think the whole of P-16A ( Bhramaputra ) class of frigate is waiting for Trishul, This missile was nearly put into an eperimental status , but with Israel help the DRDO was able to solve the guidance issue problem with this missile , Trishul is one missile to look forward for , Its highly supersonic ( Mach -4.5 ) ,Has high manuverability ( can sustain 45 G and more ) , is made of maraganing steel can with stand high stress , operates in an Unjammable K-KA band ( 45 Ghz ) like Barak guidance ) , Has three beam guidance system, has low reaction time from detection to launch( if memory serves me right its 6 seconds ) has a range of 10 Km , its a potent point defence sam. All three services will get the SAM and The IN one will be capable of defeating a Supersonic Sea Skimmer along with a subsonic one.
Trishul User Trials by middle or end of this year , expect in IN ships end of this year or 1 half of next year, Expect VSL and active Phased array radar based FC and survellence system on future variant of Trishul , they are working towards it , But as of now the trishul on naval variant will be twin arm launcher , each arm capable of carrying 2 missile each , so total 4 missile on the twin arm launcher , for high accuracy and probabilty of kill , 2 missile can be fired at a single target
AustinWhat are these 168 frigates or destroyers ,seems to be heavily armed , what kind of ssm’s do they carry, Can some one identify the Main Gun as well as those CIWS on them, looks similar to goalkeeper, But good photos , great close-ups
AustinHi , Any one has any info on the follow on of Barak sam , The IAI official had stated that it will be more in the class of SM-2 and will have certain features of the future Arrow-3 missile , but then declined to give any information on range or other characteristcics
AustinThanks Austin but unfortunately the data in the table is out of date, as most of the original AKULA Is appear to be gone now. The article itself is almost 3 years old as well. As for the non-acoustic sensors, I am not sure, will have to dig a little to find more. They do appear to be one of the distinguising features between the Improved AKULA/AKULA II, and the older AKULA I.
Glenn , what do you mean by the “original Akula appear to be gone ” are they decommissioned or the Russian simply cannot afford to keep it running , so its left in Docks , Glenn Please do find and post any info on Non acoustic means of detection system , Just been eager to know what exactly these systems are and do US and other British subs use such system , what knid of advantage these system offer compared to conventional means of detection , I have heard of some IR means of detection , dont know for sure what that means , more help will be welcome , Thanks Glenn
AustinI suspect that when more design details become available it will turn out that the P-15A is as close designwise to P-15 as the F/A-18E is to the F-18C: It would seems to be carrying a whole lot more in about the same displacement hull.
Tuollaf43 , P-15A is an enhansament of P-15 , and in no way a new class of destroyer , so design wise its the same expcept that it has more angeled smooth surfaces, and some stealth features ( Structurally and Acoustic characteristic) , Initally it was suppose to be lesser in displacement than the P-15, but with 7000+ displacement the P-15A is a pleasant suprise for me too.
I would be grateful if you can provide the url at Military Technology where they claim that the Brahmos and Klub have compatible VLS.
Lobbing expensive LACM from vulnerable ships seems counter productive in the Indo-Pak senario: Airpower can easily, flexibly and untimately quite cheaply and safely deliver ordanance in the Pakistan specific theater. PJ-10 provide a useful option when airpower cannot be as easily applied, for example, when showing Rangoon the error of its ways.
Mil technology dosent have a web site except for http://www.monch.com, which dosent have any online latest issue so no url , I have the military tech magazine with me , so i could provide the information , Klub VLS is suppose to be a universal launcher compatiable with a host of missile not limited to Klub and Bhramos , we could see more missile in the future .
Agreed that the Bhramos has a short range (290 km) for a hi-lo profile , for lo-lo its 120 km , but we dont know the range for Hi-Hi profile , it will have a land attack variant too , so it some what effective in context of Pakistan ,staying 100 km away , one can still fire 200 km deep inside pakistan specially against heavily rofile , and many startegic targets are within range for this missile and being fully supersonic and stealth it will be hard to detect and destroy , Personally i think it will be very effective against stationary target whose co-ordinate are known in advance , the Kahuata Reactor is one target that comes to mind , strategically important and heavily defended .
Kashtan-M instead of Barak is an retrograde step and not an improvement.
The Kashtan-M is a combined Gun/Missile system and is more capable than barak , in the sense that it is capable of hitting a supersonic crusie missile along with subsonic , in case of barak its limited to only subsonic missile like exocet or harpoon , though being VLS capable and modular in design it has its own advantage , the IN is happy with both and may prefer to use both the systems in the future , also not to mention that the kashtan-m has twin gun mount , capable of firing a 30 mm shell at the rate of 10000 rounds per minute out to a range of 4 km , so a more capable system although Barak is by no means a less capable ones.
Also if one looks at the P-15A DDG it has lots of new system onboard and is much more powerful and purposeful that its Delhi cousin , I would personally been happy to see aster on it , but the IN has decided to go with shiil-1 on Delhi and Enhanced Delhi class destroyer , which again is a very capable SAM , With he kind of resources IN has the P-15A seems to be a good compromise and a highly capable Destroyer in Indian context. One thing one could see though I am not sure , In future IN ships or may be even in P-15A is a Solid Fuel naval variant of prithivi tested recently , not the Dhanush (which is liquid fueled and just a test variant , to check if its capable of firing from a sailing ship and change in guidance system to be used over sea) , Recently a Solid Fuel Prithivi was tested with a 1 meter diameter and capable of carrying a 500 kg warhead to more than 500 Km , one could see such missile on future IN ships
AustinHi all , P-15A should be seen as an extension/enhancement of Delhi class DDG , Rather than entirely a new class of DDG , so the broader objective remains the same ie to provide a multirole, multimission DDG , with decent AAW, ASW and AShW capability , Now as compared to delhi it definately can be considered 2-3 times more powerful , Distinct features I can point are :
1 ) VLS ****il -1 ( range-45 km) as compared to single arm ****il (range -32 km)
2 ) Bhramos and or Klub missile the launcher is well capable of carrying both the missile sources : Military Technology , Klub as well as Bhramos do have a Land attack variant , though lacking in range but good enough in Indo-Pak situation .
3 ) Top Plate planner arrar radar for P-15A (range 300Km ) as compared to Half Plate on delhi (range 350 km)
4 ) RAN-40L or SMART-L Phased Array radar ( range 450 Km) on P-15A , same for P-17 class of ships as compared to the conventional rotating antenna RAWL/LW-08 on Delhi (range 300Km)
5 ) Kashtan-M on P-15A as compared Ak-630M and lately even Barak on Delhi class.
6 ) A-190E 100mm guns with a range of 22 km on P-15A as compared AK-100 100mm guns on delhi with a range of 15 km , not to mention a higher rate of fire for the former.
Also one can expect better ESM/ECM/EM equipment , Better Sonars , lesser reflecting surface so some kind of stealth built into it ,longer endurance , improved Command and Control centeres and host of other improvements derived out of experience of builtding P-17A class of frigates .
AustinGlenn , thislink will help you a bit in charting out the different akula class sub constructed so far , Most of the sites I have visited and read about have rated Vepr as the first of the Akula-2 class subs built so far ,Gepard being the second of the class , Three more were being built( Kuguar,Kaban,Rys) when construction was suspended .
One more querry , the Akula carry something which is know as ” Non-acoustic Means of detection system” what exactly does that mean , what are the other way and means besides the conventional Active/Passive Sonars and Sonobuyos of detecting subs and other targets, Do western subs carry such means of detection
AustinJust read in Combat Fleets 2000-2001 edition, that two incomplete Improved AKULA I-class were offered to India in 1999. Could these be the ones in question today?
I think too much is being made which variant of Akula is being leased , whether it Akula , Improved Akula or the Akula-2 , First of All from IN prespective the whole Idea to lease N-Sub , is first and foremost have a credible underwater second strike capability , which only a N-sub can provide you, second is to impart training to the men on N-sub , sinnce all that training imparted from Charlie-2 (INS Chakra) subs , has more or less diluted away , coz the charlie had to be returned abruptly after the break up of soviet union.and thirdly the idea is to gain and learn what ever possible in terms of engineering , training , weapons , tactics employed in a moderm N-sub , so as long as the subs being operated is a modern one and state of the art , the IN is not complaining , and Akula no matter if its the older one or its modern variant is quite a capable sub specially against your closest rival be it China or Pakistan , so even if the Navy gets the older Akula or its newer cousin , it will serve effectively as a N- deterrent platform till the ATV comes.
AustinHad it not been for the HDW scandal , the IN would have gone for U-212/214 and not for the scorpene , the U-214 is probably the best SSK in it class although the scorpene also stands out for its unique feature , Jonesy how will you compare the Amur Sub and the Scorpene Sub since the IN will go for both of these subs , how does the Scorpene compare with the Agosta-90B and the Amur compare with U-214
AustinSince SA-N17 Grizzly is a derivative of Buk-M1-2 heres some info on it. The
Naval Variant Differs to the extent that it receives the Initall Target data from The Top-Plate radar , which then passes it to the Orekh Fire Control System , Rest things including missile performance being similar to the Buk-M1-2
Buk-M1-2 surface-to-air missile system
By Anatoly Sokolov, Asst. Professor, Military Academy of the General Staff,
Russian Armed Forces
The role of air attack means (AAM) has increased significantly in preparing
and conducting combat operations at ground theaters of operations (TO) and in coastal areas. AAM became a decisive factor in achieving military and
political goals. The main feature is an increasing role of unmanned AAM
capable of delivering standoff air strikes on troops and installations.
Among them are tactical and intermediate range ballistic missiles (TBM,
IRBM), antiradar missiles (ARM), guided bombs (GB).
Precision-guided munition (PGM) employment leads to sharp intensification of fighting in a duel situation between air assault and air defense means. The struggle became a priority one at the initial stage of war. The defender’s success depends upon capabilities of fighting with high precision weapon. In 1998, the Buk-M1-2 SAM medium-range missile system was fielded with the Russian Army (the system leading developer – Instrumentation Scientific and Research Institute named after V.V. Tikhomirov, the leading manufacturer Ulyanovsk Mechanical Plant federal state unitary; the leading missile developer and manufacturer – Dolgoprudny Scientific and Production Enterprise JSC).
The new Buk-M1-2 SAM system is designed to combat effectively various air
targets in a wide range of altitudes and moving at various speeds at a
distance up to 45 km. It was created on the basis of the world wide known
Buk-M1 SAM system (NATO classification – SA-11 Gadfly) by adding the highly efficient 9M317 surface-to-air missile as well as by upgrading its
equipment and software.
Among the combat means of the SAM are the following: the 9S470M1-2 command post, 9S18M1-1 acquisition radar, six 9S310M1-2 self-propelled launchers with four 9M317 SAMs and three 9S39M1-2 loader-launchers and up to 72 9M317 surface-to-air missiles. All of them are mounted on the self-propelled armoured tracked chasses weighing 30-35 t and have a cruising range of 500 km. The maximum speed is 65 km/h (45 km/h on country roads).
The new-generation 9M317 surface-to-air missile was designed as a joint
weapon for the Russian Army and Navy air defences. It can hit ballistic
missiles, strategic and tactical aircraft, cruise and antiradiation
missiles, helicopters (including hovering ones), unmanned aerial vehicles
(UAV) in heavy electronic countermeasures environment. Also, it is effective
against radiocontrast surface targets.
Innovated technical solutions ensured adaptation of the missile to the type
of the target (ballistic, aerodynamic, rotary-wing, small-size, surface) and
enhanced its hit probability. Besides, the missile can destroy air targets
flying at extremely low altitudes. It is very reliable. The fully assembled
and armed surface-to-air missile is explosion-proof and requires no
maintenance and checks for 10 years of operation. The service life can be
extended after relevant special work on the missile.
The command post (CP) vehicle, self-propelled launcher and loader-launchers were modernised because of fielding the new surface-to-air missile. The target acquisition radar vehicle underwent no modernisation as the the a 120-degree sector antimissile mode of operation ensuring 55 degrees in azimuth and elevation had already been provided. Characteristics of the Buk-M1-2 surface-to-air missile system are given in Table 1.
Characteristics of Buk-M1-2 AD missile system
> Fielded in 1998
> Coverage area, km:
> Range 3 – 45
> Altitude 0.015 – 25
> Single-shot hit probability (aircraft) 0.7-0.9
> Multiple-target capability, tgt 6
> Missile weight, kg 715
> Deployment/displacement time, min. 5/5
>
New features and combat capabilities of the Buk-M1-2 SAM system were
completely proven by live firings at actual air targets including 8M14 and
9M31tactical ballistic missiles and MLRS rockets simulated by the 3M8 and
Smerch respectively.
A fundamentally novel feature of the new SAM system is its lethality against
radiocontrast surface targets (ships at a range of 25 km as well as tactical
ballistic missile launchers, aircraft at airfields at a distance of 12-15
km).
In 1996, the Buk-M1-2 SAM system was tested in the Black Sea Naval district
for coast defense purposes. Its radar proved capable to track a number of
waterborne targets. When firing at a target ship, represented by a
minesweeper, direct hits of two telemetric (warheadless) missiles resulted
in the ship bursting aflame and sinking. The Buk-M1-2 SAM system was used when firing at a target without turning on the radar (using the teleoptic sighting device and laser rangefinder). In difficult countermeasures environment in such mode, the stability of SAM system operation is enhanced as well as its survivability and concealment. As a whole the Black Sea tests of the Buk-M1-2 SAM system proved its high effectiveness when used in the coast defense system.
High combat capabilities of the Buk-M1-2 SAM system in repulsing air strikes of advanced enemy air attack assets including mass strikes were repeatedly proven in practice during combat preparation activities. For example, the Buk-M1-2 SAM system as part of an air defence grouping carried out a field firing at air targets simulating one of massed air strikes by the aircraft of the multinational forces in Iraq (1991). 11 air targets participated in the strike, 7 of them simulated ballistic missiles and MLRS rockets. When repulsing the strike all the targets were destroyed by the AD means and 5 of them (45%) were destroyed by the Buk-M1-2 SAM system. 6 SAM missiles were used. Especially effective the AD system was in destroying low altitude air targets. It killed all the targets that simulated low flying cruise missiles and helicopters. Totally it destroyed 15 targets simulating advanced enemy aircraft and missiles, including 5 ballistic. The system combat effectiveness amounted to 88 per cent with an average number of missiles used to destroy one target being equal to 1.2.
The above-mentioned practical activities revealed some other positive
features of the Buk-M1-2 SAM system. For example, under massive employment of various hostile aircraft and missiles one can expect that the launchers’ unit pf fire will soon be all expended. When pressed for time for reloading, the missiles can be launched by the loader-launcher.
In the heavy air environment, in order to enhance hit probability of vital
and dangerous targets, the SAM system can engage them with two-to-three
surface-to-air missiles at a time. At that missiles fired by one launcher
can be guided some other.
An important feature of this SAM system is its ability to integrate its
separate combat elements into the earlier developed Kub (Kvadrat) SAM system in service with the armed forces of many countries worldwide. To enhance the system’s fire power, it can be supplemented with the 9M310-M1-2 of the Buk-M1-2 SAM system. In this case the self-propelled reconnaissance and target acquisition vehicle of the Kub will control the launcher. In a number of key parameters the Buk-M1-2 SAM system surpasses the European-made SAMP/T SAM system now in development and US-made Improved Hawk SAM system. Especially remarkable is its superiority in mobility and deployment/displacement time. As to this parameter, it is three times superior when compared with the SAMP/T and 8 times when compared with the Improved Hawk.
Specialists believe that an important advantage of the Buk-M1-2 SAM system
nowadays is its short reaction time. Judging from experience of field
firings, it totals a lesser time than that necessary for NATO aircraft to
locate and destroy the Kub (Kvadrat) systems with their precision-guided
weapons in Yugoslavia.
High combat capabilities of the Buk-M1-2 SAM system provide many variants of employing the system. Depending on the situation, it can be used
independently or as a main element within the AD task forces. In the latter
case, it can be used together with the Tor-M1, Pantsyr-S1 and Tunguska-M AD systems and Igla man-portable AD system as a basis for mobile layered air defences for the troops and installations in the area of operations. Such an AD task force is capable of destroying various types of advanced enemy air attack assets (including ballistic ones) and repulsing massed strikes of
hostile aircraft.
In conclusion, it is should be mentioned that the Buk-M1-2 SAM system
capabilities for further upgrade have not been exhausted.
Thus, its target acquisition radar can be modernised to flexibly control
combat operations in order to provide secondary processing of radar data
(forming-up air targets trajectories) and enhancing the jamming resistance.
To enhance the stability of the Buk-M1-2 operation in the face of difficult
electronic ceontermeasures environment and high volume of fire, the system’s command post can be linked with electronic intelligence (ELINT) stations. In addition, passive direction-finders can be introduced into the target acquisition radar, command post and self-propelled launchers, as well as Igla MANPADS launchers can be incorporated into the Buk-M1-2 SAM system to provide direct coverage of the larger SAM system.
So, the advanced Russian-made Buk-M1-2 SAM system boasts high combat and technical characteristics in repulsing strikes of advanced threat aircraft
and surface-to-air weapons in ordinary and heavy electronic countermeasures environment. The capabilities have been repeatedly proven by test and field firings and comparative analyses with its best foreign counterparts
Sign In
