Military Review

Buk-M3 during the exercise was applied on the surface ship of the conditional enemy

51
The air defense units of the 58 th Army Armed Forces conducted exercises to repel air strikes of a conditional enemy. The exercises were held on the territory of the Republic of Dagestan. To repel blows, Buk-M3 anti-aircraft missile systems were used. From the report of the head of the press service of the Southern Military District (Southern Military District) Vadim Astafyev:
According to the design of the exercises, on-duty calculations revealed a mass approach aviation conventional enemy to the point of basing ships. The Buk-M3 air defense division immediately took on the air threat and destroyed the targets when they entered the Caspian zone of responsibility flotilla.



Buk-M3 during the exercise was applied on the surface ship of the conditional enemy


It is noted that the calculations carried out an operation on the conditional defeat of a surface ship. Previously, the coordinates of the ship of the conditional enemy were obtained using an unmanned aerial vehicle. After processing the coordinates were carried out electronic rocket launches.

The highly mobile multi-purpose Buk-М3 ADMS is used to destroy all types of aircraft, also for firing ground-based radio-contrast targets and hitting surface targets in the face of intense fire and electronic countermeasures from the enemy.
Photos used:
function.mil.ru
51 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. The comment was deleted.
  2. Herculesic
    Herculesic 19 February 2018 06: 49
    +8
    That would be him in a battle, albeit conditional, really test against f35! To debunk the myth that the penguin is such a mega-blindness!
    1. siberalt
      siberalt 19 February 2018 06: 51
      +9
      In Crimea, a bunch of targets from the Ukrainian fleet remained. It would be possible to carry out similar exercises there. winked
    2. Esoteric
      Esoteric 19 February 2018 07: 06
      +6
      Quote: Herkulesich
      That would be him in a battle, albeit conditional, really test against f35!

      What to experience it? It is necessary to shoot down foreign military aircraft over the territory of Syria. And what kind of system will be is not so important. Though from the "slingshot."
      1. qwerty183
        qwerty183 19 February 2018 11: 17
        +4
        Wow, you’re aggressive. And then you’ll go to war yourself, well, what if? Is Syria your Russia slogan? In general, it’s fun to read the comments of people calling for war, who saw this war only on YouTube.
  3. Herculesic
    Herculesic 19 February 2018 06: 50
    +2
    Interestingly, how many missiles will be needed for a target like an Orly Burke class destroyer? ??
    1. The comment was deleted.
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. Tiksi-3
        Tiksi-3 19 February 2018 07: 41
        +1
        Quote: Esoteric
        One pair of Su-24 with the Khibiny is enough.

        belay and they will both be knocked down ... what are you writing about?
        1. Esoteric
          Esoteric 19 February 2018 07: 44
          +1
          Quote: Tiksi-3
          what are you writing about?

          About the electronic warfare system that turns off the electronics ... belay If you feel like it, you can drop something onto the deck ...
          1. Tiksi-3
            Tiksi-3 19 February 2018 08: 17
            +5
            Quote: Esoteric
            About the electronic warfare system that turns off the electronics ..

            wassat wassat Do you like to read Soviet newspapers? about fucked up EM Cook in the Black Sea? .... belay ..believe in everything that is written? fool
            1. The comment was deleted.
          2. Vadim237
            Vadim237 19 February 2018 08: 30
            0
            Such electronic warfare does not exist.
            1. shans2
              shans2 19 February 2018 08: 39
              +2
              in Israel no)
            2. Esoteric
              Esoteric 19 February 2018 10: 02
              0
              Quote: Vadim237
              Such electronic warfare does not exist.

              I myself drew here:
      3. 210ox
        210ox 19 February 2018 08: 42
        +5
        "Khibiny" on the Su-24 are not put. Enough with this fake ..
        Quote: Esoteric
        One pair of Su-24 with the Khibiny is enough. To fly over it until the pitching rises at sea, and the sailors do not start shit ... stop it’s immediately obvious - “seasickness”. lol
        1. Genry
          Genry 20 February 2018 13: 27
          0
          Quote: 210ox
          "Khibiny" on the Su-24 are not put. Enough with this fake ..

          Before the appearance of the Su-34-35, they were tested on the Su-24. It was there that they got their nickname. And new ones with their own ....
    2. novel66
      novel66 19 February 2018 07: 13
      +2
      but to understand this, it is not necessary to make “electronic launches”, but to plow as it should!
  4. 210ox
    210ox 19 February 2018 06: 50
    +2
    Interesting. Anti-aircraft missile on the ship. I understand that the situation can be very different. But I wanted to know the opinion of experts, how effective is such an application? By the weight of warhead anti-ship missiles and anti-aircraft missiles are different.
    1. zxc15682
      zxc15682 19 February 2018 07: 00
      0
      Mostly anti-aircraft missiles at the ships and shoot ... EEE some countries.
      1. Andrey Yuryevich
        Andrey Yuryevich 19 February 2018 07: 10
        +8
        Quote: 210ox
        Interesting. Anti-aircraft missile on the ship. I understand that the situation can be very different. But I wanted to know the opinion of experts, how effective is such an application? By the weight of warhead anti-ship missiles and anti-aircraft missiles are different.

        now the ships are “cardboard,” and “unacceptable damage” can cause an anti-aircraft missile, the main thing is to reach the target. A hole in the destroyer USS Cole after it was attacked by terrorists on a carbon fiber boat stuffed with explosives in October 2000. Photo: cargolaw .com
    2. K-50
      K-50 19 February 2018 07: 03
      +7
      Quote: 210ox
      Interesting. Anti-aircraft missile on the ship. I understand that the situation can be very different. But I wanted to know the opinion of experts, how effective is such an application? By the weight of warhead anti-ship missiles and anti-aircraft missiles are different.

      It’s quite such a high-explosive shell with ready-to-use striking elements. By power as a half shell 305 mm caliber. So it’s not, it’s not enough, especially since the use of not only against the “flying” technique is laid at the software level. Remember the use of the Wasp anti-aircraft missile in a battle near Abkhazia in the war of three eights. hi
      1. zxc15682
        zxc15682 19 February 2018 07: 14
        0
        I don’t remember exactly, but Arabs or Jews fired anti-aircraft missiles at the ships (I don’t remember who in Kovo)
        1. Andrey NM
          Andrey NM 19 February 2018 07: 25
          +4
          Vietnamese hit anti-aircraft missiles in the battleship “New Jersey”. The battleship went into repair and did not appear there again. At the same time, the "heads" of the missiles, breaking through the superstructure, did not explode. As one of those “Vietnamese” explained to me, the S-75 complex itself was modified for firing at surface targets, but missiles did not.
    3. novel66
      novel66 19 February 2018 07: 15
      +7
      even more interesting anti-ship missile on the plane, whether the onyx f-35
      1. K-50
        K-50 19 February 2018 07: 22
        +2
        Quote: novel xnumx
        even more interesting anti-ship missile on the plane, whether the onyx f-35

        Well, you and the Beast !!! belay
        Why is the "penguin" so cruel !!!! belay laughing
        1. novel66
          novel66 19 February 2018 07: 53
          +1
          I do not like them .....
      2. Tiksi-3
        Tiksi-3 19 February 2018 07: 42
        +1
        Quote: novel xnumx
        even more interesting anti-ship missile on the plane, whether the onyx f-35

        better anti-submarine wassat
      3. Alex-a832
        Alex-a832 19 February 2018 07: 46
        +2
        Quote: novel xnumx
        even more interesting anti-ship missile on the plane, whether the onyx f-35

        If in the back hemisphere to catch up, then maybe it will. But if it does, it will not fill up, but spray it into small pieces. An anti-aircraft missile has a different principle of warhead operation — like a shot charge in a duck.
        1. rocket757
          rocket757 19 February 2018 09: 07
          +3
          Anti-aircraft missiles have different warheads. Yankers finally can get hit by a blank, a kinetic blow with a high probability of destroying the target.
          The goals and objectives are different, the method of destroying the goals is also different.
          Anyway, in the form of an experiment it would be interesting to see the successful defeat of our advertised "invisibles" by our systems!
          However, the Yankees themselves understand that the invisibility is not an irresistible target for air defense, so we took care to build a whole system of counteraction, suppressing it!
          This will be a competition, who whom.
          1. Alex-a832
            Alex-a832 19 February 2018 10: 47
            +2
            Technology will certainly strive for versatility. It may come to the conclusion that only the carrier class will be different but for all purposes - air, land, sea, with universal launchers, and warheads are interchangeable - for a combat mission. I think that in this way it is possible to achieve a significant reduction in price both in production and in the construction of defense lines, and their supply.
            1. rocket757
              rocket757 19 February 2018 11: 02
              +4
              Very much I do not believe in universalism, not always and not everywhere.
              In principle, of course it reduces the cost of production. A large raznosortitsa, this smut for everyone from manufacturers to the MTS service.
              So far, a specialized system is more effective in performing the tasks for which they are imprisoned.
              In short, time will tell which concept will be needed!
      4. Mih1974
        Mih1974 25 February 2018 20: 05
        0
        Eee - it’s even a pity to imagine that the penguin will remain when such a “log” is stuck in it at super-sonic speed. I guess - the penguin will “turn” inside out. good
        1. rocket757
          rocket757 25 February 2018 20: 21
          +1
          Shrapnel is enough for aviation, cheaply and efficiently.
    4. Genry
      Genry 20 February 2018 13: 51
      0
      Quote: 210ox
      Anti-aircraft missile on the ship. I understand that the situation can be very different.

      “Bukov” has a short-range missile, with a non-profit semi-active GOS. High-explosive warhead, fragmentation. He sees ground targets well enough ...
      On the "ground" and the S-300-400 can also hit. But the question is the visibility of the target by its range. And with such an active GOS, it is too expensive (but the question of the importance of the goal can outweigh everything).
      On ships where weapons are limited, any missile, in battle, can play a key role.
  5. zulusuluz
    zulusuluz 19 February 2018 06: 58
    +4
    And how effective is the fragmentation rocket inherently against such a target as a ship? Or is the radio fuse turned off on it?
    1. rocket757
      rocket757 19 February 2018 09: 12
      +5
      Ancient, armored ships with fractions, fragments can not be taken of course! Modern ships, especially small ones, defend differently, are poorly armored, so 80kg landmine below the waterline, this is a huge hole, as a rule, and in superstructures can riddle everything!
      1. Alex-a832
        Alex-a832 19 February 2018 10: 52
        +4
        And what if a cloud of striking or fragmentation cluster on weakly protected elements of superstructures: radars, communications, elements of electronic warfare? Make the ship blind, dumb, deaf, so that only the artillery barrels worked, for example?
        1. rocket757
          rocket757 19 February 2018 12: 21
          +3
          The Yankees use a whole destroyer as a model to test the damaging effects of warhead missiles!
          They showed a picture, after undermining the high-explosive part the sales were not at point blank range, meters over eleven !!!
          Sieve and mess complete! After that, they stopped real firing on real ships, sales were empty by blanks, it turned out to be more expensive!
          These are the boats now doing! And sho say if a real warhead such an ambush is planted at point blank range, so over a dozen !!!
    2. Mih1974
      Mih1974 25 February 2018 20: 07
      0
      The ship itself will most likely not suffer, in the “damage sectors” - it will sweep away everything to hell. It will be even worse for the vaunted “Arlik” - chopped his vaunted electronics into a small vinaigrette. good
      1. rocket757
        rocket757 25 February 2018 20: 24
        +1
        Ships stopped making very armored.
        Shrapnel element flashing count everything and board identity.
        The era of armadillos has passed, ships are also making duralumin.
  6. Altona
    Altona 19 February 2018 08: 16
    +2
    Quote: Andrey Yurievich
    now ships are “cardboard”, “unacceptable damage” can cause an anti-aircraft missile, the main thing is that it reaches the goal.

    -------------------------------
    The same "invisible" Zamvolt, whose radar cabin is made of balsa wood and is sheathed with aluminum sheet. Almost an analogue of the aircraft fuselage. The Beech rocket filler will smash this cabin into the trash.
  7. huntsman650
    huntsman650 19 February 2018 08: 30
    0
    Not inherent tasks. Shameful for air defense. It's like boasting that they overtook the turtle.
    1. rocket757
      rocket757 19 February 2018 09: 15
      +4
      Haha, in fact, it doesn’t matter what drowned .... sho spend any anti-ship missile on any floating trifle, why?
      1. huntsman650
        huntsman650 19 February 2018 11: 34
        +1
        SAM does not drown the ship. Contactless blasting. Sows antennas.
        1. Genry
          Genry 20 February 2018 14: 01
          0
          Look how Georgian boats were beaten in 080808.
  8. Altona
    Altona 19 February 2018 10: 02
    +1
    Quote: huntsman650
    Not inherent tasks. Shameful for air defense. It's like boasting that they overtook the turtle.

    ----------------------------
    Now the tendency is apparently to hit any threatening objects with one universal weapon, whether they are land-based, surface or air.
    1. huntsman650
      huntsman650 19 February 2018 11: 35
      0
      From RPGs can also be drowned on a motor boat or from a cannon.
  9. san4es
    san4es 19 February 2018 11: 05
    +1
    Buk-M3. This system is 6 times more productive than Buk-M1-2 and S-300PS air defense systems, and reaches the S-300PMU-2 level in terms of speed of targets, which was a huge achievement for the "ordinary" medium-range army air defense system.
    Buk-M3 retains the firing and radar architecture of previous versions (M1 / M1-2 / M2) but uses a completely new 9M317M anti-aircraft interceptor missile, which is unified in design with the marine version 9M317ME of the Shtil-1 complex ..
    soldier

    Ballistic missile launcher "Buk-M3"

    http://army-news.ru/2015/06/buk-m3-vyvedet-armejs
    kuyu-pvo-na-novyj-uroven /
    1. Mih1974
      Mih1974 25 February 2018 20: 11
      +1
      I was shocked when I saw these 12 rockets, I thought it was nonsense. good A smart solution, now the beech division is just animals, only three transport and launch launchers are able to bubble 36 missiles good bully
  10. The comment was deleted.
  11. Tektor
    Tektor 19 February 2018 12: 05
    0
    The use of a Buk missile launcher on a surface target is good. But why waste expensive equipment? You just need to know a couple of shallows, and change the orientation of the vessel so that it sits on one of them. Need EW, and business then ...
    1. rocket757
      rocket757 19 February 2018 12: 23
      +1
      The ways of the military are inscrutable! Should we tell them.
    2. Seaman77
      Seaman77 19 February 2018 17: 20
      +3
      Quote: Tektor
      You just need to know a couple of shallows, and change the orientation of the vessel so that it sits on one of them. Need EW, and business then ...


      And how will electronic warfare disable a gyrocompass and direction finder ??? request
      1. rocket757
        rocket757 19 February 2018 18: 30
        +1
        The axis of the earth will turn! hee hee!
        EW, of course, we can make a lot of salt so fast moving, where only electronic controls do not have time to double-check with conservative methods of calculating coordinates!
        But anyway, everyone is seriously involved in creating methods and techniques for countering electronic warfare, so that the ship will not be left without a course, the flight and other equipment will be improved too!
        This is only in the adage against scrap that there is no reception, the technique does not stand still, they will create an anti-magnet, a protective field, and other crap.
  12. Evil 55
    Evil 55 19 February 2018 12: 37
    +1
    It’s cool ... Fraction by a destroyer like “Arly Burke” ... he’ll beat the appliances, cut the meat on the decks, he’ll whip the portholes, he won’t show up ...
    1. rocket757
      rocket757 19 February 2018 13: 51
      +2
      Et yes! They have a "test bench" just like Arly Burke! A sieve in the process of testing and made of it!