Talk:Buk missile system

message: 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)
replies: text: The information should be corrected in the english WP as well. Any sources for "ramjet" found? --Bernd-vdb 15:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed that now. --Bernd-vdb 20:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Propulsion

message: 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)
thread_title:  Pictures 

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Post-merging  

message: : 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)
thread_title:  "Polishing" of the article 

message: An image used in this article, , 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)
thread_title: File:Amd sa11.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/buk-2m/buk-2m.shtml
Why they removed this revision?--Rqasd (talk) 15:13, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: To change positions-enabled equipment takes only 20 seconds.

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

message: *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-300VMhttp://www.rusarmy.com/pvo/pvo_vsk/su_polyana-d4m.html into a brigade.http://articles.janes.com/notice.htmlhttp://www.rusarmy.com/pvo/pvo_vsk/su_polyana-d4m1.html 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 posthttp://rbase.new-factoria.ru/gallery/avtomatizirovannaya-sistema-upravleniya-baykal-1-me)+("Ranzhir"*command posthttp://www.rusarmy.com/pvo/pvo_vsk/su_9s737m.html))+
№2(("Baikal"*command post)+("PPRU"*command posthttp://rbase.new-factoria.ru/news/pehota-s-vozduha-prikryta/))+
№3("Baikal"*command posthttp://www.raspletin.ru/asu-bajkal-1-me)+
№4(9S52 "Polyana"-D4*command post) = №1+№2+№3+№4.
	
This union is a mobile command headquartershttp://www.rusarmy.com/pvo/su_zrk.html 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,http://www.rusarmy.com/pvo/rls.html into a brigade. "Baikal"*command post or "Senezh"http://www.okb-peleng.ru/nashi%20razrabotki.htmlhttp://old.vko.ru/article.asp?pr_sign=archive.2005.23.12_07(an automatic control system)+are various other command postshttp://old.raspletin.ru/produce/adms/s300pmu2/83m6e2.aspxhttp://www.rusarmy.com/pvo/pvo_vsk/su_9s80m1.html can combine (to mixhttp://www.rusarmy.com/pvo/pvo_vsk/su_pori-p3.htmlhttp://www.rusarmy.com/pvo/reb-rtr.htmlhttp://www.rusarmy.com/pvo/pvo_vvs/reb_akup-1.html) with others systems, including the air force and systems interferencehttp://bryanskemz.ru/Voenprodukt.htmlhttp://www.ruqrz.com/?p=3167http://www.rusarmy.com/pvo/pvo_vvs/reb_spn-2.html/anti-jamming.http://kvant-vn.ru/product.phphttp://niiekran.ru/prod_president.phphttp://www.ump.mv.ru/vega.htm
	
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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Сommand post

message: 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)
replies: text: * 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)
replies: text: 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  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)
thread_title:  IFF 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Speculation and not facts on downing of MH17! 

message: 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)
thread_title:  capability 

message: 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 84.208.211.7 (talk) 12:31, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why has information been removed from this article?  

message: Everything else should be removed in general212.119.233.82 (talk) 13:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: There is only one verified fact of application Buk 

message: Then it was announced a refutationhttp://www.onderzoeksraad.nl/http://news.tut.by/world/440558.htmlhttp://www.utro.ua/ru/proisshestviya/niderlandy_oprovergayut_soobshcheniya_smi_o_buke_sbivshem_boing1426845624 Media again all said lies. Netherlands officially denied media reports.http://ren.tv/novosti/2015-03-20/niderlandy-oprovergli-soobshcheniya-o-tom-chto-malaziyskiy-boing-byl-sbit-iz-zrkhttp://de.sputniknews.com/panorama/20150319/301569342.html
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 195.218.182.168 (talk) 06:20, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  20.03.2015 Netherlands officially denied media reports. 

message: 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. http://rt.com/news/242449-netherlands-downed-buk-missile/
+ http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/a-detailed-description-of-the-buk-sa-11-which-could-have-shot-down-mh17/ -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3j2Kt98yqg#t=98 = 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 195.218.182.14 (talk) 06:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why not added rebuttal? 

message: The article says "Frag-He"
But one of the sources cited actually says the 9M317 missile uses a rod(e.g. continuous rod) warhead.
http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/buk-2m/buk-2m.shtml
"(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 128.97.68.15 (talk) 17:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: This source suggests that buk can use an interchangeable warhead, firing either fragmentation or continuous rod.(continuous rod being the more common variant)
http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/know-your-missiles
Are there any sources indicating that the Buk only has fragmentation warhead variants? 128.97.68.15 (talk) 17:19, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warhead Error 

message: 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.--188.122.212.12 (talk) 14:19, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but I still don't get your point. (Perhaps even less now, than when I was asking first) Regards --188.122.212.12 (talk) 14:48, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

text: Well, the I'd propose to change "zenith-rocket division" to "anti-aircraft missile battalion", as more usual term in English.-188.122.212.12 (talk) 15:02, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Zenith-rocket division"? 

message: More unclear edits. WP:3RR appears to have been violated. Here you introduced unclear language: , then you edit warred to keep reintroducing it: , , , . 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 9M38M1http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/russian-missile-maker-mh17-shot-ukrainian-missile-31462602http://vz.ru/news/2015/6/2/748659.print.htmlhttp://www.interfax.ru/world/445166http://rt.com/news/264205-buk-manufacturer-mh17-ukraine/
see
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Buk_missile_system&type=revision&diff=667245761&oldid=666591875  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.218.183.2 (talk) 15:45, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continued [[WP:EW|edit warring]] over unencyclopedic edits 

message: 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.
http://topwar.ru/print:page,1,19626-armeyskiy-samohodnyy-zenitnyy-raketnyy-kompleks-buk.htm
wiki&&??  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.218.183.110 (talk) 18:55, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  In '92, the system has proven the ability to destroy Scud missile R-17 and rocket MLRS caliber of 0.3 meters. 

message: 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.
76.84.4.68 (talk) 14:49, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:NPOV,  WP:EXCEPTIONAL and a flock of other wiki rule violations... 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Buk missile system. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080927074414/http://www.niip.ru:80/main.php?page=raz_land_ural to http://www.niip.ru/main.php?page=raz_land_ural
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080921114831/http://www8.janes.com:80/Search/documentView.do?docId=/content1/janesdata/yb/jlad/jlad0109.htm to http://www8.janes.com/Search/documentView.do?docId=/content1/janesdata/yb/jlad/jlad0109.htm
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130420141100/http://tietokannat.mil.fi/lohtaja209/gallery.php?language=fi_FI&page_id=8 to http://tietokannat.mil.fi/lohtaja209/gallery.php?language=fi_FI&page_id=8
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080921114831/http://www8.janes.com:80/Search/documentView.do?docId=/content1/janesdata/yb/jlad/jlad0109.htm to http://www8.janes.com/Search/documentView.do?docId=/content1/janesdata/yb/jlad/jlad0109.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:51, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Buk missile system. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090123083209/http://milparade.udm.ru:80/27/126.htm to http://milparade.udm.ru/27/126.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120309192408/http://geo-army.ge/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=9&Itemid=9&lang=en to http://geo-army.ge/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=9&Itemid=9&lang=en
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:09, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Buk missile system. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://milparade.udm.ru/27/126.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131005013148/http://www.military-informant.com/index.php/army/3427-1.html to http://www.military-informant.com/index.php/army/3427-1.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150717135501/http://old.vko.ru/article.asp?pr_sign=archive.2005.23.12_07 to http://old.vko.ru/article.asp?pr_sign=archive.2005.23.12_07
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120118112543/http://www.geotimes.ge/index.php?m=home&newsid=10615 to http://www.geotimes.ge/index.php?m=home&newsid=10615
*Added  tag to http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2198822.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:12, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: According to the text in the Development section Ural is the export version of 9K37M1-2. According to the version diagram Ural is the export version of Buk-M2 while the export version of M1-2 is Gang Gange, which does not seem to be mentioned in the text. 150.227.15.253 (talk) 09:10, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ural inconsistency 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Buk missile system. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121223072244/http://www.inbsite.com/missiles2.html to http://inbsite.com/missiles2.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131231001312/http://www.niip.ru/eng/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=17%3A-q-2q-9317&catid=9%3A2011-07-06-06-33-50&Itemid=9 to http://www.niip.ru/eng/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=17%3A-q-2q-9317&catid=9%3A2011-07-06-06-33-50&Itemid=9
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080925094346/http://www.charter97.org/eng/news/2005/10/11/buk to http://www.charter97.org/eng/news/2005/10/11/buk
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081120045947/http://www.aviation.com/technology/080818-russia-georgia-air-war.html to http://www.aviation.com/technology/080818-russia-georgia-air-war.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141125025741/http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?99988-Russian-Photos-%28updated-on-regular-basis%29%2Fpage3675 to http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?99988-Russian-Photos-%28updated-on-regular-basis%29%2Fpage3675
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080611172804/http://milparade.udm.ru/29/066.htm to http://milparade.udm.ru/29/066.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The system refers vaguely to a system called M-22 that seems to fire Buk missiles though possibly without making use of their full potential. The article would benefit from more information on this.150.227.15.253 (talk) 17:25, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  M-22 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Buk missile system. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131230231721/http://www.niip.ru/eng/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=16%3A-l-1-2r&catid=9%3A2011-07-06-06-33-50&Itemid=9 to http://www.niip.ru/eng/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=16%3A-l-1-2r&catid=9%3A2011-07-06-06-33-50&Itemid=9
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120224174018/http://www.kommersant.com/p718548/r_527/Egypt_arms_trade/ to http://www.kommersant.com/p718548/r_527/Egypt_arms_trade/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111002204228/http://www.china-defense-mashup.com/new-hq-16-surface-to-air-missile-ready-for-action-pla.html to http://www.china-defense-mashup.com/new-hq-16-surface-to-air-missile-ready-for-action-pla.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131224114128/http://www.roe.ru/eng_pr/eng_pr_13_11_01_a.html to http://www.roe.ru/eng_pr/eng_pr_13_11_01_a.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:23, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Buk missile system. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://www.almaz-antey.ru/catalogue/millitary_catalogue/
*Added  tag to http://www.almaz-antey.ru/en/catalogue/millitary_catalogue/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110521070941/http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=awst&id=news%2Faw081808p2.xml&headline=Georgian%20Military%20Folds%20Under%20Russian%20Attack to http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=awst&id=news%2Faw081808p2.xml&headline=Georgian%20Military%20Folds%20Under%20Russian%20Attack
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.janes.com/article/73123/algeria-confirms-buk-delivery
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131226070954/http://www.niip.ru/eng/ to http://www.niip.ru/eng/
*Added  tag to http://www.almaz-antey.ru/en/catalogue/millitary_catalogue/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:20, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: "The 9М38M1 missile uses active homing when approaching the goal.[37]"
I delete this nonsense. "Jane's Land -based air defence 2004-2005" clearly states it has semi-active guidance (page 160). The RF fuze is emitting actively, maybe someone misread that. 86.56.15.187 (talk) 22:55, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "active homing" 

message: This early version of the article seems to be in British English ("utilise"). --John (talk) 10:10, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  ENGVAR 

message: I see this on many wikipedia pages. TEL is not a name for any vehicle that carries and launches missiles, it refers to vehicles that transport and erect missiles into launching position, that is, it sets the into the vertical launch position and moves away, and the missile is launched. A vehicle which launches the missile from launch rails is not a "TEL", it is a vehicle with a rocket launcher, types of missile vehicle. There is no "erection" of the missile. Thus it is simply a transporter-launcher, not a transporter-erector-launcher. By the definition used on this page and others, a Katyusha was a TEL, and an MLRS is a TEL, or even a Humvee equipped with the Avenger SAM system is a TEL. The Chapparal SAM system. Any vehicle that carries and launches a missile could be called a "TEL" because they all carry missiles, point them upwards and launch them. We don't call them TELs because they are not.
Idumea47b (talk) 04:12, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a TEL or TELAR 

message: The original listed reference for this claim was the Russian tabloid Комсомольская правда, a source with poor ratings across multiple independent fact-checking and media bias sites. In this case, the claim of the performed “butterfly or bow-tie” fragments came in reference to the ongoing MH17 trial and used to normalize a particular narrative of the incident. While searching for original documentation relating to КП‘s claims, I found both documents and press release reporting referencing a position of Almaz-Antey and their transfer of technical documentation to the Dutch investigation. Their position as stated in the Dutch investigation and referenced in the report through images and CAD models is that the 9N314M warhead relies on an inner layer of “butterfly or bow-tie” fragments. While this is the most detailed source I found, both in terms of design of the 9M38 missile warhead, if anyone can find those initial technical documents originating from Almaz-Antey, they’d be the ultimate source for this claim and provide a greater elaboration on the actual working principles behind the missile warhead. Below are some of the sources if someone more intrepid than I would like to find these original documents, but if not the Dutch “Investigation of . . . high-energy objects . . .” is the most detailed source on the design specifications I found.
Preliminary sources: 
https://www.onderzoeksraad.nl/en/media/attachment/2018/7/10/3ae49217f73breport_mh17_crash_appendix_nlr.pdf
https://theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/13/mh17-crash-report-dutch-russian-claims-focus-buk-missile-fragments
https://www.onderzoeksraad.nl/en/media/attachment/2018/7/10/7c3683079996report_mh17_crash_appendix_consultation_a.pdf The Intervocalic Sigma (talk) 19:45, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  9M38M1 butterfly shrapnel 

message: I added a line that Buk had been used to shoot down Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 linking that article. This line was swiftly removed and I got the comment below. I am convinced that it is an accurately established fact that this was the case and certainly not a "minority or fringe viewpoint" and that this fact is relevant and important. I suggest that the editor reactivates the link, locks the article and blocks LilianaUwU who appears to represent Russiafriendly minority and fringe interests. Not primarily for being russofile but for obstruction of the truth.
"Reversion
December 2022[edit]
 Welcome to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, content you added to Buk missile system appears to be a minority or fringe viewpoint, and appears to have given undue weight to this minority viewpoint, and has been reverted. To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. Feel free to use the article's talk page to discuss this, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. LilianaUwU (talk / contribs) 20:20, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: One revert and you're immediately calling her a "russofile" and calling for her to be blocked?  Seems a bit disproportionate.  That said, I don't see an obvious problem with what you added and I'm not sure why it needed a NPOV/Fringe warning.  @LilianaUwU, thoughts? Squeakachu (talk) 22:02, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @Squeakachu @150.227.15.253 It was a mistake from my part. I intended to revert for being unsourced, as the statement is unsourced, but I have no reason to doubt that statement if sourced. LilianaUwU (talk / contribs) 22:17, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I figured it was some kind of misunderstanding.  As for sourcing, the use of a Buk to shoot down MH17 is discussed in the body of the article, and is well sourced: Buk_missile_system#Russia%E2%80%93Ukraine War.  Squeakachu (talk) 22:27, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah. In any case, I managed to find a source from the aircraft's page, and put it in the article. LilianaUwU (talk / contribs) 22:30, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversion vandalism 

message: So, the image for the Naval Missile (SA-N-7C?) shows a much smaller, tail-only fin arrangement. On the Russian language wiki, this seems to be the same missile as used in the New Buk-M3/SA-27 Gollum?
I'm hoping the articles across various languages can be cleaned up a bit. As there seem to be a few subvariants being skipped.
The old Kub had small wings and fins, plus 4 capped ramjet intakes.
The SA-11 Buk had long chord strakes but used pure (no intake) 2 section (boost-sustainer) rocket
The SA-17 Buk had shorter chord strakes (closer to traditional wing in its geometry) ￼
Buk-M3 Has only tail fins and is MUCH smaller & seems to share only common launcher foundation?2603:7080:CB3F:5032:ED2B:E6AF:923E:D50C (talk) 05:57, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missile Variants In Series