Overview of BUK launch video

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

not a BUK launch but similair system



Ukrainian BUK launch at 1:00
Dust mostly

at 1:46 , 2:05 –  dusty clouds, contrail looks dark against the sun , it seems like hell, all soil is lifted
Kapustin Yar
( launching BUK and other type missile too)

from the start it is seen that the cloud consist of  soil , dust, even roots – not smoke



Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

24 Comments on Overview of BUK launch video

  1. Thank you admin.
    Your research has shown both how different missile plumes can dissipate and look , how the noise of the launch versus the noise of hit can be, how the inside of different BUKs is unique, and also a observation and Command and Control Center is laid out.
    Cold versus warm weather launches and a few other variables in the videos as well, cloudy versus blue skies.
    A great collection and a couple I have not seen yet.
    As well as the follow up afterwards videos links that offer some insight also.
    It shows some different perspectives of launches as well.
    Thank you.

    Fare thee well

  2. Charles Wood // August 30, 2015 at 11:32 am // Reply

    Just a comment on the Romejn article on the plume photo, he speculated the difference in smoke colour was due to a two stage rocket in the missile. This was highly implausible and unfounded.

    My brief research says that the missiles don’t use two stages, rather they have a non-linear propellant grain that has a very rapid burn at the start and a slower burn for the rest of the period. The composition is the same throughout, but the geometry varies.

    This is consistent with a uniform smoke colour – white from the Aluminium loading used to boost performance.

    I don’t think it’s an issue with the BUK missiles but I’ve seen various versions of missiles – 122mm ‘Grad’ missiles in particular – that have different Al loading and so different smoke density

  3. Mr. Wood, this site has a good description.


    It states, ‘The 9M38 surface-to-air missile utilizes a two-mode solid fuel rocket engine with total burn time of about 15 seconds; the combustion chamber is reinforced by metal. For the purpose of reducing the centering dispersion while in flight, the combustion chamber is located close to the center of the missile and includes a longer gas pipe. Rejection of a direct-flow engine type was explained by its instability on a large angle of attack and by a larger air resistance on a passive trajectory section as well as by some technical difficulties.’

    As far as a description of dual or two mode engines, suggest these.

    states – ‘ A third alternative are dual mode systems. These systems are hybrid designs that use hydrazine both as a fuel for high performance bipropellant engines and as a monopropellant with conventional low-thrust catalytic thrusters. The hydrazine is fed to both the bipropellant engines and the monopropellant thrusters from a common fuel tank.’

    And this one goes into some description of the Russian patent.

    Fare thee well

    • Charles Wood // August 31, 2015 at 12:21 pm // Reply

      Your link has no relevance to the 9M38 series missiles. They are solid fuel and do not use hydrazine – a liquid fuel component.

      Your description of a mid missile ‘combustion chamber’ is possibly correct. In larger missiles a middle-out burn can be used to partially maintain the centre of gravity for control dynamic purposes.

      For illustration the standard RPG-7 missile burns backwards with a mid-section exhaust structure. Hot gas is vented at mid section from combustion of propellant in the rear section. This results in movement of the centre of gravity rearwards while the centre of pressure of the missile stays constant. This results in a progressively more stable missile.

      • Charles Wood // August 31, 2015 at 12:25 pm // Reply

        Actually, in a moment of espirit d’escalier I realise I made a mistake in my last comment. The CG in a RPG7 does not move backwards. My error.

      • I may have quoted the wrong passage in relation to a BUK, it was one of the only mentions of a dual mode system in the article.
        I did not look up two mode or other variables.

        HOWEVER, other parts of the link are directly relevant to a BUK and plume.
        Feel free to go back to my second link and search for solid fuel.
        It states among lots of other technical issues.
        – ‘Solid Rocket Motors

        Solid rockets motors store propellants in solid form. The fuel is typically powdered aluminum and the oxidizer is ammonium perchlorate. A synthetic rubber binder such as polybutadiene holds the fuel and oxidizer powders together. Though lower performing than liquid propellant rockets, the operational simplicity of a solid rocket motor often makes it the propulsion system of choice.’

        And – ‘There are a number of ways of modifying the burning rate: decrease the oxidizer particle size, increase or reduce the percentage of oxidizer, adding a burn rate catalyst or suppressant, and operate the motor at a lower or higher chamber pressure. These factors are discussed below.’

        I am guessing from those articles you can control burn rate by density of the rubber bonding compound you use, the density of the propellant and oxidizer, and the initiation of the ‘primary burn’.

        You have ignition, you have launch, you have flight and each has its own characteristics that show up in the plume.
        More rubber bonding agent density from ignition, might mean a different color at the lower sections of the plume.
        Cold start to the fuel would have a less efficient burn then when the missile is in the middle of its flight.
        The computer in the missile setting off a higher burn rate for flight purposes as opposed to the initial launch burn rate.

        I am no rocket scientist but that sight goes into a lot of the technical jargon and descriptions.
        SO THEREFORE, that link is relevant.
        You just did not look hard enough.

        Another issue of ignition and launch is the surrounding vegetation.
        IF you have a large field of summer wheat that has not yet been harvested yet and being completely dried out from summer heat, that could start a large fire in the area if the troops did not cut and remove it or did not park in a empty field that was just turned over.
        It would catch fire fast and burn fast, I do not know if it would put itself out quickly with the launch and vacuum from the missile, or if the exact characteristics of the fire spreading.
        I am not a firefighter either.

        But it makes reasonable sense for the variety of items I mention to cause variations in the plume density and characteristics such as colors detected by various cameras and their filters or desktop software analyzing an image.

        So your initial comment does not have a lot of sense to it, and next time Charles I would suggest you add a link for such a technical statement to corroborate what conclusions you make from that research.
        Without it, your comment even has less credibility.
        I did, and I also proved your comment and conclusion false with a fair amount of proof.

        Fare thee well

        • Charles Wood // August 31, 2015 at 10:54 pm // Reply


          I prefer to write my own text based on my knowledge rather than blindly quote sources I don’t understand on topics I have very little knowledge or experience of.

          Yes, you are no rocket scientist.

          • Charles, many assume your knowledge to be biased and also not very educated because of that bias and more from opinions then facts.
            So sources to substantiate your comment are welcome.
            That is how it works here.
            admin does it, others do it, I did it.
            You are not so special to be not required to do it.

            And since you made the statement – ‘My brief research’
            as part of your comment,

            Your research to base your conclusions on are worthy of everyone being able to look at, since you do not have a lot of knowledge apparently on the issue, it is learn as you go.

            You are obviously no rocket scientist either, and rocket scientist also base their education on research of available information, so that source of your research is worth asking about and you providing.
            I have been wrong before and accept that.

            To this point, I have yet to see your initial comment being to attempt to discredit someone who is not a rocket scientist describing what he saw in terms he knows.

            And your final conclusion was – ‘I don’t think it’s an issue with the BUK missiles.’
            An opinion from attempted authority, which conclusion of a you did not prove or are willing to back up.
            It is obvious from even the first video above at 1.30 there is an obvious difference in plume of the launch density and coloration versus in the middle of the flight path.

            Regardless, your comment was a blatant attempt at smearing a person that has no education on missiles or rockets and how he explained what he saw.
            That makes your comments suggestive and questionable from the start and will continue to be held with a high degree of skepticism.

            Fare thee well

          • correction –
            ‘To this point, I have yet to see your initial comment being to attempt to discredit someone who is not a rocket scientist describing what he saw in terms he knows.’

            should read –
            To this point, I see your initial comment as opinion and being a blatant attempt to discredit someone who is not a rocket scientist describing what he saw in terms he knows.
            That is all it is is an attack on a person that is not educated in rocket technology and described it as best the could.
            I am sure a rocket scientist or BUK operator could have described exactly to your approval of what he saw.
            This person did the best they could with the words and knowledge they had.
            That is all it was, was a biased discrediting opinionated attack.
            Typical attack very similar to those coming from 55 Savushkina Street.

            Fare thee well

        • dual pulse,burns in segments,quite common

        • Missile engine just have same filling but different grain geometry.
          So missile have two-modes engine.

          • Thank you AD, there are a lot of similar English words to describe an event by an observer that is not versed in missile fuel design might use.
            Although in all actuality it is as both you and Mr. Wood and various articles and images linked describe.

            Fare thee well
            Someone may call it a two stage rocket to describe what they observe, but in all actuality it is a solid one type fuel that has different burn rates due to various geometric patterns.

  4. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=755_1426119115
    Launch 00:44
    IntoClouds 00:50
    Launch smoke is very faint 01:00

    I wonder if anything is left to be photographed after minute or two!!!
    It would be interesting to see videos and photos of BUK launch smoke 2 minutes after launch.

    • +So if clouds would have been similar above the village of “Red October”, the missile would go into cloud on the same second the sound is heard, coming from the “bellingcat” launch site. (Into clouds after 6s…7s flight time, launch bang has travelled 1800m..2200m from launch site)

  5. Excellent points – not to mention that the trail has a rather limited diameter from what I can see. I suppose it could be seen for a while still some hundred meters away. But all the way from Aleynikov’s flat…? And for how long? There’s something strange about that picture. Or, simply put, perhaps it just doesn’t show a trail from a BUK launch.

    • Smoke width might be ok.
      IMO light grey smoke is BUK smoke or photoshop photoshop BUK smoke.

      • Note that on your picture the width of the 8m@2.5km box is not twice the width of the 8m@5km box (I am talking about image widths that you’d measure in pixels), while it should be. It’s rather like 3.7 times.

        • Yeah, I did not have distances at hand, just took visual estimate from image.
          According to Ole, the buildings are far closer than I thought and therefor smoke looks way too wide to be at 10+km from photographer.
          If trail is real, origin is a lot more to left and a lot closer. (even when taking into account that wind has brought the trail a little closer)

      • sotilaspassi:

        The barn you have at a distance of 2.5km actually is only 820m away from Aleynikov’s flat, at least that is what I measure in google earth. I also measure the width of its gable wall as 11m in GE. The alleged launch site is 12300m away, that is 15 times further away than the barn. So the angular width of the barn’s *gable wall* (which is less than the green rectangle in your pic) equals to 11m at the barn’s distance and to 15*11m=165m at the distance of the alleged launch site.

        That fits well with a diameter of 80-100m of that plume thing in the photo. From the pics and videos I watched I too wouldn’t expect a BUK launch plume to become wider than 20m.

        • Yeah, it was just hasty meas. More like example idea to start to analyze the smoke width.

          “actually is only 820m away from Aleynikov’s flat”
          Then I consider launch site to be far closer than 12300m or the smoke is a “photoshop”.
          (wind has moved the smoke most likely a little towards photographer, but not “many kilometers”)

          1) If I would be in control of RU made tracked device, I move it as little as possible after taking it down from low loader.
          2) If I would be in control of unique 30ton piece of extremely pricey metal, I would not run it over fields and ditches for risking it to dive to mud & get stuck.

          But IMO: if warhead is from BUK, launch location is south from Snizhne, but possibly closer to Torez than the “bellingcat” location.

  6. This is kind of a generic post, but it includes some info that may be relevant to BUK and request of fins that detached after destruction, among other things.

    First site where some videos of BUKs that might not have been seen by everyone.
    This launch is interesting and I believe you hear the warheads detonation

    Next would be relating to the fins that sotilaspassi asked for.
    First site, a crate with two of the fins mounted, note they are bigger then the crate when installed. Also interesting is the optical sensor is called a Karat which I did not know.
    Also a link to a Soviet technical military manuals for the Optical Senor operation and a large group of others sensors.
    Shows it is not so easy to learn to fire a BUK and interpret everything, ie you do not send a miner out to use it.

    Second a video of missile prep. It is for a KUB not a BUK, but I believe procedures would be similar, around 9:30 is the relevant part.

    Next would be a site with some HD images of a UK at parade, I know this is M2 missile, but it shows the detail and I expect it would be similar on M1 and M1-2.

    A forum that lists a lot of the parts of a BUK supply chain.
    Maybe by looking for the repair and maintenance unit number you can find some other items you are looking for sotilaspassi.
    forum page 2 and 3 hold some interesting facts too.

    And finally, one of the images that helped me to for my belief in what most likely happened that outraged me.

    Fare thee well

Leave a Reply to sotilaspassi Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.