Am I correct those stats being quoted are for the Buk-M2 9K317 not the Buk-M3 9K317M?
Looking at the Rosoboron website the performance stats match the Buk-M2 9K317E:
https://roe.ru/en/production/protivovozdushnaya-oborona/zenitnye-raketnye-kompleksy-i-ustanovki/zenitnye-raketnye-kompleksy-sistemy-sredney-dalnosti/buk-m2e/?theme=theme-brown
Compared to the more modern Buk-M3 Viking 9K317ME which lists no minimum range:
https://roe.ru/en/production/protivovozdushnaya-oborona/zenitnye-raketnye-kompleksy-i-ustanovki/zenitnye-raketnye-kompleksy-sistemy-sredney-dalnosti/viking/?theme=theme-brown
I also notice the minimum engagement range is not listed on the 9K317 for targets at or below 300 m/s closure rate and is 3km for targets closing at 830 m/s
Also the rotation speed of the launchers is absolutely ridiculous
Well that’s one way to fix their shitty thrust vectoring
There’s no min range for buk m3 for what I can tell
https://roe.ru/en/production/protivovozdushnaya-oborona/zenitnye-raketnye-kompleksy-i-ustanovki/zenitnye-raketnye-kompleksy-sistemy-sredney-dalnosti/viking/?theme=theme-brown
The min range for sure is not listed there, but so is on many other brochures. And it must have some kind of a min range. It is unknown as of now, but no missile has 0 min range.
I’m not trying to say it’s 0, rather that it’s likely that it’s not the same 2.5 km of the older m2 system
M2 had 3km. 2.5 is listed around for M3
Where did you min range for the missile? Ig I had them mixed up, roe website?
Grammar died.
Either way, 3km is on roe website, while I have not seen any official 2.5km claim for M3, it is listed around on 3rd party sources.
For example this info graphic
I’m all for shitting on goofy accidents. But I’m pretty sure that wasn’t a bu but a kub. That’s the reporting at the time
No such thing as no minimum range
How the hell is a 700KG missile acting like a pre fix SRAAM and then hitting its target WTAF
Clearly superior russian enjiniring comrade.
Western missile can not comapre
580* kg missile. i think they messed up something with its tvc values hope they fix this , as of now we cant report anything about the missile cus they dont accept any sources on the 9M317M or 9M317ME .
its decently maneuverable irl. idk what they’ll do.
lol, gotta love how they make up a missile so you cant bug report their precious vehicles
as if that makes it better, thats half the weight of my car pulling a billion G forces
so just like the KH38MT gaijin generates a fake missile that nobody can bug report as theres no documents on it, because its fake
cant really say how many Gs its pulling without using sensor view. well kh38mt is more real than 9M317MA as there is atleast 1 pic of kh38mt. there is nothing officially stated abt the 9M317MA , i think there is 9M317A but thats different (its the 700kg missile based on the previous model) ) . but then again none of the sources explicitly state that 9M317M is a sarh missile.
*two photos of a model and nothing more
Either way if theres not enough info to actually confirm a weapon exists or existed it should never have been added and be removed for a real counterpart
from what i saw in sensor view so far , the missile was pulling crazy aoa like 70* (which is obviously wayy too much) but it still wasnt pulling more than 30-35Gs.
