As per title here is a thread regrouping all the inaccuracies on BUK-M3 :
any info on if the missiles is SARH or ARH
9M317M is ARH , last SARH was 9M317 of the BUK-M2 system but ARH seekers have existed even for them or the old 9M38 missile of the BUK-M1-2 standard.
As you can see per Agat documentation their ARH seekers of the 9B1103M family and Slanets family which supposedly is the nickname for the 9B1103M2 family of seekers are universal and come in a range of diameters in order to adapt to both AtA and GtA missiles .
Bro, I think you are mistaken. Are you saying that the dev server using 9S18M (BUK-M2 generation) is wrong because “BUK-M3 has a new radar 9S36B ‘Viking’ as TAR”?
But the problem is that 9S36/9S36M is not TAR; it is a TELAR (combat radar)-mounted fire control/illumination radar, not the battalion’s 360° target acquisition and reconnaissance radar. With the BUK-M3, the reconnaissance radar (TAR) that Russian documents list is the 9S18M3 (and in fact the BUK-M3 unit in the field also comes with the 9S18M1-3), not the 9S36.
It is true that the “Viking” export side introduced the new TAR 9S38E, but that does not make the 9S18M1-3 “wrong” because the M3 is compatible and often uses it.
Nope read again the report .
Which is what i said in my repord. Yes BUK-M3 remains compatible with units from older standards like for example 9A316 TEL , or entirely different AA units like the Tor-M2 / S300 etc … so saying BUK-M3 is compatible is irrelevant , the point is it does not represent the standard.
9S18M1-2 was used by the BUK-M1-2 standard.
9S18M1-3 was used by the BUK-M2 standard .
So having the BUK-M3 with the older standard radar just doesn’t make sense even though it is indeed possible .
Interesting.
Sadly, you did not provide any proof, excluding you saying it is.
Also interesting that even the brochure you posted keeps mentionin Illumination and Guidence Radar (IGR). Surely ARH would not need the SARH illummnation.
Another interesting relation
9M317M is ARH per what you say
9M317ME is SARH
and what gaijin added 9M317MA is ARH, with the A standing in active, according to the standard russian naming scheme.
I am afraid you need to read again , there are two documents one from Agat and the other from Russian military academia specifically stating that a new seeker with 70km range is used on both AtA and StA missiles ( showing you a BUK system no less ) and even showing what the seeker looks like on both documents !
The only interesting thing i find here is that you act as if you have any clue … I am glad i can educate you,
9S36M is called an illumination and Guidance radar because it is supposed to work with a group of two TEL , which unlike the TELAR don’t have an onboard radar .
Unless you forgot 9M317M missile has both IOG and DL so this is where the DL is coming from, as you can see for yourself 9S36M doesn’t only ‘‘illuminate’’ :
So effectively it does what the Viking radar does on the TELAR but albeit while being more optimised for extremely low flying targets .
Hope this clears your confusion!
Cool that it is used, but it would need to specify the missiles. I can also say that this seeker is used in a unspecified SAM. That is by no means proof that 9M317M is ARH.
I am aware what IGR, or rather TIGR like it is called now, does. Sure, it can be used with the older system. I also know SPFU has the exact same radar.
I know it provides DL, that is why we got SPFUs in game, as without them missiels would be dumb.
But now, why does these radars are still kept as primary illumination mode, and are offered as such to a customer, that can very well not have a older system.
And finally.
Im afraid you are again confused !
9M317ME is the export version of 9M317M . What i said was that the last SARH was the 9M317 which is this missile here :
Please do not confuse them !
Please tell me where exactly does that brochure state that 9M317M is SARH ?
Yes and now tell me for what missile that is ?
9M317M(E) EXPORT MISSILE …
So, what you want to say to me here, that they make the ME version SARH, while the base M is ARH. And there is exactly 0 proof of that, just them saying we put ARH seekers in SAM missiles?
No what i am saying here is that is it is public knowledge export customers get downgraded products.
Which is what im killing myself to tell you , don’t confuse export with domestic variants …
Per Agat even older 9B1103M family of seekers was used on StA missiles :
Now if you are here to tell me that you know better than the company that makes the seeker … well i will leave you adventure alone on the slippery slope .
But what StA missiles. You would need to prove that it is used on exactly 9M317M.
You think if i come and say, This ARH seeker is used on a StA missiles, does this make the missile not mentioned in that document have it?
And to make this clear: Designed to fit =/= it was fit to anything.
But lets try something else. What missile does Shtil-1 system uses, 9M317M or 9M317ME
As old as 9M38
Yes, 9M38 has confirmed ARH trials. However, does this mean 9M317 and 9M317M did?
Would putting ARH seeker in a AIM-7E make AIM-7M ARH?
