That statement is per your sources incorrect. They say the seeker is designed to fit Surface to air missiles. Not that it does, these are not the same things. Nowehre do they say they are fitted to 9M317M. That is the main issue (not website, the agat releases).
1 Like
State owned sadly does not meet the acceptance criteria. These website have to be either Manufacturer websites, or Government websites that release their statements.
Nope , you just need to read :
Russian Arms and Technology ( military academic literature ) :
Almaz-Antey report :
Both primary sources ( yes the literature is primary source since as stated all information in the literature come from MOD or manufacturers of the systems ) are unequivocal: ARH is definitively mounted on ground-to-air missiles, not ‘possibly’, not ‘conditionally’, but is.
So either you’re deliberately ignoring the facts and clinging to 4D mental gymnastics like claiming the 9M317 ( or older ) uses ARH, yet somehow the 9M317M doesn’t or you’re simply coming to terms with reality.
Either way works for me, won’t loose my sleep over it XD. Anyways, i’ve said and proved more than enough on this subject. Im still waiting for proofs of the opposite though , we are 200 pages in and have yet to put my eyes on anything more than thin air …
Encyclopedia
Yes, it says 317 A variant was equipped with ARH seeker. Qute sure it was the 9B-1103M, but it is not openly said here.
The main point is, where does it say 9M317M is equipped with it?
Show me where is it?
You cant just say here is a random seeker, and it must be on that missile. My source for it is, that this seeker can be mounted on surface to air missiles.
A+B does not make E. Thats not how it works.
Just a reminder for everyone, these sources are supposed to prove beyond doubt 9M317M was equipped with ARH missile, I request to be pointed to the part saying it
1 Like
you are posting evidence that a different missile was trialed with an ARH seeker and saying that it proves anything?
and again that only references trials not that it entered production/service
1 Like
Trials are good enough for gaijin, problem is that it is for an entirely different missile
if trials were good enough where is my AIM-95?
1 Like
Yeah and ?
You are confused :
A) Agat states that 9B1103M family of missiles has been used on GtA missiles and the new longer range seeker ( which we know to be Slanets form the image ) is used on GtA missiles .
B) Military acedemic literature states that Slanets ( same seeker as on Agat document ) is used on GtA missiles .
C) Almaz Antey states that 9M317 ( 9M317M direct predecessor ) has complited trials with ARH seeker.
So A+B+C = D my friend not E … it’s called logical reasoning. So don’t get confused, if you want to challenge the logical reasoning is up to you to provide evidence of the opposite.
About time you start providing something more substial than opinions !
So does anyone other than me sees an issue with this
It all just an assumption, isnt it?
8 Likes
So you have nothing but opinions to offer it’s ok i take it . Have a nice one !
yep, all based on assumption made in non official sources
u get 16xjagm-mr when only 1 was tested irl.
No. At least one seems to be what we consider official in game.
yes with lots of documented evidence that JAGM-MR is compatible with JAGM launch systems which are themselves identical to hellfire rails
wont change the fact that it only had 1 trial. u were asking about aim95. when jagm-mr is in the same situation.
Posted earlier on Reddit, oh boy
2 Likes
Wrong thread
Good to see that the Buk’s telephone pole sized missile can pull more AOA than the AIM-9X.
5 Likes
Its spinning out of control because of the thrust vectoring issues