You want more evidence ?
ARH seeker for 9M317 was ready by 2009 :
Don’t even know what you are trying to argue at this point and im afraid you don’t either …
1 Like
You said 9M317M is ARH. I asked for proof. That is what I want.
The fact 9M38A and 9M317A existed does not mean 9M317M is ARH.
9M317MA that gaijin added would be the correct designation for a ARH seeker equipped 9M317M, but it’s existence has not been confirmed by anything as of now.
3 Likes
My dude, they’ve been making ARH seekers even for 9M38 yet somehow you doubt that 9M317M gets one … 9M38A is not official designation nor is 9M317A nor is 9M317MA .
Your own book you posted above says 9M317A, and then 9M317MAE.
That is not a book , it is a business report from Almaz-Antey ≠ official designation.
Notice that the report only talks about 9M317M not 9M317MA yet they mention 9M317ME and 9M317MAE for export variant which means there is no differentiation for the domestic 9M317M , it comes with ARH .
1 Like
Quite sure Almaz Antey designation would be a official one.
Different explanation. M and ME are SARH. ARH was not considered for domestic usage, but was considered as an option to gather export customers.
Nope , Almaz - Antey is just a manufacturer , it’s the Russian MOD that distributes official designations
after trials and acceptance into service !
I’ve never heard of an “ARH” 9M38, especially since it was phased out of service on Buk after Buk-M1-2/M2 w/ 9M317 came into the limelight, even then the only ARH 9M317/317M missile I’ve heard testing of was 9M317A for Buk-M1-2/M2.
Irl Buk-M3 uses 9M317M in active service, which is an SARH, in game we’re getting the totally real and in service 9M317MA, which is the ARH one obviously
Oh Devil posted this above, whatever
5 Likes
The missile mentioned in that brochure is 9M317ME ≠ 9M317M .
So please read the entire thread before replying , there is a lengthy discussion , not going to repeat myself.
From the brief skim, I’m assuming you’re saying 9M317ME is downgraded from 9M317M? the latter being ARH compared to the former being SARH? If so, then is there any proof of 9M317ME being a downgraded version of 9M317M?
1 Like
Do you guys just discover that export variants are most of the time downgraded or what gives ?
By the way we can both play this game , is there any proof that 9M317MA is an official designation …
Anyways i won’t go any longer into semantics about the naming , it is irrelevant to this thread which concerns the TAR and the combat disposition of BUK-M3 , unless there is something else you guys want to report ?
Just replace the M3 with the M2 anyways. They don’t need a 70km missile.
is there any proof that 9M317MA is an official designation
Seeing as the proposed ARH version of 9M317ME is called “9M317MAE”, I’d say it’s safe to assume.
Do you guys just discover that export variants are most of the time downgraded or what gives ?
And like, yeah but there’s a decent chunk of cases where that’s not the case with Russia… So why assume one over the other…
I did already respond to that argument
1 Like
Obviously export versions are worse. Do you just want buk m3 to get nerfed
Do i want it nerfed? Not so much.
Do i want proof 9M317M is ARH? Very much.
Does anyone know what’s the actual lock range on the actual missile seeker? Currently it’s 70km but shouldn’t that be way less? I don’t know if u can put a 70km active radar seeker easily in such missile?
70km or 40km it doesn’t matter. Iris and buk will both be the same against aircrafts
I have provided two sources on page 3 , you can see what the seeker looks like on both of them .