Suggestions for Python 3 for Israel

[BearHasLanded 44]

Now that China has received the PL-8 I think it's reasonable to talk about Israel getting the Python 3.

 

Now as far as I am aware in game there are currently 4 aircraft that carried the Python 3 or at least could carry the Python 3 these being;

• Kfir C.2

• Kfir C.7

• F-4E Kurnass 2000

• F-16A Netz

 

As far as these aircraft go I could see all of them reasonably getting access to the Python 3

 

Starting with the Kfir C.2 I find it strange that as a direct upgrade to the Kfir Canard it sits at the exact same BR now the Kfir Canard I don't believe ever carried Python 3s whereas the C.2 did, this gives a great opportunity to bump the C.2 up to 11.0 putting it in with the top tiers with 2 very capable missiles while not letting it dominate 10.0 - 11.0 games thanks to it's limited quantity of those missiles and seeing as some Russian 11.0 aircraft have access to 6 R-60Ms I feel that this is a fair compromise.

 

Now the Kfir C.7 is already sitting at 11.3 whilst lacking any of the normal characteristics of an aircraft at that BR those being at least one of;

• Pulse doppler radar + Fox 1s
• All-aspect fox 2s
• Laser/TV Guided Bombs/AGMs

IRL the Kfir C.7 upgrades came after Israel acquired F-16s and F-15s and so the Kfir took on much more of a strike role using guided bombs, however in game the C.7 is in the fighter line of Israeli aircraft it would be reasonable for it to receive Python 3s to make is viable at it's current BR or potentially move it up to 11.7 if 10.3 - 11.3 is a worry.

 

Now the Kurnass 2000 is personally of least concern as it already has access to 4 x AIM-9L and 4 x AIM-7F along with an extensive array of air to ground ordinance however it would also be odd to have better missiles available for earlier aircraft in the same roll, it may be the case then that the Python 3 take up the same space as the wing mounted AIM-7s as they are considerably bigger than AIM-9s and so the aircraft would only be able to carry 2 Pythons instead of 4 AIM-9s as well as not carrying any other suspended weaponry on those pylons either way it did carry Python 3s and so it should be considered in game

 

Finally the F-16A Netz, now currently the Israelis are the only nation with an F-16 that can't carry AIM-7s, therefore to bring the Netz up to the same level as the MLU or ADF in terms of air to air combat the inner most wing pylon could be given the option for the Python 3 instead, this way the aircraft comes up to standard in air to air combat whilst not changing it's capabilities in ground battle as the Python 3 would occupy the same rail as the AGM-65s meaning you would have to pick one or the other.

 

I think this way the Python 3 could be implemented to Israel, bringing something unique to their top tier lineup whilst hopefully not shifting the top tier balance of power too significantly.

[A_Random_Rin 104]

I support Kurnass 2000, F16A Netz and Kfir C7, these should have access to Python3 without BR issue.

However, Kfir C2 is in a really tough spot, it should stay at that BR imo. (Give it Python3 will inevitably increase its BR)

Edited May 22 by Nonstop_Orga

[GenOfGames07 15]

nah gaijin need the money from people buying the J-7 to grind

[DoktorBOB117 41]

9 hours ago, BearHasLanded said:

 

Finally the F-16A Netz, now currently the Israelis are the only nation with an F-16 that can't carry AIM-7s, therefore to bring the Netz up to the same level as the MLU or ADF in terms of air to air combat the inner most wing pylon could be given the option for the Python 3 instead, this way the aircraft comes up to standard in air to air combat whilst not changing it's capabilities in ground battle as the Python 3 would occupy the same rail as the AGM-65s meaning you would have to pick one or the other.

 

or just give the Netz 4 of the Python 3. there are Pictures of a Netz carrying 4 of these. 2 on the wing tips on 2 on the middle pylons. 
Easy as that! 

[ミーナ 415]

Imo the Kfir C2 shouldn't get the python. It's fine at 10.7 and it shouldn't be moved up. The Kfir C7 really needs it though, its just not viable anymore.

The Kurnass 2000 is fine at its current battle rating, if it got pythons it would go up in BR which would make it basically worse in every aspect. Netz does need them though, the lack of ranged missiles and the AIM-9L being less than ideal plus the lack of its full countermeasure pods is really annoying

[A_Random_Rin 104]

Just saying, you do realize Python3 as current stands simply has less effective range than Lima, don't you? It's more like being a middle one between Magic 2 and AIM9L

[DoktorBOB117 41]

And less range equals worse? You trade range with speed and maneuverability. Also the shorter burn time helps getting kills since the smoke trail is shorter + the red "diamond" is also quicker to dissipate. 
 

and they do have quite the range. Yes they don’t burn for so long but they speed up way faster to an even greater max speed than the 9L. So yes, i rather fly around with 4 P3s than 6 9L (or 2 9Ls & 4 P3s) ("like" the load out on the J-8F)

Edited May 22 by DoktorBOB117

[A_Random_Rin 104]

1 hour ago, DoktorBOB117 said:

And less range equals worse? You trade range with speed and maneuverability. Also the shorter burn time helps getting kills since the smoke trail is shorter + the red "diamond" is also quicker to dissipate. 
 

and they do have quite the range. Yes they don’t burn for so long but they speed up way faster to an even greater max speed than the 9L. So yes, i rather fly around with 4 P3s than 6 9L (or 2 9Ls & 4 P3s) ("like" the load out on the J-8F)

That's really some personal preference out there. For me, range really matters.

Just point out some facts, which you might wanna check again.

Does Python accelerate faster than AIM9L? Yes. However, there's a thing called missile MAX speed, and you don't fire your missiles at 0 speed. Guess what, both Lima and Python3 have the exact MAX speed of 1000m/s. That means, as long as you fire you missile with some average speed, their accelerations don't really matter that much.

Then the weight, Python is way more heavier than sidewinders, almost twice even after all motors burn out. Together with its large fins, Pythons will simply lose speed much quicker compare to sidewinders.
Last, the guidance time, another factor for effective range, sidewinders have way more longer guidance time than Magics or Pythons.

 

Back to the maneuverability, if you really think it matters a lot, R60M is the king then. And ppl hate it for a reason...

Shorter burn time indeed makes missile invisible quicker thus make it more dangerous. But still, with limited effective range, you can't do much if your target notices you since you have to get close enough then pop some flares. Python3 is so flare hungry at the moment, even R60M outclass it.

 

So generally speaking, P3 is a better Lima within 2.5KM, but worse beyond that. (Testing with both planes flying at 0.95Mach, without using flares)

Don't get me wrong, I said I do support P3 for Israel at the very beginning. Those planes can have a various choice between maneuverability and range.

The real advantage is the helmet mounted sight imo

Edited May 22 by Nonstop_Orga

[_YellowJacket_ 151]

I'd personally like to see them on the Kfir C.7 and the Netz. 

Bump C.7 to 11.7 and its going to be fine with 4 Python 3s. Still not going to be an amazing jet, but its going to be decent - especially because 11.3, 11.7 and 12.0 might aswell be the same BR as far as the matchmaker is concerned.

Netz, while being plenty capable, definitely could get the Pythons and extra flares it should have, which would actually make it a unique jet and not just a copy-paste of the US Block 10, without making it overpowered in any way. Its fine without the Pythons (but please add the extra flares....) but the Kfir C.7 definitely should get them. 

I think Kurnass is fine, its a Phantom anyway that's going to be absolutely slammed if any "true" top tier jet wants it to die and the Pythons aren't going to change much for it. 
Kfir C.2 shouldnt get them and should stay 10.7, overall better for the plane imo. Yes its better than the Kfir Canard, but its not that much better that would make it do well at 11.0 with 2 Pythons. Also keep in mind a 11.0 can still face jets that dont have flares.

As far as using the Pythons on the dev server was going, they're essentially just a mix between a Aim-9L and a Magic 2; definitely the 2nd best IR missile (Sorry but R24T still reigns supreme) in the game, but nothing revolutionary. 

On another note, I'd really like to see the Pythons (PL-8) on the J7E with a bump to 11.7 too please. Not that the J7E is in any way a bad jet or missing capability right now, but it would be more fun to play.

 

Edited May 22 by _YellowJacket_

[BearHasLanded 44]

20 minutes ago, Nonstop_Orga said:

That's really some personal preference out there. For me, range really matters.

Just point out some facts, which you might wanna check again.

Does Python accelerate faster than AIM9L? Yes. However, there's a thing called missile MAX speed, and you don't fire your missiles at 0 speed. Guess what, both Lima and Python3 have the exact MAX speed of 1000m/s. That means, as long as you fire you missile with some average speed, their accelerations don't really matter that much.

Then the weight, Python is way more heavier than sidewinders, almost twice even after all motors burn out. Together with its large fins, Pythons will simply lose speed much quicker compare to sidewinders.
Last, the guidance time, another factor for effective range, sidewinders have way more longer guidance time than Magics or Pythons.

 

Back to the maneuverability, if you really think it matters a lot, R60M is the king then. And ppl hate it for a reason...

Shorter burn time indeed makes missile invisible quicker thus make it more dangerous. But still, with limited effective range, you can't do much if your target notices you since you have to get close enough then pop some flares. Python3 is so flare hungry at the moment, even R60M outclass it.

 

So generally speaking, P3 is a better Lima within 2.5KM, but worse beyond that. (Testing with both planes flying at 0.95Mach, without using flares)

The real advantage is the helmet mounted sight imo

You kinda have to make the assumption though that Gaijin think the Python 3 is better, otherwise there is no reason for them not to put it on the aircraft that carried it, it’s been in the game files for a while now after all, if it’s a worse missile then where has it been?

[A_Random_Rin 104]

1 minute ago, BearHasLanded said:

You kinda have to make the assumption though that Gaijin think the Python 3 is better, otherwise there is no reason for them not to put it on the aircraft that carried it, it’s been in the game files for a while now after all, if it’s a worse missile then where has it been?

Since the stats didn't change at all I would like to hold my cope for it. Just like me said, for isreal, have the option to choose between Lima and P3 is cool. And Kfir C7 desperately needs it. (I have the entire Isreal tech tree ground out so I know the feeling)

[BearHasLanded 44]

2 hours ago, ミーナ said:

Imo the Kfir C2 shouldn't get the python. It's fine at 10.7 and it shouldn't be moved up. The Kfir C7 really needs it though, its just not viable anymore.

The Kurnass 2000 is fine at its current battle rating, if it got pythons it would go up in BR which would make it basically worse in every aspect. Netz does need them though, the lack of ranged missiles and the AIM-9L being less than ideal plus the lack of its full countermeasure pods is really annoying

To be honest i’m fine with the C.2 not getting Pythons, i just feel that there needs to be some tangible difference between it and the Canard, if that means taking away the Canards AIM-9Gs and dropping it to 10.3 thats fine.

 

I only suggest that the C.2 getting pythons and a bump to 11.0 would arguably be less dangerous to 10.0 jets without flares than something like say, a Mig-23M with 2 x R-23T/Rs and 4 x R-60Ms, yes the missile is better but without countermeasures i think i’d rather face 2 amazing all aspect fox-2s over 6 good all aspect fox-2s.

 

But thats just my take on it.

[A_Random_Rin 104]

17 minutes ago, _YellowJacket_ said:

On another note, I'd really like to see the Pythons (PL-8) on the J7E with a bump to 11.7 too please. Not that the J7E is in any way a bad jet or missing capability right now, but it would be more fun to play.

Or add J7G with PL8 and HMS and put it at 11.7 instead, sounds better for me.

[_YellowJacket_ 151]

33 minutes ago, Nonstop_Orga said:

Does Python accelerate faster than AIM9L? Yes. However, there's a thing called missile MAX speed, and you don't fire your missiles at 0 speed. Guess what, both Lima and Python3 have the exact MAX speed of 1000m/s. That means, as long as you fire you missile with some average speed, their accelerations don't really matter that much.

Both will NEVER hit that 1000m/s max speed in a match anyways. The total acceleration of an Aim-9L in a vacuum is 819m/s, 876m/s for the Python. This means you have to be going rouchly 250m/s (~mach 0.75-ish)  initial speed in a vacuum for those to reach that speed; now add to that that you are, in fact not in a vacuum, but in really quite dense air (as most of air rb gameplay is typically happening below 1km altitude in WT) and that the missiles will also lose speed when maneuvering (obviously), plus the fact that jets are going to be goinf max. around mach 1.3 at those relevant altitudes, theres 0 chance any of them will reach 1000m/s.

Acceleration is one of the big factors that makes missiles in this game good, because it just denies reaction time to the target. Especially fast acceleration in combination with a short burn time, and long range (R24T and PL-5B are prime examples for this; espectially the R24T is still undisputably the best missile in the entire game) 

So yes, acceleration matters. 

However, the Pyhtons acceleration is not like PL-5B level or anything, its a quick missile, but nothing crazy. 

 

40 minutes ago, Nonstop_Orga said:

Then the weight, Python is way more heavier than sidewinders, almost twice even after all motors burn out. Together with its large fins, Pythons will simply lose speed much quicker compare to sidewinders.

This is true; especially because with the missile drag changes recently, missiles that have shorter burn times bleed more speed (except if they're massive missiles with very low drag). The absolute max range you can stretch the Python to is definitely a little less than the Aim-9L, especially at low alt. 

 

 

42 minutes ago, Nonstop_Orga said:

Back to the maneuverability, if you really think it matters a lot

Any missile thats like an Aim-9G or better is more than maneuverable enough to kill any target that its tracking 90% of the time anyways. 

A 9G now (after the lead guidance changes) is VERY hard to dodge withotu flaring if its in range, and essentially impossible to "accidentally" dodge it.

 

 

44 minutes ago, Nonstop_Orga said:

Python3 is so flare hungry at the moment, even R60M outclass it.

lol no, just no. The main factors for flare resistance in the game are the seeker FOV (smaller = more resistant to flares) and the ratio between rear aspect lock range and flare lock range. 
The Python has a 2.5° FOV (same as Magic 2, and pre-nerf old Aim-9L) a 11km rear aspect lock range, and a 11km flare detection range (1:1 is pretty standard for most missiles in the game). Its one of the most flare resistant IR missiles currently on planes (and generally I think IR missiles flare resistance right now is near perfect in terms of gameplay purposes; except the extreme inconsistency; one 9L ignores every flare, the next gets flared by a Phantom on full burner)
The R60M has a 5° FOV and also a 1:1 rear aspect/ flare lock ratio (7.4km); its flare resistance is VASTLY inferior. 

However, what you tend to do is launch R60s at very close ranges (because the missile doesnt have a lot of range to begin with) plus its also a relatively quick accelerating missile, giving generally not much time to react before the missile is too close to actually effectively flare it. 

[A_Random_Rin 104]

47 minutes ago, _YellowJacket_ said:

So yes, acceleration matters. 

However, the Pyhtons acceleration is not like PL-5B level or anything, its a quick missile, but nothing crazy. 

indeed that's in ideal condition, still, combine with your initial speed (which should be as fast as possible) and 2s longer burn time, Lima actually stays at high speed longer than P3. And P3 actually accelerates faster than PL5B, also has a slightly longer burn time.

47 minutes ago, _YellowJacket_ said:

Any missile thats like an Aim-9G or better is more than maneuverable enough to kill any target that its tracking 90% of the time anyways. 

A 9G now (after the lead guidance changes) is VERY hard to dodge withotu flaring if its in range, and essentially impossible to "accidentally" dodge it.

Exactly proved my point, maneuverability isn't that matter to kill a target. Navy sidewinders are one of my favorites, that's why I'd like to stick with range (cuz navy sidewinder has so much better aerodynamic desgins compare to the air force counterpart)

 

47 minutes ago, _YellowJacket_ said:

lol no, just no. The main factors for flare resistance in the game are the seeker FOV (smaller = more resistant to flares) and the ratio between rear aspect lock range and flare lock range. 

Not saying FoV isn't the main factor. However, a straight counter to this is the R60 and R60M. Both have exact seeker FoV and very very close detection range of flares. And they just perform very differently against flares+afterburning. IIRC, back in R73 chaos thread, there were datamines show very accurate numbers for each missile for flare resistance. And that's the determined factor between R60 and R60M. It's just not on the missile sheet.

 

Guidance time should also be noticed, like Lima gets 60s but P3 gets 20s (usually all short IR aam are close to it). So Lima actually has a long enough time to guide itself as long as it still has speed, note that 60s is as long as R27T. How to benefit from it then, do topdown attack with great speed thus great energy, usually you can get kills for 5-6km range and sometimes even further. Works extremely well for me. This also mitigates the air density to accelerate from the first place.

 

 

Edited May 22 by Nonstop_Orga

[_YellowJacket_ 151]

2 minutes ago, Nonstop_Orga said:

And P3 actually accelerates faster than PL5B, also has a slightly longer burn time.

It doesnt. Initital acceleration off the rail is 330m/s² for PL-5B, and 310m/s² for the Python; the total Δv being higher for the Python is only down to the longer burn + sustainer (total Δv is more of an indicator of the missile top speed it will hit than the acceleration), but the PL-5B acceleration is essentially unmatched (it almost accelerates 3x as fast as an Aim-9L). 

As far as R60 and R60M go, from my experience their performance vs flares is very similar. There may be another hidden variable to the flare resistance, but the FOV definitely plays a huge role.

9Ls are good, but all the long-range advantages really get mitigated by the fact that it burns for a very long time, and thus is very easy to see, and it cannot be point blank launched into people (like R60M) because its not fast enough off the rail. Its definitely one of the better missiles in the game, but since they're actually flareable now (normally) they're not really that much more effective than any other IR missile. 

[ミーナ 415]

1 hour ago, BearHasLanded said:

To be honest i’m fine with the C.2 not getting Pythons, i just feel that there needs to be some tangible difference between it and the Canard, if that means taking away the Canards AIM-9Gs and dropping it to 10.3 thats fine.

 

I only suggest that the C.2 getting pythons and a bump to 11.0 would arguably be less dangerous to 10.0 jets without flares than something like say, a Mig-23M with 2 x R-23T/Rs and 4 x R-60Ms, yes the missile is better but without countermeasures i think i’d rather face 2 amazing all aspect fox-2s over 6 good all aspect fox-2s.

 

But thats just my take on it.

Python is a beast, it does not deserve to be under 11.3

[BearHasLanded 44]

21 minutes ago, ミーナ said:

Python is a beast, it does not deserve to be under 11.3

I would also say the AIM-9L doesn't belong at 10.0 the fact is BR compression makes it really hard balance, i mean at 10.0 there are aircraft with no flares and at 12.0 you have the R-27ER, at 11.0 you can face both and that makes balance next to impossible, 2 x Python 3s would not break the game.

[ミーナ 415]

28 minutes ago, BearHasLanded said:

I would also say the AIM-9L doesn't belong at 10.0 the fact is BR compression makes it really hard balance, i mean at 10.0 there are aircraft with no flares and at 12.0 you have the R-27ER, at 11.0 you can face both and that makes balance next to impossible, 2 x Python 3s would not break the game.

You're right. AIM-9L doesn't belong at 10.0... But x2 Python 3 at 10.7 would be a lot more dangerous... a lot 

For context, Python 3 is going to be like the old PL-5B but all aspect and even more maneuverable 

Edited May 22 by ミーナ

[BearHasLanded 44]

2 minutes ago, ミーナ said:

You're right. AIM-9L doesn't belong at 10.0... But x2 Python 3 at 10.7 would be a lot more dangerous... a lot 

For context, Python 3 is going to be like the old PL-5B but all aspect and even more maneuverable 

I am suggesting the Kfir C.2 be given Python 3 and moved to 11.0 just for clarification, so it is separated from the Kfir Canard as right now they may as well be identical.

[ミーナ 415]

Okay that's fair. Tho I'd agree that it'd be better for the Kfir Cannard to lose its 9G and be moved down is a good idea

[Zucc_Boi 625]

4 hours ago, ミーナ said:

You're right. AIM-9L doesn't belong at 10.0... But x2 Python 3 at 10.7 would be a lot more dangerous... a lot 

For context, Python 3 is going to be like the old PL-5B but all aspect and even more maneuverable 

Okay and? Russian vehicles are typically 0.7 too low, some are even several full BRs too low (BMP-2M was a whole 2.0 too low on release!). So an Israeli vehicle (on average 0.3-0.7 too high) should be allowed to be competitive once in a while. 

The Python 3 has no IRCCM, and coincidentally the most vulnerable aircraft (slow ones) carry a lot of flares. The Kfir is also artificially limited to 2 AAMs in total.

Just decompress and let the Kfir stay at 10.7.

Edited May 22 by Zucc_Boi

[InterFleet 334]

Python 3 is actively being considered at the moment.

 

[IzumoKai54 204]

Why is it even being "considered"? You literally are about to give China the same exact missile, this shouldn't even be something that needs considered given the poor situation of top tier Israel. If China is going to get an aircraft that not only has the Python 3, but also SARH missiles on top of that then Israel also deserves the Python 3, and we don't even need it on the Kurnass 2000 right now, shoot, just put it on the Netz and/or Kfir C.7, aircraft that don't even get the option of BVR missiles in an extremely BVR dominant game.

[BearHasLanded 44]

38 minutes ago, IzumoKai54 said:

Why is it even being "considered"? You literally are about to give China the same exact missile, this shouldn't even be something that needs considered given the poor situation of top tier Israel. If China is going to get an aircraft that not only has the Python 3, but also SARH missiles on top of that then Israel also deserves the Python 3, and we don't even need it on the Kurnass 2000 right now, shoot, just put it on the Netz and/or Kfir C.7, aircraft that don't even get the option of BVR missiles in an extremely BVR dominant game.

There's no need to get mad at the guy, it being considered is good news, they probably want to see how it performs on the J8 first and make sure it isn't R-73 levels of OP and then roll it out into other aircraft when they're happy.