Also sorry. Never realized they removed those
i agree with this but also i have a suggestion for you, it would be amazing to do a poll asking for it to come with SHUT OFF IRCCM like many other missiles with the same technology, for example the PL-8B should have both IRCCM taking in count the technology it have IRL and yet it doesn´t in game, same with the PL-5E-II, AAM-3 got its IRCCM reported and the suggestion for both IRCCM got passed to devs soo… there are plenty of missiles already in game that are artifically nerfed i dont see how they cannot do the same with the Python-4 to add it, we are asking for something rasonable here and they can totally do that there is no impediment.
3 Likes
Well it doesn’t have to be me, why don’t you do it! I’m sure it’ll get plenty of attention, just make a post under this section, title it something like “it’s time to add the Python 4”, address to criticism and concerns and hold a poll or two and show an image of it in the files. This is an F-16I discussion thread tho, so a dedicated one for the P4 would be better off since it isn’t an F-16I exclusive.
2 Likes
but it can take them? just look at the swiss F18s that never ever used ground ordnance but they “are capable” of using it so i don’t see why we wouldn’t add them (i know why, it cant be monetized as much)
1 Like
Sadly we don’t know if it can. The F-16I uses a new radar, different from that of the Barak IIs which gaijin allowed the derby for. It’s of the same series but has improvements and differences. The image shared earlier gives me hope, as it appears to be a Derby on a F-16I after all, but I want to look into it further just incase. What I really want to know is if it’s an I-Derby or reg Derby.
And as for the Swiss Hornet, although they didn’t use those weapons, compatibility was retained, unlike with the finish F-18 Hornet which had its A2G systems removed. That was enough for gaijin it seems.
A similar case is the newly being added F-5TH TCU, which although it never used the derby, the missile was known to be integrated as a part of the upgrade.
Eh it’s still a proof of concept, they use the same mounting and similar software so it’s a possibility, personally I’m not fussed since I prefer the AMRAAM as an all-rounder anyway
Also the swiss hornets have never seen any 9L/Ms near it and definetly no Aim7s so yeah, also why would it not retain the possibility to use Derbys and Python3s? its standardized Nato weaponry and was used on its predecessor so unless some engineers were like: yeah f those older missiles in particular but lets retain the possibility to use the 9L, just doesn’t make much sense. Like be consistent with the standards, why give weaponry that was never used to some but not to others, especially when it would be an overall net positive to add more variety (also the domestically designed F16I not getting any Israeli missiles is kind of a big L)
1 Like
Well there’s nothing to retain, since it’s a newly ordered Block 52+. The ones we have ingame are Block 40s which use a different radar, the AN/APG-68(V)5, while the Sufa uses the AN/APG-68(V)9 which is quite different despite the name.
So true, quite sad really…
Well it’s still an ugraded version of an existing radar, same as the V3 to V5, it’s a still a Nato Radar, the I Derby ER was implemented, there’s literally nothing indicating it can’t use them, it’s just gaijin not wanting to add them because of… reasons… And let’s be real even if it theoretically has never had them implemented, the Mig29s have the R27ER, the new gen russian Jets have a bunch of guided Air to Ground ordnance that was never properly implemented, the IRIS-T SLM only gets access to the SL which afaik was never implemented either… there’s a bunch of examples of ignoring muh realism for the sake of “balancing”
I’m a ground crew technician for the F-16I in active service. I made a post on the WT community page pointing out every inaccuracy on the in-game model ( Community Bug Reporting System ). I really hope they take it seriously and fix what I pointed out, I even offered to personally help the devs with making sure the in-game model is as accurate as possible to the real aircraft since I work on these planes day and night.
Sadly I don’t have access to fly the F-16I in game or look at its cockpit from first person view so I don’t know how accurate the cockpit is in-game to the real life counterpart but I could also assist the devs with that as well if it is possible
3 Likes
That’s not the case. The V9 is an evolution, and quite different despite being of the same series. Furthermore, Derby integration isn’t as simple as being NATO compatible. The Derby needs to be directly integrated into the radar meant to use it. As far as we know, that isn’t the case with the F-16I.
There’s nothing indicating it can sadly, which is what gaijin needs.
Yeah they ain’t supposed to lmao. Those required integration as well. Me when double standards…
I can get you cockpit images when I get home. But it’s worth noting cockpit are expensive to modify or have made, meaning if it isn’t accurate it could take awhile for them to fix it (or it could never happen).
1 Like
I really hope that my little Gif that i made gets spreed along the forums 🙏 also keep it up with the reports on our boy
1 Like
Also bad news, this is indeed a F-16D of the 109 squadron, I had a friend confirm it for me. The “CFT” is actually the spine. (According to him the pylon even says “Barak”) Rip…
1 Like
How’s the SPICE-250?
Haven’t gotten the pleasure of testing it. From what I can tell, I’d assume it’d play as a GBU-39 with the Spice-1000/2000 guidance system (since it’s copy paste for some reason).
1 Like
Ah so that’s your ign lmao, wanted to tag you but didn’t know it. I’ll add it now ;)
Yeah, shame, although with a python 4, it negates the real need for Derby since it fills that close to medium range gap the derby excels in, while the AMRAAM (B models should be added) is for long range and difficult targets
2 Likes
If only they fixed the 120C-5 so it wasn’t a downgrade