I’m wondering why the Barak 1 doesn’t get the Derby on the devserver despite being able (to my knowledge) and I wish to suggest that it does. I found this on the Rafael website and I wonder if anyone has documentation regarding the mounting of the Derby.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/HgxI7cJleCiR
Missing Derby report
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/mmL5kG7bjrdW
Missing Python-4 report
It should hopefully get the Derby, as the plane was compatible with it. And yes this is the F-16C Barack II, as it’s the F-16C Block 40 which they designated the Barack II, with the Barack I being the F-16C block 30 iirc. And leave it to gaijin to give us the worse of the two, as the Barack I has better flight performance… who could have guessed…
Also, I believe the Israeli F-16Cs don’t have the dorsal spines if I’m not mistaken, that’s the F-16I and F-16D only I believe, but feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.
Yep, only the I and D have dorsal spines. I have no clue why Gaijin consistently gives Israel the bad versions of everything, I propose that we ask Gaijin to upgrade the Barak I to the Barak II standard so that we avoid another Baz Meshupar situation.
Voted same issue on both!
The F-16C is missing the 9X too
9X isnt in the files and is wayy too good for the game rn. Imagine an R-73 with a Stinger seeker and the range of a sparrow.
by the numbers we can confirm that is block 40 even rn its calld barak 2 and not just barak (the barak 2 is the 40s, the just barak ones is block 30) so yes derby indeed. but python 4… i wish we can touch some new ir missiles…
hope gaijin would see and hear us! WE NEED DERBY ON THIS!
And the Python 4 is not to advanced. Wasn’t it like 50g’s and uv and “shuteye” irccm
i Agree
it’s not like the US really needs the 9X regardless, if anything they should just get later 9M blocks, the pressing issue in this thread is derby regardless
iirc, it gets dual band IRCCM and 50g with a pretty big off boresite, but it’s not the first time the israelis have had the best missile in game due to a python 🤷♂️
lets not forget the fact that the PL-5E-II that the J-10 and the JF-17 got it have the IRCCM of the TY-90 IRL soo… a report was made and it got passed to devs yesterday, soo… i dont know you guys but that missile is not finished right now but when it gets finished it would be damn scary taking in count his speed and acceleration + that IRCCM! the PL-5E-II and Python-4 IRCCM would be cool.
@x-GeeNo_MS-x
Im confused by this reply under your Derby report. Does that mean AIM-120 will be removed from IAF F-16C? I dont really get if he’s agreeing with us on this and AIM-120 will be removed or if its something else
YES, i talk about them on the diffrent conv
good to know that im not alone here!
edit: heheheheh Popeye heheheh
i don’t see how that’s related to what i said 🧐
sounds lik ehtey’re yapping about how it doesnt get a target illuminator or datalink or some shit like that, yet they gave 16D ARH already so it just doolally speak
F-16D used Derby at some point so its fully justifed. F-16C carrying AIM-120 tho is just fantasy
Sorry for the late answer i was on my job, talking about the report: yes it means that the AIM-120 would be removed from the F-16C Block 40, it should not be there in the first time AIM-120 and AIM-9M are completly fictional, like he said the first operational F-16 in IAF service with AMRAAMs was the SUFA, and the first F-15 to recive AMRAAMs was the F-15I Ra´am, and later the modernized F-15A/B, C/Ds, the Historical loadout of the F-16C Barak II Block 40 should be AIM-9Ls, Python-4 and if they want the Derby too because the evidence is there.
