It has? I swear i have slammed planes on frontal aspect 9L shots at like 500m with the f20
You’re probably misremembering, I don’t think it changed in recent times
Datamine values proof this
EDIT: just checked history and looks like it was changed on version 2.30.0.15 (20 Oct, 2023) here’s the last commit where it was 0.5s like the other missiles
1 Like
must be that the missile just rammed it fast enough to kill it i think then, bc idk then
Just think the advantages of SARHs. Simply, two cases.
Case 1: 1v1 late game(not a common case btw). AIM-7s make BVR possible. ADF/MLU can throw a sparrow at 20km, and you should decide how to avoid being hit. Notch? You lose angles. Stick to ground? You lose height, and it depends on landform. Or just a simple fierce roll? You lose velocity, and you must SEE THE MSL. Finally you lose energy.
Some will say it’s not a significant advantage. Well, maybe.
Case 2: team fight. Without sparrows you must approach enemies to get kills, which makes you in a higher risk: information overload, being targeted easier, keep losing energy for continuous maneuver… As for ADF/MLUs, they’re usually safe enough to evade enemy radar-guided MSLs because of enough distance and reacting time. Much safer than earlier version, anyway.
I played Chinese F16A MLU, and sparrows contribute over half of my total kills. F16As won’t die easily with its great flying performance if pilots are cautious enough, but SARH-lessness makes this changed, because you’re going to give up something to kill enemies.
So, ADF/MLU shouldn’t be at same BR with earlier versions. If you think 0.4 BR difference is too much, i upvote decompression.
No he’s right, the Python 3 offers a significant advantage and capability that the regular F-16A lacks. It’s not the biggest advantage in the world, but it’s pretty nice and is what’s keeping it at 12.7 where it’s doing quite well for the most part. Ofc if they would finally triple its CM count, there would be yet another upside.
Alrighty thread, buckle up, education and Python 3 discussion time:
The Python 3 as many people know is a great missile, it features a great deal of range, acceleration, damage, and tracking capabilities. Notably, it features the same seeker as that found on the Aim-9L (you can see this in the games files). What sets it apart data-wise are three main things (in basic terms at least), the Motor, Fuze, and G-Load.
Firstly: It has a 40G G-Load, the Aim-9L does not.
HOWEVER, this isn’t immediatly effective in one certain area many people will try to use it for: firing off the rail. With its high acceleration, its G-Load is offset by the speed and distance it’s traveling, making its immediate turning curve almost identical to that of the Aim-9L off the rail. However, in a setting where it isn’t pulling off the rail, or pulls enough lead on the target, then that 40Gs will start to show. If there’s a maneuvering target, the Python 3 will be the better missile in that situation, easily.
Secondly (And Most Importantly): The Fuze.
In the files/datamines, you can see that the Aim-9L has a fuze delay of 1.8, meaning it takes 1.8 seconds from firing the missile for its proximity fuze to activate. This is not the case for the Python 3, as it has a 0.5 Fuze Delay, meaning it arms its proximity fuze in half a second! Pair this with its amazing acceleration and ability to close distances really fast, and you have an extremely potent missile for headons!!! The Aim-9L is practically unusable in headons, as it would require a direct hit, or the enemy to just not flare. In the case of the Python 3, it has the ability to just murder people in a way the R-60M can, but even better. It’s also quite resistant to flares in my experience, as by the time the missile reaches the target the flares are too close to the plane and the missile proxies on the plane. (Correct me if I’m wrong y’all, but I believe I remember a year or so ago, maybe less, when the Aim-9s first received their Fuze Arming nerf, the Python 3 was left out of this which is why it has this advantage today. Perhaps it was forgotten, or just a small little thing to make it that much better).
Lastly, The Motor.
This shouldn’t need much of an explanation. It’s just outright better than the Aim-9L in every way. Closes distances insanely fast, better overall range in pretty much every scenario, gives it better flare resistance since it’s closer to the plane, and reaches enemies so fast that if they look away they may die before they look back at you. It’s outstanding, and that’s putting it lightly.
In conclusion:
It it’s a magic murder missile, but it’s better than the Aim-9L. Whether that warrants a higher BR for aircraft that have it is up to gaijin, and they seem to think so. The Python 3 has a better motor, can be used in headons, and has great maneuverability. It’s a spectacular missile for any aircraft that has it.
2 Likes
Direct hits can still result in kills. This is likely what occurred.
1 Like
U are wrong aim 9l has more range overall and uts better fir sniping shots due too less drag and more burn time
Also its almost never hit the 40g maybe 35
Correct me if im wrong but the seeker fov is bigger so it easier to flare even on close rear aspect
I agree overall p3 are better then 9l but its by any means not a justification for a br bump
It has a longer burning motor and less drag (not by much) yes, but the Python 3 has a larger and stronger motor even if it burns faster, and last I checked has superior overall range. Feel free to check the files and stats to prove me wrong.
Ingame it pulls up to 40Gs, and although the stat card G-loads aren’t always correct (cough R-3E pulls 11Gs not 10G), this time it is. If you’re checking in Tact-view, perhaps it was only pulling as many Gs as it needed to.
Same as the Aim-9L. It’s a larger FOV, but the rangeband is high, higher than most IR AAMs that lack IRCCM. However that seeker size is a trade off. In exchange for being more resistant to flares, it ends up seeing more of them with its wide view. Regardless, the Python 3 is still better than the Aim-9L in a rear aspect AAM launch setting, as it closes the gap faster and thus gains an advantage against the target via its closer distance and with factors such as rise-time taken into account.
I used to think the same, that was until I started using the Python 3 lately. It’s quite good for what it is, and it’s extremely potent in headons. Almost not one expects it for some reason, and it’s really good at snagging kills because of that. Along with the ability to kills enemies in their blind spots as well, as it reaches enemies lightning quick. I think the Netz is honestly fine where it’s at, and the Python 3 justifies its BR. (Ofc decompression and a CM fix would still be nice).
I just checked the stats and the p3 has slightly more overall energy but its heavier then the 9l by more then 30k (same drag)
I main israel and i love the p3 but in range the 9l is better
For gs just look at the magic that has cap of 35gs
Python berly hits that and it it does its out of energy very quickly
For fov the wide seeker is a downgrade with aim 9l less then 1 km on a mig 23 is nearly unflarable with afterburner but the p3 needs to get to 0.5km for it to be unflarable
Maybe u are very good with this missile but fact is most ppl thinks its not a justification for a br raise and im with them
U tell me what has more gap f16 with non irccm missiles vs f15c with 8 120 or mig 23 with all aspect and with good radar missiles
Also just a reminder k2k is the same br as mig 21 bison
It is hypocritical to say the F-16A deserves 12.3 because it doesn’t get SARH missiles but to keep the Netz there who has the same issue. Despite what you list out for the python… it ISN’T that much better! It really isn’t! it is NOT an irccm missile! That’s the entire point nobody wants to accept.
Pretty much yeah. It has a larger motor and overall size, which translates to the following: Its 33mm larger in caliber, has a ~10-11kg larger motor, and ends at a weight of 82.3kg and the Aim-9L ends at a weight of 57.06kg when the motor ends. This is a ~25kg difference, not exactly 30, just a minor correction.
🤝
The main thing that balances it out is the motor, as although it’s bulkier, heavier, and bleeds more speed in a maneuver, it holds onto energy better when it isn’t maneuvering (basic principle of inertia), but the drag then offsets that. Essentially in nearly (nearly) all instances, the Aim-9L outrages the Python 3 by a small margin at higher attitudes, and a negligible margin and lower altitudes depending on the launch parameters.
That’s just not true at all really, let me explain. The Magic and Magic 2 happen to pull harder off the rail and have higher AOA last I checked, allowing them to pull tighter turns (mainly given that they’re traveling slower than the Python 3 and thus even with it pulling less G’s it’s able to pull a tighter turn due to speed difference). The difference you see between them is that the Python 3s 40G pull isn’t instant as even when it starts pulling it takes a small amount of time for it to be able to fully pull 40Gs, as compared to the Magic which pulls all 35Gs right off the rail. Ingame it can pull all 40Gs, saying it can’t is a fallacy.
This is absolutely true. One argument I see often is that the rangeband of the seeker being higher offsets the larger seeker FOV, but it’s not true (at least not anymore as of the implementation of rise time for flares). However, the Python 3 does in fact have better flare resistance than the Aim-9L, but not from the seeker, but rather from the motor. It allows the missile to get closer to the target and the Aim-9L would usually be, allowing it to have better flare rejection due to it being closer to the target. However, if both seeker/missile are the same distance from the target, their flare rejection is ofc identical. As for being unflarable, that isn’t really a thing lol. A large caliber flare can send off a R-73 from .5km if you are in a certain aircraft and the flare it launched appropriately. Best example is the F-5, which can pretty much flare any missile that isn’t suspension IRCCM based. Engine heat (which in the F-5s case is absurdly low) and CM size is the biggest defining factor in this instance.
I’m well aware, and hey I used to think the some for the most part, and I still somewhat do. I think it’s part of a reason to justify a higher BR, but on its own it doesn’t really work out. This is why I’m so adamant on having the extra 120cms added to the aircraft.
Here’s the English bug reports:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/4H8FzrJQIPvn
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/fINLzGv0zSc4
Accepted bug report (Not English):
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/znRvt2VxxvEA
It’s not, they’re different aircraft and the F-16A Block 10 Netz has capabilities the USA F-16A Block 10 doesn’t. As I’ve outlined above in previous comments, it’s a superior missile.
If you’d read what I said, you’d see that it really is. It can be used in situations the Aim-9L can’t, and thus it’s superior.
Correct, but it’s still a better Aim-9L is almost every conceivable way. Again the main solution is both decompression and the tripling of the CM count.
I’m aware of this, gaijin is not. They see the 40G stat and see that the Netz is preforming well at its BR (likely as Israeli players tend to be more skilled then US ones, a simple fact not an insult) and decide to leave it where it’s at. I urge you to take this issue to gaijin, or make a new thread about this topic if you must, as gaijin either doesn’t see this as an issue or doesn’t care.
So different! (Two types of F-16 with IR only missiles)
Oh wow, the missile turns a little better (emphasis on little) and goes faster! Wow! (This does not constitute any BR difference)
nope! I believe reality not just whatever nonsense.
It is NOT that much better!
YES! But not by any amount that would ever warrant a higher BR in our extremely compressed game!
Which does not matter, because its only better in SMALL WAYS and OVERALL has VERY LITTLE difference in gameplay!
yes! But you ALSO would mess that up since you have so many of these awful takes about the current BRs!
It is hypocritical to say F-16A needs 12.3 but Netz doesn’t, full stop. Just USA bias.
It’s a vastly superior motor and a higher G-limit threshold of 33% for maneuvering targets. Nothing little about that.
This is reality, and you can choose to deny it all you want.
It’s better yes, but you’re right as it’s not enough on its own to warrant this, I’ve been saying that for quite a few posts now. All it needs is its missing CMs and it will be perfectly fine where it’s at, and even then it’s decompression that is the main underlying issue here. Gaijin sees the Python 3 as reason enough to keep it where it’s at, and you’re wasting your time trying to convince me otherwise and not them. Please by all means take this to them or another thread. I’m not entirely opposed to the F-16A Block 10 Netz going to 12.3 for the time being, however I feel that it may be a bit strong, especially seeing as the F-16A at 12.3 is doing quite well right now.
It’s quite the difference as I’ve highlighted over an over. It adds new capabilities the Aim-9L lacks, and I don’t even think I’ve mentioned in this thread the better warhead yet lol. You’re understating the effectiveness of this missile, however yes, it’s a non IRCCM IR AAM at 12.7, and when it faces missiles with IRCCM and ARH it does become an issue, namely due to compression.
So many huh, list em. I’ve only commented on the Netz and its placement between 12.7-12.3 and the Kurnass 2000 and my preferred placement of 12.0 for it. Neither of these are bad takes in any way, except for gaijin’s take on placing the Kurnass 2000 at 12.3…
It isn’t, they’re different aircraft as they have different top IR AAMs with different capabilities, and you can deny that all you want.
Israeli main and I ain’t ever played the American F-16A Block 10, only the American F-16A ADF and F-16C. No American Bias here, Israeli bias if anything. I love the Netz, and I highly anticipate the
future arrival of the F-16B Netz, the F-16A/B Netz II (despite its name, it’s just some Block 10s that were acquired extra late. They uniquely served extra late in IAF service and ended up using the Python 4!). I’m a MASSIVE Israeli aviation fan, and you can see that just by looking at my War Thunder Israeli Air Tree project in the works:
If anything I have Israeli bias lol. I’m simply trying to be rational here, and I’m being as calm and collected as possible despite the insults. I’m simply trying to state the facts and rationalize the logic behind the Netz BR placement.
2 Likes
neat! in the context of WT? very small improvements at 12.7! Not having IRCCM at this BR means your IR missile is not very effective…
Nope! fully ineffectual missile load, same issue F-16A had.
not what your profile says
U right mb
I dont saying it cant but its very rare to happen and u need perfect condition and if it does reach 40gs it left with not alot of energy
If more cm will be added it will make sanse to be 12.7
1 Like
For those talking about the Netz, I suggest you please take part in this proposal. It includes dropping the Netz down to 12.3 with the removal of the Python 3, which it never actually used: