When will the Israeli F15 and F16 will have the Python 4 and 5 available in game? and Python 4 for Kurnass 2000 as recognised that it used the missiles.
5 Likes
no.
Not anytime soon thats for sure. IRRC devs said next gen IR missiles will come with 5th gens and these arent planned for this year.
Along other modern ir missiles E.g R-74, IRIS-T, ASRAAM, MICA IR, AIM-9X
If they refuse to add python 4/5 any plane that used them should automatically get Aim-9M
They already do
If the aircraft is at an appropriate BR for such weapons. It already gets Aim-9M. like the F-16D, F-16C, Baz, Baz Meshupar and F-15I.
Things like the Kurnass 2000 may have had them IRL, but probably wouldnt get them at 12.3. They wont even add Aim-9Ls to 12.0 Phantoms that had them IRL, So Aim-9Ls for a 12.3 Phantom is fairly reasonable and Python-3 are stronger than 9Ls. Same for the Netz. 12.7 F-16s dont get Aim-9Ms, so Python-3 is reasonable (though will say, Netz should be 12.7 in SB not 13.0, that is kinda BS)
Kfir C10 is a bit of an edge case. Because if compared to something like the F3 Late and ICE should get Aim-9M but compared to something like the Viggen Di or J-8F, Python-3 are perfectly reasonable and its just a compression issue
Which is a real shame. Aim-9M, especailly in its current state, is just a boring weapon.
I personally think Gen 5 IRs may come in december though and the current SAMs are a great way to tune them. Would also be the only way I can see them creating balane between some of the top tier aircraft
I don’t think we should be seeing Python 5 on aircraft anytime soon.
Python 4 is more feasible, but difficult, because it exists in a bit of an awkward place where it’s better than all the WVR IR’s we currently have ingame, but beneath the 5th gen missiles that other countries would no doubt demand as a counter to it. (Which Python 5 is the counterpart of).
I can’t imagine P4 would ever go on something as low in BR as Kurnass, that would require a huge BR jump, and you’ll end up with an F4 ICE situation where you have a Phantom that’s way higher in BR than the airframe can handle.
Honestly, I think a good way of introducing Python 4 would be on F-16D. Right now it’s one of (if not the?) worst F-16 flight models, and its current ARH is Derby which again, one of (if not the) weakest.
Giving that thing Python 4, bumping it up to 14.0 and letting it operate as an IR slinger in an ARH meta could be asymmetrically balanced.
3 Likes
while interesting, im afraid that wont happen, because, as you said, people would demand their next gen IR missiles.
this is one of the situations where im sad gaijin isnt doing more “testing events”, as was the case with ARHs before they got fully introduced.
on release it was meh to bad, currently is ok. obviously gets stomped in uptiers but its a monster in downtiers. could see similiar situation happening with K2K.
1 Like
eh. i personally had enough of WVR IR slinging meta. would like to see some adjustments to multipathing before next gen IR missiles (different MP alt for different seekers), so that you would actually have to get close to your target to launch ASRAAM or IRIS-T, not just multipath it for guaranteed kill.
granted, multipathing isnt as easy as it used to be, but i still find it funny that you have to either play lawnmover or be as high as humanly possible, because being at medium alt is just putting yourself at disadvantage against everyone else.
it works. (i mean, it would work if gaijin would fix the current proxy fuze issue lmao)
1 Like
Yeah, maybe I’m being optimistic lol. I like to think other nation players would have the nuance to see that the other aspects of 16D are inferior to them, and recognize P4 isn’t a fully fledged 5th gen, but you’re probably right. Forums will be spammed with “Where 9X/ASRAAM/IRIS” etc etc lol.
Aye, was mostly referring to that release state where it was very much out of its depth. I feel like a Kurn up at the BR Python 4 would demand it to have would be equally as rough as that.
Its got a massively nerfed lock range as well (2 year old report) R-73 and Magic II outperform it dramatically at short ranges and Aim-9M should be better than them at longer ranges but you can never got a lock.
hey, its not so bad, after all, us two came to some sort of agreement already, no? maybe one day this idea will gain enough traction.
i mean, arent they already?
more i think about it, i actually think K2K could theoretically work as great way to introduce Python 4 and even better than F-16D. you said it yourself,
K2K could actually work and wouldnt stir as much controversy as the F-16D proposal, precisely because P4 would bump whats essentially a 10.7 airframe to much higher BR.
Back when ARHs were being introduced, i actually thought that gaijin would introduce them on legacy platforms (such as J37D, J8F and ICE) first, and adding them to other airframes the next patch once people familiarized themselves with them enough.
well, that didnt happen, sorta missed opportunity, BUT i can see it working for next gen IRs.
K2K could work with P4. hell, IIRC ICE was used to test IRIS-T, and im sure there are other such examples.
1 Like
I researched ICE with 29G so i immidiately went from using R73s to AIM-9Ms. believe me when i say that while yes, both magic 2 and R73 are better at short range, AIM-9M absolutely mogs them at long range. and the shorter lock range plagues all three missiles.
But I dont think the lock ranges are wrong (outside of IR modeling issues that affect everything) for the R-73 and Magic II
but Aim-9M:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/PX7CKrwWNGdr
instead of 3km front aspect lock ranges against something on AB it should be 14.45km
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/yhaNykpl1MHi
quick search says they are also underperforming (granted, labeled not a bug, but you know how it is with gaijins bug reporting).
were prolly never getting such range unless theres fundamental change to several things in the game at once (IR modeling in general, map size etc.),
Lock ranges arent kinematic ranges.
I should be able to acquire a lock against an AB target at 14.45km but doesnt necessarily mean that the missile would hit.
But just a reliable 5-7km lock range would be awesome. Too many times ive had a target in the LSZ but oculdnt fire because I couldnt lock and 9Ms are easy to kinematically defeat even in the LSZ
NGl there are several missiles close enough to the python-4. It’s only a hair better then an AAM-3. Then stuff like a PL-5EII or R-73M are somewhat near although lacking in one way or another (off boresight and IRCCM respectively).
Although that might honestly not be enough, cause yeah NATO doesn’t really have any missiles of comparable class, given how long the ASRAAM took to develop and all that.
Isnt strictly speaking a late block version of the Aim-9M the Python-4 equivalent?
Though Aim-9M is rather massively nerfed in game.
NGL the 9M isn’t that nerfed, sure it should be a bit better against standard flares. But WT doesn’t have more advanced flares like exist IRL, against which its a bit weaker then it currently is in game.
A late block one with an IIR seeker would be a closer P4 equivelent, enough to be usable in game with how IIR is modeled atleast, but i’d still say stuff like an AAM-3 are much closer overall.