That’s already happening with the A-10 and its AIM-9Ls; one more wouldn’t make a difference, and it’s also one of the many variants of the legendary Mirage 5, an interesting and unique variant.
The issue is the lack of countermeasures.
A-10 amd SU-25 are undertiered as is.
The lack of countermeasures would require 10.0 while Python 3 at 10.0 is impossible.
Why impossible? The Python 3s are good, but it could be said that they could be on the same level as the AIM-9Ls that the A-10A has at the same BR (10), and the lack of countermeasures at a level like 10.3 or 10.7 is not THAT serious. It’s a question of the pros and cons of the interesting Mirage COAM.
Comparing a supersonic mirage to a A-10 is hardly a fair comparison.
It honestly really is, even on supersonic and maneuverable aircraft. Missiles like the Aim-9D/J/P are quite prominent, and you start to see all aspect missiles like the Aim-9P-4, Aim-9L, and R-60M quite a lot. Even at or below 10.0 it can be a real pain depending on the matchmaker and what you face.
2 Likes
But in that range, you can also see aircraft without flares (J-35D, for example). Furthermore, the Mirage M5 COAM could also excel better in CAS missions.
On the other hand, I didn’t compare the A-10 to the Mirage, only the missiles (AIM9L and Python 3).
I still believe that the weakness of not having flares is offset by a highly maneuverable and well-armed supersonic aircraft for A-A and CAS combat (it would be a good vehicle to add Griffin LGB bombs to the game).
It doesn’t have all aspect missile. Also ever since it’s FM nerf it craps its speed in a single turn. The lack of an CMs are a factor to it being that 10.0, but that’s not entirely the reasoning behind it. The F-1 is a better example, as it has an RWR, better radar, better gun, and 4 Aim-9J/Ps as well one BR step higher.
Now look at the Nesher, say you were to give it Canards which improved its lift by a decent margin, top speed maneuverability, and supersonic handling. Then say you were to give it Python 3s. Thats 10.7 at the minimum, and given gaijin’s hatred of the Python 3 I could see it being 11.0 no problem.
You compared the lowest BR it’s found at. In this regard the platform it’s used at is very relevant.
Without proof of it being able to self designate with targeting capabilities for its Griffin LGBs, it would be no different from other aircraft with dumb bombs and CCIP/CCRP. Either way that would only matter for ground RB ofc, and I was discussing its Air based BR potential.
It can be potent, but with Python 3s it wouldn’t be. It would be too high and constantly see better aircraft with the ability to click one button that scentance you to death. It may be fast, and it may be decently maneuverable, but it’s really just a Nesher with canards. Putting Python 3s on it would put it up at a BR where it wouldn’t be able to compete realistically. All it takes is one R-60M or Aim-9L carrier to get in range and it’s over. You’re severely underestimating how detrimental it would be to not have flares at that BR range.
2 Likes
Ok that’s true, in fact I hadn’t thought about the Nesher as an example, I’m not underestimating anything, it’s just that this variant of the Mirage (COAM) is on the same level as a Kfir C7, with its capacity it can perfectly be in BR 10.7 with 2 Python 3 due to the disadvantage of not having Flares, the fact is that not only does RB exist it can also be very competitive in Sim battles. This upgrade is close to comparing to the Panthera variant, but again the lack of flares testing on the COAM doesn’t mean it shouldn’t carry the Python 3, as it’s a historical feature (First missile launched by the FAC) also with guided bomb capability (in this sense I think if it can’t self-designate I’ll suggest the new shared designation mechanic that was common at this time), therefore it would be a difficult but not impossible vehicle to play and have fun: Imagine 2 Python 3 in br 10, but without flares (skill matters in this case)
1 Like
Just read my post above where I said a Mirage III without countermeasures should be no higher than 10.0.
Python 3 makes that impossible.
1 Like
A-10 and SU-25 are overperforming.
Since the Mirage 5COAM used the same isreali centerline pylons as the Kfir it could possibly use the ALE-40 chaff/flare dispensers that could be mounted on that pylon.
that doesnt necessarily mean its compatible
I have a page here from the book on LATAM’s Mirages that details the modernization upgrades; unfortunately, it makes no mention of countermeasures, though it does list the two additional hardpoints. We would need to find a photo showing them carrying four missiles to confirm that.
2 Likes
The 2 additional hardpoints probably refer to the ones under the intakes that the Mirage 5 didnt originally have.
The source states additional 4 hardpoints, not 2. These hardpoints would not be the underwing hardpoints, but rather the side-fuselage hardpoints as seen added with the Kfir C.2 version.
Here’s a good image of the hardpoints I’m referring to for reference, and we know it obtained these hard points at it has been seen storing Griffin LGBs:
All 4 underwing hardpoints were already there if I had to guess, similar to the Belgian Mirage 5BA already ingame with sports 4 underwing with the centerline slot as well, giving a total of 5 like the amount stated in your source. If both underwing pylons were wired for missiles, much like the Kfir C.7s were known to be and are the standard it was upgraded to, is still up for debate. However it simply being brought up to these standards isn’t enough proof for it, as some standards were and weren’t applied (see engine and rear lower fuselage section for countermeasures). The suggestions rightfully states 2 missiles as that’s all they’ve been seen with, unless we’ve missed something.
I’d also like to bring up that it is quite possible this aircraft could have indeed used AN/ALE-40 countermeasure dispensers on the centerline pylons, as this is some Kfir aircraft did, and Colombian Kfirs did as well:
Note the AN/ALE-40 dispensers on the sides of the centerline pylon of the fuselage, something recently gaining attention within the Israeli War Thunder community as of late. It can mount two on either side of the pylon.
Here’s a pic of the Colombian Kfir C.10s making use of them:
It’s quite possible the C.10s weren’t the only ones… we need to start looking for proof though, and I’m sure everyone who was looking hasn’t been looking there.
I believe all Mirage 5s came with the rearmost fuselage pylons as standard. The COAM upgrade definitely added the forward-most pylons, as seen on the Griffins. However, I’m not sure about the other two. I do know that the Colombian Mirage 5s didn’t have the ability to carry air-to-air missiles until very late in their service life, so perhaps the outermost wing pylons were wired for air-to-air missiles, and that’s what they’re counting as the two additional pylons.
Pre upgrade Mirage 5 with the rear pylons visible in the backround
Are you refering to my thread or an Hebrew language thread?
Trust me Ive been looking everywhere, Mirage 5COAM, Early FAC Kfir C.7, Mirage 50CN Pantera, Cheetah E/C, shits hard to find.
Absolutely a possibility, as those rear ones were standard on some Mirage 5s after all, like the 5F ingame. The inability to carry missiles early on does make this likely as well. Not that it matters much when this suggestions is for the upgraded variant, as regardless the underwing pylons he was referring to were already there for drop tank carriage or more.
Yours and in other spaces not on the forums. I’m seeing more people talking about it in general really.
2 Likes
I am also certain that the Mirage M5 COAM aircraft could have carried the central CM pods. There are two common-sense reasons:
First, when the air-to-air missile capability was added, the need for self-protection was evident. Second, it is more for strategic reasons, as this modernization (COAM) was driven by the acquisition of the Venezuelan F-16s.
But the ultimate proof, which would be a photograph, we haven’t found yet; at least there is evidence that the Kfir C.10 has this CM (AN/ALE 40)
You can check this forum where they discuss the Colombian and Chilean Mirage; there are lots of photos here, so you should be able to find one that works for you.
1 Like
Thanks bro, it’s all about the Mirages of our countries, in fact, it made me very curious, what is this?!
Image taken from that forum, credits to the respective owner
Blue circles are practice bombs similar to the BDU-33 and the red circle seems to some kind of french rocket pod.
1 Like