Python 4

Either you’re new here or you simply haven’t gotten the memo that service date means absolute jack.

It was flight capable in 1986. Its service in 1992 means absolutely nothing.

Much like the AIM-120, it was put on aircraft in 1989 despite not being in service for years after.

Python 4 was from 1989, AAM-3 was from 1986.

They share a lot in terms of seeker performance, sure, but neither of their seeker capabilities are modeled in-game.

Because it wouldn’t be true to life in the slightest? It would outperform every other missile in the game, dwarfing the R-73’s seeker limits by 33% with range equatable to the R-27ER. It pulls earlier off the rail than a Magic with maneuverability that’s equal to a 9X with a booster on steroids, as well as lower I and D terms than an AIM-120.

It is quite literally one of the best missiles in the world, only beat out by the Python 5 and what could debatably be the nonexistent 9X-III.

I never said it was? It claims potential equal to a TVC missile with pure aerodynamic forces, necessitating high speed and insanely high load.
Seeing as the Matra Magic is supposedly 60Gs, I wouldn’t be surprised to see the Pythons marketed up at 70.

That’s… Exactly what you’re doing? Did you mean to call yourself a clown…?

You’ve directly compared the Python 4 to the AAM-3 twice now…

1 Like

Didn’t talk about IR specifically. Fakour and MICA are quite broken enough, those are ARH after all.

1 Like

Comparing ARH date and capability to IRH date and capability are two entirely disjointed things

1 Like

maneuverability equal to a 9x is far from true taking in account that it doesn’t have tvc
It actually takes longer for a python 4 to hit the target compared to the 9x because it lacks tvc
That is also the reason why it uses a lag pursuit algorithm
Of course there is much more to take in account like it’s dual pulse motor with source claiming it has an 80 sec sustainer

2 Likes

The entire point of the missile is to match TVC maneuverability without TVC, and is even advertised as matching maneuverability with current TVC platforms.

How so? It has a stronger motor with a longer burn, as well as a far faster flight regime and higher load.

It isn’t…? Lag pursuit algorithms are incorporated to achieve longer ranged kills, not shorter maneuver kills. The entire point is to maximize energy retention and still retain its ability to maneuver when it’s no longer bolstered by its motor.

new?? me?? new? you seriously?, haha, first of all service date means a lot because the companies decided to release the missile to service after polishing many things on it that means several flight or launch test were conducted and also they keep working on it to get a more refined technology in the seeker, etc etc.

Python-4 wasn´t from 1989 the program started in 1984 in 1989 several test were made with the seeker and also the propulsion of the missile, by 1992 the missile got mounted in one of the first F-16D from the IAF to be more specific the MANAT Squadron (if you know about that squadron, you know what i mean by saying MANAT if not sorry do some research).

  • you said " it wouldn´t be true to life in the slightest". i say and what missile in game is true to real life performance? none of the presents right now. theres is no excuses to not introduce it to the game.

“range equatable to the R-27ER”. HUH?! What in the world you are smoking?

videos of dovacat a well know missile tester in the community.

Spoiler

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g93Jimgs6JI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIJGtwAQIXg

this videos got posted by me but the tests were conducted by General Lee

Spoiler

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzPPzgNSsQw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ElwEWvwruU

take your time to see both missiles, Python-4 and R-27ER vs “PL-8B” missile made by general lee with public information about it.

-did you actually think that the Python-4 or the AAM-3 is not a 4 gen missile? are you dummie? both missiles a 4 Gen IRs LMAO brother HAHAHA i think that the newbie here is you XD, you have a really long way to understand what you are talking about HAHA.

1 Like

You went a little overboard. Its not python 5 its python 4 it can do 180 but not shoot at enemy behind the plane and it do have a lot if drag so it have like 10km range to get kills not 20

1 Like

it’s the perfect plane to trial run that missile too. It’s sorta positioned as a higher BR Mirage 2000s4. limit it to 2 Python 4s then revise the MM so that if someone had a python 4 mod installed, it increases its BR to 13.3.

2 Likes

All sources that I have seen say past 15km minimum engagement range, and up to 20km at the absolute maximum.

70g dual-plane, 50g single-plane

Reasons to not add Python 4-

  • Lock range 4x R-27ET
  • IRCCM 5x better than AIM-9M
  • Maneuverability 25-75% better than R-73
  • FoV 60% better than R-73
  • 360 degree kill zone
  • Smokeless motor unlike other highly agile missiles
  • Availability of AIM-9Ms as an actually balanced alternative
  • 12% higher dV than R-27ER
  • Thrust 8x that of AIM-9M
  • Acceleration 2.5x Python 3

Reasons to add Python 4-

  • “4th generation” missile- from sources saying the R-73 and AIM-9M are 3rd gen
2 Likes

Well AIM9 has 18km absolute maximum in game, so… I am guessing the since the size is similar to python 3 it can do in WT around 5km with some manoeuvres and up to 10 maybe with headons, although it probably will not lock on very well.

1 Like

Completely inapplicable without IRST. Also no sources say 80km lock range, or 20km all aspect.

Not possible because after all TVC is TVC, it can change direction without speed (airflow) It is also mostly propaganda, plus the high speed will bump the G load up as well.

Doesn’t matter, will be nerfed. We all know R73 has better IRCCM, so does PL5EII, Magic 2, TY90 and AAM-3s.

1 Like

Maybe I’m missing something, but the Python 4 is a multi-element array seeker, this is the same as the Pl-8B, which has been contemplated by the dev team to add and will likely come the next time China gets a new top tier jet (likely first patch next year). The Python 4 isn’t exactly a massive step up like an IIR seeker would be, and it is very probable the missile IRCCM will be underperforming and artificially nerfed like how current IRCCM is. I say go ahead and add it at the same time as the Pl-8B.

Incorrect, it uses a dual-band seeker like a Stinger. The PL-8B’s quad-element seeker is similar to that on the Magic II, FoV gating. Additionally, the PL-8B has the same flight performance as the basic PL-8/Python 3, which wouldn’t be game breaking.

Figured you’d say that about the seeker, “The seeker was incorrectly reported by US sources to be a cooled two colour rotating reticle design, Israeli sources will only acknowledge that the missile usesa multiple detector array seeker, which has an IRCCM (ie IR ECCM) capability and the ability to reject background IR radiation. Typical two colour seekers (eg FIM-92C Stinger) use an Argon cooled InSb 4 micron IR detector and a Si or GaAs UV detector. Valid aircraft targets have a low UV signature and a high IR signature and this enables the Stinger to easily reject spurious targets such as flares. The Python 4 seeker has been credited with significantly better acquisition range than that of the AIM-9M, which is consistent with the sensitivity improvement produced by a multiple element seeker.”

Source: Fourth Generation AAMs - The Rafael Python 4

Now, I can’t say with 100% certainty that the source is right (as it is also 3rd party source) without digging deeper than I want to into this topic. But let’s say it is a dual color seeker, we already have that with the AAM-3 and Pl-5EII, both are artificially nerfed in terms of IRCCM. It would be just a more agile AAM-3 unless they remove the artificial nerfs.

Got any sources for the Magic 2 seeker claim? Never actually found a source specifically saying the seeker construction so I am unable to validate your claim that the Pl-8B’s seeker construction, which is also the TY-90’s construction, is that of the Magic 2’s. You could be right, I just can’t validate the claim and am only very familiar with Chinese missile structure.

1 Like

Thats on perfect conditions and non manuvering target

1 Like

then that is more than fine for the game, it would be a better r73

2 Likes

tell me you dont know anything about israeli missiles without telling me you dont know about israeli missiles be like.

reasons to not add Python-4: American mains would cry that israel have a better heatseeker for dogfighting scenarios.

end of discussion, as always american mains are the real problem here They always apply the one of: if I do not have it, you can’t have it. egoism in its maximum splendor. a very common thing you can find in US mains nowadays.

also you might want to see the videos attached to this comment to shut up a little bit your mouth before spreading non-sense.

you are right my brother, the Python-4 uses a multiple detector array seeker which in many cases are more “vulnerable” than an IIR seeker, also like you said this tecnology are present in missiles that we already have in game that are totally nerfed to be more family friendly to some delicated people in the game, soo… no excuses at all to not add a Python-4 in the same way they added the AAM-3, Magic-2, PL-5E-II, etc those missiles shares a very similar seeker tecnology IRL with the Python-4, at this point i think that some people just dont like the idea of a real minor nation in this case israel to recive a better missile in some regards compared to what major nations have, and another thing that i see a lot is that some people dont want competition because they want to keep his nation on the top always, they are really egoist because they just main one nation and nothing more.