I think it was soon before either Seek and Destroy or Dance of Dragons.
I don’t want them to add Python-4 ‘gimped’, because I have absolutely no faith they will ‘un-gimp’ it for usage on the likes of Ra’am / Barak / Sufa in future.
Giving one event vehicle a fun gimmick now, isn’t worth neutering the future competitiveness of the wider top tier.
4 Likes
if what your saying is indeed true then it would be weird by gaijin didnt add it yet
The leak showed it on both the F-16D and Baz Meshupar, also, so we have an idea on what they at least at the time planned them to be on.
so u want a missile with loal ,highly resilient seeker to which we have no equivalent ingame with 70 g pull and offbore capabilities …sure then dont be suprised if you see usa mains crying for the aim9x
i would rather have it added gimped a bit(balance) ,even in its gimped state its still surpasing the r73 in a distance
I want its full capabilities when the meta permits, and when others have a counterpart ready to go at the same time.
I don’t want to see it neutered in order to add it earlier than its counterparts, only to never see it get buffed when those counterparts do get added.
1 Like
There is no counterpart to the Python 4. It’s unique in that it’s between current and previous gen missiles in terms of capabilities. I would much prefer that Israel got it when China gets the PL-8B, Russia the R-73M, and the Magic II and AAM-3 get their manoeuvrability buffed, as they’re the closest counterparts to it.
3 Likes
You’re right about it sitting awkwardly in between, and it will be tricky.
I quite liked what they were originally indicating / hypothesizing they were going to do with F16D. I.e give them to a plane which has no SARH / ARH’s, and make it a pure IR slinger.
I think that’d be a good way of asymmetrically balancing, and maybe they could reconsider this approach when something like Sufa is added in future.
Not that comparable cause each of them have their sort of ‘tech’ which is sort of distinct, although I do agree PL8B should be pretty close, although IDK how the new trillion control surfaces config will do to manoeuvrability of Python 4 (I know it is like 12 but still), think it doesn’t have TVC right? so overall largest improvement over python 3 is seeker, maybe slight range increase.
Since Israel didn’t use BVR missiles on its F-16Ds, removing the AIM-7Ms and Derbys from it and adding the Python 4 would be the best course of action, in my opinion.
5 Likes
Fully agree.
I’ve been of this opinion since 16D was first announced.
No Israeli missile that I know of has TVC.
And manoeuvrability.
Just moving my whole War Thunder folder onto my new HDD. Simply cut and paste. I expected this to rumble throughout the night, but now it is at 71% and counting after maybe 10 minutes.
144 MB/s holy smokes
1 Like
By how much though, I know python 3s are a bit… especially with off rack, but does python 4 have large improvements over that?
Python-4’s range is much better than Python-3.
The source I seen said it has a dual motor, 4 second boost then 80 second sustainer.
It will compare closer to something like 27ET in terms of range.
WTF, like outrange ur own radar missiles, with IR ones? What do u need AMRAAMs for honestly. Pretty much impossible considering 27ET IRL is capable of 20+km in good conditions with IRST.
To paraphrase, Janes says Python-4 has a 15km max range, with unconfirmed reports of 40km.
(I imagine altitude will obviously play a huge factor in that).
That long sustainer is huge though. Would make it much harder to kinematically defeat it.
Transfer all done…
1 Like
I would not trust the 40km ones considering its size. R27ET also gets boost from IRST over normal missile IR seeker, which has ranges of up to 100km on good conditions.
Python 3/PL8s are already the longest range conventional IR missiles that I am aware of but I can’t rule out R27ETs simply cause I have gotten kills of up to 15km even in game, that AMRAAM spamer had no idea.
1 Like