You say that it used the Derby like that proves me wrong, when I never said that it didn’t, as you would know if you actually read my original comment.
You don’t need to scroll up. Just go through the replies.
sry if there is misunderstanding, but it would be nice I you could copy paste the original text, I am having a bit of a problem tracing the entire line of reasoning here
In any case, it doesn’t make sense. No one will remove the missiles
I was saying that, because both Barak IIs are very similar and Israel never used BVR missiles on F-16Ds in service, in my opinion it should lose its AIM-7Ms and Derby’s and gain Python 4s to make it closer to its real life counterpart and better differentiate it from the F-16C.
Incorrect. It makes perfect sense.
No. The aircraft will get python 4/5 over time anyway, without losing the medium-range missiles. If you have problems distinguishing the F-16C from the F-16D, I have bad news for you.
Completely irrelevant and a strawman.
It is completely inappropriate to spoil the plane. If I were playing for the Israeli Air Force, I would be playing on the F-16D. It is much more beautiful than the already boring F-16C. The aircraft should not be worse if it has the ability to carry all the weapons. And for python 4, the time in the game has not passed yet, the rocket can turn 180 degrees, and the range is like the R-27ET.
1 Like
Your opinion is not a fact. Stop acting like it is.
And your opinion is a fact? The developers have made it clear that there will be no next-generation thermal air-to-air missiles in the game yet.
1 Like
I mean, that’s what I am against, both BVR missiles had been used or tested on twin seated platforms like barak II and Sufa, and depriving F16D of its crucial BVR loadout makes no sense, besides, its nice to have an alternative option since one has the Python 3 and Derby and the other uses AIM9M and AMRAAMS, one with US loadouts, one with Israel weapons
3 Likes
I have made it very clear that I am talking about my opinion. Stop using strawman arguments.
I could see him making the “similar Baraks” argument, since F16C and F16D are both baraks, but I would love to see a bit of uniqueness on the F16D, since I am also fond of light, twinseated aircrafts
1 Like
I have expressed my opinion to you, and it is much more logical and coincides with the opinion of the developer
1 Like
Yeah nah, mate
The whole thing we were discussing, was that because Python 4 sits in an awkward place, in the sense that it’s better than anything we currently have, but worse than the ‘next gen’ stuff, a way of implementing in an asymmetrically balanced manner would be by removing the SARH / ARH’s.
That way, it has the best IR’s in game, but it’s a trade off for no BVR.
If you keep using loaded statements and accusing others of fallacies thats not gonna lead this conversation anywhere, it would be nice to have the Python 5, but keep the derby. But sadly python 5, MICA, IRIS-T and Pl-9 are not ready for now
I never mentioned the Python 5.
sry python 4, got a bit carried away too, but anyways it is similar in capabilities to the advanced IR missiles that gaijin is having trouble balancing in the game
1 Like