I think this is one of the most “awesome” planes I have ever played. The plane is an strike plane disguised as a fighter (minus the IRCCM or bullying against flareless planes). Bombing, ground targets, and emotional support are its specializations, which unfortunately is not too possible due to the IRCCM mirage spam.
I think something should be done about this plane. Maybe give it 2x Python 4 because even bison has 4x IRCCMs at 12.3 and Kurnass 2000 is easily the 2# worst handling 12.3 plane, only slightly better than the F-4EJ Kai; it is forced to play close quarters with the IRCCM spammers too.
In fact this plane may be a downgrade over F-4E Kurnass if we’re not talking about killing AI planes which all-aspects are undoubtedly better.
I’ll stand by my opinion that it’s a 12.0 aircraft at heart, but it’s honestly still slightly viable even at 12.3 (only if you know how to properly use Python 3s). It’s still a phantom, and one without any radar guided missiles at that. It’s honestly a great 12.0 counterpart to the Kfir C.7, trading in its speed and maneuverability for 2 extra missiles and a buttload of countermeasures.
It never used Python 4s, so it can’t get them sorry. I have seen claims about it having DASH HMD integrated at some point, but I lack solid proof to confirm it unfortunately (not that it’d make that much of a difference).
Kurnass 2000 is probably one of the few aircraft with the correct BR between 12.0 and 13.3. 6x Python-3 probably does appropriately place it above the 12.0 Phantoms, though that BR range is rather heavily dicated by BVR combat for an aircraft that can only do WVR. It does have the legacy BR from the IR meta and the strength of P3s prior to IRCCM introduction. It might just about be able to scrape 12.0 these days, but it would be massively pushing it
The issue is not the Kurnass 2000 however. The issue is everything else and the ongoing compression. Aircraft like the F-18 and F-16 shouldnt be the same BR. The Kurnass 2000, F4EJ Kai and Tornado F3 would probably all do well at being at their own BR between the current 12.0 and 12.3 aircraft. Perhaps with a few of the weaker mud-movers like the JH-7A and Tornado Gr4
Also. 2x Python-4 would make it 13.0+ material. By the same argument, the Tornado Gr4 should have its 2x ASRAAM.
I already covered this. The better solution is moving the F-16/F-18 up and not moving the Kurnass 2000 down. Though Python-3 are better than Aim-9Ls and I beleive an F-4 can hold there own reasonably well for a time.
and Aim-9Gs are bad compared to Python-3s. But Aim-9Gs exist at 12.0. I dont really see the issue. Again… K2000 is probably correctly placed at 12.3 compared to most 12.0 aircraft, but 12.3+ is messy
And no plane gets more than 2 magic 2s until 13.0. I also agree with Morvran that it’s 12.0 BR is actually correct. It’s just one of the many plane in that ne range that suffers from uptiers and overall compression from 12.0 to 14.3.
AIM-9L has a much higher flare resistance, Python 3s are just faster off the rail and have 40G compared to 30G.
I would much rather take the flare resistance missile that will more often than not chase for afterburners when close enough (AIM-9L) than a missile that will go after a single flare even from 1km behind a jet thats in full afterburner.
They may have the same seeker, but they do not behave the same in game.
Its best to refrain from commenting on vehicles/equipment you personally have not used yourself. Its extremely easy to make assumptions based off of the stat cards.
I personally have a lot of experience with both AIM-9L and Python 3 missiles and can tell you from first hand experience the AIM-9L rejects flares much easier than the Python 3.
An example of this: The R-73 and Magic 2 have the same exact form of IRCCM, the same IRCCM FOV and the same Rejection threshold but preform VASTLY different in game as the Magic 2 IRCCM is noticeably stronger.
We only have one side of the story, what happens server-side is 100% a mystery to the player and only accessible by Gaijin. So to claim they are exactly the same because your local files are the same is just incorrect.
if you dont understand how the game work is not my problem, your feelings means nothing… the seeker is the same whenever you like it or not. Seems someone feelings were hurt.
You may have not read this, so I will repeat it for you.
W0ckySlush
They may have the same seeker, but they do not behave the same in game.
Its best to refrain from commenting on vehicles/equipment you personally have not used yourself. Its extremely easy to make assumptions based off of the stat cards.
I personally have a lot of experience with both AIM-9L and Python 3 missiles and can tell you from first hand experience the AIM-9L rejects flares much easier than the Python 3.
An example of this: The R-73 and Magic 2 have the same exact form of IRCCM, the same IRCCM FOV and the same Rejection threshold but preform VASTLY different in game as the Magic 2 IRCCM is noticeably stronger.
We only have one side of the story, what happens server-side is 100% a mystery to the player and only accessible by Gaijin. So to claim they are exactly the same because your local files are the same is just incorrect.
Feel free to look me up in game to confirm the nations and jets i’ve used. I clearly know how the game works considering my stats in these vehicles.
I have first hand experience with both AIM-9Ls and Python-3s
You on the other hand, do not.
Again whenever you have experience means nothing, we have eveidence that they have the same seeker that hold much more value than you “experience”.
It isnt stronger, they are also the same in this case, the magic “feel” stronger because this type of irccm suit it better with the flight performance of this missile, the much higher acceleration of the magic 2 just makes it much more harder to flare on time, again your experience doesnt mean that they have a different seeker.
Are you sure that you should be talking about stats?
