Python 5 For USAF ??

I guess what I was inferring, and what wasn’t picked up on, is that some of the issues with low flying/slow moving targets weren’t resolves with the X evolution of the AIM-9 family.

And what do you base that assumption on?

AIM-9X wasn’t even a paper design in GW1 :rolleyes:

Yes I’m awarew of that. The Warthog probably was armed with AIM-9L or something similar.

I guess what I was inferring, and what wasn’t picked up on, is that some of the issues with low flying/slow moving targets weren’t resolves with the X evolution of the AIM-9 family.

maybe they want to test it against the LO planes in inventory how effective their IR suppression tech works?

IIRC, there was a GW1 incident where an A-10 was having a tough time getting a lock on an Iraqi helicopter with an AIM-9. Could be that the -X model still hasn’t totally solved the slow moving/low signature target problem yet. Purely speculation though.

AIM-9X wasn’t even a paper design in GW1 :rolleyes:

IIRC, there was a GW1 incident where an A-10 was having a tough time getting a lock on an Iraqi helicopter with an AIM-9. Could be that the -X model still hasn’t totally solved the slow moving/low signature target problem yet. Purely speculation though.

I would guess it’s one or more of several reasons.
1/ They want to see how it performes so they can defeat it with tech or tactics because of python sales technology transfer to 3rd parties. (China?)
2/ They want to see how it performs so they can defeat it because it is representative of a foreign hi tech OBS WVR missle so it could represent several different designs.
3/ They want to have a back up to the AIM-9X if there is a problem with that missile during wartime. (production problem, technical problem, countermeasure problem.)

If reports are accurate, the Python 5 has already been certified on the F-16.. it shot down a Hizbollah UAV a couple of months ago.. my guess is the USAF wants to get to evaluate the weapon to better know how to beat it

http://www.f-16.net/news_article1983.html

Almost exactly what I was thinking. I’m certain that the UAV kills got the USAF’s attention. Perhaps the evaluation is not on how to beat it, but perhaps to see if it is more effective against UAV type targets than AIM-9 series weapons.

Heck, it could even be an attempt to integrate it on USAF UAVs, robots hunting robots!

If reports are accurate, the Python 5 has already been certified on the F-16.. it shot down a Hizbollah UAV a couple of months ago.. my guess is the USAF wants to get to evaluate the weapon to better know how to beat it

http://www.f-16.net/news_article1983.html

Think! If Lockheed Martin was to integrate the Python-5 on the F-16, would Rafael stand to benefit? Of course! It would be a joint undertaking, with Rafael providing the missiles. “Loan”, with no need to return any which were used up, no worries about wear & tear, & no need to dissect them, since Rafael would provide all the necessary information. But this is a case of the USAF (not LM) buying missiles. Why would they do Rafael the favour of paying for missiles which Rafael would happily provide free, in the hope of future sales, & simultaneously do LM the favour of integrating a new weapon (one not used by the USAF) on their aircraft? No, this is very unlikely to be anything to do with integrating the missile on US aircraft, unless there’s some weird legal complication involved, which requires the missiles to be US-owned.

And note that the article said they were destined for a “squadron in Nevada”. That isn’t what you do to integrate a missile onto a new type. It’s what you do if you want to see how the missiles perform, in case you ever come up against anyone equipped with them. Again – what fighter squadrons are based in Nevada?

Well Nellis/Red Flag is in Nevada. Maybe they want to test them and incorporate the results into the “enemy” air for training.

If Rafael lent actual Python-5 rounds out, they’d be stupid. Every time you carry a live AAM on an aircraft in flight you shorten its service life for a number of reasons. It’s much simpler to just buy them outright. Then you can integrate, test, and dissect, and not have to worry about returning the leased or loaned articles later.

Think! If Lockheed Martin was to integrate the Python-5 on the F-16, would Rafael stand to benefit? Of course! It would be a joint undertaking, with Rafael providing the missiles. “Loan”, with no need to return any which were used up, no worries about wear & tear, & no need to dissect them, since Rafael would provide all the necessary information. But this is a case of the USAF (not LM) buying missiles. Why would they do Rafael the favour of paying for missiles which Rafael would happily provide free, in the hope of future sales, & simultaneously do LM the favour of integrating a new weapon (one not used by the USAF) on their aircraft? No, this is very unlikely to be anything to do with integrating the missile on US aircraft, unless there’s some weird legal complication involved, which requires the missiles to be US-owned.

And note that the article said they were destined for a “squadron in Nevada”. That isn’t what you do to integrate a missile onto a new type. It’s what you do if you want to see how the missiles perform, in case you ever come up against anyone equipped with them. Again – what fighter squadrons are based in Nevada?

Gap filler? 20 missiles? You must see the flaw in that. Ditto the contingency plan, since I can’t imagine a contingency in which Israel would be short of aircraft, yet have spare missiles. More likely that the USA would be shipping missiles for the Israelis to use on their own aircraft.

Well, like I said it is weird.

As for contingency stuff. If the idea of bombing Iran happens ( no matter who does it ) , I can see the need for several plans to be pulled out of the safe and read up on/refined etc.

Why would the USAF buy them for that? No, they’d be lent by the manufacturer.

If Rafael lent actual Python-5 rounds out, they’d be stupid. Every time you carry a live AAM on an aircraft in flight you shorten its service life for a number of reasons. It’s much simpler to just buy them outright. Then you can integrate, test, and dissect, and not have to worry about returning the leased or loaned articles later.

Hmmmm interesting thought.

My limited thinking was that there might be a program shortage and like the LITENING where the Guard bought it off the shelf because they needed a good laser pod now ( 2001-2002 ) and not waiting for the new precision laser pod contract to be awarded a few years later. In this case the Python is a gap filler? Even that is a weak idea.

Strange, seems like if it was to support foreign military sales as SOC mentions, that there would be a mention of that.

Or a contingency plan in the safe where…. for what ever reason in an OPLAN, a Squadron of USAF F-16s deploys to Israel?

All kind of weird isn’t it?

Gap filler? 20 missiles? You must see the flaw in that. Ditto the contingency plan, since I can’t imagine a contingency in which Israel would be short of aircraft, yet have spare missiles. More likely that the USA would be shipping missiles for the Israelis to use on their own aircraft.

These are probably going to be used as integration tools for incorporating the Python 5 into the F-16 because some idiot keeps selling them to Israel.

Why would the USAF buy them for that? No, they’d be lent by the manufacturer.

I’m sure bring_it_on has said it: they’re for test & evaluation. That could well include using them in an aggressor role.

Which fighter squadrons are stationed in Nevada?

Hmmmm interesting thought.

My limited thinking was that there might be a program shortage and like the LITENING where the Guard bought it off the shelf because they needed a good laser pod now ( 2001-2002 ) and not waiting for the new precision laser pod contract to be awarded a few years later. In this case the Python is a gap filler? Even that is a weak idea.

Strange, seems like if it was to support foreign military sales as SOC mentions, that there would be a mention of that.

Or a contingency plan in the safe where…. for what ever reason in an OPLAN, a Squadron of USAF F-16s deploys to Israel?

All kind of weird isn’t it?

Could it also due to the ‘interest’ to integrate the Python 5 into the F-35 too?

As Israel is also ‘security partner’ in the JSF programme and given the Israelis ingenuity to ‘customise’ Israeli products into past US systems. Doesn’t it make sense for the US to ‘fit’ this weapon into the F-35 rather than let the Israelis do this? :confused:

Well yeah there is that too.

These are probably going to be used as integration tools for incorporating the Python 5 into the F-16 because some idiot keeps selling them to Israel. Alternatively they could be used by the aggressors I suppose, but if that were the case they wouldn’t need the actual missiles but rather the captive carry rounds.

Since when did the US sell F-16s to Israel, I was under the impression they were a generous gift from the US tax-payer. 😡

These are probably going to be used as integration tools for incorporating the Python 5 into the F-16 because some idiot keeps selling them to Israel. Alternatively they could be used by the aggressors I suppose, but if that were the case they wouldn’t need the actual missiles but rather the captive carry rounds.

I wonder if the Israelis will be allowed to get a peak at the AIM-9X in return.