According to the manual, the aircraft’s main parameters defining the energy maneuverability performance turn out the fighter slightly better than the McDonnell Douglas F-4E Phantom II and definitely better than the IAI Kfir C.2.

I find this sentance is illogical. The Kfir, being a Mirage type fighter, has a much better performance in dogfights than the F-4E.

I guess so GDL… :rolleyes:
There is an agreement for co-production of the Python-4 with Lockheed, so I guess the US knows pretty well what makes the Python-4 what he is. But it’s not the same with the 5…

Erez. Those “dumb” bombs were guided. A french engineer had placed transmitters. Anyway. Using F16 for that role was not a bad idea. If countering anything then the F16 would have done the job. A dedicated bomber may have done the job “better” but the way back was not easy.

I agree with you Erez. Transforming the F16 (light agile multirole airsuperiority jet) into heavier bomber is not the best idea. Compensating more weight by adding a more powerful engine is just a compenstaion.

As far as the official story goes, they were simple iron boms. The way we know they attacked the reactor, and the films and pictures they took, shows that it was a CCIP aiming strike.
I’m not ignoring the other theories though. But I find it hard to believe that a French engineer had help us. Jews were not allowed to build the reactor in Iraq, in a direct order by Saddam. Unless of course that engineer was given a whole lot of money.
Also, the strike was made in Sunday, because we didn’t want to harm French workers. So a transmitter had to be placed at least a day before, though I don’t know how long the signal could last.

I disagree Arthur, F-16s, could have defended temselves much better then a Skyhawk or jag had they been attacked on route….

That’s the main reason we didn’t use F-4s, even though the attacking formation was escourted by a formation of F-15s. And we also wanted to boast a bit with our new toys 😀

Well looks like this isn’t working too fine…
Try to fix it like this:
(——————)l
(—————-)/ 0
)____________ [ l( . ) l] ____________/
(——-)++(—-)+(–)+(—–)++

I’m afraid that no matter the improvements that can be given/were given to any 4th generation fighter plane, they still can’t be used as a poor man’s 5th generation fighter. That’s because of stealthiness. Stealth will change the way dogfights are made, because you can’t shoot what you don’t see in radar, and it’s hard to lock on a plane with a small heat signature.
That’s why in the moment the F/A-22, F-35 and alike will start to appear, the F-16s, Su-30s, Gripens, Mirage-2000s and the rest will be almost useless over night. Not even highly agile missiles like the Phyton-5 could help a 4th generation plane in a dogfight against a 5th generation plane.
If anything, the engineers should focus on trying to lower the F-16’s heat signature, that’s the only thing that might able the F-16 to survive in the age of the stealth fighters.

Except the usual civil stuff, I flew ‘first class’ in an IAI Arava, right between the two pilots.

The Python 4 and 5 are claimed to have some kind of an almost BVR ability. So I think a Python-6 would be more like a BVRed Python, together with being a close range missile.
Perhaps some kind of a super Derby.