PL-8 performance and meaningful difference between PL-8A and B besides parts?

[FlankerFan35]

So, I've heard the PL-8 has performance is similar to AIM-9M but there's also a HMS built for it which seems unlikely or rather useless if the performance was only as good as a 9M? Anyone have real world PL-8/Python-3 stats and is there a significant difference between PL-8A/B besides domestic components.

Edited March 2, 2023 by FlankerFan35

[WinterH]

22 minutes ago, FlankerFan35 said:

So, I've heard the PL-8 has performance is similar to AIM-9M but there's also a HMS built for it which seems unlikely or rather useless if the performance was only as good as a 9M?

I don't know a lot about PL-8's or even Pyhton-3 performance itself, but to be fair, people have built HMS for missiles a lot worse than AIM-9M when it comes to off-boresight capabilities and minimum ranges etc, including rear aspect missiles in case of USN's kinda short lived VTAS helmet for F-4s, and I think a South African one for either Magic I or a local missile, to be used on Mirage F1s.

Regardless though, a cursory wikipedia search (fwiw, yes, it's just wiki after all), seem to suggest that PL-8 has "wide off boresight targeting", and "can maneuver at over 38Gs". So I think it should be fine. Also, I don't think HMS was a thing on Peace Pearl yet, and was developed on one of the domestic variants after it? Not entirely sure though.

[FlankerFan35]

17 hours ago, WinterH said:

I don't know a lot about PL-8's or even Pyhton-3 performance itself, but to be fair, people have built HMS for missiles a lot worse than AIM-9M when it comes to off-boresight capabilities and minimum ranges etc, including rear aspect missiles in case of USN's kinda short lived VTAS helmet for F-4s, and I think a South African one for either Magic I or a local missile, to be used on Mirage F1s.

Regardless though, a cursory wikipedia search (fwiw, yes, it's just wiki after all), seem to suggest that PL-8 has "wide off boresight targeting", and "can maneuver at over 38Gs". So I think it should be fine. Also, I don't think HMS was a thing on Peace Pearl yet, and was developed on one of the domestic variants after it? Not entirely sure though.

Yes, no HMS on PP I think just trying to get a feel for PL-8 perf.

[F-2]

9 hours ago, FlankerFan35 said:

Yes, no HMS on PP I think just trying to get a feel for PL-8 perf.

From what reading I’ve done on it and Python III it seems the best analog is the Magic II. Python could be slaved to radar and supposedly had superior maneuverability to AIM-9L. Ultimately these missiles are in the same class and from what I gather constitute marginal differences. That said I think PL-8 should be a little better albeit heavier then Aim-9L.

[FlankerFan35]

3 minutes ago, F-2 said:

From what reading I’ve done on it and Python III it seems the best analog is the Magic II. Python could be slaved to radar and supposedly had superior maneuverability to AIM-9L. Ultimately these missiles are in the same class and from what I gather constitute marginal differences. That said I think PL-8 should be a little better albeit heavier then Aim-9L.

Cool to know, can you send the info you have for me to read please

Edited March 3, 2023 by FlankerFan35

[F-2]

AWST 7/4/83

 

Flight international mostly about Python 4 but with a bit on 3

 

Quote

Rafael's agile constrictor

8 October 1996

•  
•  
•  
•  
•  

• Save article

 

Arie Egozi/TEL AVIV Douglas Barrie/LONDON 

ADVERT

RAFAEL'S DEBUT in the air-to-air missile (AAM) arena was hardly auspicious. The Shafrir 1 was in service from 1964 to 1969, including the six-day war in 1967, but the AAM was not credited with a single kill. 

One of the problems was that when Israeli Dassault Mirage III pilots dumped their drop tanks to enter combat, the Shafrir 1 had a habit of falling off as well. 

The Israeli defence ministry's missile design and manufacturing house has come a long way since its faltering start. The latest missile to be declassified is its Python-4, generally regarded as the most capable infra-red within-visual-range missile now in frontline service. 

ADVERT

Development of the missile began in the late 1970s/early 1980s - a timeframe similar to that for the development of Russia's Vympel R-73 (AA-11 Archer) - with test firings believed to have been carried out no later than 1989. 

Python-4s are now fielded on Israeli air force McDonnell Douglas F-15s and Lockheed Martin F-16s, and is thought to have entered operational service three or four years ago. The missile can be carried on the wingtip launch rail of the F-16C/D. It weighs 105kg, however, and is not suited for carriage on this station on the F-16A/B because it is to heavy. 

Unlike the R-73, which has thrust-vector paddles to enable the agility required for high off-boresight manoeuvres, the Python-4 has only aerodynamic control. 

ADVERT

One of the main drivers behind the Python-4 was to radically expand the "no escape zone" of the missile in comparison to third-generation AAMs such as the Python-3 and late-model Raytheon AIM-9 Sidewinders. 

In providing the missile with the necessary agility to exploit a 60í-plus off-bore sight capability (compared to Python-3's 15í), the missile's manoeuvrability had to be considerably improved. 

Rafael says that it opted for pure aerodynamic control, rather than a mix of aerodynamic control and thrust vectoring, because it offered advantages in both the boost and the terminal phase of the engagement. Using thrust vectoring is "wasteful" of motor energy. 

The missile's novel aerodynamic configuration has two sets of cruciform surfaces immediately behind the infra-red seeker. The first are fixed canards, while the second set, are used for pitch and yaw control. A pair of ailerons is mounted directly behind the pitch and yaw surfaces providing roll stabilisation, in combination with a free rolling tail. 

The missile rear body also has four fuselage strakes, which fair into the cruciform rear fins. These provide strengthening for the rear fuselage section during high-G manoeuvres. Towards the end of an engagement, with the solid motor approaching burn-out, the rear section is effectively a hollow shell. Without the strakes, high G manoeuvres at this stage would probably have meant the missile breaking up under the stress. 

Rafael has not released figures for the maximum acceleration which the missile can sustain, but this is thought to be in the region of 70G. By comparison, the maximum acceleration an AIM-9M can sustain is 35G. 

The missile configuration is complemented by a dual-profile solid-rocket motor providing the pilot with a weapon with a "no-escape-zone" volume with a frontal arc of 120í in the horizontal plane. The missile can also be used to engage closing targets, which are "high above" the launch aircraft in conditions under which the AIM-9 or Python-3 would lose lock on the target and go ballistic. 

The missile is designed to be cued in conjunction with a helmet-mounted sight. One Israeli source with experience of the Python-4 missile suggests that, if he could see a threat in his frontal hemisphere and the target was within a 5.5km (3nm) range, no amount of manoeuvring would take it out of the missile's kill envelope. 

The Python-4 differs from missiles such as the British Aerospace Advanced Short Range (ASRAAM) in that it is not optimised for an extended within-visual-range envelope, intended to maximise the F-Pole (or closest distance) between the launch aircraft and the target. The ASRAAM's engagement envelope in some areas is more akin to that of what was traditionally regraded as the domain of the beyond-visual-range missile. 

The Python-4 entered service with an infra-red seeker, although Rafael has an imaging infra-red (IIR) seeker in development. The latter seeker is infra-red counter-measures resistant and is thought to operate in at least two, and probably three, spectral bands. 

An IIR variant of the Python-4 may also eventually be used by the Israeli air force. The IR seeker is nitrogen, or argon, cooled. 

Rafael says that the missile is 3m long and has a diameter of around 160mm. It is unwilling to discuss the solid-propellant power plant for the Python-4, developed by its Manor propulsion and explosives unit. 

The missile, however, is believed to be powered by the ND-10 motor developed by Manor, which has an outer diameter of 162mm. This is a dual-thrust motor offering a profiled burn suited to initial high-G turning manoeuvres followed by a sustained lower-thrust level. 

This motor is now being evaluated by Raytheon for inclusion in a larger-diameter missile it may offer for the US Air Force/Navy AIM-9X programme. Raytheon's initial bid is based around a 127mm-diameter airframe. 

The missile has a "high-penetration" fragmentation warhead, but no further details have yet to be released. The weapon is fitted with a laser proximity-fuze with five windows, giving a high probability of detonation, even in "complex" engagements. 

As deployed, the missile is locked on before launch by the pilot, although Rafael says that "-lock-on after launch can easily be applied". 

Ran Galli, Rafael's vice-president marketing, says that the Python-4 was developed with no US assistance, allowing the missile to be exported without the need for any US authorisation. 

Several countries are believed to be interested in the Python-4, including Australia, Romania and South Korea. 

Rafael has achieved considerable export success with the Python-3, and the Israeli company will undoubtedly emulate this achievement with its Python-4. 

 

Source: Flight International

 

[FlankerFan35]

Very interesting thanks, look forward to more from Deka as well as we get closer to release.

[PLAAF]

10 hours ago, F-2 said:

From what reading I’ve done on it and Python III it seems the best analog is the Magic II. Python could be slaved to radar and supposedly had superior maneuverability to AIM-9L. Ultimately these missiles are in the same class and from what I gather constitute marginal differences. That said I think PL-8 should be a little better albeit heavier then Aim-9L.

That's a bit odd. I always heard that Python III had better maneuverability than AIM-9M. I could be wrong since I didn't research the topic enough. But after checking the performance of the PL-5EII in DCS, I found that it is actually better than AIM-9M. They are mostly identical, except PL-5 has one more second of fueled flight and produces a bit less smoke than AIM-9M, as well as just a touch less drag value. So if PL-8 is only at the same level as an AIM-9L, then I am not fancy getting PL-8. I will stick with my PL-5EII for now. 

 

Edit: Nevermind, they have nerfed PL-5EII since the last time I checked. Now it is less capable than AIM-9M.

Edited March 4, 2023 by PLAAF

[F-2]

10 minutes ago, PLAAF said:

That's a bit odd. I always heard that Python III had better maneuverability than AIM-9M. I could be wrong since I didn't research the topic enough. But after checking the performance of the PL-5EII in DCS, I found that it is actually better than AIM-9M. They are mostly identical, except PL-5 has one more second of fueled flight and produces a bit less smoke than AIM-9M, as well as just a touch less drag value. So if PL-8 is only at the same level as an AIM-9L, then I am not fancy getting PL-8. I will stick with my PL-5EII for now. 

I’m talking IRL mind you. Currently different missiles in DCS are on different API and being standardized. I’m not sure if PL-5eII is better than AIM-9m in real life, maybe it is but I wouldn’t use dcs as a source, at least not until it’s all standardized. To be clear I do think PL-8 is better then AIM-9L/M I just think it’s constitutes a relatively marginal difference, same with Magic II.

[PLAAF]

13 minutes ago, F-2 said:

I’m talking IRL mind you. Currently different missiles in DCS are on different API and being standardized. I’m not sure if PL-5eII is better than AIM-9m in real life, maybe it is but I wouldn’t use dcs as a source, at least not until it’s all standardized. To be clear I do think PL-8 is better then AIM-9L/M I just think it’s constitutes a relatively marginal difference, same with Magic II.

It's OK, I have checked again. They have nerfed PL-5 since the last time looked. Maybe this is the standardisation you are talking about.
By the way, I just made a list of those missiles' in-game performances. It appears at least in DCS, the PL-8B has the same maneuverability as the AIM-9M, but with much better speed. I couldn't find the data for PL-8A.

[F-2]

19 minutes ago, PLAAF said:

It's OK, I have checked again. They have nerfed PL-5 since the last time looked. Maybe this is the standardisation you are talking about.
By the way, I just made a list of those missiles' in-game performances. It appears at least in DCS, the PL-8B has the same maneuverability as the AIM-9M, but with much better speed. I couldn't find the data for PL-8A.

That’s really interesting! By chance do you have the r550 II numbers?

[PLAAF]

18 minutes ago, F-2 said:

That’s really interesting! By chance do you have the r550 II numbers?

Here, for some reason, I couldn't find data on the R-60 series.

[F-2]

5 minutes ago, PLAAF said:

Here, for some reason, I couldn't find data on the R-60 series.

That mach 3.5 speed is near ASRAAM territory. PL-8 will be a menace

[PLAAF]

6 minutes ago, F-2 said:

That mach 3.5 speed is near ASRAAM territory. PL-8 will be a menace

It appears so. What's interesting here is that in some aspects, Magic II isn't even as good as Magic I. Are they trying to downgrade it?

Edit: Also, I assume the Fi_rak is the seeker aspect. For all aspect seekers, they get this 3.14152. But if I remember correctly, the pie is 3.14159. Does that mean non of the missiles are true "all aspects"? And there is a chance that we can "notch" them head-on? 

Edited March 4, 2023 by PLAAF

[AeriaGloria]

On 3/3/2023 at 6:28 PM, PLAAF said:

It appears so. What's interesting here is that in some aspects, Magic II isn't even as good as Magic I. Are they trying to downgrade it?

Edit: Also, I assume the Fi_rak is the seeker aspect. For all aspect seekers, they get this 3.14152. But if I remember correctly, the pie is 3.14159. Does that mean non of the missiles are true "all aspects"? And there is a chance that we can "notch" them head-on? 

 

If you read the notes here, https://github.com/Quaggles/dcs-lua-datamine

Fi_rak is FOV of the seeker. The number is in radians. However as you see there is 4 different values starting with “Fi” that all relate to FOV. 
 

So I think what you’re seeing is the Fi_rak figure only needs to be set to 360 degrees (except for Magic 1)? And the actual FOV is represented through the other Fi figures 

All aspect detection only depends on two figures, “seeker sensitivity distance” which is the distance to detect a tail aspect Su-27 in MIL power, and “seeker cooled: true/false.” If seeker is cooled, then it acts as all aspect. Depending on seeker sensitivity figure, depends the range that lock-on occurs ( comparing seeker sensitivity and cooling to heat signature of target and any aspect modifiers on top of it)

It seems you also mentioned that PL-5 has less drag then AIM-9M but I don’t think that’s the case. If you are looking at Cx_pil value, that value only controls that drag that the weapon causes when loaded on the airframe. The drag that occurs when the weapon is released is totally different, these numbers likely being in the model data string, which you can also decipher with the notes on the Quaggles GitHub repo page. 
 

You said you couldn’t find R-60, there are two, also, whenever warhead is predefined, it can be found in warheads section 

As you can see, magnitude 3 R-60 has cx_pil of 0.001, while ED one is 2.18, does it have 1/2000th of the drag? It’s becuase of the way the MiG-21 is coded, that every cx_pil of 0.001 adds a drag index of 1 to it. You can see other things like higher max G and warhead and higher countermeasure resistance that actually make the R-60 better then the R-60M within range. 

ED R-60M

,
	Cx_pil: 2.18 D_max = 4000,
	D_min = 200,
	Damage = 8.75,
	Diam = 120,
	Escort = 0,
	Fi_excort = 0.79,
	Fi_rak = 3.14152,
	Fi_search = 0.044,
	Fi_start = 0.35,
	H_max = 20000,
	H_min = -1,
	H_min_t = 1,
	Head_Form = 0,
	Head_Type = 1,
	KillDistance = 3,
	Life_Time = 20,
	M = 43,
	Mach_max = 2.5,
	Nr_max = 30,
	OmViz_max = 0.611,
	Range_max = 12000,
	Reflection = 0.03,
	SeekerCooled = true,
	SeekerSensivityDistance = 10000,
	exhaust = { 1, 1, 1, 1 },
	name = "P_60",
	sigma = { 3, 3, 3 },
	t_acc = 5,
	t_b = 0,
	t_marsh = 0,
	Warhead: 3.5 kg

Magnitude 3 R-60

	Cx_pil: 0.001 D_max = 7200,
	D_min = 300,
	Damage = 15,
	Diam = 130,
	Escort = 0,
	Fi_excort = 0.698,
	Fi_rak = 2.6175,
	Fi_search = 0.08725,
	Fi_start = 0.349,
	H_max = 24000,
	H_min = -1,
	H_min_t = 1,
	KillDistance = 3,
	Life_Time = 23,
	M = 43.5,
	Mach_max = 2.5,
	Nr_max = 40,
	OmViz_max = 0.5235,
	PN_coeffs = { 2, 4000, 1, 15000, 0.3 },
	Range_max = 11200,
	Reflection = 0.0182,
	SeekerCooled = true,
	SeekerSensivityDistance = 7500,
	ccm_k0 = 0.66,
	display_name = "R-60 - AAM, IR guided",
	exhaust = { 0.9, 0.9, 0.9, 0.5 },
	sigma = { 3, 3, 3 },
	t_acc = 2.5,
	t_b = 0,
	t_marsh = 0,
	user_name = "R-60 - AAM, IR guided",
	v_mid = 600,
	v_min = 200,
	expl_mass = 6,

[PLAAF]

3 minutes ago, AeriaGloria said:

ED R-60M

,
	Cx_pil: 2.18 D_max = 4000,
	D_min = 200,
	Damage = 8.75,
	Diam = 120,
	Escort = 0,
	Fi_excort = 0.79,
	Fi_rak = 3.14152,
	Fi_search = 0.044,
	Fi_start = 0.35,
	H_max = 20000,
	H_min = -1,
	H_min_t = 1,
	Head_Form = 0,
	Head_Type = 1,
	KillDistance = 3,
	Life_Time = 20,
	M = 43,
	Mach_max = 2.5,
	Nr_max = 30,
	OmViz_max = 0.611,
	Range_max = 12000,
	Reflection = 0.03,
	SeekerCooled = true,
	SeekerSensivityDistance = 10000,
	exhaust = { 1, 1, 1, 1 },
	name = "P_60",
	sigma = { 3, 3, 3 },
	t_acc = 5,
	t_b = 0,
	t_marsh = 0,
	Warhead: 3.5 kg

Magnitude 3 R-60

	Cx_pil: 0.001 D_max = 7200,
	D_min = 300,
	Damage = 15,
	Diam = 130,
	Escort = 0,
	Fi_excort = 0.698,
	Fi_rak = 2.6175,
	Fi_search = 0.08725,
	Fi_start = 0.349,
	H_max = 24000,
	H_min = -1,
	H_min_t = 1,
	KillDistance = 3,
	Life_Time = 23,
	M = 43.5,
	Mach_max = 2.5,
	Nr_max = 40,
	OmViz_max = 0.5235,
	PN_coeffs = { 2, 4000, 1, 15000, 0.3 },
	Range_max = 11200,
	Reflection = 0.0182,
	SeekerCooled = true,
	SeekerSensivityDistance = 7500,
	ccm_k0 = 0.66,
	display_name = "R-60 - AAM, IR guided",
	exhaust = { 0.9, 0.9, 0.9, 0.5 },
	sigma = { 3, 3, 3 },
	t_acc = 2.5,
	t_b = 0,
	t_marsh = 0,
	user_name = "R-60 - AAM, IR guided",
	v_mid = 600,
	v_min = 200,
	expl_mass = 6,

Thanks very much.
Can you also find other Russian missiles? K-55, R-3, R-13, R-27 series and R-77.

[AeriaGloria]

7 minutes ago, PLAAF said:

Thanks very much.
Can you also find other Russian missiles? K-55, R-3, R-13, R-27 series and R-77.

Sorry I meant to also add picture of the note on the front page of the repo 

You can always pull the numbers from the repo yourself, I can’t find ED R-3S but I can find Magntiude 3 R-3S.

Cx_pil = 0.001,
	D_max = 7600,
	D_min = 900,
	Damage = 26.75,
	Diam = 127,
	Escort = 0,
	Fi_excort = 0.5235,
	Fi_rak = 2.6175,
	Fi_search = 0.08725,
	Fi_start = 0.2094,
	H_max = 18500,
	H_min = 100,
	H_min_t = 10,
	Head_Form = 0,
	Head_Type = 1,
	KillDistance = 5,
	Life_Time = 30,
	M = 75.3,
	Mach_max = 2.2,
	ModelData = { 58, 0.35, 0.049, 0.082, 0.01, 0.001, 0.55, 0.8, 0.8, 0.7, 1.2, 0.13, 0, -1, -1, 2.8, 0, 0, 0, 1000000000, 0, 0, 7, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 13570, 0, 0, 0, 0, 22, 21, 0, 0.5, 1000000000, 1000000000, 0, 30, 0, 1.19, 1, 2, 6, -8, -1.1, 10000, 2700, 14500, 4500, 7500, 1800, 2500, 0.55, -0.01, 0.5 },
	Name = "Redacted",
	Nr_max = 16,
	OmViz_max = 0.349,
	PN_gain = 3,
	Range_max = 15400,
	Reflection = 0.0182,
	SeekerCooled = true,
	SeekerSensivityDistance = 7500,
	X_back = -1.374,
	Y_back = -0.081,
	Z_back = 0,
	_file = "./CoreMods/aircraft/MiG-21BIS/Entry/Aw",
	_origin = "MiG-21Bis AI by Magnitude 3 LLC",
	_unique_resource_name = "weapons.missiles.R-3S",
	category = 4,
	ccm_k0 = 0.66,
	display_name = "R-3S - AAM, IR guided",
	exhaust = { 0.9, 0.9, 0.9, 0.5 },
	name = "R-3S",
	shape_table_data = { {
	file = "r-3s",
	fire = { 0, 1 },
	index = "Redacted",
	life = 1,
	name = "r-3_s",
	username = "R-3S"
	} },
	sigma = { 3, 3, 4 },
	t_acc = 2.45,
	t_b = 0,
	t_marsh = 0,
	user_name = "R-3S - AAM, IR guided",
	v_mid = 400,
	v_min = 140,
	warhead = {
	caliber = 127,
	concrete_factors = { 1, 1, 1 },
	concrete_obj_factor = 0,
	cumulative_factor = 0,
	cumulative_thickness = 0,
	expl_mass = 10.7,
	mass = 11.77,
	obj_factors = { 1, 1 },
	other_factors = { 1, 1, 1 },
	piercing_mass = 2.354       Here is R-13/13M1, files are identical  Cx_pil = 0.001,   D_max = 15000,   D_min = 300,   Damage = 28.05,   Diam = 127,   Escort = 0,   Fi_excort = 0.698,   Fi_rak = 2.6175,   Fi_search = 0.08725,   Fi_start = 0.2094,   H_max = 20000,   H_min = -1,   H_min_t = 1,   Head_Form = 0,   Head_Type = 1,   KillDistance = 5,   Life_Time = 60,   M = 90.4,   Mach_max = 2.5,   ModelData = { 58, 0.35, 0.1, 0.1, 0.02, 0.04, 1.2, 1.2, 0.8, 0.7, 1.2, 0.29, 0, -1, -1, 5, 0, 0, 0, 1000000000, 0, 0, 6, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 8280, 0, 0, 0, 0, 61, 60, 0, 0.5, 1000000000, 1000000000, 0, 30, 0, 1.19, 1, 2, 5200, 0.63, 0.53, 0.75, 59, 1, 5000, 1, 0.2, 0.6, 1.4, -3, 0.5 },   Name = "Redacted",   Nr_max = 35,   OmViz_max = 0.43625,   PN_coeffs = { 2, 4000, 1, 15000, 0.3 },   Range_max = 20000,   Reflection = 0.0182,   SeekerCooled = true,   SeekerSensivityDistance = 7500,   X_back = -1.396,   Y_back = -0.081,   Z_back = 0,   _file = "./CoreMods/aircraft/MiG-21BIS/Entry/Aw",   _origin = "MiG-21Bis AI by Magnitude 3 LLC",   _unique_resource_name = "weapons.missiles.R-13M1",   category = 4,   ccm_k0 = 0.66,   display_name = "R-13M1 - AAM, IR guided",   exhaust = { 0.9, 0.9, 0.9, 0.5 },   name = "R-13M1",   shape_table_data = { {   file = "r-13m1",   fire = { 0, 1 },   index = "Redacted",   life = 1,   name = "r-13_m1",   username = "R-13M1"   } },   sigma = { 3, 3, 3 },   t_acc = 5.1,   t_b = 0,   t_marsh = 0,   user_name = "R-13M1 - AAM, IR guided",   v_mid = 460,   v_min = 140,   warhead = {   caliber = 127,   concrete_factors = { 1, 1, 1 },   concrete_obj_factor = 0,   cumulative_factor = 0,   cumulative_thickness = 0,   expl_mass = 11.22,   mass = 12.342,   I won’t do R-27 as there are 4 variants, and R-77 also. But it’s easy enough to go to the datamine https://github.com/Quaggles/dcs-lua-datamine and get the numbers.    Anything in new API is in missiles and old API in rockets, and some information won’t correlate between the two. And even for the rockets category many numbers like H-max and D-max are just estimates/encyclopedia things, and have no effect on performance.

Edited March 6, 2023 by AeriaGloria

[F-2]

https://books.google.com/books?id=qFGICwAAQBAJ&pg=PT140&dq=python+3+missile+boresight&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&ov2=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjttL-O29__AhXDEVkFHR1rASgQ6AF6BAgCEAM#v=onepage&q=python 3 missile boresight&f=false
 

seems Python 3 is capable of 45 degree off boresight shots?