This isn’t a hot take, it’s the only sensible take here. This plane was made from a French plane upgraded by Israel - it should be in the Israeli tree which already has their own modified Mirages. Britain should not have access to these kinds of planes and neither should have they gotten the Gripen.
ME WHEN SUBTREE
Suck it up
4 Likes
Cheetah for UK simple as. Israel has better options itself while France has very little rights to the platform outside of producing the initial Mirage 5.
Kfir C-10
Yeah Kfir C.10 / Kfir 2000, Kfir Blk 60
2 Likes
These are aircraft which Israel can have would be good counters to the Cheetah C and other stuff, before BeNeLux was added F16s only had to really worry about Mirage 2Ks and Gripens but then France gets 2 F16 Blk 10s which France absolutely did not need and now you have F16s with no real danger besides the Gripen.
If the Cheetah C was added to France or Israel it would contribute to this problem at top tier and Britain would have no good supersonic, decently manoeuvrable fighter below the Gripen
1 Like
Unfortunately, although I myself like many of you wish to see this aircraft in the Israeli tech tree given its origins, given the rules of implementation regarding sub trees it will be going to Britain unless something changes. This is just where SAAF vehicles reside for the moment, and unfortunately that means vehicles that rightfully belong in a South African standalone tech tree or the Israeli one won’t be receiving these anytime soon.
Put what you want in between pipe symbols (|) like this:
| text | text | text |
|:---:|:---:|:---:|
| text | text | text |
The colons and dashes make a thick horizontal line spacer. You should be able to apply formatting like size, color, bold, etc. to text in tables too.
If South Africa were not already a British subtree I would honestly feel the same way. Israel did provide the Kfir airframes used along with other equipment. In the time period of the Cheetah C’s design Israel and South Africa had close cooperation when it came to weapons R&D. However South Africa is a British subtree so it doesn’t make sense to go anywhere else. There are other Kfir upgrades Israel can get to fill the void.
As far as Mirages not being in Britain, I would again agree but South Africa is a British subtree. As such I think they deserve good representation in air as well as the strong showing they already have in ground. From the 60’s until near the turn of the century the SAAF used Mirages as frontline fighters, I don’t think it’s really fair to deprive them of that just because it would be a kind of bad fit for the British tree.
For your final point, I think it’s reasonable, but in the future airframes like the SAAF Gripen C may be relocated as more modern weapons are added and their capabilities can come closer to real life. For example, if Denel ever actually finishes developing their current BVRAAM project and it gets integrated with the Gripen, we could see the Gripen C lose R-Darters and move up in BR. (The aforementioned missile has been test fired from the Gripen but that’s about it - it may be ‘too good’ for the game right now since it’s a dual pulse motor). I think the Cheetah C has a decent enough chance of enjoying its own niche in the future but for now I think you have a valid point.
7 Likes
South Africa is a British sub-tree. That means all South African vehicles go to the British tree.
1 Like
Valid points in all honesty. It is a south african vehicle but part of me hopes gaijin will pull a SK-105 and potentially add it to both tech trees, but thats just wishful thinking at this point.
You can’t “do a Sk-105” because the two 105’s are from two different countries. I guess they could do a ITO-90 and add the “Finnish one to Fr*nce and Sweden”
as much as that would be a gaijin move, I highly doubt that will happen, plus its also better to have more semi-major nations (by IRL standards) like South Africa in one tree, mainly because it means people from said country don’t have to grind several trees to unlock their nations stuff.
Plus considering the fact that a lot of ZA stuff can really help britain at higher tiers it would likely be beneficial to Britain to have some South African air, especially in the 9.7 - 12.0 mark where britain has no proper fighters
At the end of the day it is the Atlas cheetah who had involvement in designing and then manufacturing the plane. Challenger 3 isn’t in German tree due to technology collaboration or use of German technology and there are plenty of similar examples. I’m fine with both trees getting it but I don’t see why you want it in the Israel tree when the Kfir C10 would likely come at the same time /before.
1 Like
I am in favor of the fact that since South Africa is already under the tree of Great Britain, the latter should keep everything related to South Africa including the Chetaah, Israel can perfectly keep the Chilean Pantera which is a cousin of this plane and they are quite similar, I don’t see the point of arguing that Israel keep this plane when it has other options
Mirage 50CN Pantera
2 Likes
Yeah the late Kfir series and Pentera fill similar gaps if they aren’t already filled. For example the Cheetah would contribute relatively little to the Israeli tree at 13.0 that is not already filled well by the Netz or Baz.
Whereas the British tree is pretty lacking of shall we say manoeuvrable jets around this range this would be an incredible filler and not disrupt the already present SAAF presence in the GB tree.
If anything that plane is just a Kfir C.7 with an actual radar and some extra cms (potentially). This aircraft is more like the C.10, given it has ARH R-Darter missiles (which will preform the exact same as the Derby found on the C.10 series). If that aircraft was added now it wouldn’t really offer anything new at all to the Israeli tree as compared to the C.10 or Cheetah C. (I’m not saying the Cheetah C should be added to Israel, it belongs in GB where SA vehicles reside.)
One thing I’m now interested in: this suggestion states the Cheetah C can carry 5x R-Darters,
and that confuses me quite a lot. All of the Kfir/Mirage Series fighters developed/modernized by Israel have only been able to carry 4x missiles on the 4 underwing pylons with 2 on each wing. I would like to know where this 5th missiles would even be mounted. Perhaps this is just a typo for all I know, or any source that states it has it wrong, however I need to see proof of where it would be mounted before I believe it.
“The armament system and aircraft wiring also supported V4 on the fuselage centerline station (4) but this was never cleared for flight, probably because of the risk of the engine ingesting missile rocket motor exhaust gas at launch.”
from:
Not a hard source, so I suppose we’d have to find a better one, I wonder if we can find a ground crew manual or something
2 Likes
Interesting, seems it could be mounted, but never was due to concerns. Gaijin has been willing to remove armaments for reasons such as this in the past (ex: no Agm-65s/rockets next to targeting pod on A-10C at one point) but given this would affect the engine I have no idea what they’ll do. We never have to worry about engine problems ingame, such as things going into our intakes, however it was never cleared for flight IRL based on this, meaning it likely won’t be allowed ingame.
Seems like a: Yes it could be mounted on said pylon, however it’s not supposed to be, as it’s said to not be cleared for flight meaning unless something else shows up that’s states otherwise I highly doubt it will be allowed on said pylon ingame.
wasn’t it that the 5th V4 meant losing a fuel tank?