This thread is intended purely for discussion. Please note that some vehicles might have BR adjustment markings in the attached image that are not explicitly mentioned in the text below. The image should be considered the primary reference.
Here are the main points regarding the current Battle Ratings (BR) of several Israeli aircraft:
1. Mystère IVA It currently shares the same BR as the French original variant but lacks the AA-20 missile. Its BR should be lowered to reflect this downgrade in capability.
2. Kfir C.2 and Kfir C.7 The current BR and matchmaking environment for both variants are unreasonable (grouped together as the reasoning is identical). If we use the recently adjusted MiG-21-2000 as a benchmark, the discrepancy becomes obvious. Compared to the MiG-21-2000, the Kfir suffers from a practically unusable radar, significantly fewer countermeasures, no avionics(HMD), and a complete absence of air-to-ground guided weapons
3. Kurnass 2000 BR Discrepancies The Kurnass 2000 still suffers from the same old issue: its BR was not reduced after the removal of the AIM-7F missile.
Comparison:
Kurnass 2000 vs. F-15A Baz
F-4E AUP vs. F-15A Baz 2000
Kurnass 2000 (Air 12.3): Only equipped with non-ECCM SARH missiles (Fox 1). Total AAM loadout: 6.
F-4E AUP (BR 13.0): Primary weaponry and total missile count are completely identical to the Baz 2000.
F-15A Baz (Air 12.7): Equipped with ECCM-capable SARH (Fox 1) and filtered IR missiles (Fox 2). Total AAM loadout: 8.
F-15A Baz 2000 (BR 13.7):(Shares the same loadout, but sits at a significantly higher BR).
I believe these discrepancies negatively impact the gameplay experience and matchmaking fairness
Kfir C.10
In the current meta, where Active Radar Homing (ARH) missiles have received widespread and significant buffs, the Derby missile has remained completely unchanged. If the Derby continues to receive no performance adjustments or buffs in the future, I believe the Kfir C.10’s BR should be lowered by 0.3 to accurately reflect its relative disadvantage in this environment.
Kfir C7 should probably be 11.3/11.7, but 11.0 is too low for it. Does still have 4x Python-3 at the end of th day, that is a better loadout than half of what is currently at 11.3
Also the F-86E(M) should be 8.3, the F-102 should be 8.7 (or fix it with the addition of the gun pylons or AIM-26B) the Mirage F.1CG should go 11.0 (and 10.7 in simulator)
To clarify, the point is not a direct, isolated comparison between the F-4 and the F-15. Rather, it is a comparison of the performance and loadout gap between these two specific pairs.
The capability disparity between the Kurnass 2000 and the F-15A Baz is significantly larger than the disparity between the F-4E AUP and the F-15A Baz 2000 .
I actually used to think the same way. However, given the recent release and subsequent balancing changes of the MiG-21-2000, the meta has clearly shifted. I now feel that a more substantial approach to BR adjustments is needed to properly address these growing disparities.
F-86E(M)after the fix is an 8.0 or 8.3.
A-7H since it got released without any guided weapons must get AIM-9P or J (in fact what’s worse of them) because it never operated or could use 9D or G and go BR 10.0 .
Kfir C.7 is 11.7 max. No SHAR. No Ground guided weapons for NE. There is no reason to be over 11.7 . And P3s are just as flarable as anything, as soon as it doesn’t see no CM planes it’s ok.
Mirage F.1CG either you give it AIm-9P4 and let it where is, or with 9P it’s no more than 11.0 (practically same BR with F-4F ) or 10.7 if you think it doesn’t have guided ground weapons (unlike F-4F) for NE.
Kfir C.10 13.0 . Good radar etc, it lacks A LOT in armament.
