Of course, the Python 4 has great capabilities, but relating it to the Kfir C.10, I’d like to clarify: the Br in which it operates already has missiles with IRCCM, and in the case of the other aircraft in the Israeli Air Force, they at least have good IR missiles (superior to the P3) like the AIM-9 M/L. The Colombian Kfir C.10 Block 60 doesn’t have this (specifically the Colombian Air Force Kfir C.10, since if it were the general version it would have the capacity to carry the Sidewinders). So the case of the Sufa in the game is the debate about its Br 14 and the obvious need for the Python 4 to justify it. For the Kfir C.10 Blk 60, the Python 4 would also be sufficient to slightly increase its Br due to the limited capacity it could carry (4 max). Furthermore, I propose that the Improved version of the Derby (I-Derby) also be added to the game, along with its extended-range version (which would be the counterpart to long-range BVR missiles like the AIM-120 C and R-77-1 already in the game). Even so, there is much more to discuss.
Uhhhhh nah it’s still pretty bonkers even if it’s still form the C.7
Um, okay, maybe it’s not bad, but I assure you it’s far inferior to the aircraft it faces in top-level combat. That’s why I listed it as a disadvantage. I’ve also researched that the Colombian Kfir C.10 might be the GE J79-J1E/QD (an improved version). This is because there was a time when some aircraft crashed, and the Colombian Air Force (FAC) sent the J79 engines to Israel for repowering and maintenance. Hence, the source claims these engines should perform somewhat better.
As part of the new update, the Kfir C.10 will receive an HMD update, which is welcome because this was precisely what was missing. The problem is that, although the new Targo2 HMD system has Datalink capability, it seems to have been omitted from the Dev. Here is the report; if you can support us would be great. Community Bug Reporting System
Even better? The issue with the Kfir is the low VnE, not engine power. It’s like putting a V10 into a Golf II
That’s true, we must always be careful that the aircraft doesn’t exceed the speed limit, but being a delta wing, it sheds a lot of energy in dogfights, and its recovery is very slow. Furthermore, at high altitudes it loses maneuverability precisely because the J-79 lacks power. That’s what I mean.
Good evening Kfir enjoyers and War Thunder community, I’m glad to announce that TWO Kfir C.10 bug-reports have been made, and it’s up to YOU, the player, to drive them forwards to being accepted.
Here are the following reports:
As mentioned before in my posts, several images and sources have been attached to drive forward the implementation of new MFD modes, NCTR, and other related functions shown within the sources.
Please share these reports so that we can better accurately model this aircraft, these are (for what we’ve found) valid sources for bug-reporting, therefore, we are currently relying on the community’s support for pushing these changes.
Thank you.
Gentlemen, in light of new evidence I’ve decided to make my own forum thread, this time compiling all the material and findings possible in regards to the Kfir series of aircraft
Topics so far covered:
- Kfir C.2 / C.7 RWR Screen
- Kfir C.2 / C.7 HUD
- Kfir C.7 Weapon Delivery and Navigation System (MFD Function)
- Kfir 2000 / CE / C.10 Cockpit images
Good evening Kfir enjoyers, I’ve recently published my best written report so far in regards to the missing Data Link capabilities on the Kfir C.10, for those interested, here is the report:
Please go show it some love, as it would make a great addition to such an amazing aircraft that is the Kfir C.10 Block 60, thank you.
With the new aesa planes, its time to give the kfir aesa radar and I-Derby ER. At least a copy paste but for TT, not event.
Also a python 4 but with irccm a little nerfed to be same as r73 and pl8.
And there you have it, an aesa plane for Israel with minimum effort.
Sure…In fact dude, the Kfir C.10 does have the AESA radar (ELTA EL/M 2052). What they should improve on the Kfir is the addition of Python 4/5 and I-Derby-ER missiles, as well as upgrade the avionics with capabilities such as datalink, a modern RWR, and in the future, EW, ECM, and ESM capabilities. All of these are historical details that greatly differentiate it from the C.10 version (Kfir 2000). For this reason, the Kfir C.10 Blk 60 is one of the most incomplete vehicles in the game.
The only way I could see a similar thing to another Kfir C.10 Block 60 in the tech tree would be two options:
-
Special Kfir C.10 Block 60 from F-Air or Red Flag [Same fuselage, different livery]
-
Same Kfir C.10 Block 60 with different registry [Same livery, different registry]
Other than that, the thing I think we should push for are the new weapons, with the new supposed “developer commentary” AKA them just saying “uhhh they might come next year” we can somewhat expect the Python 4 and I-Derby to be a guarantee.
Though the main problem is the fact that right now, at least in my opinion, what is being prioritized is the “wow” factor rather than the historical accuracy or even the fair treatment of avionics systems.
And this isn’t exclusive to the C.10, THE ENTIRE KFIR FAMILY is PLAGUED with issues, which only SOME have been accepted yet VERY VERY few implemented.
Like, I have my own forum covering the issues and inaccuracies of the Kfir family, and it doesn’t even scratch the surface of it all.
Also, it was quite literally a blessing that we managed to get the Targo II accepted by the developers, Gran Colombia here can vouch that it was a surprise how quickly we received a response regarding it.
And oh dear don’t get us started on the EMERALD and SPECTROLITE suites the C.10 Block 60 actually has…
Sooooo to not unnecessarily extend myself, we can expect to see new weapons, but there is no point if the avionics are incomplete, and I really doubt Israel will get their own AESA option unless they implement a subtree.
And the I-Derby?
We already know there are no plans to add the Python 4 at the moment (like a IR short-range missile), and that two-stage long-range missiles require a specific mechanic to be added to the game, which will be soon (I hope). Why not add the improved version of the Derby to the game for the Israeli TT?
Nations like USA, Russia, etc., already have the new AIM-120 C-5 and R-77-1 missiles, and the French MICA has also been improved. It’s true that Israel also has the new American AMRAAM, but not all fighters (like the Kfir C.10) have it available. For this reason, adding the I-Derby would be very helpful, especially since it’s a missile that was historically missing before the I-Derby-ER.
The aircraft that could be equipped with it would be:
- F-16 D Barak 2
- F-16 C Barak 2
- F-16I Sufa
- Kfir C.10 Block 60
In fact, the proposal to add this missile to the game has already been made and passed (thanks to our friend @Surbaissemaxxing).
We have the I-Derby SR (SPYDER launched I-Derby, exact same missile used on a ground platform) already, and it’s a complete copy paste. Pair that with the fact all ARH missiles (aside from the mica and aim-54) have copy pasted seeker stats and its a completely unnecessary addition. Basically we have the I-Derby rn, unless gaijin adds unique seeker stats to missiles it won’t be anything new.
Sufa won’t get Derby, never used or tested. Technically speaking the Block 40 Barak IIs shouldn’t even have Derbys given their testbeds were block 30 Barak Is but they’re similar enough aircraft that I get why gaijin gave it to them. The C’s AMRAAMs are another story tho…
Uhm, I understand. So, regarding the datalink for the missile, it improves its seeker. This means the missile’s ECCM would be similar to that of a MICA, but with the same general characteristics as the standard Derby (speed, G-force resistance, maneuverability, etc.). Is that correct, Basher?
This also makes it even more relevant to add the aircraft’s datalink capability (the Colombian IAI Kfir C.10 has this capability, but Gaijin hasn’t read the report) so that it can fully utilize the I-Derby missile if it’s added (considering what you’re saying).
(DEV) Targo 2/JHMCS 2 hmd missing “blue forces tracker” // Gaijin.net // Issues
[DEV] Kfir C.10 Block 60 Missing Data Link Capabilities // Gaijin.net // Issues
By the way, regarding the F-16s, I based my opinion on the same image I shared in the thread, because the F-5 (Thai I think) and the Mirages (I think these are the Kfir) could also use it.
Datalink and ECCM for ARH AAMs are two different things, datalink in simple terms is telling the missile where the target is before it gets a lock (in long range LOAL engagements). The seeker improvements are almost always unknown with every missile, meaning any changes and improvements will be made by the developers at their discretion. Seeing how the I-Derby SR is now and all ARH AAMs, it’s very unlikely they’ll add the missile let alone buff its seeker over the Derby. (Same platform yes, all that’s new is the seeker).
Are you referring to datalink for radar guided missiles here, or other forms? In war thunder we only have the former at the moment, which I believe the Kfir C.10 Block 60 has in the form of DL channels when viewing the radar’s stats, unless it’s somehow missing them and I never noticed.
They can’t either. The Brazilian F-5 is the only F-5 to ever deploy the Derby series, and it’s only capable of using the regular one as well, Thai and Chilean F-5s never used derbys but supposedly had them integrated. Same goes for the Kfirs as they require I-Derby integration, and the Block 60 is the only one to ever get it.
Isnt it brazilian?
Other f5 uses pythons
Of course, in fact, I just read that in addition to the I-Derby’s Datalink capability, another improvement is the ECCM (Electronic Counter-Countermeasures) capability. This gives the missile greater resistance against chaff and ECM (if it were added as a game mechanic).
I was referring more to the way allied radars are integrated: It’s very useful in simulated battles (it’s represented in the game by being able to observe enemy and allied targets on the radar and HMD, like the Rafale and Typhoon can). I think this can also help with missile guidance while locked on target (LOAL, as you say).
Wow, that’s interesting. Because of what you’re saying, I think the Kfir C.10 Blk 60 in the game should have not only the I-Derby and the Python 4, but also the I-Derby-ER and the Python 5, even if it increases its BR (13.7 or 14 would be fine).
I think that’s a Derby, bro, but Basher confirms that it might not be. But we are certain that Brazil does have the Python 4 on its F-5s.
Well it is a thing ingame, it’s just that it’s fully dependent on the stats set for seekers by the devs.
No that’s a different thing. Missile datalink refers to giving mid course updates to fired ARH missiles. And example being you have a plane flying in one direction 40km away. You fire a missile and after you fired it it changes direction but the missile still heads in the direction the enemy was originally heading in. Using datalink when your radar next scans the enemy target it provides the missile with a mid-course update and it alters its course to find the target in the new direction. Without datalink it would continue heading in the first direction only and stay under the assumption it never alters direction. (This is a really simple way of putting it, and probably not the best at that)
You might already be familiar with this, but the Colombia Kfir C.10s only ever used the Python 4 and Derby (and possibly the Python 5). The Kfir C.10 Block 60 gained access to the I-Derby/I-Derby ER and Python 5 on top of that. It having the Python 3 is dumb already, and it being its top IR missiles is plain stupid…
???
Yes it’s a Derby, this is it on display on a Brazilian F-5EM, they are the only Israeli upgraded F-5s to employ the Derby series missile in service. There’s a suggestion for it on the forums too if you want to read up on it.
I understand. It depends on many factors involved between the ARH missile launch and a potential kill. but I do think adding the I-Derby (a Derby with a datalink and improved countermeasures resistance) could be a good option while the long-range, two-stage missile mechanics like the I-Derby-ER are being implemented.
Of course, that doesn’t make sense. I haven’t given up hope of playing the Kfir C.10 in its final form, with its top-tier historical armament, as it also has avionics that will help it perform at a higher battle ratio.
Sure bro Thank you for your valuable help in understanding these topics that are sometimes confused between historical reality and their application in the game.