KFIR C10 Block 60 The Colombian Sky Lion, Analysis and Discussion

[BasherBenDawg8]

@DarkSilentNights

but the AAM-3 is fine?

Yes? It has the same seeker type as the Aim-9M. Yes it has more kinematic range and slightly more maneuverability than the 9M as it stands, but the Python 4 is vastly better in both areas.

The Python 4 incorporates both types of IRCCM we have on our aircraft right now, using both gatewidth and shutoff. The way it works would be that flares will leave the seeker FOV really fast due to its size, limiting the shutoff time. There might be a case or two where this is worse, but it’s overall a dramatic improvement. Then take into account this missile is capable of pulling 180s (if it will have that in game is yet to be seen) and has intended use in a dogfight and you have a monster of a missile.

It should be added alongside contemporaries for other nations. These planes aren’t in desperate need of this for the time being.

[DarkSilentNights]

@BasherBenDawg8

The Python 4 incorporates both types of IRCCM we have on our aircraft right now, using both gatewidth and shutoff.

AAM-3 isn’t even modelled to accuracy, AIM-120s are underpeforming, PL-12s got nuked for literally no reason, redtop has a comical amount of drag, RB-24J is missing low-smoke motor, F-4K F-4M are missing skyflash supertemp compatibility, F-14B is missing AIM-9M, AIM-9L is missing like literally all of its flare resistance, F-14, MiG-29, F-104, and more flightmodels got nuked a while ago for no reason, Kfir C.10’s RWR is still the wrong model, the Mirage F1CT is still missing AS.30s and the upgraded radar, we still have fictional aircraft in the game which also aren’t even modelled accurately to the source material (F-16J, missing landing gear door sparrows), plenty aircraft have ahistorical loadouts, crusader flaps and wing mechanization is incorrect… i could go on

but it’s too far fetched to just slightly nerf the Python 4 so that certain aircraft either have something better than a slow accelerating 9M to work with (F-5), or to just have iRCCM missiles to begin with (kfir)?

you also need to take into account the fact that all missiles are already nerfed in one way or another, as mentioned the AIM-9L is missing all of its flare resistance, the AIM-9M is missing some of its lock-on range, AIM-120s are artificially nerfed, so on so forth. but no, python 4 has to wait because we have to model it fully accurately which is something we’ve never done before in the past.

even if the python 4 gets added along with contemporary missiles, at that point it’s already going to be DOA with the advent of the AIM-9X, MICA IR, IRIS-T, ASRAAM, R-74, AAM-5, etcetera, by that point you’ll have to skip directly to the Python 5.

@BasherBenDawg8

Then take into account this missile is capable of pulling 180s (if it will have that IRL is yet to be seen) and has intended use in a dogfight and you have a monster of a missile.

we have absolutely zero facilities to enable over the shoulder launches in the game, so this point is null and void whether or not the missile can or cannot do this in real life. unless the Python 4’s seeker can see behind the missile, the missile will not be doing 180s

@BasherBenDawg8

and has intended use in a dogfight

and we already have missiles that are “dogfight monsters” such as the Magic 2 and the R-73.

[BasherBenDawg8]

@DarkSilentNights

AAM-3 isn’t even modelled to accuracy

I’m aware of this, and I’ve advocated here on the forums for its seeker specifically to be set to its correct parameters many times now. However it’s current state isn’t a reason for the Python 4 to be added. There’s also no guarantee they’ll fix it alongside the implementation of next gen IRs.

@DarkSilentNights

AIM-120s are underpeforming, PL-12s got nuked for literally no reason, redtop has a comical amount of drag, RB-24J is missing low-smoke motor, F-4K F-4M are missing skyflash supertemp compatibility, F-14B is missing AIM-9M, AIM-9L is missing like literally all of its flare resistance, F-14, MiG-29, F-104, and more flightmodels got nuked a while ago for no reason, Kfir C.10’s RWR is still the wrong model, the Mirage F1CT is still missing AS.30s and the upgraded radar, we still have fictional aircraft in the game which also aren’t even modelled accurately to the source material (F-16J, missing landing gear door sparrows), plenty aircraft have ahistorical loadouts, crusader flaps and wing mechanization is incorrect… i could go on

This has nothing to do with adding the Python 4 to aircraft ingame.

@DarkSilentNights

but it’s too far fetched to just slightly nerf the Python 4 so that certain aircraft either have something better than a slow accelerating 9M to work with (F-5), or to just have iRCCM missiles to begin with (kfir)?

The developers and community managers have stated many times they will not add a “nerfed” Python 4. This has not changed.

@DarkSilentNights

you also need to take into account the fact that all missiles are already nerfed in one way or another, as mentioned the AIM-9L is missing all of its flare resistance, the AIM-9M is missing some of its lock-on range, AIM-120s are artificially nerfed, so on so forth. but no, python 4 has to wait because we have to model it fully accurately which is something we’ve never done before in the past.

Aim-9L is preforming fine based on documentation we have, if you believe otherwise make a report using any information and proof you have. Aim-9M is missing lock range based on the variant it’s supposed to depict yes, and iirc the variant gaijin says we’re using is supposed to have more range than it does now.

@DarkSilentNights

even if the python 4 gets added along with contemporary missiles, at that point it’s already going to be DOA with the advent of the AIM-9X, MICA IR, IRIS-T, ASRAAM, R-74, AAM-5, etcetera, by that point you’ll have to skip directly to the Python 5.

The Python 4 will be a sort of lead up to it. It will have its contemporaries, such as the R-73M depending on how you look at that one in particular. The thing about the Python 4 is that it’s stronger than all the missiles we have now, but yes it would be somewhat weaker than all those other contemporaries in terms of seeker performance, which means the proper solution is to add both at once.

@DarkSilentNights

we have absolutely zero facilities to enable over the shoulder launches in the game, so this point is null and void whether or not the missile can or cannot do this in real life. unless the Python 4’s seeker can see behind the missile, the missile will not be doing 180s

The ability to 180 a target is through the continued tracking of a target in the FOV. It’s not it firing at a target behind itself, it’s the ability to continue tracking a target beyond 180 degrees. So long as a target heading outside the FOV is launched at while within 60* of the seeker, it will be able to track it (the source this is from isn’t the best, but it’s generally considered one for reference nonetheless)

@DarkSilentNights

and we already have missiles that are “dogfight monsters” such as the Magic 2 and the R-73.

Not to the Python 4s extent. The R-73 is limited by its seeker gimble limit size, the Python 4 is 80-90* off the rail which is double that of the R-73, while also having a much better seeker for use in a dogfight. Pair that with the Pythons well kept energy and ability to 180 on targets and you have a monster, if it gets modeled properly. (I can almost guarantee you the properties in the files will change for flight characteristics before it’s functionally added, as iirc it doesn’t line up now for its known performance metrics in turning circles). It’s the first true next gen dogfight missile, and its seeker would be beyond that of what we have ingame on other aircraft.

You’re selling the Python 4 too short here.

[GranColombia]

Perhaps they will add the latest generation missiles first and then add the Python 4 and the R-73M at another time; that would be much fairer in terms of maintaining the status quo across all nations.
But what we really want is for them to be added to the Kfir C.10 Blk 60, as it’s always necessary to carry at least two (this is a suggestion I plan to make in the future: adding P4/5s). If it’s too powerful, limit it to a maximum of two on the Kfir.

[BasherBenDawg8]

If they’re adding the latest gen, I don’t see why they can’t add the earlier ones as well. At that point it’s fair game. No need to add a limited amount or “nerfed” version like everyone’s asking for. Won’t be “too powerful” at that point when there’s even more powerful weapons. Heck, by then maybe we’ll have the I-Derby ER too, then there really wouldn’t be a need for limitation!

For the Kfir, in relation to this thread, it could finally ditch the Python 3 entirely with both Python’s additions, and plenty of other aircraft can receive their later IRs as well. If we’re talking Python 4s for aircraft here, the current possible recipients are as follow:
the Kfir as said earlier, the F-16C/D Block 40 Barak IIs, the F-15C Akef Meshupar, the F-15I Ra’am, the F-16I Block 52+ Sufa, and the F-5TH TCU. There no guarantee any of them will get it when they’re added tho, as gaijin has been known to be a stickler about having to alter BRs due to new armament options.
They’d need new BRs likely, but there’s also lots of other aircraft missing next Gen IRs, and it would be tragic if gaijin withheld these missiles from so many of them like I have a feeling they’ll do.

[DarkSilentNights]

@BasherBenDawg8

This has nothing to do with adding the Python 4 to aircraft ingame.

this is pointing out the massive flaw in your logic that the game isn’t ready for the python 4.
the python 4 can simply have its capabilities reduced just like every missile in the game.

@BasherBenDawg8

The developers and community managers have stated many times they will not add a “nerfed” Python 4. This has not changed.

which is silly, because every other missile is nerfed or straight up nuked.
what changed, that makes the devs suddenly not want to add weaponry with ahistorical performance, when everything already has ahistorical performance?

@BasherBenDawg8

Aim-9M is missing lock range based on the variant it’s supposed to depict yes

the AIM-9M’s performance appears to be modeled after multiple variants, not just one.

@BasherBenDawg8

The ability to 180 a target is through the continued tracking of a target in the FOV

oh okay

[BasherBenDawg8]

@DarkSilentNights

this is pointing out the massive flaw in your logic that the game isn’t ready for the python 4.
the python 4 can simply have its capabilities reduced just like every missile in the game.

No it’s not. None of these things were done on purpose, yet you’re asking for the Python 4 to be specifically nerfed in similar ways. The gaijin devs don’t do that, if something’s wrong it’s not because they did it with the intention of having it underperform. If something’s wrong, it’s either 3 things: Negligence/Incompetance, Originally Guesstimated due to them having no sources, or there’s conflicting sources suggesting otherwise.
As the devs have stated over and over again:

@DarkSilentNights

the AIM-9M’s performance appears to be modeled after multiple variants, not just one.

I had a guy tell me it was a specific variant. I believe the M-4 off the top of my head, but I’m not fully sure. I can ask General Lee if you’d like since I’m sure he knows

[GranColombia]

I also feel it will happen because Smin also gave the example of the AIM-9L on the Harriers, but the Kfir C.10 has a chance due to its increased BR.
The Kfir C.10 should have its historical missiles because it wouldn’t make sense to add another Kfir variant with the “(Late)” designation, since the Colombian flag is not a sub-branch. The Kfir C.10 Block 60 is the most modern variant of this iconic aircraft, and I believe it deserves to have its original armament. But my friend, I truly hope with all my heart that this does happen; besides, the upgrade of their systems and avionics would give them a chance to obtain this weaponry (P4/5 and I-Derby ER).

[BasherBenDawg8]

This 100%. Imo the regular Colombian Kfir C.10 would make a great premium or even squadron (like the JF-17) for the tree, with the C.10 Block 60 getting its unique weaponry to surpass it and truly be the best Kfir there is and ever will be.

[GranColombia]

Exactly! That’s what I think, add the Kfir C.10 (Kfir 2000) even with the Ecuadorian flag exactly like the Colombian one but with the EL/L 2032 Doppler radar, but leaving the Kfir C.10 Block 60 with the Python 5 and the Derby ER in addition to more modern avionics. That would be one possible solution.

[Sfundz]

when they will give I-Derby-SR or ER into this thing ?

[GranColombia]

Hi friend, regarding the I-derby-ER (which is the correct variant of this missile for aircraft), there’s still no information on when it will be added, because it’s a double-boost missile and has different mechanics. But we’re hoping that the next update will introduce this missile (I’m very hopeful that the Kfir C.10 will be able to carry this missile because it’s a historical weapon).

[GranColombia]

The Kfir C.10 Blk 60 should also have its BR increased for sim battles, but we’re also waiting for the buffs it hasn’t received yet (improved RWR, EEGS system in the HUD, and the fix for the DEFA 553 cannon variant), as well as the updated cockpit MFDs. These are small changes that slightly improve the aircraft.

[GranColombia]

It’s been a long time since I commented, but apparently there’s very strong evidence that the Kfir C.10 Blk 60 can be equipped with a Countermeasures Dispensing System (CMDS) that would add up to 120 extra chaff/flares to the aircraft.
This discovery would greatly help the Kfir to acquire its original armament without the amount of CM being an impediment to slightly increasing its BR.
It would be a great help if you could support us so that Gaijin can fix this bug report:
Kfir C.10 Block 60 missing CMDS: ADDS Mounted Pylon // Gaijin.net // Issues
Furthermore, in this space we can discuss the reliability of its existence, as well as in the thread related to all Kfir variants (since that’s where the information is located and it would apply to all Kfirs in the game). Although the only thing missing was the relatively new C.10 version (Block 60).

Here is one of the photographic proofs of the Kfir C.10 carrying a CMDS on the central pylon

AN/ALE-40 (V) Exactly like the CMDS found in the F-4 Phantom or the recently added MiG-21 2000 (also modernized by IAI)

[Gerhard_bar]

oh shii and extra 100 CM would defo help this this out massively after the bump to 13.3.

[Mr_Kiryu]

A small clarification for furthering the topic, the current dispenser shown, which is this one:

Is actually the AN/ALE-40(N) mounted in platforms such as the F-104G, F-5N and the Ugandan MiG-21

---

The actual model of the AN/ALE-40 integrated to the Kfir aircraft family is the AN/ALE-40(E), which appeared first from F-4 Phantom units, from which their dispensers (or at least their chaff dispenser modules) were fitted to Kfir units on their central pylon in either twin or single dispenser configurations.

If you really wanna get technical, these dispensers were first made by ROKAR, before being handed over to companies such as Kanfit.

Here’s how the AN/ALE-40(E) looks like:

Of course, I’ve already put this clarification on the original bug-report made by my friend here, however I put it here as well in any case people don’t check it lol

[GranColombia]

That’s exactly what we need, and it should also apply to all Kfir variants that use this Countermeasures Dispenser. This would properly justify the aircraft’s current BR in the game.
Hopefully Gaijin will hear us and consider it, since, like other planes in the game, they need all the help they can get to perform well in top tier.
Thanks for your contribution @Mr_Kiryu

[Mr_Kiryu]

No worries, have you been able to find information regarding the NCTR capabilities of the Kfir / EL/M-2052?

[GranColombia]

Well, I made a report a long time ago suggesting that this mechanic be added to the Kfir’s Radar MFD to be used in Simulator Battles; it was accepted, but nothing has happened.
The Kfir does have it in RB but it’s not on the radar’s MFD in the cockpit like some other aircraft in the game (AESA) do.
link: MFD Kfir C.10 wrong: NCTR // Gaijin.net // Issues

[Mr_Kiryu]

Yeah, about that…

I think the Kfir C.10 Block 60 might not have NCTR integrated into its FCR MFD page…

I’ve taken a notice to your report for a while, and considered it to be an obvious fact that the Block 60 upgrade package would definitely integrate NCTR capabilities as part of the many new additions for the aircraft, however I think we might have been wrong.

To further this, here is the image you’ve used in your report:

By itself it doesn’t appear to be something out of the ordinary, an FCR MFD page with information at the top and bottom, however if contrast and compare this to official FAC footage and the promotional presentations by IAI for the Block 60 upgrade, a different picture emerges.

---

If you look closely, they follow the same format as in the first image, which illustrates the brochure/presentation’s FCR MFD page for the radar, in which for the upper bound you find the MFD button actions of:

• TWS (Changing Radar Search Mode)
• EXP (Expand possibly…?)
• CTRL (Control possibly…?)

As well as other information such as Closure Air Speed (500CAS), TX (unknown to me), bearing (063°), and altitude (9500).

And in the lower bound we have:

• Weapon launch status (RDY)
• 120° (Radar angular scan area)
• DCLT (Declutter)

Author's note

Note: These MFD options are of course appearing when necessary, for example in the second picture an STT lock is being held, therefore the option to change the angular scan is not displayed.

This of course, contradicts what we know about the C.10 Block 60’s MFD pages when it comes to the information displayed on the FCR page, therefore something must be missing, for which I present the following pieces of media:

---

---

In these images we can see a Kfir engaging the “VTS”, also known as “Virtual Training System”, an integrated system for IAI customers to facilitate scenario simulations and training procedures, in this case, we can see the VTS logo once engaged, and later on said logo is moved towards the upper bounds of the FCR page, leaving a light blue shade in the lower bound.

Unfortunately, the VTS system and MFD pages cannot be used to determine NCTR capabilities, as it seemingly acts as a standalone mode rather than a direct integration with the EL/M-2052 radar, as stated in the following excerpt from the IAI VTS brochure:

---

“Air-to-Air training with virtual Radar and sensors Virtual RWR A/A and A/G threats”

---

This independence from integrated radar and sensor systems can also be proven by another aircraft which has integrated the VTS, in this case, the L-39NG Skyfox, a trainer aircraft which doesn’t fit a radar and seemingly hasn’t been fit with an RWR, however, it presents the VTS system’s FCR page.

Of course, it is to note that the Skyfox’s MFD pages are of a slightly similar structure as it seems to be a newer version of this same system, however the similarities still stand. It maintains the same parameters and information showcased by the FCR page in the Kfir, as well as the VTS logo which indicates the engaged status of this system.

---

Therefore, it is to be considered that the Kfir C.10 Block 60 unfortunately doesn’t have any NCTR capabilities, as the initial picture above depicts a training system without any relation to the physical sensors, as well as the pictures and virtual system not showing any information regarding target identification in any radar search mode, whether STT or TWS on the FCR page.