amoss%batata.Huji.AC.IL%CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (Amos Shapira) (06/27/89)
From: Amos Shapira <amoss%batata.Huji.AC.IL%CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU>
The Lavi fighter (or, more accurately, a multi-role aircraft. specializing
in attack and ground support, interdiction and penetration of heavily defended
airspace), was conceived as a replacement for the Kfir.
Its main problem was Israel's inability to disassociate itself from US
technology (engine, main wing surfaces, tail surfaces and parts of the body,
most manufactured by Grumman).
The craft performed about 50 test flights before being scrapped.
Aircraft controls and cabin layout were standard, as it was found that the
canted chair of the F-16 caused neck cramps in some cases, and the side stick
caused space to be wasted on the sideboards.
Fly by wire throughout, with new multi-mode radar made by Elta (which is/was
tested and converted aboard a C-707 after Lavi was cancelled), MFDs, digital
displays and some other gadgetry. Distributed computer management for the
entire aircraft.
6 fesulage pylons, 4 underwing pylons, 2 wingtip missile rails. Total
armament weight ~7000kg.
Max speed (clean, high alt) >1900kph
(2000lb of Mk80 + 2 AAMs, low alt) >1100kph
(eight M117 + 2 AAMs, low alt) >990kph
Combat radius (eight M117, + 2 AAMs, low alt) >450km
The aircraft was killed off by the US government.
Rumours contend that the entire development programme was transferred to
the RSA, together with a large number of laid-off engineers.
Marc A. Volovicarnaud@samsung.com (Alain Arnaud) (08/21/90)
From: arnaud@samsung.com (Alain Arnaud) In article <1990Aug15.032421.26794@cbnews.att.com> macko@police.rutgers.edu (Peter C. Macko) writes: > Finally, I have a question of my own. A few years ago I heard about > Israel's plan to build a state of the art fighter called the Lahvi?? > (I don't remember the exact spelling). I also heard that there was > considerable pressure to cancel that project. Supposedly this fighter > would be able to outperform even America's best. In addition it was > supposed to contain the most advanced electronic warfare capability in The Lavi (Lion in Hebrew)was designed by IAI (Israel Aircraft) and two flying prototypes were build. It looks very much like an F16 with the additions of canards. Its true performance were classified, but as you mention it had advanced electronics, fly-by-wire controls. It was funded 60-70& by U.S. aid to Israel, which was spent in the US to purchase engines, and other gear. There was a high-level US governmental effort to kill the project, this effort was lead by Caspar Weinberger (the most anti-Israeli and most pro-arab Secretary of Defence in the US) and McDonnell and General Dynamics. Israel was convinced to cancel the project in 1988, and received a commitment from the US for additional F16s and F15s (BTW, these are now going to the Saudis) The cancellation created a lot of turmoil in Israel and lead to severe job cuts at IAI in the field of aerospace, hardware and software. One of the two Lavis are still flying, as an electronics test bed. There are some plans to upgrade the IAF F-15s and F-16s with the Lavi electronics.
sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) (08/23/90)
From: sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) In article <1990Aug21.025234.2026@cbnews.att.com>, arnaud@samsung.com (Alain Arnaud) writes: > The Lavi (Lion in Hebrew)was designed by IAI (Israel Aircraft) > and two flying prototypes were build. ... > It was funded 60-70& by U.S. aid to Israel, which was spent in the US > to purchase engines, and other gear. So why should we have subsidized competitors to General Dynamics and McDonald Douglas for foreign military sales?
ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Nur Iskandar Taib) (08/23/90)
From: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Nur Iskandar Taib) In article <1990Aug21.025234.2026@cbnews.att.com> arnaud@samsung.com (Alain Arnaud) writes: > had advanced electronics, fly-by-wire controls. > It was funded 60-70& by U.S. aid to Israel, which was spent in the US > to purchase engines, and other gear. > There was a high-level US governmental effort to kill the project, > electronics. The argument went: "Why subsidize, with US Taxpayers' dollars, a company that will produce something that will compete directly with US products? This would have meant job losses, export losses, and an increase in the net trade deficit." The fact that the money was to be spent in the US only means that the US tax- payers would be paying for the parts. Why give a competitor parts we are paying for? Why not subsidize our own industry? But no... thats protectionism!!
yaniv%shum.huji.ac.il@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (ran el-Yaniv) (08/28/90)
From: ran el-Yaniv <yaniv%shum.huji.ac.il@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU> Hello, In my posting about the Lavi, I clled it "Lion Cub"... Mistake! Lavi is "Lion"... yaniv