F-16C versus LAVI

Agreed, it will never be a fair fight but how would the F-16 match up against the ... ?
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

tmofarrvl

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 236
  • Joined: 19 Oct 2006, 23:35

Unread post19 Oct 2006, 23:45

I just had to add my two cents to this one. I have always been impressed by the Lavi - an airplane with an empty weight like an F-16A, and the range and payload of the latest Block 52+ F-16I.

One more detail to add regarding its cancellation. The Lavi program was initiated on the basis of a 300 airplane buy. On that size purchase order, the program made good economical sense: much cheaper than modifying the Block 30 or Block 40 F-16 to meet Israel's goals.

In the mid-1980s, however, the Israeli defense budget was slashed severely. It was during a period of "hyperinflation". The Israeli economy just couldn't handle all of the ongoing modernization efforts - and US military aid to Israel was also frozen at a constant level during this same time period. The Israeli air force just couldn't afford 300 new warplanes during the 1990s time frame - more like 150 at best. On the basis of 150 aircraft or less, the Lavi was no longer economically competitive.

Ah, if only the US had the foresight to purchase a batch for our own use. The story might have been very different.
Offline

MiG

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 6
  • Joined: 02 Aug 2008, 02:35

Unread post02 Aug 2008, 02:40

The F-16 is better armed with Python V and new engines
Offline

collimatrix

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 159
  • Joined: 10 Jul 2016, 15:27

Unread post25 Sep 2016, 17:24

ARISE, DEAD THREAD! ARISE AND BE ANIMATED ONCE MORE BY MY UNHOLY THREAD NECROMANCY!

*ahem*

A rather good video discussing the design of the Lavi came out recently:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59wkZBadvew

Apparently the Lavi was designed for long-range strike missions as much as anything, and had a surprisingly high fuel fraction. Air to air was supposed to be a secondary role.

The author made a doghouse plot comparing the two at 15 K feet. The F-16 has better sustained turn and acceleration, the Lavi has lower wing loading.
Offline
User avatar

That_Engine_Guy

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2322
  • Joined: 14 Dec 2005, 05:03
  • Location: Under an engine somewhere.

Unread post26 Sep 2016, 03:42

Viper 4500+ vs Lavi 3

Clear win for the Viper.

'nuf said :lmao: TEG
[Airplanes are] near perfect, all they lack is the ability to forgive.
— Richard Collins
Offline

gv27

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 1
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2021, 17:02

Unread post14 Feb 2021, 18:46

I stumbled upon this thread yesterday while looking in the forum for some unrelated information on the F-14.

The LAVI intrigued me for a long time, and this was brought back several years ago after watching the excellent video analysis mentioned in one of the previous comments.

To me as an aerospace engineer, this aircraft is the most intriguing "what could have been" cancelled projects of the modern jet fighter era. I'm especially intrigued by it's pretty unique aerodynamic configuration, even among other close-coupled delta-canards, and have read quite a bit of engineering conference material pertaining to it.

The LAVI design was focused on the A2G role, but as this is an F-16C vs LAVI thread, and these hypothetical x vs. y discussions are fun, I think I can share some information relating to that comparison in the A2A role, that maybe some will find interesting, and enlightening as to the potential this unique aircraft had.

In AGARD (NATO) conference 560 in 1995, which was held under the headline of "Active control technologies: applications and lessons learned", there was a presentation by IAI development team representatives called "LAVI flight control system: design requirements, development and flight test results". The entire conference proceedings is available and included other interesting talks, including of the X-29 and X-31 projects' control systems.

The LAVI presentation gives, among other things, some information on its performance in an A2A configuration. This was with two wingtip mounted IR missiles, and the thrust to weight at this configuration is quoted as 1.07. The wet engine thrust is quoted as 20,700 lbf, implying a configuration weight of around 19,400 lbm, which is about 50% internal fuel.
The turn performance of the LAVI in this configuration is given at 15,000 ft, ISA: STR 12.5 deg/s, ITR 23 deg/s.

Matching numbers at the same configuration and altitude for an F-16C block 52 can be found in USAF document T.O. GR1F-16CJ-1-1. The weight is about 24,500 lbm, T/W is 1.19. STR is 12.6 deg/s, ITR is 17.6 deg/s.

So the two aircraft are practically identical in terms of STR, but the LAVI has a substantial advantage in ITR. As modern WVR dogfights with all aspect IR missiles put the emphasis on the nose position fight, the ITR advantage of the LAVI would have made it a very formidable opponent in this hypothetical engagement.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2966
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post17 Feb 2021, 00:44

F-16C (Viper) versus LAVI??

Lets see:
- F-16C wins by default, period!
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

basher54321

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2145
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2014, 15:43

Unread post19 Feb 2021, 15:04

Wow so RAND think the US Gov had paid for 90%+ of the cost up to cancellation! - may as well compare it to Agile Falcon if we are staying in fantasy land.

LAVI RAND.JPG
Offline

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2889
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post19 Feb 2021, 22:30

Agile Falcon was literally Mitsubishi F-2A, so what's the point you're making?
Offline

basher54321

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2145
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2014, 15:43

Unread post19 Feb 2021, 23:44

madrat wrote:Agile Falcon was literally Mitsubishi F-2A, so what's the point you're making?


In the alternate reality where the US Gov is happy to finance that then you can have the other fantasy falcon about at the time.

Compare it to the F-2 if you like - which was originally based on an Agile Falcon Design (SX-3) however Japan redesigned most of it to get the benefits of indigenous design and did pretty well out of it.

AFAIK Agile Falcon was on a different path with some significant differences over the FS-X (e.g a bigger wing)
Previous

Return to F-16 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests