It looks like someone else posted the same question on the author’s blog. You can find his answer below.
http://john-golan.blogspot.com/2016/10/lavi-armament-stores-and-weapons.html
To add to this information, I found the original article on which the post of the John Golan was based. Here are some images of the most basic configurations of Lavi:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]249366[/ATTACH]
The full article can be found in the proceedings on this site http://www.icas.org/ICAS_ARCHIVE/ICAS1988/1988.html
As for the discussion on the J-10 and Lavi connection it should be noted, that J-10 cannot be treated as just an enlarged copy of the Lavi, as they were optimized towards different goals. The J-10 is a multirole fighter with the air-to-air operations as the first priority. The Lavi was far more advanced design from the aerodynamic point of view, with its main mission being the tactical air strike and in some cases strategic attacks in similar fashion to the Osirak bombardment (operation “Opera”). The air-to-air capabilities were treated as a secondary ones. It should be remembered, that we are talking about an aircraft with the empty weight of about 6940 kg and of maximum takeoff weight 19280 kg (from the B-03 prototype onward if I remember correctly). Its combat radius in Hi-lo-hi profile is given by John Golan as 2130 km. So basically F-15 range/payload performance by a Gripen-sized plane. To achieve such lofty goals the IAI used extremely close-coupled canard design to maximize the aerodynamic efficiency, as well as aerodynamic tailoring (about 50 different airfoils were used to define Lavi wing). I don’t think that Chinese would go as far with the applied solutions as they simply don’t need such performance. So while clearly the general configuration of J-10 was based on the Lavi, in details they are very different planes.
Sign In
