Let the Lavi live?

[zen]

The obvious alternatives for Israel was either the J79 or the same engines as in the F15s they purchased.
It's clear Lavi studies included both options.

In an oblique reference to the UK I note Romania and Italy and China got licenses for Spey engines.

But while it was old, the J79 would simplify logistics with Kfir and F4 users.....that might interest Turkey of all things.

The US might be less reticent about this older engine turning up in South African aircraft.

But an irony would be say through a Yugoslavian connection to Romania, having licensed Speys fitted to South African Lavi/Carver.
After all one version of events says Kfir began life as a Spey Mirage concept.......

 

[BLACK_MAMBA]

The US might be less reticent about this older engine turning up in South African aircraft.

But an irony would be say through a Yugoslavian connection to Romania, having licensed Speys fitted to South African Lavi/Carver.
After all one version of events says Kfir began life as a Spey Mirage concept.......

Maybe, but SA had to source them and that was difficult. If they had a chance to obtain J79's I'm pretty sure they would have jumped on the oppertunity as it was much better than the available Atar which makes me think the US connection was an issue regardless really ensuring Israel & South Africa couldn't partner on Lavi. Modern jet fighters need an proper engine and the J79 wasn't up to standard by the mid 80's compared to others. Even the J79 F-16 wasn't well liked and once export restrictions were lifted nobody wanted a watered down Viper.


PS: I've heard Carver Spey rumours too but found little evidence so I'm unsure how plausible is was to obtain them. The French Atars were already in service so clandestine aquisitions via Morroco etc weren't too noticeable. A Spey Mirage/Cheetah would also have been loved by the SAAF for the extra thrust even if it too was a dated engine by the 80's an ill suited for a modern Lavi/Carver type.

 

[zen]

So while Buccaneers use Spey, it a direct development from the civil engine, a scaled down Medway.

While the Speys in the F4K have a lot if changes from that for supersonic flight.

A key example is during the P1154 effort RR tried to interest the RAF and RN in a twin Spey version. But once it was revealed that to hit the weight targets the engines had had all the supersonic components removed. The concept died.

So SA would have it's work cut out to develop a supersonic Spey version.

However.....if they'd got their hands on say Romanian licenced Speys.....

 

[Archibald]

How about the "boosted J79" used on (the irony !) F-16/79 ?

As for the Atar - I wonder if it still had any growth potential left after 9K50. How about a "boosted Atar", F-16/79 style ?

At worse, go MIPCC - the brute-force approach. Massive thrust augmentation guaranted, at least for a short time... and J79 once again, because F-4X & RF-4X.

 

[BLACK_MAMBA]

As for the Atar - I wonder if it still had any growth potential left after 9K50. How about a "boosted Atar", F-16/79 style ?

There was a project "Atar plus" in SA to squeeze more out of the 9k50. Seems like Snecma got on board later too. They aimed for 10% thrust improvement but what whas achieved was apparently nowhere near that so a "boosted Atar" was a dead end. The engine was simply too old technology with little room for substantial further improvement.

So while Buccaneers use Spey, it a direct development from the civil engine, a scaled down Medway.

While the Speys in the F4K have a lot if changes from that for supersonic flight.

A key example is during the P1154 effort RR tried to interest the RAF and RN in a twin Spey version. But once it was revealed that to hit the weight targets the engines had had all the supersonic components removed. The concept died.

So SA would have it's work cut out to develop a supersonic Spey version.

However.....if they'd got their hands on say Romanian licenced Speys.....

The SAAF did have Spey's for their Buccaneers but as you mentioned they were very much subsonic versions of it. There was a relationship with RR rekindled by the 80's for support for the Buccaneer engines but from what I can gather it wasn't nearly strong enough for RR to sell Phantom Speys to SA especially with an embargo still in place. Clandestine support is one thing, sudden appearence of a new engine variant another!

Did Romainia persue supersonic Speys? I however have doubts if Israel would have been happy with Spey. The J79 is already in service so that would have been the no.1 alternative and SA couldn't obtain those so Lavi joint development/sale was out of SA reach.

 

[kaiserbill]

The Romanians had their IAR-95 supersonic fighter project, that considered the Spey. They also set up to licence produce the Spey, as part of the BAC 111 programme.
They were happy to supply South Africa with Aerospatiale Puma airframes made under licence.

But I don't think the Spey was seriously considered for the Carver.
The engines that seem to have been most seriously looked at were an indigenous engine, the SMR, or the SNECMA M53 and M88.

The M88 was to be used on the Novi Avion project by Yugoslavia, and would be purchased and diverted through them.
I have read that the Yugoslavians wanted a very high price for them...too high in fact.
The M53 would have been bought through an intermediary, likely Israel. They were offering it as part of the Nammer after all. Taiwan also ended up operating the M53 powered Mirage 2000, and there was a well established trade channel and military links between Taiwan and South Africa.
The local engine was likely an upgraded ATAR, 10% more thrust, lighter, improved components, and more carefree throttle movement. This would have been followed by a local engine.
This would have been the most expensive option. It was doable, but would have required treasure (a lot!) and sweat.
The SMR was an easy option available later, but the Air Force was unhappy with the overhaul and maintenance issues. A major sticking point was overhauling locally. The Russians were resistant.
It was considered imperative to be independent.

In a nutshell, from what I have gathered:
The M53 or M88 were sought after as the most logical, efficient, cheapest, quickest solution.
A local engine, via an upgraded ATAR as an initial step. A very expensive, longer term solution, but work had already started on technology programmes to this end.
The SMR was a late option, but there was serious resistance due to maintenance/ independent overhaul stuff.

So in other words, the usual two-tiered approach South Africa took to weapons programmes. High and low end, local and foreign options.

This last point brings us back to the Lavi, and why it would not be simply built in South Africa.
The entire point of Carver was an independent fighter.
It had to be a local design, and be supportable locally, and developed through future variants locally.
This was as a result of various programmes being cancelled previously through pressure, such as the corvette programme, amongst others.
It is why money was spent ramping up design and R&D facilities in South Africa, such as the extensive wind tunnels, and computerised design facilities.
And why the Carver went ahead instead of just co-developing Lavi with Israel.
And why there were never any serious reports, apart from maybe early on in the Lavi programme, of co-operation between South Africa and Israel on the Lavi, regarding funding and design.

As said, costs could have been shared, via sub systems (radar/avionics/EW/ weapons/ancillaries such as ejection seats, tyres, transparencies..the list is endless).

I am sure South Africa would have loved to get the PW1120, but even IF (a big if) the US turned a blind eye, once Lavi was cancelled, and Bet-Shemesh were no longer going to licence build it, that was that.

 

[Archibald]

The engine was simply too old technology

Surely it was. ATAR = the name is derived from its original design group, Atelier Technique Aéronautique de Rickenbach near Lindau within the French Occupation Zone of Germany.
In 1945-48... direct legacy of WWII LW jets. Went from 1700 kg of thrust to 7200 in merely twenty years, 1948-68.
No surprise it was near the end of its development rope.

 

[kaiserbill]

It was an engine that's design origins were old, with a very low pressure ratio.
There was work done on a lighter welded, instead of rivetted combustion chamber, new compressor, new turbine, single crystal turbine blades, new electronics...etc.
But even with a host of updates and, as was stated by a design engineer on the project, of "about 10%" more thrust, the inevitable result would have had to be its use as only an interim engine, pending a new modern design. This was a given.

Ironically, infrastructure put in place in an engine design and manufacturing capability in South Africa ended up being used after the Cold War and Apartheid to manufacture gearboxes of the Rolls Royce Rb211 engine, and components for Safran for their turbine engines.

Edit: Incidentally, the PW1120 and M53 have exactly the same bypass ratio, and low bypass ratio engines are now back in vogue.

 

[Archibald]

10% more thrust out of 7200 kgp would have brough+720 kgp, so 8000 kg; not a huge improvement although quite welcome.

It is quite amazing to think that a development of the Jumo 003 - the He-162 engine, plus the quadjet Ar-234s - got such a long career.

As far as the Armée de l'Air and French Navy go, the last Atars were not retired until 2014 - with the retirement of the Mirage F1 and Super Etendard.

The AdA engines are (partially at least) maintained at a public "arsenal" called AIAA, notably the one in Bordeaux-Floirac. I made my logistics traineeship at the place back in summer 2014 and thus I probably saw the last Atars maintained there, ever. The first ones had come in the mid-50's: when my mother was merely a teenager.

And it still flies with Argentina Super Etendards plus all the Mirages still in service across the world... F1 included, now agressors in the USA.

 

[BLACK_MAMBA]

10% more thrust out of 7200 kgp would have brough+720 kgp, so 8000 kg; not a huge improvement although quite welcome.

Even if you somehow managed to squeeze the extra 10% out, thrust wasn't the issue, but the engine's size and Thrust to Weight. The Atar is a huge engine for its thrust by modern standards thus you use up a alot of internal space and weight for the engine alone. It's base drag also wasn't up to standard by the 80's compared to what was available. That was one of the big improvements from the SMR upgrade - the base drag was dramatically improved due to the longer converging nozzle design available.

An uprated Atar will always be the poor choice for a 4th gen aircraft, but in SA's case it was the only realistic option available. M88's through Romania a close second. Israel at least had J79 as an option although also not ideal. Both countries quickly realised that being independant for your military equipment is ideal, but very difficult to achieve.

Edit: the M88 was a clear possibility in the late 80's but it seemed to drop as the SMR project came to life. There were apparently wind tunnel models built with an M88 sized engine in use.

 

[kaiserbill]

If the M88 was aquired, it was to come through Yugoslavia via their Novi Avion project.
At least this is what has been mentioned.
This was similar to how engines were routed through Portugal for the Oryx and Rooivalk programmes.
Yugoslavia wanted an exorbitant amount to facilitate this, which meant other avenues were explored from what I have read.
I suspect the M88 was for the later twin engined Carver.
The Novi Avion timeline and redesign of Carver into a heavier twin engine are precisely at the right time.

The M53 or PW1120 would have made more sense for the original single engined Carver.
The single engined Carver was to be a slightly larger aircraft than the Novi Avion, and would need a higher rated engine than the M88. Whilst that engine is indeed compact, Carver still needed to tote certain weapons over certain distances, which dictated its form and size.

If I were a betting man, I would have put money on the original single engined Carver receiving either the M53, or a domestic engine eventually, by way of the upgraded ATAR.
The twin would have received the M88 or the local engine as mentioned above.
The ATAR 09k50 as is in stock form was not a solution, and acknowledged as such.

 

[BLACK_MAMBA]

If I were a betting man, I would have put money on the original single engined Carver receiving either the M53, or a domestic engine eventually, by way of the upgraded ATAR.
The twin would have received the M88 or the local engine as mentioned above.
The ATAR 09k50 as is in stock form was not a solution, and acknowledged as such.

The only reason I discount the M53 is that it seems like it was never seriously considered in the first place. Thus either it wasn't deemed fit or obtaining it through a middle country wasn't possible.

From drawings of the single someone showed me, an Atar variant was to be used as it was what is shown in them (not the line drawings found online I should mention. You won't find those drawings anywhere - how he got them, I didn't really want to know!)

The M88 deal seemed to die down with price (according to rumours) and the eventual death of Carver and Novi. The SMR seems like the realistic answer considering it was the best engine actually available at that stage and Carver engineers were part of that team. Some in the SAAF just didn't like the Eastern method of quickly swapping a broken component instead of fixing it and hence they started spreading all kinds of rumours about the SMR being poor etc. It would have required a massive maintenace methodology change from the SAAF though so I could see that as a reason for being fearful of it. Local maintence seemed another big issue as was previously mentioned.

 

[zen]

So by one AH path, had Romania and Yugoslavia agreed on a common fighter using the licensed Spey 203 or 205 even, then Carver might have supply of such.
But I'm not sure Israel would benefit under such political circumstances.

A Taiwan option might have been possible...

 

[BLACK_MAMBA]

So by one AH path, had Romania and Yugoslavia agreed on a common fighter using the licensed Spey 203 or 205 even, then Carver might have supply of such.
But I'm not sure Israel would benefit under such political circumstances.

A Taiwan option might have been possible...

Agreed on Israel. I don't think the Spey offered a substantial amount more than the J79 of which they already had plenty of in stock due to Kfir & Phantom and the facilities to maintain them in place. M88 possibly does but it was a bit light for the single engine role and the French were already long off the Israeli Hanukkah card list.

 

[zen]

So by one AH path, had Romania and Yugoslavia agreed on a common fighter using the licensed Spey 203 or 205 even, then Carver might have supply of such.
But I'm not sure Israel would benefit under such political circumstances.

A Taiwan option might have been possible...

Agreed on Israel. I don't think the Spey offered a substantial amount more than the J79 of which they already had plenty of in stock due to Kfir & Phantom and the facilities to maintain them in place. M88 possibly does but it was a bit light for the single engine role and the French were already long off the Israeli Hanukkah card list.

Depends really, Spey was lower s.f.c than J79 and higher thrust.

Ideally they'd get their grubby hands on the 205 that gave 25,000lb reheated.

 

[BLACK_MAMBA]

Depends really, Spey was lower s.f.c than J79 and higher thrust.

Ideally they'd get their grubby hands on the 205 that gave 25,000lb reheated.

True, but look at the Spey Phantom. They also fell for the Spey >> J79 argument for better s.f.c and higher thrust and in the end all the work to fit the larger engine negated most of the advantages it offered. Now yes, a clean sheet design won't have nearly the amount of trouble as retrofitting a design would, but I still hold firm a trusted engine already in service is still the best and safest option or perhaps derivative thereof if you are going clandestine. Same as SA and Atar really only the J79 is a better starting point.

 

[kaiserbill]

The only reason I discount the M53 is that it seems like it was never seriously considered in the first place. Thus either it wasn't deemed fit or obtaining it through a middle country wasn't possible.

From drawings of the single someone showed me, an Atar variant was to be used as it was what is shown in them (not the line drawings found online I should mention. You won't find those drawings anywhere - how he got them, I didn't really want to know!)

I am going on memory here unfortunately from a discussion I had with an engineer, so it is anecdotal for now.
When the Cheetah C (and Super Mirage F1) re-engining project was looked at with the SMR, a fellow who worked on the project (avionics) mentioned that the M53 was first choice for those programmes.
I seem to recall that the M53 was mentioned as an engine looked at for Carver.
I naturally recalled that the Nammer was offered with the GE F404, PW1120, M53, and ATAR 09k50.
The Cheetah C ended up with the ATAR, but was always meant as an interim platform pending the Carver.
Added to the fact that Taiwan ended up operating the Mirage 2000, and were negotiating for it at the time, and the solid defence links ( I clambered all over and in and out of a Taiwanese naval destroyer in the mid/late 80's in Cape Town ) and that a French engine was more likely than American, meant that I reckon the M53 was probably the likely foreign engine candidate (if it came to fruition) for the single engined Carver before it went to the twin engine.
The original single engined Carver was basically Mirage 2000 sized, from what I can gather, further borne out by the lead designers previous history working on the Mirage 2000.

Edit: Those drawings sound VERY interesting!
They described or depicted the engine variant....
What were they?
Engineering drawings?
Can you describe them further?

 

[BLACK_MAMBA]

Edit: Those drawings sound VERY interesting!
They described or depicted the engine variant....
What were they?
Engineering drawings?
Can you describe them further?

I was stunned when I saw them! They looked like engineering layout drawings. So positions of certain equipment etc through the airframe. Not too detailed but detailed enough in certain ways. They also listed dimentions, wing NACA profiles etc. They quite clearly depicted an Atar being fitted but I guess you could squeeze an M53 in too.
They did show that the single drawings on the web at least are quite accurate! I'm perhaps bigging them up but my mouth dropped when I was shown them. They looked to have been part of a larger set of a final proposal layout or so? It looked like this person only had three pages of the set but it was tons more than what is readibly available!

 

[galgot]

Edit: Those drawings sound VERY interesting!
They described or depicted the engine variant....
What were they?
Engineering drawings?
Can you describe them further?

I was stunned when I saw them! They looked like engineering layout drawings. So positions of certain equipment etc through the airframe. Not too detailed but detailed enough in certain ways. They also listed dimentions, wing NACA profiles etc. They quite clearly depicted an Atar being fitted but I guess you could squeeze an M53 in too.
They did show that the single drawings on the web at least are quite accurate! I'm perhaps bigging them up but my mouth dropped when I was shown them. They looked to have been part of a larger set of a final proposal layout or so? It looked like this person only had three pages of the set but it was tons more than what is readibly available!

So, was part of the reference for this beautiful drawing of your ? :

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/atlas-carver.32107/

On that drawing the engines look very M53 to me.

 

[kaiserbill]

I was stunned when I saw them! They looked like engineering layout drawings. So positions of certain equipment etc through the airframe. Not too detailed but detailed enough in certain ways. They also listed dimentions, wing NACA profiles etc. They quite clearly depicted an Atar being fitted but I guess you could squeeze an M53 in too.
They did show that the single drawings on the web at least are quite accurate! I'm perhaps bigging them up but my mouth dropped when I was shown them. They looked to have been part of a larger set of a final proposal layout or so? It looked like this person only had three pages of the set but it was tons more than what is readibly available!

Very interesting!
I'm going to paste this over to the Carver thread and continue there?

 

[BLACK_MAMBA]

Edit: Those drawings sound VERY interesting!
They described or depicted the engine variant....
What were they?
Engineering drawings?
Can you describe them further?

I was stunned when I saw them! They looked like engineering layout drawings. So positions of certain equipment etc through the airframe. Not too detailed but detailed enough in certain ways. They also listed dimentions, wing NACA profiles etc. They quite clearly depicted an Atar being fitted but I guess you could squeeze an M53 in too.
They did show that the single drawings on the web at least are quite accurate! I'm perhaps bigging them up but my mouth dropped when I was shown them. They looked to have been part of a larger set of a final proposal layout or so? It looked like this person only had three pages of the set but it was tons more than what is readibly available!

So, was part of the reference for this beautiful drawing of your ? :

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/atlas-carver.32107/

On that drawing the engines look very M53 to me.

Unfortunately I only had access to those drawings long after my sketch was sealed and framed! I did my best with what information I had at the time. Believe me - I would love a revisit on the subject, especially the single version!

I aimed to show Atar's installed based on the knowledge I had back then. Today I would have gone SMR, but both are educated guesses. I recall toiling long and hard about the engines between Atar, SMR and M88. In the end I went conservative... The angle I chose is rather poor to show the engines properly so they can really be anything you want them to be.

 

[Kiltonge]

As for the Atar - I wonder if it still had any growth potential left after 9K50. How about a "boosted Atar", F-16/79 style ?

I was brought back to thinking about this by reading the early history of the JT3D.

A straight-jet JT3C-7 ( J57-P-43 ) could be converted to a turbofan JT3D-1 in an overhaul shop using an OEM kit that included two fan stages in place of the first three LP compressor stages, a new larger third-stage LP turbine, a fourth LP turbine and a revised accessory gearbox.

Thrust went from 12,000lb with an SFC of 0.785 to 16,000lb SFC 0.61 at sea level.

Much easier than trying to increase the pressure ratio, RPM or temperature of the core. The trickiest bit is managing the integration of hot and cold flows.

Did anyone try fanning an Atar 9K50?

 

[Cjc]

I'm pretty sure brazil and indea also had fighter programs during this period, you could do a wired brazil-south africa-isreal-indea-tiwan consortia.

 

[F-2]

What if the original conception of Lavi as a smaller F404 engined "A-4 Skyhawk for the 1990s" had been followed though?

1) Cheaper
2) Less obviously F-16 competitor
3) Export potential?

Only issue I’m thinking, the Gripen. Your putting two aircraft of very similar size, configuration, performance, and capabilities on the market at the same time for a program that’s always going to be financially iffy.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

As for the Atar - I wonder if it still had any growth potential left after 9K50. How about a "boosted Atar", F-16/79 style ?

I was brought back to thinking about this by reading the early history of the JT3D.

A straight-jet JT3C-7 ( J57-P-43 ) could be converted to a turbofan JT3D-1 in an overhaul shop using an OEM kit that included two fan stages in place of the first three LP compressor stages, a new larger third-stage LP turbine, a fourth LP turbine and a revised accessory gearbox.

Thrust went from 12,000lb with an SFC of 0.785 to 16,000lb SFC 0.61 at sea level.

Much easier than trying to increase the pressure ratio, RPM or temperature of the core. The trickiest bit is managing the integration of hot and cold flows.

Did anyone try fanning an Atar 9K50?

Erm... SNECMA M53?

That would increase thrust and reduce fuel burn but worsen thrust-to-weight. Not ideal for a short-range fighter but possibly doable for the twin-engine version. As a single shaft engine the better analogy would be the CJ805-23 turbofan made from the J-79 turbojet rather than the JT3C-7. J57 as a twin-spool turbojet I think was a better starting point for a turbofan.

 

[uk 75]

I am still wondering why anyone would want a more expensive virtual clone of the F16.
As I understand it (and somewhere I have an original silver plastic Lavi desk model given me in 1986 by a business contact) the idea was to do with Lavi what Kfir and co had done with Mirage, allow Israel to make its own aircraft in case the US could not supply F16s.
But instead of being cheaper and easier to build, Lavi was a more expensive variant.
Reduce the cost of Lavi and you have another Kfir

 

[Pioneer]

Sorry, I'm just a little confused - we are in alt history - this could be very confusing, the Lavi is alive and well, living as the J10 in china. In the real world.

While they are both single-engine delta-canards, they are really not the same planes. They J-10 being bigger, and optimized for higher speed than the Lavi (see intake) I think. But it's true some of the Lavi expertise went into the J-10 design.

As for alternative equipment suppliers countries, had the US kept the program going, maybe Taiwan ?
They could have integrated few local equipments and set a local plant, instead of buying M2000-5s maybe ?
That of course would have killed the Israeli-ChinCom connection and maybe the J-10 would have been completely different.

Yeah, I was going to say, Israel gave up on Taiwan for expected bigger $ bickies $


Regards
Pioneer

 

[Foo Fighter]

My understanding is that the Lavi is alive and well living in the PRC as the Chengdu J-10.

 

[apparition13]

I am still wondering why anyone would want a more expensive virtual clone of the F16.
As I understand it (and somewhere I have an original silver plastic Lavi desk model given me in 1986 by a business contact) the idea was to do with Lavi what Kfir and co had done with Mirage, allow Israel to make its own aircraft in case the US could not supply F16s.
But instead of being cheaper and easier to build, Lavi was a more expensive variant.
Reduce the cost of Lavi and you have another Kfir

F-16 was a fighter that could bomb, Lavi an attack aircraft that could fight. Lavi had longer range so it could do things like the raid on the Iraqi reactor without needing such an elaborate plan, and it carried it's weapons on the fuselage so it could maneuver without having to drop the bombs and kill the mission. It's like an F-35 but without the stealth and lots and lots of ECM.

 

[uk 75]

Israel also has F15s to use with its F16s. Was cancelling Lavi related to purchase of Strike Eagles?

 

[Lascaris]

Israel also has F15s to use with its F16s. Was cancelling Lavi related to purchase of Strike Eagles?

The two decisions are separated by several years. So I'd very much doubt it.

 

[Archibald]

No, wasn't the F-15 but actually the F-16.