Northrop F-5G / F-20 Tigershark

Interesting name for a Fighter F-CK-1....like it is sending a message.
i am wondering if that and T-50 were back engineering designs of the F20.
 
Dan Fahey said:
Interesting name for a Fighter F-CK-1....like it is sending a message.
i am wondering if that and T-50 were back engineering designs of the F20.
Click to expand...

A different US manufacturer (F-16 producer General Dynamics, later absorbed/ became Lockheed Martin) assisted with the design of each of these aircraft (i.e. not F-5/ F-20 producer Northrop). Both designs (especially the T-50) have certainly features/ elements seen in the F-16.
So in summary the answer to your question is no. :)
 
kaiserd said:
Dan Fahey said:
Interesting name for a Fighter F-CK-1....like it is sending a message.
i am wondering if that and T-50 were back engineering designs of the F20.
Click to expand...

A different US manufacturer (F-16 producer General Dynamics, later absorbed/ became Lockheed Martin) assisted with the design of each of these aircraft (i.e. not F-5/ F-20 producer Northrop). Both designs (especially the T-50) have certainly features/ elements seen in the F-16.
So in summary the answer to your question is no. :)
Click to expand...
Yeah....but there is something too familiar with these two aircraft.
Looks a bit of North American design like the P51 and Sabre series.
 
I think the T-50 basically looks like a mini F-16 with side intakes instead of a belly one. the Lockheed lineage is clear

FCK1 a little bit less so.
 
To me, the F-CK-1 looks like the love child of an F-16 and F-18...
 
F-CK-1 is simply a twin engined F-16 configuration. Engine intakes are like those on GD's "503" twin engine LWF, small angled versions of the F-16 inlet tucked under the LERX. The LERX is convex not concave in order to accommodate the engine intakes better. Any F-18 resemblance is purely down to the twin engines and the convex LERX, but the LERX design is F-16 style in design. Model 401 tested convex, straight and concave versions of the LERX, for Model 401 with single engine the concave version was better.
 
overscan (PaulMM) said:
F-CK-1 is simply a twin engined F-16 configuration. Engine intakes are like those on GD's "503" twin engine LWF, small angled versions of the F-16 inlet tucked under the LERX. The LERX is convex not concave in order to accommodate the engine intakes better. Any F-18 resemblance is purely down to the twin engines and the convex LERX, but the LERX design is F-16 style in design. Model 401 tested convex, straight and concave versions of the LERX, for Model 401 with single engine the concave version was better.
Click to expand...

are there any pics of the 503 model?
i checked this thread and shockingly found a model of a mini F-15 instead! lol
 
A 503 study (not final)
aa_19720120_lwf_config_503_1267828237_6198-sm-jpg.178978


Top view only of final version here:

hillaker_f16_62_1267828237_2223-jpg.282118
 
Hoping that the following may be of interest.

A rather interesting production project began in the Canadian province of Manitoba in 1988. Bristol Aerospace of Winnipeg was considering relaunching production of the Northrop F-5 Tiger II. Indeed, this subsidiary of Rolls-Royce was also considering launching production of a derivative of the Tiger II, the F-20 Tigershark

Both Bristol Aerospace projects owed their origins to a very recent contract to refit some 50 Canadair-made CF-116s, as the F-5 was known in Canada, of the Canadian Armed Forces. To its surprise, the company was contacted by the air forces of a few countries wishing to purchase up to two hundred and fifty refurbished or newly manufactured aircraft. The Brazilian air force, for example, would have liked to acquire fifty aircraft. Despite the efforts of the Canadian company, plans for the production of the Tiger II and Tigershark fell through.
 
The difference between “contacted” (and what ever that means in practice) and “contracted” rather critical.
Northrop would have likely built themselves if actual sufficient demand to so.
 
overscan (PaulMM) said:
​
Cusotmer Base
At the time of the launch of the F-5G in January 1980 a total of 17 customers for 1236 aircraft were identified. 'Core 1' customers were the four in the near-term with the largest requirement. 'Core 2' customers were those of lesser quantities or farther out. Those already operating F-5E's, some with coproduction in place that could be transitioned to the F-5G, are indicated by asterisks.

Core 1:

  • Taiwan - 80 * This was the launch customer for the F-20. In January 1980 it was expected that a Letter of Agreement would be signed by the end of 1980. In fact, the Carter administration, preoccupied with a myriad of foreign crises and the upcoming election, deferred a decision to 1981. Carter lost the election, and Reagan became president. Following a year of political tug-of-war, Reagan vetoed the sale to Taiwan in January 1982. Secretly a program for General Dynamics to assist Taiwan in development of a an Indigenous Fighter Aircraft began in May 1982 as a replacement.
  • Korea - 200 * Korea was seen as a longer-term customer, with the existing Korean F-5E production line transitioning to the F-5G. Korea remained the most important potential launch customer after Taiwan was blocked, even after further development of the F-20 was discontinued in November 1986. Ultimately revelation of a bribery scandal ended any chance for a Korean Tigershark in 1988. Korea selected the F-18 for its requirement, only to abandon that in 1991 and finally settle on the F-16C.
  • Turkey - 100 * Turkey was looking for a large-scale aircraft coproduction program to develop their aviation industry under the auspices of the state-owned TUSAS firm.
  • Egypt - 80
Core 2:

  • Thailand - 18 *
  • Singapore - 24 *
  • Indonesia - 16 *
  • Malaysia - 16
  • Spain - 72 *
  • Pakistan - 124
  • Switzerland - 50 *
  • Greece - 100 *
  • Netherlands - 110 *
  • Norway - 50 *
  • Austria - 24
  • Nigeria - 24
  • Jordan - 48 *
By near the end of the F-20 program in July 1986 ITAR clearance had been requested for the following additional countries that expressed interest in the aircraft:
  • Australia
  • Belgium
  • Brazil
  • Cameroon
  • Denmark
  • Ecuador
  • Germany
  • India
  • Israel
  • Italy
  • Japan
  • Kuwait
  • Mexico
  • Morocco
  • New Zealand
  • Oman
  • Peru
  • Philippines
  • Portugal
  • Qatar
  • Sweden
  • Tunisia
  • UAE
  • UK
  • Venezuela
  • Yugoslavia
Click to expand...

F-20 Sales

F-20 Sales space project projects programme program programmes programs spaceflight astronaut cosmonaut biography rocket spacecraft satellite exploration launch vehicle history
web.archive.org
Click to expand...

Wow, Yugoslavia also wanted the F-20?
in 1986, I wonder how the world would react when an eastern bloc country acquires a US system. Would the US allow it? how would the USSR react?

on the subject of F-5/F-20
what was the most advance F-5 variant adopted thus far?
Singaporean F-5S? (I read somewhere it had the same radar as the F-20? and was AMRAAM capable)
the brazilian F-5? or the Chilean F-5 with the Israeli avionics and missiles?
 
kaiserd said:
The difference between “contacted” (and what ever that means in practice) and “contracted” rather critical.
Northrop would have likely built themselves if actual sufficient demand to so.
Click to expand...

I strongly suspect that it was the U.S. State Department that was behind the demise of the project, given that it would have gravely interfered with its 'F-16's for everybody' paradigm of the day. Even if the State Department hadn't put its oar in however, Northrop was a bit overstretched in the late 1980s so would have unlikely been able to take direct advantage of the opportunity.
 
My ignorance. Why would you settle for an F20 when there is the F16? I know that US restrictions on the F16 might force an F20 buy. But then you either make your own like Taiwan or buy a Mirage of some sort.
 
MC72 said:
The F-20 would be more economical to operate in a war theater of medium complexity, if even Iran appreciates it and reproduces the F-5 !!
Click to expand...

More economical, and "good enough" to do what you actually need it to do.

Thing is: if you can afford it, you buy the best you can imagine (or what the big boys bought) - even if you will never need all the features. If you cannot afford it, you wait for somebody to donate a MiG-21.
 
XP67_Moonbat said:
F-20 pamphlet, anyone?
[...]
Click to expand...
Ron Downey said:
Northrop F-20 Tigershark
A copy of the Northrop company brochure on the proposed F-20 aircraft. Dated March 1985. Credit: Box Art
Download here or here or here or here (0.6 Meg)
Great article on the N-156/F-5/F-20 family here.
Click to expand...
Source: http://aviationarchives.blogspot.com/2021/03/northrop-f-20-tigershark.html
RAP said:
Interesting that originally Northrop planned using an F-5F for the conversion. A 2-seater F-20 would make a nice WIF.
Click to expand...
See also the topic "Northrop F-5H Two Place F-20 (N-354)".
 
helmutkohl said:
overscan (PaulMM) said:
​
Cusotmer Base
At the time of the launch of the F-5G in January 1980 a total of 17 customers for 1236 aircraft were identified. 'Core 1' customers were the four in the near-term with the largest requirement. 'Core 2' customers were those of lesser quantities or farther out. Those already operating F-5E's, some with coproduction in place that could be transitioned to the F-5G, are indicated by asterisks.

Core 1:

  • Taiwan - 80 * This was the launch customer for the F-20. In January 1980 it was expected that a Letter of Agreement would be signed by the end of 1980. In fact, the Carter administration, preoccupied with a myriad of foreign crises and the upcoming election, deferred a decision to 1981. Carter lost the election, and Reagan became president. Following a year of political tug-of-war, Reagan vetoed the sale to Taiwan in January 1982. Secretly a program for General Dynamics to assist Taiwan in development of a an Indigenous Fighter Aircraft began in May 1982 as a replacement.
  • Korea - 200 * Korea was seen as a longer-term customer, with the existing Korean F-5E production line transitioning to the F-5G. Korea remained the most important potential launch customer after Taiwan was blocked, even after further development of the F-20 was discontinued in November 1986. Ultimately revelation of a bribery scandal ended any chance for a Korean Tigershark in 1988. Korea selected the F-18 for its requirement, only to abandon that in 1991 and finally settle on the F-16C.
  • Turkey - 100 * Turkey was looking for a large-scale aircraft coproduction program to develop their aviation industry under the auspices of the state-owned TUSAS firm.
  • Egypt - 80
Core 2:

  • Thailand - 18 *
  • Singapore - 24 *
  • Indonesia - 16 *
  • Malaysia - 16
  • Spain - 72 *
  • Pakistan - 124
  • Switzerland - 50 *
  • Greece - 100 *
  • Netherlands - 110 *
  • Norway - 50 *
  • Austria - 24
  • Nigeria - 24
  • Jordan - 48 *
By near the end of the F-20 program in July 1986 ITAR clearance had been requested for the following additional countries that expressed interest in the aircraft:
  • Australia
  • Belgium
  • Brazil
  • Cameroon
  • Denmark
  • Ecuador
  • Germany
  • India
  • Israel
  • Italy
  • Japan
  • Kuwait
  • Mexico
  • Morocco
  • New Zealand
  • Oman
  • Peru
  • Philippines
  • Portugal
  • Qatar
  • Sweden
  • Tunisia
  • UAE
  • UK
  • Venezuela
  • Yugoslavia
Click to expand...

F-20 Sales

F-20 Sales space project projects programme program programmes programs spaceflight astronaut cosmonaut biography rocket spacecraft satellite exploration launch vehicle history
web.archive.org
Click to expand...

Wow, Yugoslavia also wanted the F-20?
in 1986, I wonder how the world would react when an eastern bloc country acquires a US system. Would the US allow it? how would the USSR react?

on the subject of F-5/F-20
what was the most advance F-5 variant adopted thus far?
Singaporean F-5S? (I read somewhere it had the same radar as the F-20? and was AMRAAM capable)
the brazilian F-5? or the Chilean F-5 with the Israeli avionics and missiles?
Click to expand...
Wow : just a material for alternate history of Northrop F-20 :)
 
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmfScysZuE0



Ed Nash's Military Matters
Ed Nash's Military Matters
24.3K subscribers


SUBSCRIBE
CORRECTION: The F-5A/B were not 'Tigers'. they were 'Freedom Fighters'. The F-5C, used by the USAF in Vietnam, was the 'Skoshi Tiger', which led on to the F-5E being called the 'Tiger II'. My bad. Still a controversial fighter, the Northrop F-20 had it all - on paper at least. An extremely capable aircraft, built to a US government specification, it could have been a one of the world's primary fighter aircraft even today. But the vagaries of government policy and various machinations means that the F-20 never made it - making it possibly the biggest "what-if?" fighter in history.
Click to expand...

From the comments thread:

Devildog​

1 week ago
My father was a Computer Analyst Specialist for the Northrop on the F-20 project in Hawthorn, Ca.. He helped to create the fly by wire and routing the avionics for it. I remember being about 13 or 14 and seeing them sitting outside of a hanger getting preflight checks before they taxied and took off. To this day one of the coolest things I had ever seen.
Click to expand...

Shadx27

Shadx27​

1 week ago
The funny thing is, several of the nations that got the F-5 never got F-16's and really could have used the F-20s.
Click to expand...

Oldschool Canuck

Oldschool Canuck​

1 week ago
IIRC Canada looked at the F-20 (the RCAF liked it) and the F-18 to replace its fleet of CF104's. At the time I heard from a couple of reliable sources that we bought the F-18 at three times the price per air-frame of the deal Northrop was offering for the F-20. The F-18 deal came without spares, full avionics/fire control suites or technology transfer - we had to buy that as an add on. And, until nearly a decade after the buy, we finally bought a spare parts package rather than paying for individual parts as we needed them. The F-20's would have been cheaper and Northrop was throwing in lifetime parts and immediate tech transfer. For the money we spent on the F-18 we could have had an air force again rather than a few squadrons.
Click to expand...
Tdan Kendros

Tdan Kendros​

1 week ago
Because of Canada's large artic space Canada has a big bias against single engine planes. Single engine planes are a huge liability in case the engine malfunctions. That alone made the F-20 a non-starter for Canada.
Click to expand...


docnele​

1 week ago (edited)
Trivia: Born in USA, chief designer of N-156 (T-38/F-5) was Velko Gasic of Yugoslav origin (father from what is now state of Bosnia&Herzegovina). He worked on F-5 development up to F-20, also on YF-17 and Senior Ice (Northrop B-2 Spirit).
https://accounts.google.com/Service...n-GB&next=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DwmfScysZuE0&hl=en-GB
Click to expand...
 
Well Canada had the single engine F-86, of which they had more of than all their other jet fighters combined, and 200 CF104s. The bigger problem with selecting the F-20 was that it wasn't an in -production or variant of an in-production (it wasn't just an F-5 on steroids, the "F-5G" designation was just to appease Jimmy Carter) aircraft.
 
this story popped up today via Alert5, but going to post the link to the original source which was published 2 days ago.

www.ekathimerini.com

An unknown 1974 dogfight over the Aegean | eKathimerini.com

Air Marshal Thomas Skabardonis was a newlywed. He had just taken some time off and was spending it quietly with his wife – who at the time was pregnant with their first child – when he heard the news on the radio.
www.ekathimerini.com www.ekathimerini.com

Its about the time a Greek F-5 shot down a Turkish F-102
 
"The funny thing is, several of the nations that got the F-5 never got F-16's and really could have used the F-20s"

-Shadx27

Would I be right in saying, for many small air force/government/regime that purchased the F-16 couldn't maintain, let alone operate them anywhere near their fullest capability.
Yes, the F-16 was reasonably cheap, when compared to purchasing and operating the likes of the F-15/F-16/F-4E/Tornado/Mirage 2000, but in reality the F-16 still cost a small air force's some serious coin, when compared to the F-20.
I came to the conclusion some time ago, the success of F-16 sale was a combination of clever salesmanship and political deplomecy......

Don't get me wrong, I love and fully appreciate the F-16 and it's design philosophy.

Regards
Pioneer
 
Last edited:
Oldschool Canuck's stuff about the 1980s "RCAF" (sic) liking the F-20 and wanting a mixed fleet of Tigersharks and CF18s is pure wishful thinking.

The F/A-18 had won the New Fighter Aircraft (NFA) competition two years before the F-20 had even flown. The raison d'être of the NFA was choosing a single aircraft type to replace all three inservice types.

So, as the Kiwis might say: Yeah, No ...
 
Apophenia said:
Oldschool Canuck's stuff about the 1980s "RCAF" (sic) liking the F-20 and wanting a mixed fleet of Tigersharks and CF18s is pure wishful thinking.

The F/A-18 had won the New Fighter Aircraft (NFA) competition two years before the F-20 had even flown. The raison d'être of the NFA was choosing a single aircraft type to replace all three inservice types.

So, as the Kiwis might say: Yeah, No ...
Click to expand...
Yeah, nah...
 
The F20 is a bit like the Hawker P1121. Lots of people love it because it looks so pretty in various liveries. The folks at Beyond the Sprues for example.
But it doesnt have a customer base. Just as the RAF was never going to buy an over-priced Hunter the USAF were not going to buy an F5 clone in a combat role.
Of course in LaLaLand where there are no F4,F16, F18 then yes its My Little Pony time.
 
uk 75 said:
The F20 is a bit like the Hawker P1121. Lots of people love it because it looks so pretty in various liveries. The folks at Beyond the Sprues for example.
But it doesnt have a customer base. Just as the RAF was never going to buy an over-priced Hunter the USAF were not going to buy an F5 clone in a combat role.
Of course in LaLaLand where there are no F4,F16, F18 then yes its My Little Pony time.
Click to expand...

F-20 was not just an F-5 clone. But you're right that USAF would never buy it. It didn't offer enough over the F-16 to justify setting up a whole new logistics system.

Northrop didn't really design the aircraft with USAF in mind. However, after they asked USAF to be their sponsor for certification for international sales ( a terrible mistake!) they realized a sale to the US would be valuable for international credibility. So they pitched it as part of the CAS/BAI competition (USAF position: "We want the best aircraft possible just so long as it's the F-16"). They pitched an all-up F-20 as an assessor aircraft for USN (with possible follow-on for USAF). Problem here was an aggressor order wasn't big enough to guarantee Northrop would put it into production, plus GD offered the semi-stripped F-16N, probably below cost, but they could afford it to insure no F-20 order.

They also attempted to market it as part of the Air Defense Fighter competition. ANG was very interested given its lower overall costs and ease of maintenance and support. Also, some of the features designed int the F-20 for its international sales would convey particualr advantages in this role. The ADF competition didn't get very far, though, before USAF announced that they would not finish the competition but rather modify existing F-16As & Bs to fill the role as best they could. That was pretty much the final straw and in October, 1986 Northrop abandoned the F-20 and scrapped the on that was on the production line.

With the F-20 safely dead, USAF started retiring the F-16ADFs jut five years after production started (two years after the final conversion)
 
But in many instances (including the ADF role) the F-20 was substantially inferior to the F-16. The F-20 lacked the same payload/ range performance and generally a significantly less effective multirole aircraft than the F-16 in any role that required range, endurance and payload.

ADF F-16s were replaced by multi-role F-16s following the end of the Cold War and the reduction in the perceived threat from bombers/ cruise missiles. And ADF F-16s modified to MLU standards were exported.
Purchasing F-20s for the ADF role was a bad idea and would have been pure pork-barrel keeping Northrop going by buying a substantially inferior aircraft for the intended role. Would have been even more grievous re: the CAS/BAI role.
The aggressor role is more debatable however in a world where export customers can buy relatively full-spec F-16s the F-20 was very niche to the point of effective commercial unviability one way or another.
And I quite like the F-20 design; it’s just that it’s common narrative has this sense of victimhood and grievance woven in that really isn’t really warranted.
 
Another sad tale of a good airplane that just happened to be in the same market as a really great airplane. At least the F-20 actually got into the air, while the P.1121 and so many of the other cancelled projects remain fan favourites because they were never actually proven inferior in flight against built-in-metal opposition.
 
Something to keep in mind is that the F-20 was designed for the export market, and it wasn't until late in its history that a serious attempt was made to sell it to the US, and even then that was in the context of lending it more credibility on the word market.

The F-20 could not match the F-16's payload/ range (except on a Lo-Lo-Lo mission where surprisingly it had slightly more range), but the idea was that there were a lot of countries that didn't need that range, and what could you do if you forgo that extra range? What if you offered a fully competitive aircraft that cost less and was much easier to maintain?

Regarding the ADF "competition", neither aircraft was ideal for that mission as the US would do it; for that you'd really need an F-15 (don't even think about a USAF F-14 for a second). However the F-20 had a number of assets. It had a better engine and a better cockpit (except for vision directly to the rear). It reacted and launched far faster. The ring-laser gyro for the time was amazing. The digital X band coherent pulse doppler AN/APG-67 radar was arguably a better radar than what the F-16 had at the time, and yes it had full multi-role capability, including sea search which I'm not sure that the AN/APG-66 or -68 had in the '80s and '90s. Working with the INS and gyro it could operate intermittently on a/g missions using generated radar imagery, lowering emissions. Yes, the rapidly retired F-16 ADFs were snapped up by other countries because they were a heck of a deal at what we were selling them for.

In my mind, the F-20 lost out for a number of reasons. Of course the denial of the Taiwan sale was a biggie. GD also was superb in marketing, and they were much better at it than Northrop. They knew how to play the game and were very effective in creating the impression of it as a "Wonderplane" and the Cadillac of fighters. An anecdotal story tells of an appliance vendor in Pakistan marketing I think a blender as the "F-16 of Blenders". The F-16 became the "default" or "safe" choice, very important when you were explaining to Fearless Leader why you picked a plane on which to spend umpty-gazillion from the treasury (or FMS money). It was almost like you had to justify not buying the F-16. If you bought anything else and it didn't work out, guess who would be swinging in the wind? If you picked the F-16 and something happened, it would almost be like, "Well who could have expected that? After all, it's the F-16". Northrop never really learned how to counter that and their perceived risk. When unattributed stories floated around that they couldn't really get 5,050 lbs. of internal fuel into it they didn't know how to counter that until finally they got around to publicly pumping 5,050 lbs. into it .

They might have also tried to build a two seater early on, if for no other reason than they could fly General Bumptybump around so he could get his Hero Picture.

Frankly, they also didn't think it all the way through when they picked their sponsor. Think about it: For every F-16 sold abroad, that would reduce the price of future F-16s sold to USAF, and would enhance the service's reputation. Every F-20 sold would do the opposite. It would be sort of like Ford picking Chevy to represent it. You wouldn't get hostility, but your representative may not be that enthusiastic. There are various stories such as a potential customer at an official dinner asking if Northrop's claims on measurement of maintenance requirements were valid and being told, "We wouldn't measure it that way", while not also mentioning that GD's claims wouldn't be measured their way either. Or the decision that they wouldn't certify the cartridge start, one of the things that enabled it to get airborne so fast, for environmental reasons, although the only time that would be used was on a true scramble when the bad guys were actually inbound and not that far out. This capability would be especially important to potential customers who couldn't afford an airborne alert and whose borders weren't that far away.

They also hung on too long, IMO. ♪"You got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em..."♫

Personally, I am in the camp that felt Northrop really should have asked the USN to sponsor/champion them, for three reasons:

1. The F-20 threatened no Navy program (this is big).

2. Every F-20 helped on the cost of the F404,

3. The Navy loved to screw with the Air Force :)


Fact was, they had an amazing plane for what it was intended for, but fell victim to international and bureaucratic politics and didn't know how to play the game as well. As one of my bosses said, "Having the best hand just lets you sit at the table. It doesn't mean you'll win".
 
But wouldn't every F-20 sale have similarly increased the price of the F-18 for the Navy? Remember that at that time, the prospect of selling a standard or even de-navalized version of the F-18 was real. Or do I am off the time scale?
 
TomcatViP said:
But wouldn't every F-20 sale have similarly increased the price of the F-18 for the Navy? Remember that at that time, the prospect of selling a standard or even de-navalized version of the F-18 was real. Or do I am off the time scale?
Click to expand...

Possibly, but generally the expected customer base for the F-20 was different from those countries that looked at the F/A-18. Also, don't forget that Northrop was responsible for the aft section of the Hornet, so they didn't want to mess with that cash cow. USN didn't seem that concerned and they liked the possibility of getting cheaper F404s

The F-18L would have had higher performance than the standard Hornet, but it got mixed up in the Northrop-MDD spat, and eventually was abandoned in 1984-85. It also had the same problem as the F-20; it was perceived as risky because it was not actually committed to production.
 
F-14D said:
isayyo2 said:
I think every @F-14D post could either be hung in a frame or printed in a book, I learn something new every time!
Click to expand...


There are lots of people providing lots of very valuable information on these forums.
Click to expand...
The members are why I keep coming back day after day, and our excellent staff members too :p

Now isn't there an A-7F story you still need to tell? hahah
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom