Northrop F-5G / F-20 Tigershark

The original Northrop F5 "Freedom Fighter" was luckier than the F20 in that there was clear blue water between it and the higher end F100 (Denmark, France, Turkey) F101 (Canada) F102(Greece and Turkey) and F104(most people).
By the 70s the US were able to offer the single engine F16 in various versions. The F20 was no longer necessary.
 
uk 75 said:
The original Northrop F5 "Freedom Fighter" was luckier than the F20 in that there was clear blue water between it and the higher end F100 (Denmark, France, Turkey) F101 (Canada) F102(Greece and Turkey) and F104(most people).
By the 70s the US were able to offer the single engine F16 in various versions. The F20 was no longer necessary.
Click to expand...
So, can one possibly use the analogy - when the F-5A/B and later F-5E/F came out, there was numerous countries that were still economically dependent on such affordable and limited* fighter-bombers. But by the time the F-20 was developed and marketed, many of these less developed countries/Air Force's had evolved, by which they were more capable and more willing to except more sophisticated, more capable, hence more expensive fighter-bombers....
I think a lot of air force's also fell into the trappings of their own created hubris, adhering to a notion of much more glamour, perceived capability with 'bling' rather than what they could actual not so much purchase, but more importantly operate and maintain - for example, pre-1979 Iran.....

Regards
Pioneer
 
Last edited:
If your primary role is air to air then I chose the f20 you had the sparrow as standard not as a paper option in f16a in same way I take fa18a over the f16a no sparrow worse radar
 
shyab said:
If your primary role is air to air then I chose the f20 you had the sparrow as standard not as a paper option in f16a in same way I take fa18a over the f16a no sparrow worse radar
Click to expand...
By the time F20 is offered most nations want a fighter and a striker in switch roles. Cant think of any country who just want a fighter-even Austria and Switzerland.
 
Even those that wanted a fighter only would likely (and did) favour the F-16s superior payload/ range and loitering capability in that role (including re: 4 plus missile loads including medium range Sparrows and Amraams with substantial external tanks/ fuel loads, with such loads having less impact on the performance on the F-16 than they would have on the F-20).
And “events” (AMRAAM, laser designation pods and precision weapons, etc.) worked to the F-16’s advantage (making it substantially more capable than had been originally intended in both the fighter and strike role) in a way that would not have been possible for the F-20 given it’s far more limited payload/ range capacities.
So customers who may have bought the F-20 may well have relatively rapidly seen them as mistakes and supplemented or replaced them with multi-role F-16s (with the few F-20s perhaps surviving as 2nd hand aggressor aircraft like their F-5 brethren have).
 
shyab said:
The f-20 was competing against the f-16a not the f-16c so no aim120 no pods etc
Click to expand...
The F-16A MLU and equivalent updates did.
Hence most (all?) F-16A customers that kept them in service into the mid to late 90s and the 21st century that had access to the AMRAAM (or Derby from Israel) and pods from the US (or Israel) added them.
And the F-16C etc that came after the F-16A reflect an evolution of the F-16 even more ahead/ superior to what where the F-20 could have ever gone in terms of general capability and payload/ range performance.
 
When the f-20 was competing for sales it was up against the the f-16a non mlu so no sparrows no aim120s if wonted sparrows you had to pay for radar upgrade sparrow ingratiation which was offered by GD but nobody took it up
 
It should also be remembered that the F-20/F-5G initially competed against the much degraded F-16-79 as the US didn't want to export the F-16A/B to some nations. @F-14D already covered plenty of what happened after that ruling fell and F-16 export was allowed and why the F-20 never reached the success it probably ought to have.
 
For the record, the F-20 was intended as a fully multi-role aircraft, capable of using any ordnance and sensors we (the US) would allow a customer to have. It would have had AIM-7 capability out of the box and would have been capable of using AIM-120 (once the missile completed devlopment) if we allowed a customer to have it. This was even stated in their advertising literature and in Northrop videos.

The F-16C was a big improvement over the F-16A/B, but the F-20's avionics would matched it in a number of ways and exceeded them in a few.

Again, what was being offered was an aircraft that could not match the F -16's payload/range, but if you didn't need that payload/range, you could get a highly applicable multi-role aircraft that cost a lot less to acquire and operate. Of course, F-16s were already in service while the F-20 was not. As I've said before, not counting Taiwan, export countries were always eager to be the second one to put a new aircraft in service
 
CIA documents addressing the options to include for a Presidential report on fighter aircraft to potentially be sold to Taiwan.



Also, there is another document from the CIA that indicates that Jordan was considering the F-20, however after it learned of the sale of F-16's to Israel, they considered it a "slap in the face" to get the F-20 instead of the F-16 and did not purchase the Tigershark.

 
Last edited:
TomcatViP said:
F-16 impressed the world over the Bekaa Valley.

View: https://youtu.be/X1wP0LfrhGU
Click to expand...
I remember as a kid, being amazed by the exploits of the IAF over the Bekka Valley. I bought this two-plane model kit (F-16 & MiG-21PF) as a consequence, but sadly, I have to admit after all these decades, it remains unmade and it's it's box :(

Regards
Pioneer
 

Attachments

  • IMG_20210826_085234.jpg
    IMG_20210826_085234.jpg
    136.2 KB · Views: 132
Last edited:
Pioneer said:
TomcatViP said:
F-16 impressed the world over the Bekaa Valley.

View: https://youtu.be/X1wP0LfrhGU
Click to expand...
I remember as a kid, being amazed by the exploits of the IAF over the Bekka Valley. I bought this two-plan model kit (F-16 & MiG-21PF) as a consequence, but sadly, I have to admit after all these decades, it remains unmade and it's it's box :(

Regards
Pioneer
Click to expand...
Not to make you feel old Pioneer but I think I remember seeing that model in shop when I was a kid (my brother was really into models) - must be 25 years plus years ago - and even then going “how old is that model?”
 
kaiserd said:
Pioneer said:
TomcatViP said:
F-16 impressed the world over the Bekaa Valley.

View: https://youtu.be/X1wP0LfrhGU
Click to expand...
I remember as a kid, being amazed by the exploits of the IAF over the Bekka Valley. I bought this two-plan model kit (F-16 & MiG-21PF) as a consequence, but sadly, I have to admit after all these decades, it remains unmade and it's it's box :(

Regards
Pioneer
Click to expand...
Not to make you feel old Pioneer but I think I remember seeing that model in shop when I was a kid (my brother was really into models) - must be 25 years plus years ago - and even then going “how old is that model?”
Click to expand...
Yeah thanks kaiserd , for your conservative '25+' estimate ;)

I promise I'll build it for my grandkids in the next 25-years


Regards
Pioneer
 
Last edited:
My impression of the F-20 was that it was very similar in role to the MiG-29:
Great agility and T/W, generally very good WVR combatant.
Limited range and strike capability, no in-flight refueling.

This generally made it great for small to mid-sized countries wanting to defend their airspaces, for other roles - not so much.
How far am I from the truth?
 
Pioneer said:
I remember as a kid, being amazed by the exploits of the IAF over the Bekka Valley. I bought this two-plan model kit (F-16 & MiG-21PF) as a consequence, but sadly, I have to admit after all these decades, it remains unmade and it's it's box :(

Regards
Pioneer
Click to expand...
In its original box it might be something of an investment.
 
torginus said:
My impression of the F-20 was that it was very similar in role to the MiG-29:
Great agility and T/W, generally very good WVR combatant.
Limited range and strike capability, no in-flight refueling.

This generally made it great for small to mid-sized countries wanting to defend their airspaces, for other roles - not so much.
How far am I from the truth?
Click to expand...

With the acknowledgement that the F-20 never got far enough along to demonstrate much of what was promised for it, some observations:

F-20 would be able to fight BVR using AIM-7 and AIM-120 for those nations cleared to receive such weapons.

F-20 could not match F-16 rnge/payload except on a lo-lo-lo mission. This was acknowledged, but most of the intevded customer base did not normally fly missions that needed that payload/range. Ass an aside, that's one of the reasons that US aircraft are so big, US needs that payload/range regularly. F-20 would have had at least as much strike capability as F-16 had at that time, and in some cases more. in-flight refueling was an option.
 
Dynoman said:
CIA documents addressing the options to include for a Presidential report on fighter aircraft to potentially be sold to Taiwan.



Also, there is another document from the CIA that indicates that Jordan was considering the F-20, however after it learned of the sale of F-16's to Israel, they considered it a "slap in the face" to get the F-20 instead of the F-16 and did not purchase the Tigershark.

Click to expand...
The second those documents is a "Cliff's Note" or index card briefing made for hihgh level officals who just want to have some quick 10,00 foot view of a subject so they aren't complelely out to sea on a topic. They are quite common, I've done some myself (not for the CIA).


The F-5G originally had to be presented as a design to fulfill Jimmy Carter's dumb idea for an "export fighter". And in that presentation it, and the F-16/79, was a "slap in the face". Essentially, if you were told you could buy either of the "export fighters", you were being told you were not important enough, or your needs were not important enough, or you weren't capable enough to be able to operate one of the US' "first line" fighters. This was one of the reasons that once the restrictions were lifted a couple of years into the Reagan Administration Northrop petitioned to have the designation changed to the F-20, so the perception that it was just a warmed-over F-5 wouldn't hang over it. The F-16/79 disappeared about the same time.

There are stories that Jordan later gave the F-20 another look, but there was opposition to a potential sale from unnamed quarters. It's interesting to note that Jordan didn't receive permission to acquire (some purchased and some outright gifts) second-hand F-16A/Bs (including some ADFs) until after it signed a certain treaty in 1994. Ironically, the F-16s it received were arguably less capable than the F-20, if it had entered service.
 
There's one thing that kinda bothers me about the F-20, which is where the countermeasures would go on it.
I remember hearing in one of the sales films that the Tigershark was intended to use the AN/ALE-40 countermeasures dispenser, but where would it go? Would it be built-in similar to the F-16's, or would it be held in an external pod, like on the F-5E Tiger II and F-5A Freedom Fighter?
 
F-20A/B strengths were its cost of ownership, maintenance friendly body panels, and flexibility in ordnance. Its a shame they didn't stretch the length and wings a bit more, but they were trying too hard to be an extension of the F-5 program. Imagine if they offered a choice more inline with the IAI Kfir prototype, complete with a wing more similar in shape to F-17 scaled down to fit. Could they have enticed McDonnell-Douglas to offer the super Phantom as a Hi-Lo compliment using the same engine? Instead they had to offer a compliment to its failed Land Hornet venture.
 
F-14D said:
Northrop also needed a US military sponsor in order to qualify for FMS money and they asked USAF to be it (A mistake in my mind, they should have picked USN since it didn't compete with any a/c in which they had a vested interest).
Click to expand...
I think the USN should have used the F-20 for DACT. Would have done a great job representing a fighter armed with SARH BVR missiles, and was a great dogfighter.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I think the USN should have used the F-20 for DACT. Would have done a great job representing a fighter armed with SARH BVR missiles, and was a great dogfighter.
Click to expand...

F-16N worked and was so much cheaper when you consider the overhead cost of actually bringing any new aircraft type into service.
 
TomS said:
F-16N worked and was so much cheaper when you consider the overhead cost of actually bringing any new aircraft type into service.
Click to expand...
F-20 would have been more F404s/414s, and cheaper engines that way.
 
Scott Kenny said:
F-20 would have been more F404s/414s, and cheaper engines that way.
Click to expand...
With only 22 F-16N's being used it is nowhere near enough justification to bring a new type into service. 22 extra engines common to Hornet isn't really going to be an impact considering the cost all the other spares required too. Economy of scale dictates the F-16 as the far better choice and it was replaced by the Hornet in the role anyway.
 
Not to mention if they ever cared about red air having sparrow they would have put it on the F-16 at some point. The aircraft entered service in 1988, only a year before the ADF (both had apg-66)
 
About the gun...

  • The M39 revolver cannon weighed 180lbs, plus ammunition (~280rounds per gun plus feed system, ammunition weights ~1lb/rd).
  • The M61A2 20mm lightweight version weighs 200lbs (and is used in both the F-22 and Super Hornet, so was likely already under development in the F-20 timeline).
  • The GAU-22 25mm gun weighs 230lbs with shells weighing roughly 1.1lbs each, but was developed for the F-35 so may not be available in the mid-80s. The GAU-12 as used in the Harrier II is 270lbs, which is definitely too much extra weight.

Was/is there enough space in the nose for a Gatling type cannon? The picture on wiki showing an F-5 with the nose access panel open makes it look like there is enough space for a Gatling type weapon, just more barrels would protrude above the skin.

I'd pull the A-10 trick and have the firing barrel be closest to the aircraft centerline, not the one farthest from the aircraft skin. A titanium plate can take the muzzle blast.
 
F-2 said:
Not to mention if they ever cared about red air having sparrow they would have put it on the F-16 at some point. The aircraft entered service in 1988, only a year before the ADF (both had apg-66)
Click to expand...
That thought was more for the Aggressor to have SARH capability for training. Russians have a crapton of SARH AAMs.
 
Scott Kenny said:
F-20 would have been more F404s/414s, and cheaper engines that way.
Click to expand...

The Navy bought a grand total of 22 F-16Ns (and 4 TF-16Ns). Assuming similar production numbers for the F-20, a couple dozen extra engines is hardly going to move the cost curve considering the existing production of more than 4,000 F404s for F/A-18s and other aircraft.

And that's not considering the cost to turn the F-20 from basically an experimental aircraft into a production type, and then building only a double handful of them (Maybe the USAF could have gotten roped in as well for DACT, but no way they were going to take the F-20 for the ADF role).
 
The Navy wanted the F-20 over the F-16, then you add Taiwan who also wanted the F-20. With those two onboard I believe you would have started to see more foreign orders start to come in.
 
Conceivably you could push a two-seat F-20 as a T-38 successor, but I'm not sure why anyone would actually buy the thing.
 
T-50 today is proving F-20 was on a good path. Northrop failed to find deliveries.
 
Yellow Palace said:
Conceivably you could push a two-seat F-20 as a T-38 successor, but I'm not sure why anyone would actually buy the thing.
Click to expand...
You mean the Northrop entry (N400?) into the T-7 competition?

The T-7 if turned into a light-fighter can be the F-20's spiritual successor.
 
MadRat said:
F-20A/B strengths were its cost of ownership, maintenance friendly body panels, and flexibility in ordnance. Its a shame they didn't stretch the length and wings a bit more, but they were trying too hard to be an extension of the F-5 program. Imagine if they offered a choice more inline with the IAI Kfir prototype, complete with a wing more similar in shape to F-17 scaled down to fit. Could they have enticed McDonnell-Douglas to offer the super Phantom as a Hi-Lo compliment using the same engine? Instead they had to offer a compliment to its failed Land Hornet venture.
Click to expand...

The fourth prototype of the F-20 would have had the bigger wing.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom