Northrop F-5G / F-20 Tigershark

A few months ago I met and chatted with Graeme Goldsmith, an RNZAF pilot who got to fly the F-20 when we were looking at it as a potential A-4 replacement. He was full of praise for it and, had I not been working, I would've grabbed out my phone to record his thoughts for posterity. It was fascinating to hear first-hand what she was like to fly.
 
ZacYates said:
A few months ago I met and chatted with Graeme Goldsmith, an RNZAF pilot who got to fly the F-20 when we were looking at it as a potential A-4 replacement. He was full of praise for it and, had I not been working, I would've grabbed out my phone to record his thoughts for posterity. It was fascinating to hear first-hand what she was like to fly.
Click to expand...
Just to bring a tear to your eye Zac:

F20A_NewZealand99.jpg
F20A_NewZealand91.jpg


More here: https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...the-f-20-tigershark-went-into-production.256/
 
I've noticed that there were very few models posted in this particular forum, soooooooooooo I thought that for your viewing pleasure find my Northrop in-house 1:40th F-5G in aggressor camouflage. Yummy!
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0011.jpg
    IMG_0011.jpg
    479.6 KB · Views: 461
  • IMG_0010.jpg
    IMG_0010.jpg
    451.4 KB · Views: 356
ZacYates said:
A few months ago I met and chatted with Graeme Goldsmith, an RNZAF pilot who got to fly the F-20 when we were looking at it as a potential A-4 replacement. He was full of praise for it and, had I not been working, I would've grabbed out my phone to record his thoughts for posterity. It was fascinating to hear first-hand what she was like to fly.
Click to expand...
How about tracking Graeme Goldsmith down and asking for an interview "for prosperity"?
From personal experiance, there's nothing to lose.

Regards
Pioneer
 
Some payload information from a 1984 Northop document.
 

Attachments

  • 1.jpg
    1.jpg
    1.6 MB · Views: 392
  • 2.jpg
    2.jpg
    596.1 KB · Views: 394
  • 3.jpg
    3.jpg
    747 KB · Views: 387
  • 4.jpg
    4.jpg
    1,011.1 KB · Views: 396
  • 5.jpg
    5.jpg
    719.9 KB · Views: 392
  • 6.jpg
    6.jpg
    983.2 KB · Views: 367
  • 7.jpg
    7.jpg
    1.4 MB · Views: 432
Hi,

I think the main reason for falling of this aircraft was to adapt the same
configuration of F-5,if they tried to develop its wing's shape,heaver weight,
more powerful engine,bubble canopy and bigger range,there would have
a chance to win many contracts.
 
hesham said:
Hi,

I think the main reason for falling of this aircraft was to adapt the same
configuration of F-5,if they tried to develop its wing's shape,heaver weight,
more powerful engine,bubble canopy and bigger range,there would have
a chance to win many contracts.
Click to expand...
But then would you not effectively have the F-16?
 
hesham said:
Hi,

I think the main reason for falling of this aircraft was to adapt the same
configuration of F-5,if they tried to develop its wing's shape,heaver weight,
more powerful engine,bubble canopy and bigger range,there would have
a chance to win many contracts.
Click to expand...

The Northrop P-600/YF-17/F-18L was exactly that, yet didn't attract any customer either (and the following F/A-18 is no longer the same concept).
 
The single engine projects was the P-610.

But back to the F-20. If we take an F-20 and scale it up to an F-16A to the same fuel and payload, then F-20 might be slightly lighter and so cheaper in the mass production than the F-16A. But regarding to the development analysis of the YF-16, the F-20 would be inferior to the scenario in those time 1970.

Further, the production of a F-20 would be more expensive for the initial costumer compaired to the order and mass production of the F-16A.
Today perhaps it would be different.
 
I think we can split this discussing in another topic at the Bar section,
and we can give it a title; Northrop F-20 vs General Dynamics F-16.
 
I think the slightly bigger wing would have improved performance a bit, but not enough to make a difference to sales prospects.

In avionics and weapons the F-20 was comparable to or better than the F-16C when the F-20 target customers were getting offered F-16A. However, the F-16A was in production where the F-20 was just a prototype.
 
hesham said:
Hi,

I think the main reason for falling of this aircraft was to adapt the same
configuration of F-5,if they tried to develop its wing's shape,heaver weight,
more powerful engine,bubble canopy and bigger range,there would have
a chance to win many contracts.
Click to expand...
But then it wouldn't have been "an upgraded F-5," when it was still the F-5G.

Once it went to the F-20 as "a whole new plane" it was too late to change the outer mold line that much.
 
hesham said:
Hi,

I think the main reason for falling of this aircraft was to adapt the same
configuration of F-5,if they tried to develop its wing's shape,heaver weight,
more powerful engine,bubble canopy and bigger range,there would have
a chance to
Click to expand...
We have had this discussion before in this thread. The whole reason the F-20/F-5G existed was because there was a gap in the market for customers blocked from receiving F-16's, but that the US wanted to keep on its side while being able to beat them in conflict should they change sides. As soon as that block on F-16 sales was lifted it killed the F-20. Yes it had BVR capability which the F-16A of the time did not, but it (the F-16) was being ordered in large numbers. Many users went for the F-16A at the time even with its BVR shortcoming over types with BVR. Lower cost, large user support pool etc. - i.e. less risk to the user.
 
Once Taiwan was blocked it was dead on arrival. Had they bought it and taken the risk which they were willing it would have had success. Bahrain had a small order they abandoned when the program ended. The first block 25 F-16 aircraft were rolling off the assembly line when the Tigershark was being tested so its technical advantages were never going to be long lived. It was always a political plane and it was politics that would save or kill the plane rather then it’s wing size.
 
overscan (PaulMM) said:

GI1003

GI1003 space project projects programme program programmes programs spaceflight astronaut cosmonaut biography rocket spacecraft satellite exploration launch vehicle history
web.archive.org
Click to expand...
Ah. The answer to something that's been bugging me this morning in an online F-20 discussion. I remember GE telling me at one point that with the final radar choice for the F-20, there was no longer room for the two M-39s, GE was proposing the GECAL 50 and arguing that modern ammunition would make it sufficiently lethal. Ford had competed with GE for the GAU-8/A and was in the mid-1980s involved in the Advanced Gun Technology (AGT) then intended for ATF - I would guess that the F-20 gun would have used the GAU-8/A round.
 
LowObservable said:
Ah. The answer to something that's been bugging me this morning in an online F-20 discussion. I remember GE telling me at one point that with the final radar choice for the F-20, there was no longer room for the two M-39s, GE was proposing the GECAL 50 and arguing that modern ammunition would make it sufficiently lethal. Ford had competed with GE for the GAU-8/A and was in the mid-1980s involved in the Advanced Gun Technology (AGT) then intended for ATF - I would guess that the F-20 gun would have used the GAU-8/A round.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure AGT was was not using GAU-8 ammo. I believe it was case telescoped.

LOADING SYSTEM FOR ADVANCED GUN TECHNOLOGY (AGT) CASED TELESCOPED AMMUNITION | SBIR.gov

www.sbir.gov www.sbir.gov

If there was no room for 20mm M-39s in the F-20, there was absolutely zero chance of squeezing in a gun firing 30x173. (There was talk of hanging a gunpod with the GAU-13 but that was NOT internal).
 
The basic compartment volume available for the existing M-39 gun installation was not reduced in the forward fuselage modified for the ERR (Extended Range Radar). (This forward fuselage was built and retrofitted (but not flown) on Tigershark #3 and can be seen today. Instead, the GE radar LRU volume in the avionics bay was reduced by a redesign reducing the [RSP, I think] chassis width from two circuit card assemblies to one (on the port side of the nose) and re-arraigning the avionics on the starboard side.;

Ammunition capacity was to be reduced due to a cooling air duct running under the left ammo container to the avionics compartment, and the CWI LRU under the right container (if Sparrow was to be selected as a customer option). However, by the time of the ADF proposal, the Sparrow was already relegated as an alter medium range missile with AMRAAM being primary.

Despite what GE and the internal Northrop armaments groups were selling, both of the formal proposals to the USG (USN Adversary and USAF ADF) had the M-39 included. The Adversary had an option to delete the guns and replace with with small fuel tanks (an engineering option going back to the F-5E). Alternate internal guns were bandied about in the CAS/BAI response to the Air Force - but this was to an RFI, not a a production RFP.

Recommend you check out Paul Metz' F-20 book.
 
TomS said:
Pretty sure AGT was was not using GAU-8 ammo. I believe it was case telescoped.

LOADING SYSTEM FOR ADVANCED GUN TECHNOLOGY (AGT) CASED TELESCOPED AMMUNITION | SBIR.gov

www.sbir.gov www.sbir.gov

If there was no room for 20mm M-39s in the F-20, there was absolutely zero chance of squeezing in a gun firing 30x173. (There was talk of hanging a gunpod with the GAU-13 but that was NOT internal).
Click to expand...
To my knowledge AGT was supposed to use 20mm cased-telescoped ammunition which had rather high performance for that caliber. The primary aircraft to use it was to be the ATF but the timelines overlap so it would have made sense for Northrop to consider a switch to 20mm CTA guns as another potential future upgrade for the F-20. I'm guessing the primary gun developed from AGT would have been a Gatling-type multi-barrel design but I imagine a single-barrel revolver cannon could have been designed to use the ammo as well. You're probably not going to be able to fit anything much larger than 20mm guns in the nose of the F-5 or F-20.

Eventually AGT was cancelled in the early 1990s probably as a money-saving measure. Instead the F-22 would go on to use the improved M61A2 with new ammunition.
 
Pioneer said:
How about tracking Graeme Goldsmith down and asking for an interview "for prosperity"?
From personal experiance, there's nothing to lose.

Regards
Pioneer
Click to expand...
While I do a bit of journalising, I have a friend who records podcasts with aviation personalities - I’ll check if he’s done one and if not I’ll suggest it! Otherwise I may give it a go myself.
 
As shown in Northrop F-20 Tigershark by Paul Metz, the F-20 Tigershark was envisioned in the close air support / battlefield air interdiction (CAS / BAI) role by adding a pair of "sensor pylons" or "sensor stations" underneath the leading-edge extension (LEX). Each of these "sensor pylons" or "sensor stations" were rated at 600 pounds capability each, which was sufficient for the LANTIRN pods as well as the AIM-120 AMRAAM or AIM-7 Sparrow air-to-air missiles. However, this would come at the cost of higher drag which would reduce loiter time in the target area by as much as 75%.

F-20 CAS BAI.jpeg
F-20 Sensor Pylons (1).jpeg
F-20 Sensor Pylons (4).jpeg
F-20 Sensor Pylons (2).jpeg
F-20 Sensor Pylons (3).jpeg
SOURCE: Metz, P. (2023). Northrop F-20 Tigershark. Steve Ginter. Retrieved from *EDIT to remove link*
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Christopher Wang said:
As shown in Northrop F-20 Tigershark by Paul Metz, the F-20 Tigershark was envisioned in the close air support / battlefield air interdiction (CAS / BAI) role by adding a pair of "sensor pylons" or "sensor stations" underneath the leading-edge extension (LEX). Each of these "sensor pylons" or "sensor stations" were rated at 600 pounds capability each, which was sufficient for the LANTIRN pods as well as the AIM-120 AMRAAM or AIM-7 Sparrow air-to-air missiles. However, this would come at the cost of higher drag which would reduce loiter time in the target area by as much as 75%.
Click to expand...
Definitely not a good idea for CAS. Somewhat more viable for BAI, since that's out-and-back missions without loitering.

And definitely viable for carrying AAMs.
 
Christopher Wang said:
As shown in Northrop F-20 Tigershark by Paul Metz, the F-20 Tigershark was envisioned in the close air support / battlefield air interdiction (CAS / BAI) role by adding a pair of "sensor pylons" or "sensor stations" underneath the leading-edge extension (LEX). Each of these "sensor pylons" or "sensor stations" were rated at 600 pounds capability each, which was sufficient for the LANTIRN pods as well as the AIM-120 AMRAAM or AIM-7 Sparrow air-to-air missiles. However, this would come at the cost of higher drag which would reduce loiter time in the target area by as much as 75%.


SOURCE: Metz, P. (2023). Northrop F-20 Tigershark. Steve Ginter. Retrieved from *Edit to remove link*
Click to expand...
Mr. Wang, I am certain that Messers Metz and Ginter would enjoy your appreciation and honoring of their hard work by your purchasing a copy of the book, rather than second hand pirating already pirated images of their book.

Just say'n.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
aim9xray said:
Mr. Wang, I am certain that Messers Metz and Ginter would enjoy your appreciation and honoring of their hard work by your purchasing a copy of the book, rather than second hand pirating already pirated images of their book.

Just say'n.
Click to expand...
Agreed. See Forum Rules:

Posting Images & Copyright
  • ALWAYS post images via the forum's attachment option, not as links. This way we won't lose the image if the original source website disappears.
  • Where possible, seek permission from the copyright holder before posting any images. Images posted under a defence of "fair use" (e.g. US) or "fair dealing" (e.g. UK/Europe) should be low resolution (e.g. no larger than 1200 pixels in width and height), for discussion and comment, and not cause financial harm to the copyright holder. The rights of the copyright holder to object to posted material always take priority over "fair use".
  • If you are the copyright holder, or have permission from the copyright holder to post an image, you can use as high a resolution as you like, subject to the file size limit of uploaded images.
  • NEVER post images or whole pages from currently available books or magazines without the permission of the copyright holder. This harms revenues and may jeopardise the production of future books and magazines. Aviation publishing isn't a big money maker and we must support the authors and publishers. Posting a summary in your own words is acceptable.
  • Copyright law can be complex and vary from country to country. We fully respect the rights of photographers, artists, authors, publishers and manufacturers. If you feel that a post infringes your copyright, report it using the "report" button found in each post and explain what the problem is and it will be removed.
Click to expand...
 
Christopher Wang said:
Como se muestra en Northrop F-20 Tigershark de Paul Metz, el F-20 Tigershark fue concebido en la función de apoyo aéreo cercano/interdicción aérea en el campo de batalla (CAS/BAI) agregando un par de "pilones de sensores" o "estaciones de sensores" debajo del extensión de vanguardia (LEX). Cada uno de estos "pilones de sensores" o "estaciones de sensores" tenía una capacidad de 600 libras cada uno, lo que era suficiente para las cápsulas LANTIRN así como para los misiles aire-aire AIM-120 AMRAAM o AIM-7 Sparrow. Sin embargo, esto tendría el costo de una mayor resistencia, lo que reduciría el tiempo de merodeo en el área objetivo hasta en un 75%.

[ADJUNTAR=completo]722419[/ADJUNTAR]
[ADJUNTAR=completo]722420[/ADJUNTAR]
[ADJUNTAR=completo]722423[/ADJUNTAR]
[ADJUNTAR=completo]722421[/ADJUNTAR]
[ADJUNTAR=completo]722422[/ADJUNTAR]
FUENTE: Metz, P. (2023). Northrop F-20 Tiburón tigre . Steve Ginter. Obtenido de *EDITAR para eliminar enlace*
Click to expand...

Hello, can you tell me which page confirms that this one has the aim120 and can you take a photo please?
 
zeeink said:
Hello, can you tell me which page confirms that this one has the aim120 and can you take a photo please?
Click to expand...
Hi zeeink,
the author Paul Metz describes the F-20 Air Defence Missionized Aircraft, a proposal for the USAF Air Defence Fighter competition, on page 96 to 97.
A 3-view drawing shows the F-20 AD Missionized Aircraft with two AIM-9L at wingtips, 4 AM-120 AMRAAMs (2 per launcher under each wing pylon) and 2 x 330-Gallon fuel tanks. No use of the fuselage center-line station in this configuration. In the end, F-16 ADF won the competition.
See also this post. I highly recommend buying this book.
Sorry, before you or anyone else asks, I won't take or post any snapshots of this book in this forum due to forum rules. :)
 
acesflyinghighthesurvivors.wordpress.com

The Survivors: Northrop F-20 Tigershark – A Formidible but Unlucky Jet Fighter!

By all accounts the 1980’s era Northrop F-20 Tigershark was a great fighter jet that was maneuverable with good short field capability. It was kind of like a super F-5E Tiger II with a new si…
acesflyinghighthesurvivors.wordpress.com acesflyinghighthesurvivors.wordpress.com

Another one knows the background of these posters??

img_7312-horz-f-20posters-wmof_900.jpg
 
zjz said:
acesflyinghighthesurvivors.wordpress.com

The Survivors: Northrop F-20 Tigershark – A Formidible but Unlucky Jet Fighter!

By all accounts the 1980’s era Northrop F-20 Tigershark was a great fighter jet that was maneuverable with good short field capability. It was kind of like a super F-5E Tiger II with a new si…
acesflyinghighthesurvivors.wordpress.com acesflyinghighthesurvivors.wordpress.com

Another one knows the background of these posters??

img_7312-horz-f-20posters-wmof_900.jpg
Click to expand...
They're pretty obviously "motivational" posters for a weight reduction or weight consciousness program.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom