F-20 The Worlds Best Fighter?
Rich Wernick
From wernick@cpoint (Rich Wernick)
I have been reading various and conflicting data on the the F-20 Tiger Shark,
and have been looking to clarify the reason the airplane was terminated.
I read that the Carter administration told Northrop Aviation to build an
airplane with their own money, and the US armed services would purchase the
airplane. Because the Air Force had no say in the planes design, they refused
and terminated it after Carter left office. Various reports by the Air Force
and Northrop demonstrated the planes capabilities of being far superior to the
F-16 in dogfighting. 60 Minutes did a special on the plane claiming the F-20
was cancealed due to political reasons. The test pilot from Northrop claimed
the Air Force would not know a good figher if it came up and bit them in the
ass. Chuck Yeager also tested the plane, and claimed it was the best aircraft
he had ever flown. Other reports claimed the aircraft was terminated because
it was designed for export, and Northrop could not find a buyer. Another story
I read was the IAF was interested in the plane, but the USAF would not allow
any proof of this planes dogfighting superiority out of the USA. This almost
sounds like the A-10 Thunderbolt II, built to do what it was designed for,
yet the Air Force tried to get rid of it as soon as possible.
1) Can anybody tell me why this plane was terminated?
2) Is it far superior to the F-16 in dogfighting?
3) Are there any in military service?
Thanks in Advance
Allan Bourdius
From Allan Bourdius <ab...@andrew.cmu.edu>
It really shouldn't suprise you to hear that General Yeager described
the F-20 as the "finest fighter" he's ever flown considering that he was
being paid by Northrop (and not by the Air Force) to fly it.
As far as the 60 Minutes report is concerned, I'd like to call into
question the show's overall knowledge of US Military affairs, equipment,
and policies. 60 Minutes is also the show that claimed that US forces
in Southwest Asia would be grossly undefended in any war with Iraq
because the ADATS missile still hadn't been finished. Give me a break!
There's one very simple reason why the Air Force probably didn't want
the F-20: they didn't need it. So what if it's a better dogfighter
than the F-16? The USAF didn't buy the F-16 to be the primary
air-to-air fighter--that's what the F-15 is for. From the beginning,
the F-16 was a ground attack/strike fighter with a secondary air defense
role. After all, the plane wasn't built with an air-to-air radar. Even
now, the F-16 won't have a real interceptor capability until the AMRAAM
is fully fielded--if ever. Was the F-20 a better attack plane than an
F-16? I don't even recall reading one story in AW&ST describing the
F-20's air-to-ground capabilities. Could the F-20 outperform an F-15 in
aerial combat? I doubt it.
After the F-20 was rejected by the Air Force (in fact, I think they said
from the beginning that they woudn't buy it), Northrop tried to push
foreign sales, mainly to countries that already had large orders for or
large numbers of F-16's in their air forces. Would you really expect a
minor military power like Belgium or Norway to junk their F-16's (which
are exceptional in their own rights) for a untested, untried plane that
is significantly more expensive than the F-16 with dubious increases in
capability? I wouldn't. Since the USAF didn't want it, the foreign
market for the F-20 dried up because all the potential buyers wanted a
proven aircraft.
When the F-20 was so highly touted in the mid-80s, the F-16 already had
several hundred *combat* hours logged with the Israeli Air Force. Which
makes more sense to buy on a limited budget: a plane that looks good on
paper, or a plane that's proven it can hack it under fire? I think the
choice is obivous.
I seriously doubt the Israelis were ever interested in the F-20 for
three reasons. First, they had no need for *another* air-superiority
aircraft what with their F-15's and Mirage 2000's. Second, their
ground-strike role was well fufilled by F-4's and F-16's (an area in
which the F-20's capabilites are questionable). Third, the Israelis had
their own high-tech multirole fighter on the drawing boards: the Lavi.
The Lavi met much the same end as the F-20. The Israelis found they'd
be better served by a larger mix of F-15's/F-16's than by putting all
their eggs into an untried basket.
Now, after the great air successes in Desert Storm, who wouldn't want
the F-16 over the F-20? Recommendations of retired combat pilots and
civilian test-zoomies aside, which was the better plane at the time?
Clearly, it was the F-16.
Allan
-------------------------------------
Allan Bourdius [(|)K(-)/USMCR]
ab...@andrew.cmu.edu
"Give, expecting nothing thereof."
All opinions are those of the author.
Mary Shafer
From Mary Shafer <sha...@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov>
The F-20 was _never_ proposed as a USAF airplane. It was always an
export airplane, intended for the same countries that fly the F-5.
It was not intended for sophisticated countries like Israel or Norway.
Rather, it was intended for countries like the Phillipines, who have a
small force and don't have a real need for sophisticated (i.e.
expensive) aircraft like the F-16.
The F-20 was a superb airplane for what it was. And it was always an
export fighter. Everyone in aerospace certainly understood that, from
the very beginning.
I do believe that the Air Force behaved very badly over the F-20, as
continued sales of the F-16, which they promoted very heavily, kept the
price down, which was greatly in their interest. But it's probably
unrealistic to expect the Air Force to recommend something that may
cost them money, no matter how appropriate the aircraft is.
Singapore is making a lot of money refurbishing F-5s for countries that
wanted the F-20 and couldn't afford the F-16.
We at Dryden greatly wanted to buy F-20s for chase and support
aircraft, precisely because we too didn't need "real" fighters.
Instead, we ended up with the pre-production F-18s which we got
second-hand (at a discount) from the Navy.
--
Mary Shafer DoD #0362 NASA Ames Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA
sha...@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov sha...@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov
Of course I don't speak for NASA
"Turn to kill, not to engage." CDR Willie Driscoll
"Hey, Willie, how long can you tread water?" CDR Randy Cunningham
John F. Skeffington
From motcid!skef...@uunet.uu.net (John F. Skeffington)
The history of the F-20 is slightly different that posted here previously.
As I recall, the F-20 was a result of a request by the Carter Administration
to design a fighter specifically for export purposes. It was
administration policy at that time to only allow export of the F-15
and F-16 to our closest allies. The export fighter would be developed
by the companies with their own funding.
The F-20 was initially called the F-5G, most likely to entice the large
number of countries then flying a version of the F-5. This designation
was most likely a mistake, as the F-5 was considered to be a lower
capability aircraft and the F-20 designation was then given to the
airplane (this started with the second aircraft built, I think).
Although started during the Carter Administration, the aircraft emerged
during the Reagan Administration. The new administration had different
policies, and was willing to sell current fighter technology to many
more nations. With this new policy, it was difficult to sell an
airplane that was not in service with the US.
Sometime during the mid 1980's, Northrop presented an unsolicited
proposal for F-20's to replace future orders for F-16's to the Air
Force. There was a bit of a media battle between GD and Northrop
over this (at least in AW&ST), and this eventually led to a fly-off
between the planes. In the end, the F-16 won.
There were three F-20's built, all with company funds. Two crashed
during practice for demonstrations. The remaining F-20 is in storage
at Northrop. The last two aircraft were built with production
tooling.
I do not believe that the results of the F-20/F-16 fly-off were ever
released, as they were classified. The rumors at the time suggested
that the fly-off exposed some shortcomings in the F-16, and some real
strengths in the air-air radar of the F-20.
After the Air Force decided against the F-20, and the foreign sales
never materialized, the final blow was dealt when the National
Air and Space Museum declined to take the last F-20, saying that it was
not significant in aviation history.
I believe that the facts presented here are correct (excluding my opinions of
course), but if there are any inaccuracies, I would welcome responses. I was
employed by Northrop for most of the F-20's history (but not on
the F-20).
John Skeffington
Motorola Cellular
Arlington Heights, Illinois
___________________________________________________________________________
All of the opinions stated here are those of the author.
___________________________________________________________________________
JOSEPH T CHEW
From jtc...@csa3.lbl.gov (JOSEPH T CHEW)
>Chuck Yeager also tested the plane, and claimed it was the best aircraft
>he had ever flown.
Without meaning any deprecation whatsoever of Gen. Yeager, one is obliged
to note the part in "Yeager" where he says that he has become a sort of
consultant-without-portfolio to at least one aerospace company, with the
enviable job description of coming in when he feels like it and flying
around in high-performance jets -- tangible remuneration not described.
Note also that Yeager would appear to be one of those pilots who can make
any plane look better than it really is...what was that von Richtofen quote
that appeared here a few weeks ago, "it's not the kite, it's the man"?
>1) Can anybody tell me why this plane was terminated?
As you've noted, this depends on whether you ask Northrop ("we wuz robbed!"),
General Dynamics ("it's a great plane if you only want to bomb the end of your
own runway," which I've heard that their representatives told to potential
foreign customers), or any number of DoD officials or industry experts
representing the spectrum in between.
>2) Is it far superior to the F-16 in dogfighting?
They would seem to be of a size and of an era, which makes one skeptical,
a priori, of truly dramatic differences. (To what extent may the F-20
be considered a T-38/F-5 derivative as opposed to a new airframe?)
>3) Are there any in military service?
As I recall (no insider knowledge, just browsing of Aviation Week),
Northrop got totally skunked on the F-20 and never sold one to anybody.
Their last, best hope was said to be South Korea, which chose the F/A-18.
I'll further speculate from memory that Northrop has officially given up
on the project, at considerable financial distress. One can imagine how
other companies now feel about developing big-ticket defense systems
entirely on speculation, an idea they weren't too fond of to begin with.
--Joe
"Just another personal opinion from the People's Republic of Berkeley"
Douglas E. Humphrey
From "Douglas E. Humphrey" <do...@access.digex.com>
>From wernick@cpoint (Rich Wernick)
>
>I have been reading various and conflicting data on the the F-20 Tiger Shark,
>and have been looking to clarify the reason the airplane was terminated.
Some of this differs with what I remember of the situation; I will
have to try to find my documents on this and refresh my memory...
In a nut shell, the aircraft was really designed with the export
market in mind, not for major consumption by the US armed forces,
although there was always some hope of some purchases by groups
like the Air Force Red Flag program, and basically anyone who
operated F5 aircraft.
The politics of it, very roughly, are that this was to be a plane
more suitable for export than the then current generation of US
frontline aircraft, the F15 and F16 series of aircraft. While these are
fine aircraft (the best in the world many would say) they are not
very well suited to export to smaller countries.
Maintenance hours per flying hour on these aircraft are somewhat
high (please, F15/16 fans, no flames; I am not trying to put these
fine aircraft down! My nomex shorts are in the shop, so no
flames please!). This is mainly because they are high performance,
right on the technical edge of what can be done, and they are very
complex aircraft.
This doesn't work real well with third world countries especially,
where they do not understand that you will spend many times the
purchase price of the aircraft over the lifetime of the aircraft on
maintenance and spares and upgrades.
The other end of the spectrum is the F5, which has a very enthusiastic
following in various parts of the world, and especially in the far
east, which is where F5s go to die (only they don't die there; they
get new everything, including the best radars that will fit in the
cone, full lookdown/shootdown capability, etc.) In fact, it has
been stated in a number of publications (Armada, Asian Defense,
AW&ST) that the F5s of the Singapore Airforce are constantly upgraded,
and would be a serious test to any fighter; their pilots train here
in the US, and are greatly respected professionals.
But, here is the problem (circa the late 70's early 80's I guess).
The F5 is just not good enough; all of these upgrades really push
the max of what you can do with a given airframe and planeform.
The F15/16 type aircraft are just too hard to maintain in the
jungle airstrip environment.
Enter the F20 Tigershark. The airframe starts life as an F5, but
it doesn't finish that way. The power is massivly uprated, putting
the energy envelope nearly in line with the F15 (remember that the
F20 weighs nowhere near what the F15 weighs), avionics are all new,
the latest suite, the wing is modern, advanced, all that stuff.
As good as an F15? It would depend on what you were doing with it.
A hell of a lot cheaper than an F15, and once you get into
the support costs it gets cheaper still. Faster reaction times
from first warning than the F15 (important when you are in some
small country that doesn't have a real nice early warning net of
radars and stuff), and a depot spares program designed to
support the third world nation type of operation, rather than the
NATO/USAF type of operation.
So, why didn't this fly (so to speak)?
Politics, and some dumb decisions.
If you think from the point of view that the US does not want to
export our best aircraft (F15/16) to places that really are not
advanced enough to use them right anyway, so we will custom build for
export a new aircraft, then the F20 makes a lot of sense.
If you think from the point of view that the USAF/NATO requirements
for aircraft are benifited by the manufacturers building larger
production runs, and keeping production facilities open (and people
employed) longer because they are also making addition sales of those
aircraft (F15/16) for export, then you can see that the F20 (built
strictly for export) keeps the other manufacturers from getting those
foreign sales, so they build less aircraft total, and the cost per
aircraft to the USAF/NATO is more than it would be.... Then the F20
doesn't look like such a hot idea.
This is exactly the case. The various export countries (the Saudis
come to mind as a great example) got the F15 sales pitch from the
manufacturer, and from State Department and others that are involved
in the Foreign Military Sales Program, and the basic word was, well,
there *is* this F20 thing over here, but it isn't the *best*. After
all, look at what *we* drive. Hey, drive the best, or die like the
rest ,Bud!
The export market for it never materialized (there are *lots* of
reasons for that, and maybe some lawsuits...), the internal
market never happened (maybe because that would lend credibility
to the aircraft and might give it new life? who can be sure...)
It is safe to say that the other manufacturers had no particular
love for the F20, and surely did not go out of their way to see
that it was a success...
So, in a quick summary, that is the F20 situation. The actually
full and complete and ultra accurate story would take volumes to tell,
mainly because the story spreads across decades; from the first idea
of the aircraft up to its death.
I will try to find all of my F20 stuff. It was a favorite of mine
years ago, but I am sure that I do not know the full story. Any
other information out there?
Doug Humphrey
Express Access - Public Access UNIX in the Washington/Baltimore area!
(301) 220-2020 Dialup: (301) 220-0462 login as "new" or send mail:
in...@digex.com for an account application.
"the reason that there are no electric outlets near payphones these
days is that the authorities are scared that people will start
donating Internet accounts and terminals to the homeless people..."
Al Conte
From Al.C...@EBay.Sun.COM (Al Conte)
In article <1991Oct5.0...@cbnews.cb.att.com>, wernick@cpoint (Rich Wernick) writes:
>I have been reading various and conflicting data on the the F-20 Tiger Shark
>
>1) Can anybody tell me why this plane was terminated?
>2) Is it far superior to the F-16 in dogfighting?
>3) Are there any in military service?
From the information that I have, the F-20 was canned for a number
of "reasons".
The F-20 did not have the range of the F-16, which could be viewed
as combat radius.
It's sustained turn rate was said to be inferior to the Falcon.
The f-20s time to climb spec was, and still is phenominal, (read as
better than the F-16 or F-15).
It was called the "fighter pilot's plane".
Instantaneous turn rate was better than anything in the sky today.
The F-20's weapons load was said to be not as capable as the F-16,(
which was true, but the F-20 was never intended to be a ground
pounder.)
Never the less, the Air Force apparently had ideas that any of its
fighters at some time would be air to ground pounders also.
(ed. this has come true, the F-15e and F-16 both are used in air
to ground today)
So, its hard to say what the real reason was, maybe a little of
all the above.
>From what I know, there were three planes built, and at one time
or another, they all ended up in smoking holes in the ground
during flight testing.
It would have been nice to see this platform,(F-20) produced
though.
Al
Nigel Tzeng
From tz...@sunland.gsfc.nasa.gov (Nigel Tzeng)
In article <1991Oct8.0...@cbnews.cb.att.com> Al.C...@EBay.Sun.COM (Al Conte) writes:
[ooops..deleted an attribution]
>It was called the "fighter pilot's plane".
>Instantaneous turn rate was better than anything in the sky today.
Hmmm...I recall reading somewhere (AW&ST?) that instantaneous turn rate
was going to be the most important aspect of next gen fighters other
than stealth (I suppose to get snap shots off with all aspect
missiles).
>The F-20's weapons load was said to be not as capable as the F-16,(
>which was true, but the F-20 was never intended to be a ground
>pounder.)
>Never the less, the Air Force apparently had ideas that any of its
>fighters at some time would be air to ground pounders also.
>(ed. this has come true, the F-15e and F-16 both are used in air
>to ground today)
True...the AF is very into the multi-role fighter concept. But a lot
of these other countries don't need ground pounding capability (at
least not at the prices the F15/F16 weighs in at) but do need good
air intercept platforms.
There was a fairly vitrolic posting about the F20 that I thought was
rather undeserved...contrary to popular belief the USAF does not
always know (or fly) the best. I think the F20 has an attack radar
and can carry radar guided missiles...which means the F16 would give
it that advantage in combat. If you don't believe in BVR combat you'd
better give the AF a ring...they still do. The F20 is one of the few
aircraft that didn't cost the USG to develop and kept to the original
design goal much closer than a lot of other aircraft...especially the
F16.
The F16 in the original specs looked a lot more like the F20 than it
does now. The fly off at the time was for a LWF not a all-weather
multi-role fighter. The original F16 package had a lot less
electronics than it does now and was a ton cheaper. The ton cheaper
part is the most important since we already had the best fighter
around (F15)...but everyone caught on that we were not going to be
able to pay for all the F15s we wanted. Then we went to the high/low
concept (did I get the right name?) where we'd have fewer F15s and a
ton of these lightweight fighters to back them up at fur-ball range
with sidewinders and cannon.
Northrop also got neutered because of their poor sales strategy. GD
had offered NATO allies in the market for a LWF big incentives to go
F16...mostly in the form of licenced production. Northrop offered
zip. GD offered what limited tech transfer it could legally give.
Northrop offered zip...well what they had offered was a sales guy
telling the buyers that they were getting the best fighter for the
dollar...wasn't that good enough? Nope...NATO countries were
gettinging badgered by their own aerospace comapanies to give them a
share of the business.
As it turned out GD semi-shafted the NATO countries that had
anticipated giving their beleaguered aerospace industry a boost when
they pretty much limited foreign manufacturers to merely assembly and
limited manufacturing (mostly physical parts). The big electronic
tech transfer never really happened the way those NATO countries
believed. There was a bit of bitching going on back then...I think it
was Belgium that was real annoyed...the paper I read was a looong
loooong time ago.
I do recall that the Shah ordered some F20s (but we all know what
happened there) as well as the Taiwanese (but the PRC stepped on those
sales which kinda annoys me because the F20 is nothing but a defensive
fighter. No real ground pounding capability and real short legs).
Other mid-east/far-east sales never materialized when NATO countries
went F16...
Me? I'm a F18 fan.
> Al
Nigel
Tom Shaffer
From tsha...@ADS.COM (Tom Shaffer)
In article <1991Oct5.0...@cbnews.cb.att.com> wernick@cpoint (Rich Wernick) writes:
>
>From wernick@cpoint (Rich Wernick)
>I have been reading various and conflicting data on the the F-20 Tiger Shark,
>and have been looking to clarify the reason the airplane was terminated.
>1) Can anybody tell me why this plane was terminated?
The bottom line was that nobody would buy it. Northrop was banking on the
F-20 as a major export item - just like the F-5. The primary customer (first)
being Taiwan. However, the US, in a treaty with China agreed not to sell
Taiwan the plane or any other military hardware. Other nations (Bahrein,
Philippines, etc.) would not buying a plane that wasn't being used by the US
military. So, there was a big effort to get the USAF, the National Guard,
anybody in the US gov't to buy it. They all failed, and in my opinion all
due to the efforts of General Dynamics (however GD did graciously picked
up the orders that were set up for the F-20).
>2) Is it far superior to the F-16 in dogfighting?
Well, after the USAF suffered a lot of heat to answer the question, they had
a flyoff to finally settle the issue. The results? After the flyoff, they
decided to make the results classified (initially the results were to be
unclassified).
>3) Are there any in military service?
No. Three were built, and only one remains. The two other plans crashed in
preparations for airshows. The pilots/Northrop really pushed the planes
and the pilots hard to promote the plane. In my opinion, the F-20 air
demonstration is the best demonstration I've ever seen at any show.
I think the death of the F-20 is made worst by the fact that Northrop
invested almost 1 billion dollars of is own money into the development of
the plane. This action was setting up a new presidence where private
corporations would invest their own money into the development of a product.
At Northrop, this action resulted in an emphasis on quality, performance and cost.
I believe the death of the F-20 sealed the fate of ANY company EVER investing
their own money to develop a defense related product. A sad end to probably
the only solution that can solve our defense procurement problems.
I could go on for hours with facts, history, opinions and stories about the
CR*P that took place, but it only makes my blood boil.
Tom Shaffer
Former Northrop/F-20 software engineer ('83 -'86)
Jeff Lo
From elan!j...@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Jeff Lo)
In article <1991Oct8.0...@cbnews.cb.att.com> motcid!skef...@uunet.uu.net (John F. Skeffington) writes:
>There were three F-20's built, all with company funds. Two crashed
>during practice for demonstrations. The remaining F-20 is in storage
>at Northrop.
Isn't the last one hanging on the wall inside the Los Angeles Museum of
Science and Technology? At least that's what I remember seeing there a
couple of years back. It looks like its just on the other side of the
wall from the F-104 on the outside.
--
Jeff Lo - PP-ASEL & Amateur Triumph (TR6) Mechanic
Elan Computer Group, Inc.
j...@elan.com, ..!{ames,uunet}!elan!jlo
888 Villa Street, Third Floor, Mountain View, CA 94041, 415-964-2200
Tom Shaffer
From tsha...@ADS.COM (Tom Shaffer)
In article <1991Oct6.2...@cbnews.cb.att.com> ab...@andrew.cmu.edu (Allan Bourdius) writes:
>
>It really shouldn't suprise you to hear that General Yeager described
>the F-20 as the "finest fighter" he's ever flown considering that he was
>being paid by Northrop (and not by the Air Force) to fly it.
I think Gen. Yeager has a little more integrity than to be "bought-off" by
Northrop.
> ... stuff deleted
>
>There's one very simple reason why the Air Force probably didn't want
>the F-20: they didn't need it. So what if it's a better dogfighter
>than the F-16? The USAF didn't buy the F-16 to be the primary
>air-to-air fighter--that's what the F-15 is for. From the beginning,
>the F-16 was a ground attack/strike fighter with a secondary air defense
>role. After all, the plane wasn't built with an air-to-air radar. Even
>now, the F-16 won't have a real interceptor capability until the AMRAAM
>is fully fielded--if ever. Was the F-20 a better attack plane than an
>F-16? I don't even recall reading one story in AW&ST describing the
>F-20's air-to-ground capabilities. ... stuff deleted
Yes, the F-20 had a VERY accurate air-to-ground capability. Its main
problem was payload, and Northrop was working on improving that before
the program was canceled.
>
>After the F-20 was rejected by the Air Force (in fact, I think they said
>from the beginning that they woudn't buy it), Northrop tried to push
>foreign sales, mainly to countries that already had large orders for or
>large numbers of F-16's in their air forces.
I think your facts are off here. President Carter basically asked Northrop
to build a fighter, on its own money, which could be exported to countries
like Taiwan. So, Northrop started the development of the F-20. Then,
the gov't shut down Northrop's primary buyer (Taiwan) from being
able to buy F-20s. Other gov'ts wouldn't buy it because we didn't have it
in our inventory. At the same time we were also selling F-15s to
other nations and financing the deals. Would you buy a F-20 or an F-16
if you could get an F-15? As to your second comment about
selling to countries with existing F-16 orders, you are WAY OFF. Take a
look at the distribution of sales/ownership of F-16 and F-5 (the F-20 is
basically a redesign of the F-5) around the world. At that point in time,
I believe there were more countries flying more F-5s than F-16s. Northrop
plan was to follow the sale of F-5s with upgrades to the F-20 (the F-20
was originally called the F-5G).
>Would you really expect a
>minor military power like Belgium or Norway to junk their F-16's (which
>are exceptional in their own rights) for a untested, untried plane that
>is significantly more expensive than the F-16 with dubious increases in
>capability?
You are WAY OFF AGAIN. The F-20 was considerably LESS expensive than the
F-16. In fact, as part of General Dynamics stategy to kill the F-20, they
substantially lowered the price of the F-16 to a cost still greater than
the cost of the F-20. However, this action led to a Congressional
investigation of GD concerning inflating the price of the F-16. Can't
remember the out come. I believe GD was forced to sell to the USAF at
the reduced price - not sure however.
> ... stuff deleted
>
>When the F-20 was so highly touted in the mid-80s, the F-16 already had
>several hundred *combat* hours logged with the Israeli Air Force. Which
>makes more sense to buy on a limited budget: a plane that looks good on
>paper, or a plane that's proven it can hack it under fire? I think the
>choice is obivous.
I guess this depend on whether you consider the F-20 a follow-on to the
F-5E. The F-20 was originally called the F-5G. Can't remember the sequence
of events, but the plane was later renamed the F-20. If you check the
history of the F-5, you will see that it is/was in the inventory of
over 30 different countries (USAF, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Taiwan,
Egypt, Switzerland, ...) and saw extensive action (>2500 combat hours
in just 1967 alone) in Vietnam. In addition, Northrop had previously
done a very successful upgrade of the F-5A/B to the F-5E. The jump from
the F-5E to F-20 was about the same magnitude of change.
>
>I seriously doubt the Israelis were ever interested in the F-20 for
>three reasons. First, they had no need for *another* air-superiority
>aircraft what with their F-15's and Mirage 2000's. Second, their
>ground-strike role was well fufilled by F-4's and F-16's (an area in
>which the F-20's capabilites are questionable). Third, the Israelis had
>their own high-tech multirole fighter on the drawing boards: the Lavi.
>The Lavi met much the same end as the F-20. The Israelis found they'd
>be better served by a larger mix of F-15's/F-16's than by putting all
>their eggs into an untried basket.
>
To my knowledge, Northrop wasn't betting on the Israelis to make the
plane a success. They were more concerned with countries like Saudi
Arabia, South Korea, Bahrean, etc - follow-ons to existing inventories.
>
>Now, after the great air successes in Desert Storm, who wouldn't want
>the F-16 over the F-20? Recommendations of retired combat pilots and
>civilian test-zoomies aside, which was the better plane at the time?
>Clearly, it was the F-16.
This is not clear at all. I believe it was politics and corporate manuevering
that killed the F-20.
Tom Shaffer
Ex-F-20 Avionics Engineer
Matthew DeLuca
From cco...@prism.gatech.edu (Matthew DeLuca)
In article <1991Oct9....@cbnews.cb.att.com> tz...@sunland.gsfc.nasa.gov (Nigel Tzeng) writes:
>[...] The ton cheaper
>part is the most important since we already had the best fighter
>around (F15)...but everyone caught on that we were not going to be
>able to pay for all the F15s we wanted.
You sure about this? In a book I have at home, _Modern Fighter Aircraft_,
it is mentioned that the original purchase for the F-15 was to have been
729 aircraft, but was later upped to 1,266, with some 1,010 having been
delivered at press time (sometime in 1986, I believe). This doesn't seem
to jibe with what you've written above.
--
Matthew DeLuca Practice creates perfection
Georgia Institute of Technology Perfection creates power
Office of Information Technology Power conquers law
Internet: cco...@prism.gatech.edu Law created heaven
Phil Stracchino
From ala...@sti.com (Phil Stracchino)
|> From "Douglas E. Humphrey" <do...@access.digex.com>
|>
|>
|> >From wernick@cpoint (Rich Wernick)
|> >
|> >I have been reading various and conflicting data on the the F-20 Tiger Shark,
|> >and have been looking to clarify the reason the airplane was terminated.
|>
|> Some of this differs with what I remember of the situation; I will
|> have to try to find my documents on this and refresh my memory...
|>
|> In a nut shell, the aircraft was really designed with the export
|> market in mind, not for major consumption by the US armed forces,
|> although there was always some hope of some purchases by groups
|> like the Air Force Red Flag program, and basically anyone who
|> operated F5 aircraft.
A side note: From what I heard, the Air National Guard wanted F-20's
really badly, since it was a hell of a lot better than the obsolete
hand-me-downs they had, yet still cheap enough (relatively) that they
could afford it. However, the Air Force wouldn't let the ANG buy the
F-20, bleating about maintaining logistic compatibility in blind
defiance of the obvious fact that the castoffs the Air Force _will_
let the ANG have aren't remotely compatible with anything the AF is
flying in the first place. (Does anyone know of any significant part
that's compatible between, say, an F-4 and an F-16? Besides 20mm ammo
and electrical fuses?)
There were those who said the real reason was the AF didn't want the ANG
having an aircraft that might be as good as, or possibly better than,
their F-16's. (The F-20 prorotypes were sure as hell more _reliable_
than the F-16.) Another reason which has been proposed for the lack of
official interest in the F-20 is that it wasn't whiz-bang Buck Rogers
hi-tech enough. In the Pentagon, flashy hi-tech sells, whether it works
or not. (Just look at the Sgt. York fiasco. They could have bought
perfectly good Flakpanzer Gepard systems, or twin-35mm complete turret
systems from Oerlikon... but no, they wanted a division AA system that
could also make tea, give press releases, and walk the CO's dog.)
----
"Station Planet Earth is closing down: Transmission ends..." - Chris de Burgh
..............................................................................
The Renaissance Man: Phil V. Stracchino - ph...@sti.com - ala...@sti.com
==> Free Cyberia! Committee for a Free and Independent Cyberspace <==
Ward Page
From pa...@uicadd.csl.uiuc.edu (Ward Page)
>From tsha...@ADS.COM (Tom Shaffer)
>
>In article <1991Oct6.2...@cbnews.cb.att.com> ab...@andrew.cmu.edu (Allan Bourdius) writes:
>>
>>It really shouldn't suprise you to hear that General Yeager described
>>the F-20 as the "finest fighter" he's ever flown considering that he was
>>being paid by Northrop (and not by the Air Force) to fly it.
>
>I think Gen. Yeager has a little more integrity than to be "bought-off" by
>Northrop.
Yeager hates the whole fly-by-wire concept. This is why he hates the
F-16 electric jet. This is also why the F-20 was called a 'pilots' plane
as opposed to an 'engineers' plane.
>You are WAY OFF AGAIN. The F-20 was considerably LESS expensive than the
>F-16. In fact, as part of General Dynamics stategy to kill the F-20, they
>substantially lowered the price of the F-16 to a cost still greater than
>the cost of the F-20. However, this action led to a Congressional
>investigation of GD concerning inflating the price of the F-16. Can't
>remember the out come. I believe GD was forced to sell to the USAF at
>the reduced price - not sure however.
This is incorrect. GD proposed a stripped down version of the F-16
with the same (or similar) radar and reduced avionics - but still equivalent
or better than the F-20 for less than the F-20 price. The F-20 was going
for 11-13 million and the reduced F-16 was priced at 9 million. GD never
sold any planes at this reduced price because noone wanted a plane with
reduced capabilities. The price wars caught the attention of the Navy
who bought a different F-16 configuration for the Top Gun school (the F-16N).
As to the F-16 and F-20 dogfighting capabilities, the F-20 could not handle
an F-16 in 1v1. The planes are different enough, though, to make the fight
interesting. The ground to altitude speed of the F-20 was impressive, but
had nothing to do with the climbing capabilities of the plane. The F-16
needs a couple of minutes to spin up the gyros before it can take off. GD
made a film that showed a pilot scrambling to an F-16 and reaching altitude
a couple of seconds faster than the F-20. However, what they didn't show
you was the APU that was connected to the F-16 keeping the gyros spinning.
>This is not clear at all. I believe it was politics and corporate manuevering
>that killed the F-20.
>
> Tom Shaffer
> Ex-F-20 Avionics Engineer
Sure it was. But this is how EVERY plane gets built and Northrop knows this
as well as anyone.
Ward Page (formerly of General Dynamics)
Naval Ocean Systems Center
San Diego
pa...@cod.nosc.mil
Fraering Philip G
From pgwr...@c28.ucs.usl.edu (Fraering Philip G)
In article <1991Oct6.2...@cbnews.cb.att.com> ab...@andrew.cmu.edu (Allan Bourdius) writes:
>There's one very simple reason why the Air Force probably didn't want
>the F-20: they didn't need it. So what if it's a better dogfighter
>than the F-16? The USAF didn't buy the F-16 to be the primary
>air-to-air fighter--that's what the F-15 is for. From the beginning,
>the F-16 was a ground attack/strike fighter with a secondary air defense
>role.
Uh, no. The F-16 was originally meant to be a cheap air-combat fighter.
They only started the air-to-ground stuff when it started looking
like it might not be able to handle a Mig-29...
Matthew DeLuca
From cco...@prism.gatech.edu (Matthew DeLuca)
In article <1991Oct9....@cbnews.cb.att.com> tsha...@ADS.COM (Tom Shaffer) writes:
>In article <1991Oct6.2...@cbnews.cb.att.com> ab...@andrew.cmu.edu (Allan Bourdius) writes:
>>It really shouldn't suprise you to hear that General Yeager described
>>the F-20 as the "finest fighter" he's ever flown considering that he was
>>being paid by Northrop (and not by the Air Force) to fly it.
>I think Gen. Yeager has a little more integrity than to be "bought-off" by
>Northrop.
I don't. I lost all respect for the man a few years ago, when he derided
the round-the-world flight by Voyager (Remember that? Two people cooped up
in a tiny plane for over a week, non-stop) as "something anyone could do".
Granted, that may be true, but it *was* also an achievement, both technological
and human, and deserved more respect.
Besides, Yeager is paid to sell spark plugs, of all things...why not
fighters? :-)
[mod.note: Further pro's and con's of Yeager will not be posted. - Bill ]
And now, to keep some legitimate military content in here, I have a question
to offer on the subject of the F-20. One important consideration when
considering a new aircraft is growth potential: how much room for improvement
is there in the airframe and systems? An example of this is the F-15E;
the planes that are now E models started life as stock F-15 planes, and were
converted to the new mission. Could the F-20 airframe and propulsion
handle anything more, considering it was primarily an F-5 derivative?
Fraering Philip G
From pgwr...@c28.ucs.usl.edu (Fraering Philip G)
In article <1991Oct8.0...@cbnews.cb.att.com> jtc...@csa3.lbl.gov (JOSEPH T CHEW) writes:
>As you've noted, this depends on whether you ask Northrop ("we wuz robbed!"),
>General Dynamics ("it's a great plane if you only want to bomb the end of your
>own runway," which I've heard that their representatives told to potential
>foreign customers), or any number of DoD officials or industry experts
>representing the spectrum in between.
Well, one of the countries that they tried to sell the plane to was
Kuwait, who deceided to put the decision off, and eventually to
buy F-18's. If they had bought the F-20's they could have used them
to bomb the end of their own runways and many other places very
close by where there were Iraqi tanks. The F-18's were still being
built at the time the country was taken over by Iraq, and it was
only saved when the US sent over about half a million men and dropped
an incredibly large amount of bombs on the Iraqis...
I guess the moral is: sometimes a cheap defense that's there will
work better than an expensive one that's still being built. I don't
know what a two or three more squadrons of planes might have done
in defending Kuwait, but they would have done more than thin air...
Phil
David M Kreindler
From krei...@ucunix.san.uc.EDU (David M Kreindler)
>In article <1991Oct6.2...@cbnews.cb.att.com> ab...@andrew.cmu.edu (Allan Bourdius) writes:
>>
>>The Lavi met much the same end as the F-20. The Israelis found they'd
>>be better served by a larger mix of F-15's/F-16's than by putting all
>>their eggs into an untried basket.
Bang on on the first point, Allan, but for the wrong reason. The Lavi died
'cuz of (i) severe budget constraints in Israel (so what else is new?) and
(ii) heavy political pressure from the fine folks who brought you the F-16.
Essentially, the U.S. government wasn't interested in helping the
Israeli government underwrite the cost of developing a fighter that
could have provided the F-16 with stiff competition. The F-15/F-16 mix
was a sop to the Israelis, provided by the U.S. after they refused to
finance a viable fighter-production program, resulting in the death of
the Lavi development program.
--
krei...@ucunix.san.uc.edu -------------------------------------------------
"Sometimes you're the windshield / Sometimes you're the bug...."
William J Hery
From w...@wayback.att.com (William J Hery)
For a long (~20 pages) analysis of the F-20 development and lack of
sales to, see the August 1984 issue of Atlantic Monthly, as well as
letters to the editor in November 1984 from Cap Weinberger, the CEO of
Northrop, and several others. The article is by Gregg Easterbrook,
and makes the following points:
1. Northrop was encouraged to develop the plane for export to poorer
countries by the Carter administration.
2. The Reagan administration (particularly the Air Force) did not
adequately back the plane for the export market.
3. The F-20 performed well and was significantly more reliable than
the F-16, resulting in a much lower life cycle cost than the F-16,
and a favorable cost/performance.
4. US Air National Guard units wanted to purcahse them instead of
Air Force "hand-me-downs" but were discouraged by the Ari Force.
Bill Hery
AT&T Bell Labs
201-386-2362
he...@att.COM
Henry Spencer
From he...@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
>From cco...@prism.gatech.edu (Matthew DeLuca)
>... growth potential: how much room for improvement
>is there in the airframe and systems? ...
>... Could the F-20 airframe and propulsion
>handle anything more, considering it was primarily an F-5 derivative?
Very probably. The F-20 became less and less of an F-5 derivative as its
development proceeded. Its propulsion was totally different from the
start, and its airframe got a lot of changes along the way, notably a new
and substantially larger wing (which it badly needed).
--
In operating-system code, log(quality) | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
times quantity is a constant. | he...@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
Henry Spencer
From he...@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
>From pgwr...@c28.ucs.usl.edu (Fraering Philip G)
>I guess the moral is: sometimes a cheap defense that's there will
>work better than an expensive one that's still being built...
Flight International, I think it was, generalized this in a very interesting
way. A lot of nations, on realizing that maintaining a large standing army
is very expensive these days, have decided to rely instead on relatively
small forces with high-quality equipment and training. For example, Kuwait.
And when Kuwait was attacked by an ill-equipped and badly-trained, but big,
army... what happened? And what does this say about the small-but-elite
approach?
da...@vax.oxford.ac.uk
From da...@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Were the F-20 prototypes ever allocated USAF serial numbers, and if so could
somebody please tell me what they were?
Thanks,
Dave
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Hastings | JANET: da...@uk.ac.oxford.vax
VAX Systems Programmer | INTERNET:
Oxford University Computing Services| da...@vax.oxford.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Questions are a burden to others; answers a prison for oneself" - The Prisoner
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MCKEITHAN,CLIFFORD M.
From c...@prism.gatech.edu (MCKEITHAN,CLIFFORD M.)
As to why the F-20 was terminated, the reading I did on the subject
indicated that the Air Force desire to use the F-16 for all roles, such as
air defense intercept and close air support led to their refusal to buy the
F-20 as an air defense intercept aircraft. Without any F-20's in the
U.S. Air Force, other countries would not consider buying it, so the
Northrup adventure in company financed aircraft development was terminated.
As a result, no thinking company, responsible to its stockholders, will ever
consider such a venture again.
--
MCKEITHAN,CLIFFORD M.
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp: ...!{allegra,amd,hplabs,ut-ngp}!gatech!prism!cm9
Internet: c...@prism.gatech.edu