When Chuck Yeager does an intro for a fighter advertisement, you know it's gotta be a damn good plane. To anyone who thinks that he's a sellout, he talks about and highly praises the F-20 in his autobiography, which he did AFTER the F-20 was canceled.
The fact he was paid to promote the plane (something normal : he was retired and free to work as he wanted) does not imply necessarily he did not genuinely believe the plane was good. Unless he was a Las Vegas addict needing the money, he had also his reputation to consider. From what he said and wrote, he genuinely trusted the plane to be a very good design.
All i can say is that he had the experience and a reputation to maintain. He understood what they were selling and thats why he agreed to be the spokesman.
The little F20 would still be one of the most formidable fighters in a dogfight today. The F-5 is still formidable in the hands of an experienced pilot.
@@maximillianvermontsuperbik2624 How is the F-35 a failure? The F-20 is not comparable to the F-35 in anyway either; the F-35 would absolutely destroy an F-20 in BFM or BVR.
@@justsomemainer1384 it failed to replace the F-16 which has led to a LOT of headlines saying shit like "the USAF admitted the F-35 is a failure" while expensive it's a very capable aircraft.
@@justsomemainer1384 it failed to replace the F-16 because of cost, nothing else. it's a capable fighter and a good replacement for carrier operations.
The F-20 had solved many of the shortcomings that had turned off the USAF from the F-5. It was a true evolution of a great design to begin with. It's too bad it never went into production. I used to have a model of the F-20 hanging from my ceiling as a kid.
A framed photograph of this superb dogfighter, sent to me by Northrop in 1996, has been on my office wall for the past 18 years, along with another frame of the superlative YF-23 Gray Ghost.
F-20 Tigershark was a proven design. As an air superiority fighter it was hard to match. Northrop would have sold many of these to countries that had already bought F-5 and would have been an upgrade to many of them to keep operating low cost fighter squadrons. The closest combat aircraft to the F-20 today is the Swedish Gripen in theme of cost and performance. If the F-20 was still around today, it would have gone through many block upgrades just like the F-16. It was sad to see such a wonderful fighter jet never made it to full production. 👍
It would be the Jeff.. Gripen has much superior avionics and much more expensive than what F-20 would have been. It only matches tiger shark in terms of operating cost and ease of maintenance ( which is something Jeff does as well)
I know General Yeager was first for sonic boom but i never knew he shoot five in a day wow ... I thought its M M Alam only who shoot 5 Indians hunter less than 60 Seconds 1965
Blue Marshall this bitch would have ruled the 3rd world had Northrop been able to get some contracts and Reagan’s approval. A fight between the F-20 and an F-16 comes down to one thing. The balls behind the stick.
Yeager didn't even have to shoot 3 of them. He scared the first 1, who crashed into his wingman (2 kills there) and he scared the fifth guy into diving too fast and being unable to pull up.
It was "F-5G" before it's current F-20 designation. It flew demo flights at Williams AFB, Chandler, Arizona (back in 1984) also at Suwon AB in Korea where it crashed. I still have my F-20 Tigershark patches.
This is great advertisement for that aircraft. Great sounding narrator too. Obviously this film was made in the mid 80's but that is the fun aspect to it. That 80's and even eary 90's vibe I miss so much.
Third World fighter sales porn! I am from Argentina, and you have no idea how necessary an airplane like this would be today for the air force of my country, even with the technology of the 80s!
I was fighter qualified in UPT. The T-38 was a remarkable design. I think I enjoyed flying it more than any other airplane. I suppose it was too cheap and reliable for the lobbyist to care about. Just not enough $'s there. A brilliant but unappreciated design.
Oh there are lots of people who appreciate the T38/F5/F20 series. Its just the perfect little plane. Cheap enough to have lots of so you can have bases in strategic places and also so few man hours of servicing per flight hour. IMO the best fighter the US ever produced. Mustang 2nd and Sabre 3rd, F16 4th obviously ;)
Roland Lawrence F-16 is a blasphemy, that POS is soo overpriced and it aint that friendly in maintenance due to all the over complicated electronic warfare systems that must be altered for fear of it going in the wrong hands It is literally the mini cooper of the skies. Basic engine but horrendously overpriced for what it can do.
It would of made an amazing large production fighter..F5 family was just waste of a good simple fighter. To me its got the bells and whistles to go up against most any fighter from its era...
@@mrrolandlawrence I think the F-5 is an extremely cool aircraft. Originally it was the United States' answer to the MiG-21 and did a lot better at fighting them than larger aircraft, like the F-4 Phantom or the F-105 Thunderchief.
Outstanding aircraft. I would love to have seen how this aircraft could have evolved if it had been purchased. The F404 turbofan supplied more than ample thrust for such a light aircraft but imagine the Tigershark fitted with the even better F414 engine.
Northrop has made some of the best planes that never saw production. There was the YF-17, and the YF-23 along with this one. Shame they never quite made it.
The F-18L would have been interesting. Too bad, Northrop is an engineers company first and foremost, whereas Lockheed is a MBA company first and foremost, and MBAs are what matters.
@@basher1592I guess my main point is Northrop has come up with some incredible designs that always seemed to lose out resulting in them not getting the contract. Yes the F-18 was an upgraded version of the YF-17 for the Navy, but McDonald Douglas got that contract, still sucks for Northrop!
Great video. The Tigershark would obviously be outclassed today (but not by much) but back in the '80s it would have been a force to be reckoned with. The only advantage the F-16 had over the F-20 was the weapons load was more than twice that of the Tigershark. But the cost of the F-16 was way higher than the F-20. Other stats like wing loading, combat range, rate of climb and thrust to weight, were almost identical.
Although it may be true the F-20 until full F-16 production was the only real aircraft capable of using AMRAAMS and was the only one capable in the competition for it.
The Navy's F-14s, when looking for a new ''aggesssor'' adversary to replace the F-5E, had the F-20 as its first choice. It was only when they could not get it were they forced to go with the F-16N. Didn't Taiwan order 100 Tigersharks but were embargoed ?
I do believe you are right about that. The UN didn't like the idea . They would rather the US defend Taiwan. The F20 as well as all the other F5 variants were very affordable for those small countries and Nearly impossible to engage- air to air. Very scary for the neighbors.
I think the story was that the US thought being good to China would aid in bringing down the USSR (how ironic) so they refused to sell the planes to Taiwan. Taiwan then took matters to their own hands and made their own homemade F-16 lookalike laughably called the F-CK 1.
@@randompheidoleminor3011 the F-CK-1 is a indigenous variant to make the F-5 almost as nasty to fight as an F-16 because they had been denied both F-20 and F-16 in '82 So they basically made a F-5, F-20, F-16, chimera baby.
I had a chance to watch the F20 Tigershark in action at El Toro Air Force base back when they still had the air shows there. I am not sure who was piloting the F20 for the air show, but he put on one great demonstration. The plane had all the performance aspects of the F16 & F18 and why the Air Force did not choose to develop it further for either advanced training or Red Flag is beyond me. It truly was an awesome plane to see in actio. Sadly they have one static display of the plane at the California Science Center in Los Angeles.
The reason why is because the F 16 was such a bad ass and except for a couple categories surpassed the F 20 not to mention we could create a “dumbed down” version of the F-16 to sell to other nations.
@@SPFLDAngler At the California Science Center in LA, they used to have the surviving F20 Tigershark displayed. The F20 Tigershark is loosely based off the F5 but is larger dimensionally to accommodate the larger radar and engine. The F18 is not based off the F5 but rather the Navy requirement for a multi engine lightweight attack aircraft that can also perform combat air patrol.
According to my good friend who is a retired 4 star from Air Force the number one reason was pilot black out capability. The other cool feature is that for as advanced as it was you could buy stripped down non avionics equipped versions that used more manual and/less electronic laden versions. With a sortie kill rate of 96% without the avionics for close in combat 1v1, 1v2 it was as deadly in a capable pilots hands as an F16. Both the F20 and the F16 are and were super planes, designed to use many off the shelf parts from other air frames, easy to service, easy to flight and fly and pure deadly in combat. As for being highly visible on radar well that is a fairly easy fix with advanced radar absorptive measures and even some of the new electronic masking out there its still a better air frame than most would give. And since the person who keeps saying it killed two pilots, lets review one FACT, both of those pilots were tasked with 1v1 air combat simulations and rather than end a run on a close target they failed to heed a high G warning(which the alarm is built into the airplane), and grayed out. The warnings were to keep gung ho pilots from pushing too hard. The other issue was the Air Force wanted a plane that could straighten out upon pilot gray out to allow recovery, the test beds never got this option installed but the design and such were bought by allies of the US for in country production. While none were built in the states, many were produced under patent. Some are still being used over seas, much the same as F16, F14, even F4 planes. As it cheaper to keep building and refining existing models rather than replacing everything from the start on different models from other countries. Yes it was loosely based on F5 and its parts but its design and performance are and were very well documented. Remember we won the Viet Nam war till politicians lost it by not fulfilling the promise on the treaty. But then so many on here have little clue that the war we lost was prolonged by politics and lost by politicians. Much like the gain we made in Iraq were given away by the quisling commander who wanted our troops to go ask for ID and enemy membership cards before attacking the ba$_ards that were shooting at them.
I think its a shame that the project was canceled. The F-20 could have been the ultimate aircraft to compete with the MIG-21 in global sales. It was a lower tech aircraft that didn't need as much care or maintenance, it's performance could have been improved also as far as fuel efficiency and range. If foreign countries didn't bite (which they didn't unfortunately) I'm sure it would have been the ideal fighter for state Air National Guard units especially ones with lower budgets.
As a pure fighter, I would've increased the LERX further, and probably added a bit more wing area, but it was already close to the F-16 in total maneuver capability so I guess it's hard to argue. VS the F-16 I wouldn't be surprised if the F-20 had better transonic acceleration too, since the F404 has a smaller bypass percentage than the PWs in Vipers. F/A-18s have better transonic acceleration than F-15s for that reason IIRC. It was a nice little fighter, but it couldn't win against the political powers that be, much like the F-11F vs the F-104. And yes, it would've been amazing to see one of these zoom around with an F414. I raise my glass to you John Boyd!
The grandfather, F-5, was good enough for the aggressor squadrons. Imagine what this badass could do! Bang for the buck best tactical fighter of its day. The Swedes would capitalize on the concept with the Grippen😍
@@MybeautifulandamazingPrincess It's not so much arrogance, as it is a misunderstanding. The F-5 and Viggen are both delta-wing designs that originated in the 1950s.
2 ปีที่แล้ว
@@MybeautifulandamazingPrincess nobody talks about copying a plane, but the Gripen has a very similar concept as the F20 : producing a single-engine, high dependability, low detection, low cost, mission-ready tactical fighter. Which makes a lot of sense for a defense-oriented air force. Saab decided to do it with excellent avionics and STOL capabilities, while Northrop decided to do it by "beefing up" a already proven airframe.
Sad that this wonderful aircraft never saw production. The F-5E is a great aircraft, flexible enough to integrate latest weapon systems. Great value for the money.
My cousin flew this jet back in the 80's. Before his 6 years total with the Snowbirds. He returned to train pilots after the Snowbirds and also was a certified weapons instructor. F20 great jet!
Chuck Yeager correctly predicted that the next "cold war" type battlefield would be in space and also predicted/knew about unmanned vehicles/aircraft. I got to see the F-20 demo around this time at USMCAS El Toro. Pretty cool little plane with a new, bigger and more up to date engine.
This is an awesome video. In regards to the F-20, I think it truly was politics that killed it, but perhaps, with even better performance, maybe it would've been able to take on the F-16 directly. I don't know what kind of turn radius the F-5 or this a/c has, but I think it would've been better with larger LERXs, larger fuselage shelves along the rear, and larger tailplanes to increase the manueverability and lift capability, and available volume for fuel, of which the F-5 and F-20 are anemic.
interesting how the F-5 isnt mentioned at all, even though the F-20 was derived directly from it. I was expecting some kind of line "Using the proven F-5 airframe, the F-20..."
BDNeon Compared to the F-16 back when Northrup was trying to sell the F-20 the F-16 was so far ahead in it's maneuverability, it's weapon load and diversity of weapons it could carry and the fact it could fly circles around the F-20 is why no body wanted the F-20 and why over 20 countries ordered the first F-16's off the line with another 10 heading that way also..
Peter Bednar There's also the matter of practicality, reliability, and cost-effectiveness. The entire point of this aircraft was to provide an aircraft that offered near parity in performance to much more expensive modern aircraft, but with emphasis on fast scramble time, ease of maintenance, and a LOW PRICE TAG, the kind that our less wealthy allies could buy from us and afford to keep. Something that South America, our Middle Eastern allies, and NATO member states in Europe that lacked their own fighter programs could buy. The F20 was a bargain export Interceptor.
The F-16 is my all-time favorite fighter (thankyouverymuch, Iron Eagle lol)...but I'm guessing had scandal not stood in the way this would have waxed the F-16 and become one of the best & most versatile birds in the sky. Sad resolution...
No way! The Viper was more versatile for the AF needs than the F-5 family. This is like the little Mig Killer that could also give you just a little bit of limited strike capability. Perfect for a poorer country primarily focused on air defense.
I like that design very much, even today it seems to be a perfect design that many smaller countries would be very interested in purchasing. Just add some modern avionics into the cockpit, modify the profile of the air inlets a little so that they reflect less radar, replace the metal vertical stabilizer with a radar-invisible composite rudder, and cover the entire thing in radar absorbing materials to give it some 'stealth' abilities and you've got a winner on your hands.
I hope they revive this lineup Even after decades it's still a decent plane With modern avionics and aerodynamics tweaks plus a new engine This would be the navy/airforce best trainer
This was very interesting, thanks for posting it. They used to advertise the F-20 in print in my dad's 'Air International' magazines in the 1980's too - along with GD advertising F-16's, and BAe advertising for the Tornado, Hawk and SEPECAT Jaguar ... gone are the days.
With the addition of the GE404 Engine, changes to the wing slatsand a few more tweaks, this bird was faster in time to climb than the F-16, had a tighter turn radius than the -16. Due to its size it suffered with a 1000 lbs disadvantage than the F-16. But with the F-16 having a $15 million dollar price tag in 1979, the F-20 was a little over $10 Million. Could carry the Harpoon anti-ship missile and AIM 7 and AIM 9 Sidewinder. So for countries that didn't have big bucks for hundreds of millions of dollars for F-15, F-14, A7D's (at the time) and other sexy birds. The F-20 was a force to be reconned with. Once Again politics killed this Bird, not SAM's. This aircraft was being built for Taiwan and Regan didn't want anger the PRC, it was quietly cancelled. Just like its sibling, the F-5E. The PRC didn't want Taiwan to have AIM 7 radar on its jets. I'm not saying its the F-15, but both the F-5 and Later the F-20 would have been more than adequate export aircraft for emerging friendly countries. Instead of the F-104, which I love, but its only mission is to get in it, take off and shoot down as many Soviet Bombers that you can before getting shot down yourself. And the 105. designed as a Tactical Nuclear Bomber. Fly as fast you can and as high as you can to you target, drop your Rock, get low and step on the gas riding after burner all the way home. Rumors were there was nothing faster than an empty -105 riding its burner on the deck. Its too bad. zthe 1970's was shaping up to be a battle between the fighter generals and the bomber genrals won. The United States would continue to build just duel roll aircraft for the next 25 years with none doing great and all being Adequate. thats nice
Rick Raven Rumney How long can a F105 fly using the afterburner? Until it runs out of fuel, or is there a time limit because the engine will over heat or get damaged?
@@CRAZYHORSE19682003 The production version would have better instantaneous and equal sustained turn rate vs the F-16 thanks to new high speed electromagnetic actuators and more thrust. The F-20 (as is) also outperforms the F-16 by a country mile in high AOA flight. So no, that's not "it".
@@JG-dx5wi Source for outperforming the F-16 in high AOA flight? I am not saying you are wrong but in the sustained turn rate for the F-20 I have found figures of around 13 degrees a second. Looking at a maneuvering chart for an F-16A I see as high as 28 degrees a second.
Imagine if a new F-20 w/ an F-414 engine, AN/APG/82(V)1 AESA was built today... they'd sell well I think, particularly for developing countries. Pair it with an upgraded F-16XL w/ F135-PW-100 from an F-35... holy crap. That pair would be some excellent single-engine multirole combat aircraft (with the latter with an extensive loitering time due to the cranked delta wing).
The government didn't want the F-20 to compete with the F-16 in sales, since selling more F-16 would help drive down the latter's cost (the F-16 was more advanced and a lot of money went into its development). Furthermore,the F-16 could carry more payload than the F-20, and had greater potential for future incremental upgrades. Many clients at the time wanted the more advanced hardware.
it's an impressive singular use rudimentary platform...a peak performance F-5. But it is essentially the best carburator in a fuel injector world and thus was surpassed by the F-16.
What would you rather go up against - two F-20s or one F-16? You could have two F-20s for a little more cost than one F-16 (considering maintenance and everything), and have the two F-20s up in the air faster. I don't understand how at least some countries didn't buy this plane? Or, I guess I do and I just don't like the answer.
Without a doubt one of the best fighters that never saw went into service. Granted the F-16 is one of the best fighters in the world today, but there should have been room for the F-20, at least in the international market. You have to wonder what kind of political maneuvering/backroom deals went on back in the day.
The F-20 design had genuine limitations being based on the F-5 airframe. There simply wasn't any room to stretch the plane any further other than changing the powerplant when a lighter turbofan engine in the late-production J79 thrust class became available. The change in powerplant had a negative impact on the plane's wing-loading, btw. It was higher because the F-20 retained the F-5 wing instead of increasing the wing area which would have made sense with the weight increase. As it was, the F-20 was over 3,000lbs HEAVIER than the F-5E and 2/3, 3/4 of that was because of the F404 which weighs 2,300lbs! The twin J85's the F-5 was equipped with were less than half the weight of the GE F404. The range increase with the F404 was not dramatic -- maybe 10% due to the better fuel economy. Other than that, it had all the weapons restrictions and range deficiencies the previous F-5s did. Nobody's denying it would have been an excellent POINT-DEFENSE fighter but it would never have matched either the F-16 and F-18 as a multi-role plane let alone an attack jet. The wing configuration and landing gear layout constrained it quite a bit. You couldn't fit half the bomb inventory on that plane because it was too low to the ground and it had serious limitations in the size of the bombs it could accomodate. 1000lbs max in ANY bomb load config per hard point, period, and on hardpoints further away from the center. Bombs had to be carried further out on the wings due to landing gear clearance. The centerline hardpoint was occupied by the fuel tank which was virtually mandatory to get more than 15 minutes flying range out of the type! I would imagine locating the bombs out that far on the wings impacted the roll rate and handling quite a bit. They NEVER talk about how carrying bombs and max missile loads kills the performance of SMALL fighters, do they? The F-14 and F-15 were designed to carry max missile load-outs (up to 8 missiles for both) and fight VERY well with those. In exercises where they talk about the mini-fighters beating up on the heavyweights, the mini-fighters are always fighting in clean ("air show") configuration which is NOT any more representative of combat configuration any more than having computer simulations showing every missiile hitting the target ALL the time! The F-20 simply was not as cruise efficient as the F-16. The F-5 vintage wing simply was not optimal for long let alone medium range missions and that affected interception AND strike radius. The plane simply is not an ideal system for long-ranged conflicts. Read up on the real story behind the technical limitations of the design and you'll see that this was NOT the plane to equip the fighter squadrons with. It probably would have done fine as a follow-on trainer to succeed both the F-5E and T-38 but it would not have made the best active duty fighter for the USAF or ANG.
@MEs61 Key is its cost effectiveness. Lower acquisition, running and maintenance cost. Perfectly suited to your proposed smaller air forces with specific needs. At those parameters, its limitation may have been acceptable to some operators.
@@syjiang Yes it absolutely would have, because the F-16 as good as it was and continues to be, is really not optimally suited for most the nations who actually fly it.
ed is right on. the f20 was smaller and less costly than the f16 with much greater specialization in INTERCEPTION. except for carrier planes, i totally refute the idea of multirole air superiority fighter/bombers like the f18.fiscally and tactically it's best to have two specialized aircraft , one being a supersonic hi altitude interceptor fighter (like the f20) and the other being a low altitude ground attack bomber (like the a10 ). those 2 planes together costs half of one f18 to buy or fly
Was stationed in Panama when Northrop brought the F-5E to sell to everyone. From what I understand, the problem with the Tigershark was its original engine. Northrop talked of putting a more powerful engine in it, but then, who would want to buy such an aircraft until they got the latest engine for it?
It had the same engine as the F/A-18. Engine performance and power wasn't an issue. Your thinking of the plane it was developed from, the F-5. But hell that plane was outfighting the modern jets in training exercises....
Imagine this fighter today upgraded with a 22,000 lbf F414 engine, AN/APG-83 radar and JHMCS helmet armed with AIM-9X block III missles. eat your heart out Gripen
Stridus7 well SAAB would like to extend thanks to USA for leaving market open. Swedes have been selling Gripens all over the place for countries that probably would have been interested in F-20. Not that Swedes really made Gripen to compete with USA manufacturers. Their main market is always their own air force. Foreign sales is icing on the cake. The thing is many USA planes arent designed for close in staging maintanance wise, since USA has ocean between it and enemies and carriers to stage at safe distance. Swedes and many people they sell to have literally 0 meter separation from potential hostiles. That means logistics and maintenance has no time to mess around. Also small countries so the few planes afforded will be in 24/7 utilisations with pilots rotating while the plane pretty much sit on hot turn around. 10 minutes down, sortie, 10 minutes down, sortie... pilot switch, sortie , turn around, sortie and so on 24/7 for first few days of hostilities atleast. Any extra minutes on ground is tens of millions of dollars plus vital asset as a sitting duck for enemy stand off weapons or strike air attack.
The Gripen is now suffering from sales difficulties as the US does some manoeuvering to restrict the sale of F414 engines and other hardware with the Gripen. I think it might have played a role in scuppering several Gripen NG deals that might have gone through like in Denmark or Switzerland. In procurement, political shenanigans are often at least half or more than half, of the story. Whatever product is chosen is breaking someone else's rice bowl. So you end up with abortions of programs like the US Army GCS. Or the Indian MRCA debacle, the Australian Collins class Submarine, the Eurocopter Tiger and NH90 affair. It's a rare and lucky day that a system is chosen solely on its merit or adherence to doctrine or cost. The increasing privatisation and consolidation of the armaments industry proceeds at the peril of the existing world order as governments find themselves unable to evaluate weapons systems on their merits and unable to know the real costs of weapons. Or afford them in the first place. And there are a thousand ways to futz all 3 metrics of performance, cost and reliability around - just look at the scuttlebutt around the Danish selection of the F-35, or more recently the new assault rifle program in Germany that is basically the Bundeswehr saying "we want a competition as long as the winner is Heckler and Koch". If we are talking purely in a warfighting sense, the Gripen is basically the most logical choice for any nation, in any climate. The vast majority of air force losses nowadays is from destruction on the ground in conflict. Whether it is mujahideen in the hills of Afghanistan firing mortars and Stingers at aircraft into Soviet airbases, or Israel pounding the Arab air forces to scrap on the ground in multiple Arab-Israeli wars. Or more recently, several losses of Harrier jump jets in the Middle East from insurgents firing mortars into the compound. Future conflicts will feature long range stealthy cruise missiles that can attack airbases from standoff range, with bunker busting warheads that negate hardened aircraft shelters. The mobility of tube and rocket artillery as well as its range has extended greatly, meaning that even airbases in the strategic depth are no longer immune to attack. That 10,000 foot runway that you built an entire base around and guarded with 10,000 troops? Now just a target. IADS and BMD are in no way reliable enough to assure immunity of large airbases from attack. All this means that the airforce that can survive on the ground is the only one that can control the air. That means being able to use road bases or even grass strips. Being capable of turnaround times of less than 20 minutes. Being able to have maintenance done by conscripts instead of a team of dedicated technicians that might just get incinerated in the next ballistic missile attack. Being so simple to fly and intuitive to use that your average high school graduate with a good pair of lungs and sharp eyes can fly it. Being so cheap and using so few extremely complex components that attrition from accidents and attacks still mean that replacement is not difficult. If anything, the F-20 Tigershark is slightly inferior to the Gripen in this respect due to having 2 engines. But its simplicity from an electronics standpoint is a definite advantage - although that is offset in a relative lack of electronic self-protection systems that will be needed to survive against modern air defense networks. I think with the advent of stealth or signature reduction that onboard radars might cease to be useful and the aerodymanic sacrifices, weight and expense could be discarded in lieu of a dual IRST and LIDAR setup instead along with DRFM RWRs and jammers. IRSTs use commercially available and simple to manufacture (and iterate) CMOS sensors and optics, while LIDARs find extensive use in weather and ground mapping. Neither technology requires GaN circuitry or extreme tolerances that AESAs demand. Neither one will emit fugitive emissions except LIDAR and even then only if it detects an object with a laser warner. Importantly they are small and cheap, unlike a top of the line LPI CW AESA radar, and they aren't going to be reduced in effectiveness by stealth technology. In a peer war with both sides possessing stealth aircraft, EMCON will put extreme emphasis on passive sensors and visual search as well as dogfighting capability due to the unreliability of maintaining radar locks on said aircraft, thus making BVR less reliable. It will also demand that pilots be much more trained than they are now. The 150 hour per annum average of US pilots or the 180 hour per annum average of EU pilots is just barely meeting NATO minimum standards. Driven in large part by the expense of operating complex aircraft with long logistics tails and high maintenance to flight ratio. An updated Tigershark or Gripen produced by the thousands is what will survive a peer war. An F-35 demands the separation of an ocean, a powerful navy that controls sealanes with impunity and a nuclear deterrent large enough to wipe out human civilisation.
I still can't understand why this upgrade of the F-5 didn't meet with the same success of the previous variants. It was certainly the best of them by FAR. Probably interference from the american government, since its own air force wasn't interested.
+Pedro L. Cogoy I believe it was because the F-20 was basically a hot-rod F-5 on the outside, with an airframe layout designed in the 1950s that appears very bright on radar screens. The early 1980's when the F-20 was offered is around the same time when the Air Force had stealth in mind for all future new aircraft, so I can see why they would not want the F-20. Every new U.S. bomber, fighter and/or attack aircraft since 1980 has had stealth capabilities, including the stillborn A-12.
+Pedro L. Cogoy As the simple F-5G it might have been successful. But as the F-20 it became so advanced and expensive that together with relaxed export restrictions for the F-16, it found itself in direct competition. To offer a competitive price, Northrop refused to commit it to production until they had enough orders, +200, I think. And that's it. Countries bought F-16 instead.
+Pedro L. Cogoy F-20 is more expensive than F-5 and not as good as F-16. Not really value for money for countries with limited budget. The medium range Sparrow missile on F-20 is like big anchor. Big missile on small fighter reduce its performance. However, Taiwan have shown interest on F-20 but China successfully use political pressure to force USA to cancel the sales.
I really think the US military didn't want it because we were in the process of developing and building stealth into fighter and attack aircraft by that time, while the F-20 shines like a beacon on radar.
Doggeslife The US military never use the F-5 so they have no reason to block the successor F20. F-5 is design for allies with limited defence budget. F-20 is too expensive for the same purpose. F-5 twin engines is also safer to fly because it can fly on one engine if one of the engine failed.
I'll say this over and over again. I believe the F-20 was a tremendous fighter. Even a bit better than the F-16. I still think the USAF made a mistake in not getting this wonderful machine. And so did the air forces who already had the F-5E.
In 2020, give F20 new radars, new engines, new technology and this badass is still better than F35 or F22 and at the same time , save tons of money for taxpayers.
I'd love to have seen a promotion like this for the MiG-21-93/2000. These retro films are just so much cooler than the overly-slick stuff we get today.
I saw the last remaining F-20 around 1988 or 1989 at Tulsa International while on an American Airlines flight to Nashville, TN. Not much of a story but a beautiful aircraft even sitting in a hanger with her nose peaking outside.
Such is the case with a lot of experimantal aircraft. It can be the fastest, most maneuverable, invisible to radar, etc. but if it doesn't get good politics then you can forget it! Ever heard of the British BAC TSR-2 fighter? It suffered the same fate. As Sir Sydney Camm (one of the programs design engineers) put it: "All modern aircraft have four dimensions: span, length, height and politics. The TSR-2 simply got the first three right!"
Wow 15min turnaround time? Thats even faster then a WW2 Spitfire (took around 30mins). God knows what the F35 is going to be. Possibly measured in days :'(
I, personally did a combat turn around on a B-52.. in 40 mins.. bomb load.. refuel.. not just conventional bombs....you can guess the rest... what does that mean...!?!? This occurred 30+ years ago...! Now think of the technology!!
F-5/F-20 basic wing design concepts continued to YF-17, F/A-18A, F/A-18E and T-7 (Boeing/Saab's TX entry). YF-17 has 4th gen body lift design. LM/KAI's FA-50 is the mini-F16.
The Grippen is a copy of the F-5/ F-20. You can thanks the U.S for giving the blue print to Swede while looking to replace Viggen. To me thats a slap in the face to Mr.Yeager and Northrop back then.
@@andrewnegron288 Maybe in your dreams. In reality while Saab has collabed with US companies for sure, but so have those companies collabed with European companies and countries. Saab made the Gripen following the same design of the Viggen, coming from the double Delta project of the Draken I also want to point out that arrogant idiots like you don't speak for Americans. European nations are America's ally because they're our ancestral lands, blood of our blood, so gtfo trying to create animosity between America and European peoples with you bullshit America supremacy idiocy
I fly F-5Es against Mig-21s and -19s in DCS World and even if I am not a real pilot, you can trust me when I tell you the cancellation of the F-20 just to favour F-16 sales was a big mistake. The Viper has been very successful but still expensive to purchase and operate. The Tigershark would have achieved similar results at a fraction of the cost.
When Chuck Yeager does an intro for a fighter advertisement, you know it's gotta be a damn good plane. To anyone who thinks that he's a sellout, he talks about and highly praises the F-20 in his autobiography, which he did AFTER the F-20 was canceled.
True ! Chuck Yeager no sell out his word is solid a true American Patriot.
Because he WAS paid....
Agreed.
The fact he was paid to promote the plane (something normal : he was retired and free to work as he wanted) does not imply necessarily he did not genuinely believe the plane was good. Unless he was a Las Vegas addict needing the money, he had also his reputation to consider. From what he said and wrote, he genuinely trusted the plane to be a very good design.
All i can say is that he had the experience and a reputation to maintain. He understood what they were selling and thats why he agreed to be the spokesman.
The little F20 would still be one of the most formidable fighters in a dogfight today. The F-5 is still formidable in the hands of an experienced pilot.
With the failure of the F-35, about 300 F-20s
at $ 25 million each, would come in very handy, right now.
@@maximillianvermontsuperbik2624 How is the F-35 a failure? The F-20 is not comparable to the F-35 in anyway either; the F-35 would absolutely destroy an F-20 in BFM or BVR.
@@justsomemainer1384 it failed to replace the F-16 which has led to a LOT of headlines saying shit like "the USAF admitted the F-35 is a failure" while expensive it's a very capable aircraft.
@@Wehra96 How is a “very capable aircraft” a failure? It moves mud better than the Viper and can hold its own A/A, I don’t see how that’s a failure.
@@justsomemainer1384 it failed to replace the F-16 because of cost, nothing else. it's a capable fighter and a good replacement for carrier operations.
The F-20 had solved many of the shortcomings that had turned off the USAF from the F-5. It was a true evolution of a great design to begin with. It's too bad it never went into production. I used to have a model of the F-20 hanging from my ceiling as a kid.
A framed photograph of this superb dogfighter, sent to me by Northrop in 1996, has been on my office wall for the past 18 years,
along with another frame of the superlative YF-23 Gray Ghost.
4:00 gotta love that VHS tape warp slowdown...iconic 80s90s stuff!
F-20 Tigershark was a proven design. As an air superiority fighter it was hard to match. Northrop would have sold many of these to countries that had already bought F-5 and would have been an upgrade to many of them to keep operating low cost fighter squadrons. The closest combat aircraft to the F-20 today is the Swedish Gripen in theme of cost and performance. If the F-20 was still around today, it would have gone through many block upgrades just like the F-16. It was sad to see such a wonderful fighter jet never made it to full production. 👍
It would be the Jeff.. Gripen has much superior avionics and much more expensive than what F-20 would have been. It only matches tiger shark in terms of operating cost and ease of maintenance ( which is something Jeff does as well)
Chuck Yeager shot down 5 Germans in one day, he was the first person to break the sound barrier(in level flight).
As for the F-20, I want one.
As for the BAe Hawk, I want one.
I know General Yeager was first for sonic boom but i never knew he shoot five in a day wow ... I thought its M M Alam only who shoot 5 Indians hunter less than 60 Seconds 1965
5 german soldiers or planes.
Blue Marshall this bitch would have ruled the 3rd world had Northrop been able to get some contracts and Reagan’s approval. A fight between the F-20 and an F-16 comes down to one thing. The balls behind the stick.
Yeager didn't even have to shoot 3 of them. He scared the first 1, who crashed into his wingman (2 kills there) and he scared the fifth guy into diving too fast and being unable to pull up.
It was "F-5G" before it's current F-20 designation. It flew demo flights at Williams AFB, Chandler, Arizona (back in 1984) also at Suwon AB in Korea where it crashed. I still have my F-20 Tigershark patches.
I still have my F-5G patch from those days...I was in flight test at Eddie then.
This is great advertisement for that aircraft. Great sounding narrator too. Obviously this film was made in the mid 80's but that is the fun aspect to it. That 80's and even eary 90's vibe I miss so much.
One of the sexiest looking fighter jet ever created
jiujitsurulz100 now u should check the JF-17 thunder Look which resemble to F20
r u sure?
Yup, almost as good as the original
Third World fighter sales porn! I am from Argentina, and you have no idea how necessary an airplane like this would be today for the air force of my country, even with the technology of the 80s!
Unfortunately a single one would probably be the whole airforce budget lol
I was fighter qualified in UPT. The T-38 was a remarkable design. I think I enjoyed flying it more than any other airplane. I suppose it was too cheap and reliable for the lobbyist to care about. Just not enough $'s there. A brilliant but unappreciated design.
Oh there are lots of people who appreciate the T38/F5/F20 series. Its just the perfect little plane. Cheap enough to have lots of so you can have bases in strategic places and also so few man hours of servicing per flight hour. IMO the best fighter the US ever produced. Mustang 2nd and Sabre 3rd, F16 4th obviously ;)
Roland Lawrence F-16 is a blasphemy, that POS is soo overpriced and it aint that friendly in maintenance due to all the over complicated electronic warfare systems that must be altered for fear of it going in the wrong hands
It is literally the mini cooper of the skies. Basic engine but horrendously overpriced for what it can do.
It would of made an amazing large production fighter..F5 family was just waste of a good simple fighter. To me its got the bells and whistles to go up against most any fighter from its era...
T38 ....still flying! What's that tell you about the Northrop airframe!
@@mrrolandlawrence I think the F-5 is an extremely cool aircraft. Originally it was the United States' answer to the MiG-21 and did a lot better at fighting them than larger aircraft, like the F-4 Phantom or the F-105 Thunderchief.
Outstanding aircraft. I would love to have seen how this aircraft could have evolved if it had been purchased. The F404 turbofan supplied more than ample thrust for such a light aircraft but imagine the Tigershark fitted with the even better F414 engine.
It would be a demon.
I think the F-18 used those engines
Northrop has made some of the best planes that never saw production. There was the YF-17, and the YF-23 along with this one. Shame they never quite made it.
The YF-17 is the F-18
@@basher1592 And Hornet and Super Hornet are formidable weapons systems.
The F-18L would have been interesting. Too bad, Northrop is an engineers company first and foremost, whereas Lockheed is a MBA company first and foremost, and MBAs are what matters.
@@basher1592I guess my main point is Northrop has come up with some incredible designs that always seemed to lose out resulting in them not getting the contract. Yes the F-18 was an upgraded version of the YF-17 for the Navy, but McDonald Douglas got that contract, still sucks for Northrop!
Don't forget ya9
it still loks sexy in 2015
Still...even in 2016...shame not one is flying today ;-;
True
Yup
Still...even in 2019!
It’s just an F5 with one engine instead of 2, people...
Great video. The Tigershark would obviously be outclassed today (but not by much) but back in the '80s it would have been a force to be reckoned with. The only advantage the F-16 had over the F-20 was the weapons load was more than twice that of the Tigershark. But the cost of the F-16 was way higher than the F-20. Other stats like wing loading, combat range, rate of climb and thrust to weight, were almost identical.
Although it may be true the F-20 until full F-16 production was the only real aircraft capable of using AMRAAMS and was the only one capable in the competition for it.
So F-16 was better 🤷🏼♂️
0:48 WITH THE NEW TECHNOLOGY OF THE 80s!!
It is 2020, and this bird would still rule in the cost to operate and reliability.
Last existing airframe now hangs in the L.A. Science Center. Well worth a visit.
13 pilots didn't strap their fanny to a 9-G fighter with an engine you don't have to worry about!
CEOkiller 13 pilots flew Boeing and Lockheeds.......
chuck is a savage!! hahaa!
Only 3 of these were ever made 2 did crash
now it's 88, a fun number lol
F-20 was so powerful, it could knock out cameras filming it from a mile away. See it happen at 4:06
Aircraft salesman: Slap Roof Of Plane*
"This bad boy can fit so many missiles"
The Navy's F-14s, when looking for a new ''aggesssor'' adversary to replace the F-5E, had the F-20 as its first choice. It was only when they could not get it were they forced to go with the F-16N.
Didn't Taiwan order 100 Tigersharks but were embargoed ?
I do believe you are right about that.
The UN didn't like the idea . They would rather the US defend Taiwan.
The F20 as well as all the other F5 variants were very affordable for those small countries and
Nearly impossible to engage- air to air.
Very scary for the neighbors.
I think the story was that the US thought being good to China would aid in bringing down the USSR (how ironic) so they refused to sell the planes to Taiwan. Taiwan then took matters to their own hands and made their own homemade F-16 lookalike laughably called the F-CK 1.
@@randompheidoleminor3011 the F-CK-1 is a indigenous variant to make the F-5 almost as nasty to fight as an F-16 because they had been denied both F-20 and F-16 in '82 So they basically made a F-5, F-20, F-16, chimera baby.
I had a chance to watch the F20 Tigershark in action at El Toro Air Force base back when they still had the air shows there. I am not sure who was piloting the F20 for the air show, but he put on one great demonstration. The plane had all the performance aspects of the F16 & F18 and why the Air Force did not choose to develop it further for either advanced training or Red Flag is beyond me. It truly was an awesome plane to see in actio. Sadly they have one static display of the plane at the California Science Center in Los Angeles.
El Torro MCAS
The reason why is because the F 16 was such a bad ass and except for a couple categories surpassed the F 20 not to mention we could create a “dumbed down” version of the F-16 to sell to other nations.
@@densealloy LOL I knew it was the El Toro MCAS, suffered major brain fart.
Well technically the F-5(which this is) was the basis for the F-18. You can see the similarities pretty clearly if you look.
@@SPFLDAngler At the California Science Center in LA, they used to have the surviving F20 Tigershark displayed. The F20 Tigershark is loosely based off the F5 but is larger dimensionally to accommodate the larger radar and engine. The F18 is not based off the F5 but rather the Navy requirement for a multi engine lightweight attack aircraft that can also perform combat air patrol.
According to my good friend who is a retired 4 star from Air Force the number one reason was pilot black out capability. The other cool feature is that for as advanced as it was you could buy stripped down non avionics equipped versions that used more manual and/less electronic laden versions. With a sortie kill rate of 96% without the avionics for close in combat 1v1, 1v2 it was as deadly in a capable pilots hands as an F16. Both the F20 and the F16 are and were super planes, designed to use many off the shelf parts from other air frames, easy to service, easy to flight and fly and pure deadly in combat. As for being highly visible on radar well that is a fairly easy fix with advanced radar absorptive measures and even some of the new electronic masking out there its still a better air frame than most would give. And since the person who keeps saying it killed two pilots, lets review one FACT, both of those pilots were tasked with 1v1 air combat simulations and rather than end a run on a close target they failed to heed a high G warning(which the alarm is built into the airplane), and grayed out. The warnings were to keep gung ho pilots from pushing too hard. The other issue was the Air Force wanted a plane that could straighten out upon pilot gray out to allow recovery, the test beds never got this option installed but the design and such were bought by allies of the US for in country production. While none were built in the states, many were produced under patent. Some are still being used over seas, much the same as F16, F14, even F4 planes. As it cheaper to keep building and refining existing models rather than replacing everything from the start on different models from other countries. Yes it was loosely based on F5 and its parts but its design and performance are and were very well documented. Remember we won the Viet Nam war till politicians lost it by not fulfilling the promise on the treaty. But then so many on here have little clue that the war we lost was prolonged by politics and lost by politicians. Much like the gain we made in Iraq were given away by the quisling commander who wanted our troops to go ask for ID and enemy membership cards before attacking the ba$_ards that were shooting at them.
Star Trek 2 wrath of Khan soundtrack in the opening piece. Just marvelous
I think its a shame that the project was canceled. The F-20 could have been the ultimate aircraft to compete with the MIG-21 in global sales. It was a lower tech aircraft that didn't need as much care or maintenance, it's performance could have been improved also as far as fuel efficiency and range. If foreign countries didn't bite (which they didn't unfortunately) I'm sure it would have been the ideal fighter for state Air National Guard units especially ones with lower budgets.
Makes me sad it was not used. Looks like the perfect aircraft for so many allies who cannot afford super high tech aircraft.
Man, I was sold on that 19 second startup time.
That is insane, too bad the f16 got in the way.
As a pure fighter, I would've increased the LERX further, and probably added a bit more wing area, but it was already close to the F-16 in total maneuver capability so I guess it's hard to argue. VS the F-16 I wouldn't be surprised if the F-20 had better transonic acceleration too, since the F404 has a smaller bypass percentage than the PWs in Vipers. F/A-18s have better transonic acceleration than F-15s for that reason IIRC.
It was a nice little fighter, but it couldn't win against the political powers that be, much like the F-11F vs the F-104.
And yes, it would've been amazing to see one of these zoom around with an F414.
I raise my glass to you John Boyd!
what sort of crack have you been on buddy
The grandfather, F-5, was good enough for the aggressor squadrons. Imagine what this badass could do! Bang for the buck best tactical fighter of its day. The Swedes would capitalize on the concept with the Grippen😍
Ugh no, the Gripen comes from the Viggen, very arrogant of you to claim that Saab copied this plane as if this was the first plane with this design
@@MybeautifulandamazingPrincess It's not so much arrogance, as it is a misunderstanding. The F-5 and Viggen are both delta-wing designs that originated in the 1950s.
@@MybeautifulandamazingPrincess nobody talks about copying a plane, but the Gripen has a very similar concept as the F20 : producing a single-engine, high dependability, low detection, low cost, mission-ready tactical fighter. Which makes a lot of sense for a defense-oriented air force.
Saab decided to do it with excellent avionics and STOL capabilities, while Northrop decided to do it by "beefing up" a already proven airframe.
I still love this aircraft more than anything in the air today.
Un gran avión que lástima que no se produjo en seríe es una excelente opción con exelentes prestaciones
Hats off to the people behind this commercial. Amazing plane and amazing advertisement.
Sad that this wonderful aircraft never saw production. The F-5E is a great aircraft, flexible enough to integrate latest weapon systems. Great value for the money.
My cousin flew this jet back in the 80's. Before his 6 years total with the Snowbirds. He returned to train pilots after the Snowbirds and also was a certified weapons instructor. F20 great jet!
I wasn't quite sure what to think of it but then the 80s synth music sold it.
Chuck Yeager correctly predicted that the next "cold war" type battlefield would be in space and also predicted/knew about unmanned vehicles/aircraft. I got to see the F-20 demo around this time at USMCAS El Toro. Pretty cool little plane with a new, bigger and more up to date engine.
This is an awesome video. In regards to the F-20, I think it truly was politics that killed it, but perhaps, with even better performance, maybe it would've been able to take on the F-16 directly. I don't know what kind of turn radius the F-5 or this a/c has, but I think it would've been better with larger LERXs, larger fuselage shelves along the rear, and larger tailplanes to increase the manueverability and lift capability, and available volume for fuel, of which the F-5 and F-20 are anemic.
The F/A-18 approves of your comment.
interesting how the F-5 isnt mentioned at all, even though the F-20 was derived directly from it. I was expecting some kind of line "Using the proven F-5 airframe, the F-20..."
It was actually the stigma of being derived from such an old design that was part of what buried the F-20, despite its modern performance.
BDNeon Compared to the F-16 back when Northrup was trying to sell the F-20 the F-16 was so far ahead in it's maneuverability, it's weapon load and diversity of weapons it could carry and the fact it could fly circles around the F-20 is why no body wanted the F-20 and why over 20 countries ordered the first F-16's off the line with another 10 heading that way also..
jjs4you2 Actually the F-20 outperformed the F-16 in speed, climb and service ceiling. The F-16's advantage was in payload and range.
Peter Bednar There's also the matter of practicality, reliability, and cost-effectiveness. The entire point of this aircraft was to provide an aircraft that offered near parity in performance to much more expensive modern aircraft, but with emphasis on fast scramble time, ease of maintenance, and a LOW PRICE TAG, the kind that our less wealthy allies could buy from us and afford to keep. Something that South America, our Middle Eastern allies, and NATO member states in Europe that lacked their own fighter programs could buy. The F20 was a bargain export Interceptor.
***** Actually it was the Reagan Adminstration that blocked the sale of F-20s to Taiwan.
The f-15,f-14,F-5,f-20 are great looking non-stealth air plains.
forgot f 16
+Автомат Калашникова
It's a good plane, but I just don't like it at all...
I always prefered the F-18. : )
The F-16 is my all-time favorite fighter (thankyouverymuch, Iron Eagle lol)...but I'm guessing had scandal not stood in the way this would have waxed the F-16 and become one of the best & most versatile birds in the sky.
Sad resolution...
No way! The Viper was more versatile for the AF needs than the F-5 family. This is like the little Mig Killer that could also give you just a little bit of limited strike capability. Perfect for a poorer country primarily focused on air defense.
F20 and James Horner music.... awesome.
I like that design very much, even today it seems to be a perfect design that many smaller countries would be very interested in purchasing. Just add some modern avionics into the cockpit, modify the profile of the air inlets a little so that they reflect less radar, replace the metal vertical stabilizer with a radar-invisible composite rudder, and cover the entire thing in radar absorbing materials to give it some 'stealth' abilities and you've got a winner on your hands.
I hope they revive this lineup
Even after decades it's still a decent plane
With modern avionics and aerodynamics tweaks plus a new engine
This would be the navy/airforce best trainer
This was very interesting, thanks for posting it. They used to advertise the F-20 in print in my dad's 'Air International' magazines in the 1980's too - along with GD advertising F-16's, and BAe advertising for the Tornado, Hawk and SEPECAT Jaguar ... gone are the days.
Sounds like the same guy who did the GI Joe vehicle commercials in the 80s. LOL
I think the F-20 guys didn't kiss enough air force general butts to get the contract.
Introductory backround music is from James Horner's Wrath of Khan soundtrack
Damn, this fighter was ahead of it's time.
The Greatest Fighter Never Made.
RIP Chuck Yeager. You were the best!
With the addition of the GE404 Engine, changes to the wing slatsand a few more tweaks, this bird was faster in time to climb than the F-16, had a tighter turn radius than the -16. Due to its size it suffered with a 1000 lbs disadvantage than the F-16. But with the F-16 having a $15 million dollar price tag in 1979, the F-20 was a little over $10 Million. Could carry the Harpoon anti-ship missile and AIM 7 and AIM 9 Sidewinder. So for countries that didn't have big bucks for hundreds of millions of dollars for F-15, F-14, A7D's (at the time) and other sexy birds. The F-20 was a force to be reconned with. Once Again politics killed this Bird, not SAM's. This aircraft was being built for Taiwan and Regan didn't want anger the PRC, it was quietly cancelled. Just like its sibling, the F-5E. The PRC didn't want Taiwan to have AIM 7 radar on its jets.
I'm not saying its the F-15, but both the F-5 and Later the F-20 would have been more than adequate export aircraft for emerging friendly countries. Instead of the F-104, which I love, but its only mission is to get in it, take off and shoot down as many Soviet Bombers that you can before getting shot down yourself. And the 105. designed as a Tactical Nuclear Bomber. Fly as fast you can and as high as you can to you target, drop your Rock, get low and step on the gas riding after burner all the way home. Rumors were there was nothing faster than an empty -105 riding its burner on the deck.
Its too bad. zthe 1970's was shaping up to be a battle between the fighter generals and the bomber genrals won. The United States would continue to build just duel roll aircraft for the next 25 years with none doing great and all being Adequate. thats nice
Rick Raven Rumney How long can a F105 fly using the afterburner? Until it runs out of fuel, or is there a time limit because the engine will over heat or get damaged?
Actually the F20 has a lesser instantaneous turn rate as well as sustained turn rate. it was slightly better in the vertical but that's it.
@@CRAZYHORSE19682003 The production version would have better instantaneous and equal sustained turn rate vs the F-16 thanks to new high speed electromagnetic actuators and more thrust. The F-20 (as is) also outperforms the F-16 by a country mile in high AOA flight. So no, that's not "it".
@@JG-dx5wi Source for outperforming the F-16 in high AOA flight? I am not saying you are wrong but in the sustained turn rate for the F-20 I have found figures of around 13 degrees a second. Looking at a maneuvering chart for an F-16A I see as high as 28 degrees a second.
Imagine if a new F-20 w/ an F-414 engine, AN/APG/82(V)1 AESA was built today... they'd sell well I think, particularly for developing countries. Pair it with an upgraded F-16XL w/ F135-PW-100 from an F-35... holy crap. That pair would be some excellent single-engine multirole combat aircraft (with the latter with an extensive loitering time due to the cranked delta wing).
F-20 should have been built.... it was a great plan
Sigh what could have been...
They concentrated for the F-16.
The government didn't want the F-20 to compete with the F-16 in sales, since selling more F-16 would help drive down the latter's cost (the F-16 was more advanced and a lot of money went into its development). Furthermore,the F-16 could carry more payload than the F-20, and had greater potential for future incremental upgrades. Many clients at the time wanted the more advanced hardware.
@@redDL89 The F-20 (at the time) had BVR ability, while the F-16 didn't
With all the features of the F20, one has to wonder why this did not get the attention it deserves.
General Dynamics conducted mild trolling
it's an impressive singular use rudimentary platform...a peak performance F-5. But it is essentially the best carburator in a fuel injector world and thus was surpassed by the F-16.
I saw the F20 in the mid 80s and it was pretty good in a flying display. I wonder how it would have gone against the F16.
Or against a mig 29
the BEST Fighter the USAF never bought.
Agreed.
What would you rather go up against - two F-20s or one F-16? You could have two F-20s for a little more cost than one F-16 (considering maintenance and everything), and have the two F-20s up in the air faster. I don't understand how at least some countries didn't buy this plane? Or, I guess I do and I just don't like the answer.
Without a doubt one of the best fighters that never saw went into service. Granted the F-16 is one of the best fighters in the world today, but there should have been room for the F-20, at least in the international market. You have to wonder what kind of political maneuvering/backroom deals went on back in the day.
The F-20 design had genuine limitations being based on the F-5 airframe. There simply wasn't any room to stretch the plane any further other than changing the powerplant when a lighter turbofan engine in the late-production J79 thrust class became available.
The change in powerplant had a negative impact on the plane's wing-loading, btw. It was higher because the F-20 retained the F-5 wing instead of increasing the wing area which would have made sense with the weight increase. As it was, the F-20 was over 3,000lbs HEAVIER than the F-5E and 2/3, 3/4 of that was because of the F404 which weighs 2,300lbs! The twin J85's the F-5 was equipped with were less than half the weight of the GE F404.
The range increase with the F404 was not dramatic -- maybe 10% due to the better fuel economy. Other than that, it had all the weapons restrictions and range deficiencies the previous F-5s did.
Nobody's denying it would have been an excellent POINT-DEFENSE fighter but it would never have matched either the F-16 and F-18 as a multi-role plane let alone an attack jet. The wing configuration and landing gear layout constrained it quite a bit.
You couldn't fit half the bomb inventory on that plane because it was too low to the ground and it had serious limitations in the size of the bombs it could accomodate. 1000lbs max in ANY bomb load config per hard point, period, and on hardpoints further away from the center. Bombs had to be carried further out on the wings due to landing gear clearance. The centerline hardpoint was occupied by the fuel tank which was virtually mandatory to get more than 15 minutes flying range out of the type! I would imagine locating the bombs out that far on the wings impacted the roll rate and handling quite a bit. They NEVER talk about how carrying bombs and max missile loads kills the performance of SMALL fighters, do they? The F-14 and F-15 were designed to carry max missile load-outs (up to 8 missiles for both) and fight VERY well with those. In exercises where they talk about the mini-fighters beating up on the heavyweights, the mini-fighters are always fighting in clean ("air show") configuration which is NOT any more representative of combat configuration any more than having computer simulations showing every missiile hitting the target ALL the time!
The F-20 simply was not as cruise efficient as the F-16. The F-5 vintage wing simply was not optimal for long let alone medium range missions and that affected interception AND strike radius. The plane simply is not an ideal system for long-ranged conflicts.
Read up on the real story behind the technical limitations of the design and you'll see that this was NOT the plane to equip the fighter squadrons with. It probably would have done fine as a follow-on trainer to succeed both the F-5E and T-38 but it would not have made the best active duty fighter for the USAF or ANG.
@MEs61 Key is its cost effectiveness. Lower acquisition, running and maintenance cost. Perfectly suited to your proposed smaller air forces with specific needs. At those parameters, its limitation may have been acceptable to some operators.
Northrop got screwed ....usually the case. That's why they mostly manufacture drones and advanced weapons systems and networks in this modern era.
@@syjiang Yes it absolutely would have, because the F-16 as good as it was and continues to be, is really not optimally suited for most the nations who actually fly it.
@@thetreblerebel I mean the grudges for the B-2 problems were apparently a real thing.
ed is right on. the f20 was smaller and less costly than the f16 with much greater specialization in INTERCEPTION.
except for carrier planes, i totally refute the idea of multirole air superiority fighter/bombers like the f18.fiscally and tactically it's best to have two specialized aircraft , one being a supersonic hi altitude interceptor fighter (like the f20) and the other being a low altitude ground attack bomber (like the a10 ).
those 2 planes together costs half of one f18 to buy or fly
Was stationed in Panama when Northrop brought the F-5E to sell to everyone. From what I understand, the problem with the Tigershark was its original engine. Northrop talked of putting a more powerful engine in it, but then, who would want to buy such an aircraft until they got the latest engine for it?
It had the same engine as the F/A-18. Engine performance and power wasn't an issue. Your thinking of the plane it was developed from, the F-5. But hell that plane was outfighting the modern jets in training exercises....
Imagine this fighter today upgraded with a 22,000 lbf F414 engine, AN/APG-83 radar and JHMCS helmet armed with AIM-9X block III missles.
eat your heart out Gripen
Stridus7 well SAAB would like to extend thanks to USA for leaving market open. Swedes have been selling Gripens all over the place for countries that probably would have been interested in F-20. Not that Swedes really made Gripen to compete with USA manufacturers. Their main market is always their own air force. Foreign sales is icing on the cake.
The thing is many USA planes arent designed for close in staging maintanance wise, since USA has ocean between it and enemies and carriers to stage at safe distance. Swedes and many people they sell to have literally 0 meter separation from potential hostiles. That means logistics and maintenance has no time to mess around. Also small countries so the few planes afforded will be in 24/7 utilisations with pilots rotating while the plane pretty much sit on hot turn around. 10 minutes down, sortie, 10 minutes down, sortie... pilot switch, sortie , turn around, sortie and so on 24/7 for first few days of hostilities atleast. Any extra minutes on ground is tens of millions of dollars plus vital asset as a sitting duck for enemy stand off weapons or strike air attack.
The Gripen is now suffering from sales difficulties as the US does some manoeuvering to restrict the sale of F414 engines and other hardware with the Gripen. I think it might have played a role in scuppering several Gripen NG deals that might have gone through like in Denmark or Switzerland.
In procurement, political shenanigans are often at least half or more than half, of the story. Whatever product is chosen is breaking someone else's rice bowl. So you end up with abortions of programs like the US Army GCS. Or the Indian MRCA debacle, the Australian Collins class Submarine, the Eurocopter Tiger and NH90 affair. It's a rare and lucky day that a system is chosen solely on its merit or adherence to doctrine or cost. The increasing privatisation and consolidation of the armaments industry proceeds at the peril of the existing world order as governments find themselves unable to evaluate weapons systems on their merits and unable to know the real costs of weapons. Or afford them in the first place.
And there are a thousand ways to futz all 3 metrics of performance, cost and reliability around - just look at the scuttlebutt around the Danish selection of the F-35, or more recently the new assault rifle program in Germany that is basically the Bundeswehr saying "we want a competition as long as the winner is Heckler and Koch".
If we are talking purely in a warfighting sense, the Gripen is basically the most logical choice for any nation, in any climate. The vast majority of air force losses nowadays is from destruction on the ground in conflict. Whether it is mujahideen in the hills of Afghanistan firing mortars and Stingers at aircraft into Soviet airbases, or Israel pounding the Arab air forces to scrap on the ground in multiple Arab-Israeli wars. Or more recently, several losses of Harrier jump jets in the Middle East from insurgents firing mortars into the compound.
Future conflicts will feature long range stealthy cruise missiles that can attack airbases from standoff range, with bunker busting warheads that negate hardened aircraft shelters. The mobility of tube and rocket artillery as well as its range has extended greatly, meaning that even airbases in the strategic depth are no longer immune to attack. That 10,000 foot runway that you built an entire base around and guarded with 10,000 troops? Now just a target. IADS and BMD are in no way reliable enough to assure immunity of large airbases from attack.
All this means that the airforce that can survive on the ground is the only one that can control the air. That means being able to use road bases or even grass strips. Being capable of turnaround times of less than 20 minutes. Being able to have maintenance done by conscripts instead of a team of dedicated technicians that might just get incinerated in the next ballistic missile attack. Being so simple to fly and intuitive to use that your average high school graduate with a good pair of lungs and sharp eyes can fly it. Being so cheap and using so few extremely complex components that attrition from accidents and attacks still mean that replacement is not difficult.
If anything, the F-20 Tigershark is slightly inferior to the Gripen in this respect due to having 2 engines. But its simplicity from an electronics standpoint is a definite advantage - although that is offset in a relative lack of electronic self-protection systems that will be needed to survive against modern air defense networks. I think with the advent of stealth or signature reduction that onboard radars might cease to be useful and the aerodymanic sacrifices, weight and expense could be discarded in lieu of a dual IRST and LIDAR setup instead along with DRFM RWRs and jammers.
IRSTs use commercially available and simple to manufacture (and iterate) CMOS sensors and optics, while LIDARs find extensive use in weather and ground mapping. Neither technology requires GaN circuitry or extreme tolerances that AESAs demand. Neither one will emit fugitive emissions except LIDAR and even then only if it detects an object with a laser warner. Importantly they are small and cheap, unlike a top of the line LPI CW AESA radar, and they aren't going to be reduced in effectiveness by stealth technology. In a peer war with both sides possessing stealth aircraft, EMCON will put extreme emphasis on passive sensors and visual search as well as dogfighting capability due to the unreliability of maintaining radar locks on said aircraft, thus making BVR less reliable. It will also demand that pilots be much more trained than they are now. The 150 hour per annum average of US pilots or the 180 hour per annum average of EU pilots is just barely meeting NATO minimum standards. Driven in large part by the expense of operating complex aircraft with long logistics tails and high maintenance to flight ratio. An updated Tigershark or Gripen produced by the thousands is what will survive a peer war. An F-35 demands the separation of an ocean, a powerful navy that controls sealanes with impunity and a nuclear deterrent large enough to wipe out human civilisation.
such a tragic aircraft story
A great opportunity missed.The F-20 was certainly a looker and had so much to offer.Such a shame.!
I still can't understand why this upgrade of the F-5 didn't meet with the same success of the previous variants. It was certainly the best of them by FAR. Probably interference from the american government, since its own air force wasn't interested.
+Pedro L. Cogoy I believe it was because the F-20 was basically a hot-rod F-5 on the outside, with an airframe layout designed in the 1950s that appears very bright on radar screens. The early 1980's when the F-20 was offered is around the same time when the Air Force had stealth in mind for all future new aircraft, so I can see why they would not want the F-20. Every new U.S. bomber, fighter and/or attack aircraft since 1980 has had stealth capabilities, including the stillborn A-12.
+Pedro L. Cogoy As the simple F-5G it might have been successful. But as the F-20 it became so advanced and expensive that together with relaxed export restrictions for the F-16, it found itself in direct competition. To offer a competitive price, Northrop refused to commit it to production until they had enough orders, +200, I think. And that's it. Countries bought F-16 instead.
+Pedro L. Cogoy F-20 is more expensive than F-5 and not as good as F-16. Not really value for money for countries with limited budget. The medium range Sparrow missile on F-20 is like big anchor. Big missile on small fighter reduce its performance. However, Taiwan have shown interest on F-20 but China successfully use political pressure to force USA to cancel the sales.
I really think the US military didn't want it because we were in the process of developing and building stealth into fighter and attack aircraft by that time, while the F-20 shines like a beacon on radar.
Doggeslife The US military never use the F-5 so they have no reason to block the successor F20. F-5 is design for allies with limited defence budget. F-20 is too expensive for the same purpose. F-5 twin engines is also safer to fly because it can fly on one engine if one of the engine failed.
In a high volume fight against China in Asia, planes like this still have merit.
omg I lol'd so hard at the video description... "Third World fighter sales porn" LMAO
I'll say this over and over again. I believe the F-20 was a tremendous fighter. Even a bit better than the F-16. I still think the USAF made a mistake in not getting this wonderful machine. And so did the air forces who already had the F-5E.
after watching this I wanna beg my mom and dad to buy me an f-20 for christmas lol
This is idle speculation, but I sometimes wonder what would have happened if we chose a different force structure and bought 3,500 F-20's.
I still love this little plane - maybe just a nostalgic Star Wars thing.....but it's gorgeous ....
In 2020, give F20 new radars, new engines, new technology and this badass is still better than F35 or F22 and at the same time , save tons of money for taxpayers.
F20 was an amazing little fighter.
Shame this little fighter was left behind.
I'm REALLY glad the SAAB Gripen got a foot hold to show what it can do.
F-20 TIGERSHARK IS THE BEST FIGHTER!!!!
I'd love to have seen a promotion like this for the MiG-21-93/2000. These retro films are just so much cooler than the overly-slick stuff we get today.
1980's Cold War aircraft porn.
And I LOVE it!!!
It's a damn shame this gorgeous little lady never entered full production or service.
This was a fantastic aircraft. Too bad it never went into production.
Sexy as hell this plane - it really does look like a Tiger Shark!
Damn you Ronald Regan for wanting more F-16's instead of building these! :(
Hi James Horner's score to Star Trek the Wrath of Khan! Funny meeting you here!
Thank you for posting this.
The F-20 is like a F-5 on steroids.. I'd say the F-5 & F-20 are my favorite jets..
F-20A vs. F-16A was just like the F-22A vs. F-23A, where the AF chose the wrong one.
The F-20 should have won the USAF Lightweight Fighter Competition, it was a far superior aircraft to the F-16.
Agreed.
I saw the last remaining F-20 around 1988 or 1989 at Tulsa International while on an American Airlines flight to Nashville, TN.
Not much of a story but a beautiful aircraft even sitting in a hanger with her nose peaking outside.
Such is the case with a lot of experimantal aircraft. It can be the fastest, most maneuverable, invisible to radar, etc. but if it doesn't get good politics then you can forget it!
Ever heard of the British BAC TSR-2 fighter? It suffered the same fate. As Sir Sydney Camm (one of the programs design engineers) put it: "All modern aircraft have four dimensions: span, length, height and politics. The TSR-2 simply got the first three right!"
こんな素晴らしい機体なのに
配備できなかったのは非常に残念・・。
The Greatest Fighter Never Built
Chuck Yeager....my Hero, and a man's man, to boot!
Wow 15min turnaround time? Thats even faster then a WW2 Spitfire (took around 30mins). God knows what the F35 is going to be. Possibly measured in days :'(
I, personally did a combat turn around on a B-52.. in 40 mins.. bomb load.. refuel.. not just conventional bombs....you can guess the rest... what does that mean...!?!? This occurred 30+ years ago...! Now think of the technology!!
LMAO!
IF they can get it back up at all. Too fucking complex.
A reminder how great American fighter designs used to be
We need to turn a new page in history the UK has the 2nd biggest aerospace industry and we need to step further.
An early Grippen, made in U.S.A.
F-5/F-20 basic wing design concepts continued to YF-17, F/A-18A, F/A-18E and T-7 (Boeing/Saab's TX entry).
YF-17 has 4th gen body lift design.
LM/KAI's FA-50 is the mini-F16.
The Grippen is a copy of the F-5/ F-20. You can thanks the U.S for giving the blue print to Swede while looking to replace Viggen. To me thats a slap in the face to Mr.Yeager and Northrop back then.
@@andrewnegron288 Maybe in your dreams. In reality while Saab has collabed with US companies for sure, but so have those companies collabed with European companies and countries. Saab made the Gripen following the same design of the Viggen, coming from the double Delta project of the Draken
I also want to point out that arrogant idiots like you don't speak for Americans. European nations are America's ally because they're our ancestral lands, blood of our blood, so gtfo trying to create animosity between America and European peoples with you bullshit America supremacy idiocy
It's like the Gripen of the past, but it never truly got the chance it deserved to fly high.
cant believe this plane never went into production.sad.
Just the sight of that sexy plane makes my heart skip a beat.
Music at beginning sounds like Wrath of Khan
I fly F-5Es against Mig-21s and -19s in DCS World and even if I am not a real pilot, you can trust me when I tell you the cancellation of the F-20 just to favour F-16 sales was a big mistake.
The Viper has been very successful but still expensive to purchase and operate.
The Tigershark would have achieved similar results at a fraction of the cost.
This is the single best "America! F YEAH!" video I have ever seen.
The F-20 was supposed to have been mighty good! How come it was never produced?