Having worked as an engineer on the F-5G/F-20, let me add a little to your information. First the F-20 was not designed to compete with the F-16. That's what the F-17 (later F/A-18) was meant for. The F-20 was meant to replace an assortment of aircraft flown by our Allies. Aircraft such as Early F-5's, Hawker Hunters, MiG-19 & 21's, Dassault Mystere's, F-100's, F-104's (horribly misused for ground attack), F-84's, etc. The F-20 was a huge step forward over those aircraft. The U.S. Administration asked aircraft companies to spend their own money to develop a suitable aircraft and promised to purchase an initial quantity for our own use (as aggressor aircraft, etc.) and promote their sale to our Allies. Northrop was the only company foolish enough to honor the governments request (and ended up spending over a Billion 1980's dollars). It was important that the U.S. purchase the aircraft so that spare parts were available in the American system. This was know to be a critical factor to our allies. In a typical back-stabbing move, General Dynamics offered the F-16N (N for Navy) to the Government for the Aggressor role. They offered the aircraft at about 1/3 the usual price because the F-20's price was so much lower than the F-16's. GD feared if Northrop got a contract then many of allies would have bought the Tigershark, costing GD some export sales. The F-20 was a far more sensible choice for many Allies, being a big improvement over their existing aircraft (having outstanding avionics), costing about 1/2 the price of an F-16 and having much lower operating costs than the Fighting Falcon. The Navy only got a few years use out of their F-16N's and then had to scrap all of them. In the end, the government refused to let Northrop make any sales because the aircraft was "too advanced and would upset the balance of power." Then the same government permitted General Dynamics to the sell the F-16 to anybody who wanted it. There were many dark mutterings in the Engineering Department about that GD General Dynamics (the first GD did NOT stand for the company name). It was widely understood that GD's Congressmen out-numbered our Congressmen. The Texas contingent then being very powerful in various committees of Congress.
Thank you for that. One of John Boyd's associates who developed the original YF-16, was involved with Northrop and worked on the F-5G, later F-20, with Lee Begin. 100 or so, F-20s would come in mighty handy right now, for NORAD, and in Ukraine.
@@modsquad20 And, to the BAC TSR-2 in England. Canceled because the F-111K would be "cheaper and better" according to UK politicians. Once the TSR-2 was cancelled then the British government turned around and canceled the F-111K. "You can always tell when a politician is lying, his lips will be moving."
I work at GD and Northrop is currently taking many of our employees. GD doesn't treat employees well and gives us raises less than inflation. I might move over too xD
My dad was an engineer at Northrop working on this program. I remember a “family day” out at the Palmdale testing facility when I was in high school in the 80s. The F-20 took off right in front of us, I remember seeing the ailerons tilt up, then the aircraft just went vertical. Like a rocket. Cool. Edit: I believe those were the “tail elevators” as “ailerons” are on the trailing edge of the wing and are used for turning.
For all the “elevators vs. ailerons” commenters, I meant the flaps on the rear end of horizontal tail wing thing. I’m not really sure what it’s called. Dad was an aerospace engineer. I’m a civil engineer. Feel free to ask me about the difference between concrete vs. cement.
I was working at Edwards AFB when they were flying it there. There were 2 big issues with the F-20. One was the small nose which caused the radar antenna to be quite small, and limited the size of the radar. This resulted in much poorer detection range compared with the F-16. The bigger issue was the wing. Extraordinary high performance when it was clean. But when weapons were hung on it, the turn rate decreased dramatically. It could hold far far less than an F-16 and was a pig with anything on the wing.
Has anyone talked about it potentially being used more so as an attack and interceptor aircraft rather than a air to air fighter? It seems it would be better for those roles.
I was also stationed at Edward's in the early to mid '80s, Egress troop, and remember the big fly-off with the Tiger Shark and the F-16 XL. I hated working the XL and really wanted the F-20 to go into production. One of my favorite memories was watching Chuck Yeager film commercials for AC Delco using the Tiger Shark as a prop, with male models in pristine jump suits "working" the jet.
TH-cam has the video with Gen. Yeager that I mentioned in my post. I was there when they filmed this commercial (working an F15 in next hangar) and it was not raining... that was added in post. The civilians working the jet wore jeans and t-shirts, but the models in the ad had black jump suits and white ascots. Would have sucked wearing that garb on the flight line in the summer at Edwards. th-cam.com/video/SWiAc2TV8oo/w-d-xo.html
Many friends from my YF-22A days were from the F-20 Tigershark and the A-12 Avenger II programs. They were all excellent engineers that worked hard on a failed program for no fault of their own. Fortunately they found the YF-22A and enjoyed the success that working on that program brought.
@@callumbush1 - Well some of us are ancient. I designed our 1st supersonic trainer T-38 Talon in '54, & still scooting Astronauts wherever they have to go! Gramps Henry Ford's 1st apprentice in '01, 1st to drive FMC Unit #1 w/Henry running alongside admiring their handywork. Might that be ancient enough for you??
As a note, the end cost for the f16 was just $1.5m more expensive than the f20. In the end it made more sense to build a ton of f16, then export old models when they were available
It should be noted that the maneuverability of aircraft by that time was becoming less of an issue, because nowadays air-to-air combat no longer takes place. Missiles like the Sidewinder are so fast and accurate that there can’t be a dogfight. Most missiles have a range of thirty miles, or more. So the “performance” of the F-35 is of no value; it would get shot down just like any other plane. Russian air-to-air missiles are very good. And so are their ground-to-air missiles. The F-35’s were a total waste of money, it would still make sense to scrap them and build F-16’s. Nobody in the whole world wants an F-35, it’s the Chinese Ford Pinto.
@@ronliebermann With heatseakers you need to get them on to the hear signature, that means dogfighting or getting an upper hand over your oponnent in some other way, also they are not BVR. What is BVR is radar homed missiles - they need a radar lock from the carrier plane - if you are stealth and cant be locked by your enemy he cant fire SARH lissile at you.
@@akkudakkupl The Russians make a missile called the S-75. It’s supposedly the best ground to air missile in the world. And they’re installed in (I think) hundreds of locations. This missile can probably shoot down an F-35, but the problem is that even if it happens, the Air Force will deny it. So we’ll never know if the F-35 is any good. But we do know that this plane is plagued with problems, and it costs $90,000 an hour to fly. Britain hates them, they want to give them back to us. That’s why this white elephant should be scrapped. It’s a failure, and there’s no reason to throw good money after bad. But in the military, like all government organizations, nobody can be blamed for failure, and nobody can get fired. Unions are like that.
0:12 And if the F-20 had been shot down and fell into the wrong hands, the Soviets STILL would’ve tried to reverse engineer it and would make their own copy design: the MiG-28
That's only because they couldn't get their hands on the improved F-20 plans! Who knows, with their F-20, the whole 1986 encounter could have ended differently...
IMO it being allowed to pull Gs that would allow two experienced pilots to blackout was an issue with the flight control computer, iirc fighters with fly by wire and computers limit the Gs allowable both to the pilot and airframe. One of the main reasons it’s theorized that soon fighters will be unmanned so the planes can perform to their full potential without worrying about the meatbag inside.
Unmanned still have a massive problems as they are hackable systems & there tech can be stolen or recycled in enemy hands this isnt a problem with the f20 however... if its still viable today it would have to be tested. I would say it could be modernized. Kinda wish it was in a simulation on pc ..
The F-15, F-16 and F/A-18 also ‘allow’ pilots to blackout and crash - happened quite often. As such, you can’t hold that ‘issue’ against the Tigershark.
When I was a very small child, my first awareness of fighter jets came from a SNES game called "UN Squadron." The Tiger Shark was one of the first fighters you could buy to improve on your starting F-8 Crusader, and I fell in love with the way it looked. I was later disappointed to hear it wasn't made in any real numbers and never adopted by any military.
I REMEMBER THIS GAME! Oh man, you jarred a memory with that. The concept of flying a crusader first and hape the option of the tigershark rang a bell, looked for gameplay and sure enough memories came back. Thank you lol.
That was the local version of the video game based on the Area 88 anime. The Tiger Shark was flyable in Ace Combat Infinity and even had the skin with the flaming unicorn logo for those lucky enough to get it.🦄 🔥
And don't forget the F-23 stealth fighter option. Another pipe dream. Ah, well. Maybe Japan. I tended to stick with tje A-10, due to the 2 guns& ground ordinance.
This is the one non production plane I'd love to see simulated in DCS World flight simulator. It would be a fantastic monument to all the work Northrop employees put into developing this aircraft. It's old enough to be completely unclassified as well. I would really love to learn more about this aircraft from the (simulated) inside.
@@michaellinner7772 the Black Widow? No sadly. We have stuff like B-2s, F-117, and B-1B but they are AI controlled only. But there is always the possibility that given enough of a outreach for it a model maker may take a look at making it.
This aircraft was the fighter the main character uses in "Area 88" an old Japanese manga and OVA. The mechanical designers seemed to love this fighter too.
Was also a fighter that could be used in Ace Combat games 5, Zero, & Infinity. With Infinity having an Area 88 special edition with enhanced stats. Used the Tigershark a lot in Zero. Real hot rod of a fighter - smallest airframe with the biggest engine they could stuff in it.
@@mothafraker That's possible, I haven't read the manga. Might be only the OVA(s). I could have sworn he had one in the anime too, but it looks like he only ever flew the F-8 and two different F-5s.
I remember reading an article in a military magazine in the 80's when Northrop was still trying to sell the F-20 Tigershark. It was a very convincing article on why it was better than the F-16, including the selling points you mentioned about being cheaper and easier to maintain. I remember reading about how the gun was better, i think it was able to fire more rounds per min if I remember correctly. Wish I saved that article, read it when I was a kid. I always loved the design of the F-5, looks cool and sleek imo, the F-20 being basically an OP version of it, and was hoping real hard that our govt would go ahead and purchase some, sadly as we all know that never came to fruition.
My mother had a childhood friend, flannel wearing butch lesbian who had worked in the General Dynamics FW factory that built the F-16 before the Lockheed takeover. I was this wide eyed kid, so excited, "WoW you built F-16's?!" Her: "...yeah, they are sh%t! You wouldn't believe how badly we slapped them together, no standards!" Me: "......." I like to think Lockheed fixed the production issues by the mid 1990s, but I still laugh at her reply. Literal opposite of what I expected to hear.
It was a good decision for USAF and USN not to buy any F-20s. Combat radius was maybe 160nm on a good day with minimal load. Radar was tiny with no effective detection and tracking range relevant to other fighters of the era. I think the MiG-21 Radome had more growth potential. In this case, the bean counters were actually right.
This one hurts the most, because of all the missed opportunities, this was the biggest one. That was a fantastic plane, and it's a shame it never got to see production.
I know it was a different time and different mission but I have to say one of the greatest military planes never built is the Avro Arrow. There is no doubt the F-20 and previously mentioned YF-23 were amazing planes as well. Great video.
Yes, it was a Monogram model kit in 1/48 scale. I also had the same kit. There’s a different manufacturer that has produced an F-20 kit. But I’m not sure if it’s a rebox of the old kit, or a new tooling.
I'm curious, did the private sector ever fall for this kind of thing again? The whole, you develop it and we'll market it for you but you're not allowed to sell it directly schtick? DoD basically killed Northrop with this bull.
Probably. DoD is like Wal-Mart when it comes to military contracts. The have full control of the contracts because the contractors know if they are able to win it, its not only alot of money, but a long production and support life for whatever it is they build until something better is needed. This is also why when something better IS needed, the 'current contractor' does what it can to modify the current build to fit the new requirements. I'm sure Boeing is LOVING that the B-52 is still in service and looking for upgrades.
They had a hard on for Bill Northrop! since 1939 he was a out side the box thinker Finally he got the b2 ! Thank God! If this plane was up graded with modern everything engines/ avionics it would be awesome !
Had business relations with northrop folks back in the 1980’s. The F-20 was the best air superiority fighter at the time compared with all available fighters at the time. Another advantage, beyond its maneuverability was its small size. With the right paint, it was almost impossible to see it at any reasonable distance, so it could outfly and be a gnat they could see to swat. Sad what happened. It caused all kinds of layoffs at Northrop.
@@ssaraccoii Quick question: do you think there may have been shenanigans going on between the DoD and Boeing? I've seen so many videos where concepts from other firms have been nixed as the US military have gone with the other, usually Boeing, option.
Good story, I remember the development of this plane. I was shocked when the Air Force chose the F-16 over F-20. Now, the F-16 has proven its worth, but it showed to me that no matter what the US asked for, it will ALWAYS go with the more expensive plane.
The F-16 has been great because it has high technology and growth potential. Sure the F-20 was designed as a multi role fighter but it just barely met that definition of the term. It had no room for growth. It was a 1950s design that had already evolved as much as it could. The F-16 meanwhile has evolved from a vanilla day fighter to one of the best all-weather multi role fighters in the world. Even better at air to ground than the A-10 in non-permissive environments.
Love this video, such an awesome jet! Keep them coming fella's. Requesting a video on the A-10, I think everyone would love to see Dark's take on this legendary air frame.
@@chrissinclair4442 Um, no. It was not "too effective". The F-20 could only compete in a close-in fight if it were in a clean configuration, meaning no hardpoints carrying weapons. There's a lot to be said for actually carrying weapons in a fight, and the moment you hung anything on the -20's wings, it lost much of that maneuverability. The radar was small and insufficient even by 1980s standards--the F-16's radar completely outclassed it. The plane would have, at absolute best, been a decent export option for countries that didn't have the money to spend on more advanced planes, or the need to fly against such planes. The F-20 was no match for an F-16. For one thing, the Tigershark's only hope was that it would survive BVR...which only was a good bet against an enemy still flying F-86 Sabres, lol. The -20's radar had literally half the tracking range of the F-16A's APG-66. And again, while the F-16 can carry AIM-7s and now AIM-120s, the only way the -20 could do so was to put them on underwing hardpoints...which, as mentioned, took away much of the F-20 performance that it could not do without to have any chance. It wasn't that good. We saw 3 prototypes fly, which were not fully equipped combat ready planes.
@@jonnycomfort9271 Nah as an ASEAN country that once has the interest to buy it would say this is all cause by invisible hand who want to fattening their pocket with money, F-20 is self funded and everyone wants it for sure for being low cost 4th gen Aircraft. But man since F-16 can give more profits than a cheapskate refurbish shit (pardon me), who didn't want to be rich right? F-20 would have a long ass relevant development if given a chance to be exported for foreign 3rd word ally countries but mang, your congress really pushing us into buying a Mig-29N for real sake.
You and me both!! I always wondered what happened to this aircraft as it put in a very good display showcasing it's agility. Quite a sad story really, especially as it was a purely private enterprise, I'm surprised that Northrop executives didn't get more assurances from the US government that production aircraft would be purchased to facilitate export orders.
I love the look of the Tigershark, I even bought and built a model of it. It was one of the best looking models I've built, it had a very detailed cockpit and pilot figure as well..
I had an RC version of the tiger shark. I own and have flown a number of RC jets and the tiger shark is the only one I have ever crashed, it was a handful to fly, very fast.
I love the heck out of the F-20 and I dearly wish that some country would have taken a shine to it, even if only to see airshow footage or in a museum. Thanks for the documentary.
Closest well get is the F-5 Modern made by Brazil which can compete even with some of the newer Gen F-16s. And it’s still only the two original F-5E engines which is wild.
Ha! I just discovered that game a couple of years ago, the SNES version. I'd read about it in Nintendo Power magazine, but was never able to find it to rent or buy locally back then. I finally got to try it through an emulator. Cool mix of nostalgia and a little childhood wish fulfillment.
@@aries144 Actually, it's the game based on the Area 88 manga from 1979-1985. There's also a 2004 anime, but, CGI planes look shit. The manga had 3 movie-like OVAs, with incredible animation even for today's standards (jets get blown up in various ways, engines being torn apart, cannon fire ripping wings and missiles, ammo belts flying off from the damaged aircraft, etc.)
6:11........man, after looking at the F-20 for a few minutes, once you see the F-16 pop up, it becomes very obvious how revolutionary it was. Whereas the F-20 was merely evolutionary, looking more like a modernized F-104 and barely any different than the F-5.
@@MlTGLIED as much as I love the F-20, I have to agree with you there. At the time the F-20 probably was the better plane, but F-16 had a brighter future.
Not sure how it looks like a modernized F-104 and not a modernized F-5. Interestingly enough, look at where they were going with the next iterations of the F-104, the CL-1200 lancer / X-27 series of prototypes the were part of the lightweight fighter program, which ultimately resulted in the F-16.
It’s a running theme among amateur aviation enthusiasts looking for an angle, who have very limited understanding of the big picture or realities of each coulda/shoulda/woulda program.
Once upon a time, or rather, since this is a "sea story", this is no shit: Many years ago I was stationed at Naval Weapons Station China Lake. For whatever reason, NWC was hosting an interservice air show. (As an aside, as I recall it, the pair of PA-75 COIN aircraft, aka turboprop P-51, were there, amongst others.) At one point our flightline had at least one example of an F-4, F-14, F-15, F-16, FA-18, and F-20. And, yes, it was cool. Alas, it does not seem to have occurred to anyone who could have made it happen to put them all up in formation for a photo.
@@johnmothershead1690 I spent four years at Edwards. Just about every day was airshow day! We sent aircraft to China Navel Air station all the time, The are like next to each other. I've been there also. We had those turbo prop p-51's at Edwards for a short period of time. We had the F-20's also. Best looking aircraft had to be the F-16 XL. It only failed to replace the F-16 because NATO and the USA has like 3,000 plus F-16s total. Most of them have interchangable parts, they are basically all the same.
@@johnmothershead1690 We used to go to China Lake frequently, including air shows, since we were just down at Edwards. The attack demos at China Lake were really cool in the 1980s. I think I took VHS video of one of them.
@@skyfoxf1113 …Yes they’re included in my list, as I stated above…F-14 and every fighter in succession following, the F-15, F-16, F-16XL, YF-17 which became the Navy’s F-18 and lastly the F-20.
This was a pretty cool and capable little jet, but it was far from the best fighter never built. That honor belongs to the F8U-3 Super Crusader. It was pitted against the F-4. In a fly-off, it did literally everything better than the Phantom...it flew faster, further, higher, turned better, at all altitudes. The Super Crusader was doomed by two conditions. First, the two-crew, two-engine plan of the Phantom provided what was believed to be an extra safety margin, especially over open water. Second, the Phantom could carry a larger A-G payload. Had there been sufficient funding for the Navy, I believe they would have taken both aircraft and kept the Phantom for mud moving missions primarily. The F8U-3 cost less and did far better in the air to air role.
Performance wise, the Super'sader looked great. But...not just A-G payload limited: it could only carry 3 Sparrows to the Phantom's four (plus Sidewinders and gas bags nonconformally..), and there was absolutely no room for any kind of development for the radar. Especially without a backseater, the F8U-3 would've been little better that a 1950s-style visual-range interceptor, despite its speed and performance, of pretty limited practical application, like a naval F-106..and I kind of suspect that the huge folding ventral fin would've been regretted while coming on board the carrier.
@@n.w.1803 First, you've left off the rest of the F8U-3's intended armament. It was to carry 3 Sparrows, 4 Sidewinders, and 4 20mm cannon...not just the 3 Sparrows you mention. Second, the F8U-3 used the same exact radar that the prototype Phantom did. To claim that there was no room for development is to ignore the obvious--the nose of the plane had plenty of room to do just that but since it was canceled after just 5 being built, there was obviously no need to try. In fact, the radar would likely have followed a similar path as it did for the F-4, as it was already in use in other planes as well. The competition was not for an all around multi role fighter. It was for a fleet defense interceptor. The multi-role mutation of the original Phantom design does not in any way mean that the F8U-3 could not have been modified in similar fashion. It just means that McDonnell Douglas went that way initially. Let's not forget, the Navy already had ground attack planes (and more on the way in the form of the Intruder, Corsair, etc) and this competition was never intended to replace or even supplement those. The F8U-3 did literally everything better than the Phantom in the competition...it was faster, flew higher, was far more maneuverable, was planned to have gun armament that the Phantom lacked, had better range on internal fuel than the Phantom with a centerline drop tank. It also cost less than the Phantom. In mock combat, the F8U-3 flew circles around the F4H-1. By the way, the ventral fins would have presented no problem on the deck. They folded up and completely out of the way. I suspect that an explosive bolt system could have easily been adapted to shear them off to allow safe landing in the event that they did not fold up for some reason. Remember, they were only needed for high speed flight, so it would have been no issue at all for low speed carrier landing, etc. They essentially were, in landing configuration, nothing more than a second set of horizontal tails in structure. Funny how virtually every single USN carrier aircraft has had horizontal tails and none of them had issues landing on the deck as a result, but suddenly you seem to think this would be different? I don't see it.
You need to think in other way... There are many country own many F5. If F20 was ever built, those country would be enhance their air force immediately... and cheap. Was F8U-3m got this potential?
@@hsuwei-yen472 that's not the point and never was. Many of those nations cannot afford even the F-20 today, so that alone kills your statement. Also, the Crusader was exported to two other nations as well, even though it was never designed or built for that purpose. Crusader production was similar in number to the F-5E, so there's also that. The comment was the greatest fighter never put into production. And the truth is simply this--the F20, while a noted improvement over the 5, still suffered from many of the same issues that the 5 did to start with. Once you hang anything on its wings, it became a dog that couldn't compete. By comparison, the F8U-3 was designed to carry more weaponry, and more types of weaponry, than the Crusader....further, faster, and better.
The little old F-5 with modern electronics can still out fly most modern fighters, it is a beast in a dogfight. Tragedy the F-20 never went into production.
The problem is that it doesn't stand as much of a chance of surviving BVR against modern fighters. not with the missile technology we have today. During Vietnam? Sure. Our BVR missile, the Sparrow, had something like a 12% success rate. But the missile and sensor tech today is far better. Plus, with the advent of stealth technology, better planes than this one are smoked routinely in exercises before they even know where the shooter is. Even the F-16 is better optimized for high G forces for the pilot and it's not a new design.
@@rotary7372 *Even* during WW2 dogfights were best avoided. Any high scoring ace on any side would rarely dogfight and instead utilize the most efficient method of downing enemy aircraft by surprise, speed and marksmanship. The bottom line is that the really good pilots never got to the stage a dogfight was necessary for they had already downed their enemy swiftly.
It was devastating to watch the F-20 crash in Goose Bay, Labrador. The whole town and base would practically stop to watch the unbelievable performance of this aircraft.
This would have been a much better investment for the Airforce and Navy aggressor squadrons. Less overall cost and much lower maintenance costs than the F-16 .
I was at an air show a year after the F20 program was cancelled and talked to a Northrop F20 test pilot. He said that the F20 outperformed the F16 in most categories. Then he told me one of the main reason the F20 was not selected that while the F20 was better there was not a high enough difference between them to justify shutting down an existing production line and tool up a new one for the F20.
It's also that tech creep meant that acceptable parameters for newer aircraft meant that the plane needs to get larger to fit in all the required items (please remember that fuel itself is also a "required item"). The F-5 were essentially point defence interceptors that could not "reach out and touch someone" due to the lack of space in the airframe for fuel and the small nose meant that larger radars could not be fitted. It's not only production costs, what people demand of their aircraft also increased. The F-16 IMO barely scraped in. The F-5/F-20 lineage fell below the bar when demands went up.
I always liked the F5/F20 from an aesthetically pleasing jet. I did have one interaction with an F20. In 1984 while serving in Korea as a CH-47 Pilot, I was tasked to fly up to Suwon and pick up and carry what was left of the F20 externally as a sling load back to Osan Airbase. When I arrived at Suwon, the jet had crashed inverted on Suwon Airbase. The preliminary word was that it stalled during inverted flight. The nose was broken off just in front of the cockpit. The tail was severed just aft of the wing. Otherwise it was mostly intact. It didn’t ride well as a sling load as I was only able to get about 35 to 40 knots of airspeed with it. Fortunately, it was a relatively short flight back to Osan. It was such a disappointment to see that program cancelled but I’ll always remember my interaction with the F-20 Tigershark.
Sweden's Grippen seems to have continued the learning from this program.In fact I can't help but think that the Swedes approach to software design as well as 'cost effective AND attack effective' plane design is an effective model that deserves to be better appreciated in today's 'more complex' fighter design efforts from other military blocs.
All reasons why I want my country, Canada, to adopt the fighter into our fleet. It's a great plane; and for a country without tons of money, it would be a great replacement with lots of versatility and low maintenance costs.
Seems to me that the Gripen picks up where the F-20 left off. It's basically the F-20-sized airplane (and engine) that relevant nations should want, but with enough lift area to carry useful payload, and enough space for modern avionics and growth potential (witness the Gripen NE). The F-20 was a beautiful jet, no doubt, but obsolete before it could be produced; the end-progression of an outdated airframe. It would've made a fine point-defence interceptor, but the very concept of such was already reaching uselessness. The F-15, and even the Viper and F/A-18, were already in the 1970s showing that a relatively small jet could handle a capable multimode radar and multiple BVR missiles. Combined with then-new aerial surveillance, the whole idea of individual interceptors scrambling on short notice to get individual targets at short range was just no longer cost-effective. Jets in general had become too expensive to put airbases and interceptors everywhere important. In other words, such a mission would have been futile. I like to say that the F-20 lost out, because it offered about 60% of the F-16's ability, at 85% of the cost (more if only limited production).
I wonder if the F-20 could be built and offered as a multirole light fighter today, competing with the JAS-39 Gripen, FC1, Texas? Of course with new technology, fly by wire system, aesa radar, etc? Can be possible?
In the 1980's, put a plane in a TV commercial with Gen. Chuck Yeager and that plane was going to become a grassroots rock star. We had heroes back then.
I had just started at Northop in oct of 86, it was a dark day at Northrop for sure. They gave us a shot at the ATF, we built the YF-23 & got jipped out of that contest having a faster, stealthier, and just better looking plane. Rumor at Edwards was GD wouldn't allow F-16's to fly when the F-20 was up for fear a mock dogfight would show the F-20 to be better. IDK that was the rumor.
My aviation mentor and friend is a retired USAF Colonel. He flew combat missions in the F4 in Vietnam, and eventually flew the SR-71. I asked him over lunch what the greatest fighter he ever flew was. I was shocked to hear his answer: hands down, the F-20. He was an evaluation pilot for the F-20 program. My grandfather was an engineer for Northrop, and I have several boxes of F-20 marketing material, including wood desktop models and various posters, pamphlets, etc.
Would've been interesting to follow the development path of this. Would we have a quasi-4.5-gen plane today in something similar to an F-16 Block 70/72 Viper variant?
Nope. F-20 was killing its pilots re: high G loads back then. You would need a complete redesign to try to fix that--you cannot just slap a 30 degree seat in and call it good.. Plus, the F-16's engines have developed a significant increase in power, while the F-20's engine has been in use by no less than 16 different aircraft platforms worldwide and yet still never got those increases. An F-16 from 1988 had more thrust in mil power than an F-20 did in full burner, and since the F404's performance is the same today as it was in the early 80s, that stat would be the same today. F-20 would have been an attractive low cost jet to the right customer, but think F-104. High G performance would not do well in most of those possible countries' hands. Low cost generally means everything is low cost--including the training, limiting the hours of flying for those pilots, etc. But the USAF's plans turned the F-16 into the best multi role jet of its era. The F-20 carried half as many weapons, half as far, and without the room for upgrading. Some things I'm sure could have been improved but it was always designed to do less. That's the whole trade-off of low-cost alternatives.
F-5G was a 3.5 Gen point defense fighter at best, with limited growth potential and already weak capabilities in all the critical areas...range, Radar, payload, ground clearance for weapons, etc.
Hi, I worked at Teledyne/Ryan Aircraft in the early 80's on many aircraft mock-ups / tooling reference models. One was the F-5G, later the F20 Tiger Shark and worked on the master model setting templates, later fairing tooling plaster in-between templates making the aft fuselage for the F-20/F-5G. The work was very precise..
The Avro Arrow was obsolete before it even flew. Turn-key interceptors like the CF-101 we’re available faster and we’re more effective (they could take automatic control from NORAD SAGE computers rather than painfully slow and inaccurate voice GCI) plus cheaper. It was good that we dumped expensive money pits and concentrated on civilian aircraft that made money. The biggest lost opportunity in Canadian aviation was actually the C-Series (A220).
I’m 70 years old, and It’s still so upsetting to realize all the potential income and military advancements lost to the incompetence of a politician and party infighting and back stabbing that is still crippling our country. It is what it is, c’est la vie.
Kenny, I am also 70 and I was working at Northrop on the F-18, the F-5 and the F-20 aircraft in the 80's. All outstanding aircraft. Yes, I have a bias. Northrop has some very talented engineers. And, yes , the Pentagon has their head up their ass.
Nice looking jet. Innovative avionics. Impressive performance Severely range and maneuverability limited when carrying external ordinance. Even the NATO countries weren’t really interested in it as an F-16 didn’t cost all that much more and had better performance. Also more countries flew the F-16 so there was the interoperability consideration with other air forces.
The government asked for the aircraft to be built (at company expense) to replace old junk like Hawker Hunters, F-84's, F-100's, MiG-17's and Mystere's. It wasn't meant as a competitor for the F-16 (that was our F-17). The administration wanted an inexpensive fighter (primarily a point-defense fighter) that had som light attack capability. Also, the U.S. Navy and Air Force needed some new aggressor aircraft that could simulate MiG-21's, etc. Northrop produced exactly what the government asked for. The U.S. didn't want every little pip-squeak nation to have something as sophisticated as an F-16. The F-20 was designed to be "better than what they had" but NOT competitive with U.S. frontline aircraft. Many allies wanted the F-20, and the Navy was ready to buy. Then, General Dynamics panicked, fearing they might loose a few dollars in sales. They had refused to produce the plane the fed's asked for but didn't want anybody else to have the business. So GD suddenly "discovered" that F-16's could be produced for almost nothing and offered the F-16N to the Navy to kill off the F-20, which it did. Then the F-16N's started falling apart and had to be scrapped while the Navy continued to fly "pre-historic" F-5's.
I got to see one of these fly at the El Toro air show! It was amazing! I’d never seen a plane “slide” like that. It was supposed to be the export fighter. Everyone wanted the F-16? Ok.
I was there, too! At El Toro and seeing it "slide" as it banked and climbed from right to left above the runaway! I never seen a fighter "slide" like that, too. But from what I understand most fighters can "slide" too by pilot input! F-105's did the same thing Vietnam when they came off targets to throw gunner's aim!
Northrop drew inspiration and even some participation from members of John Boyd's "light weight fighter mafia" who were disappointed in the weight growth, bulk, costs, etc, of the F-16s entering production.
Excellent take on the T-38/F-5/F20 airframe! I would like to see your take on the evolution of the Minuteman ICBM but that's probably a Dark Space thing, what ya think?
Phil Air Force got the luck to try it out from the evaluation flights but... As the thing again, it never went into production and only a handful of lucky PHAF pilots tasted this beauty. Even got a cute PHAF insignia at the intakes, both sides.
Wait-hold on, some of our Filipino pilots got their hands on testing the jet out?! The more I know, the more ironic it becomes sadly... *Thanks Reagan.* We could've had at least some tigersharks by now if it wasn't for his decision.
Glad it didn't happen if one knows why the other two crashed , your better off never getting F-20's. F-16s were a lot safer , and could do so much more. More fuel load,and more weapons load.
@@troyb.4101 Yeah good point; but it (F-20) was cheaper & can do the same thing as the f-16 (sans external and fuel loads). And Philippines can't afford even a handful with their budget at the time. Plus the G-LOC would've been rectified with some training (& g-suits)
@@jehoiakimelidoronila5450 How wrong you are, is the F-20 as stealthy as the F-16? can it take off with the same loads as the F-16S. You add fuel takes and you just reduced the payload it could have carried. No it can not do what an F-16 can do. not even close.
@@troyb.4101 Hey it's not as stealthy as the f-16. AND F-16s @ that time aren't even stealthy to begin with! Certainly not even today. But F-20's? It's *cheaper.* The name of the game is affordability. And that's the whole point they're endorsing it to other countries who couldn't afford, let's say, *f-16s.*
The Swedish JAS39 has a lineage to this one, it was a contender for the replacement of the SAAB 35 and was very well studied, the result was the SAAB 39 GRIPEN.
@@recoswell Heidi how. Are referring to the little Swiss girl who lived in the Alps, she is not from SWEDEN, she is from SWITZERLAND, You know those with high pointy mountains, the cheese and the chocolate? Sweden are the country with the midnight sun, pretty girls and a lot of water, and a f.cking awesome aerospace industry. The Swiss was to eventually buy some JAS, but it was overruled in a referendum. Their loss!
My dad was working for Northrup in Hawthorne in the late 70's and often flying people on the side, usually to Catalina island and that this plane sat on the west end of the Hawthorne runway for years. My name is Bicycle Bob and I approved this message.
When Australia was looking for a replacement fighter for its Mirage IIIs, the F-20 Tigershark was one of those on the early list. After a great deal of delay, wrangling and general angst, we went with the F/A-18 - which has certainly served us well. But there were people who thought we would do much better to go with the F-20 Tigershark and develop it as a purely home-built fighter, with the possibility for export elsewhere. I think one big reason we didn't go that path was because of the then-recent development problems the RAAF had with the F-111. That turned out to be a superb aircraft, but the years of problems beforehand were extremely embarrassing for the Australian government, and so they clearly went with a 'safe' option. One of those 'What If' things, I daresay.
I would hazard a guess that another reason the F-20 was scratched was, as they also said about the F-16, was that it had "one too few engines". In other words, at a time when Mirage III's were literally falling out of the skies due to engine failures, having a twin engine aircraft became the preferred option. The F-15 was rejected, officially due to its cost as the most expensive aircraft on the list (Unofficially due to "force-projection" concerns alongside the F-111), the Tornado was rejected because it wasn't really a fighter, the F-14 was the second most expensive & we'd be lumped with Iran as the only export customers, the Viggen because it was just too weird for us at the time, & anything else only had a single engine.
When northrop pitched this jet to India they gave iaf a customised scale model of f 20 signed by the lead designer , when i visited the iaf headquarters on official visit they gave me the model as a souvenir it's really cool
Luckily, the idea of a low-cost fighter that could be exported to allies eventually came to fruition with the F-16, an impressive machine in its own right.
F-16 is an excellent plane but would have likely lost in a dogfight to the F-20. Not to mention lifetime costs. BUT the F-16 had better range and a bunch of congressman waiting to ****** ***** ****, so it had its own advantages. F-16 is a great plane in its own right, but it's hard to not think what might have been.
Man, can anyone my age (42) imagine being a 9 year old now, just this channel alone, if you were into planes, as a kid you could literally learn in a days videos what would have taken a library of reading in the early 90's. I hope the future plane designers are here as kids and soaking all this up.
As a plane nut from the same era, I'm happier that I didn't have the resources that 9 year olds have. Even if this video were reliable, you'd probably have to swim through a sea of clickbait to find it. It was precisely because information was so hard to come by that it was so prized.
When your own air force won't buy the F-20, how do you expect foreign countries to buy it? The old adage in selling is "You gotta eat your own dog food first!"
Didn't stop the F-5A Freedom Fighter, F-5E Tiger 2 or F-104 Starfighter from selling huge numbers to foreign customers. All 3 of which the US only bought enough for testing/evaluation and not as mainline combat aircraft.
@@NeutronRob The F-104 did fine as long as it was used for what it was designed for high altitude intercepts which is what the Japanese did with a very low accident rate. The German's problem is they tried to use it as a high speed, very low altitude tactical bomber which is what killed lots of pilots. The Italian's also had a very low accident rate with the F-104 as they also used it as an interceptor and not a strike aircraft. The Canadian's were fine with the F-104 it had less accidents in double the service life compared to the F-86 Sabre in Canadian service and only had issues in low altitude strike training not high altitude intercept training. The F-5E Tiger 2 is still in service in first world militaries because it's a good aircraft and no country that bought it had problems.
@@Ushio01 - And many of those foreign military recipients of those aircraft purchased them because they were a part of military assistance packages the U.S. Govt provided them. We considered those military assistance packages foreign aid loans. West Germany and Italy were NATO and the U.S. was the primary financial contributor to that organization. Even though they may have had domestic aircraft industries, they were hooked into buying certain aircraft from our defense companies. By the time the F-20 came around things had evidently changed. They probably saw that it was a souped up variant of the F-5 and said no thanks. As you can now see, the Europe is less dependent on American defense industries over the last 40 years.
@@Ushio01 Not so with the F-104. While the USAF didn't purchase thousands or use it as their mainstay aircraft, more than 270 -A through -D models were built and supplied to the USAF. Its service life was short and they were relegated to the ANG after just a few years, for use as defense interceptor aircraft.
The best Fighter Jet Never Build was actually the Canadian Arrow (Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow). It was a modern delta winged aircraft that had incredible performance specifications. It was too much a threat to the economics of the US aerospace industry and hence cancelled.
Huh? Arrow was slower than airplanes that had alrweady been developed. It was actually one of the latter delta-winged designs, arriving after the Avro-Vulcan. B-58, Mirage III, F-102, F-105 and MiG-21. The first Phantoms flew about 2 months after the Arrow, and proved to be much faster, had better range, carried longer-ranged missiles, could handle a wider array of missions and was cheaper. Arrow was cancelled because Canada couldn't afford it. They couldn't afford Phantom or a license-built F-105 either/
Duh, because Jack Kennedy faked his death, son! He lives at Area 51, knows location of Amelia Earhart, runs the Illuminati, has Jimmy Hoffa's skull on his desk, and heads the program that puts chemtrails in the atmosphere from commercial airlines.
So as I recall from my model building days the f-18 evolved from this aircraft because they wanted something that's much easier maintenance wise than the f-14 was in the fa 18 is a lot more simplified in its maintenance so there is some direct lineage between this the t38 and the fa 18 and I gleaned all this from the model kits in the boxes and books I had at the time
A shame, really. This was an outstanding aircraft on a proven airframe. The nations that ultimately went with the F-16 sure must have received some sweetheart deals from GD given how much better the F-20 seemed to be in several circumstances. For that matter, this could still be a solid export fighter even today.
Shame? F-16 proved itself as the most capable, versatile, reliable, maneuverable and economically viable fighter of all times. F-16 is so good that all the air forces are planning to use it for another 30 years. Tigersharks only advantage over F-16 was it's high speed performance due to its small and unmaneuverable wings.
@@bastadimasta The F20 wasn't given the same opportunity as the F16, not to mention the fact that the 16 was built as a USAF front line fighter. The F20 was designed from the start for export. That's a huge difference. Did you even watch the video? Apparently not. Go back and watch it again, perhaps more slowly this time. Only advantage was speed? Uh, no. Better thrust to weight ratio, better angle of attack, and HALF the price with similar or better performance in direct comparison. It's all stated quite clearly if you pay attention.
@@Ghostrider0067 F-5 having 5 degrees higher AoA is not an advantage over F-16. F-16 can outturn, outmaneuver, outperform F-5 in any case because of its superior wings, aeordynamics and structural strength. High AoA is nothing useful by itself. The same is true for thrust-to-weight ratio. The slight advantage (0.45%) of F-20 in in that category cannot give the aircraft a better rate of climb because of its tiny wings. In every case F-16 is a better aircraft.
Having worked as an engineer on the F-5G/F-20, let me add a little to your information. First the F-20 was not designed to compete with the F-16. That's what the F-17 (later F/A-18) was meant for. The F-20 was meant to replace an assortment of aircraft flown by our Allies. Aircraft such as Early F-5's, Hawker Hunters, MiG-19 & 21's, Dassault Mystere's, F-100's, F-104's (horribly misused for ground attack), F-84's, etc. The F-20 was a huge step forward over those aircraft. The U.S. Administration asked aircraft companies to spend their own money to develop a suitable aircraft and promised to purchase an initial quantity for our own use (as aggressor aircraft, etc.) and promote their sale to our Allies. Northrop was the only company foolish enough to honor the governments request (and ended up spending over a Billion 1980's dollars). It was important that the U.S. purchase the aircraft so that spare parts were available in the American system. This was know to be a critical factor to our allies. In a typical back-stabbing move, General Dynamics offered the F-16N (N for Navy) to the Government for the Aggressor role. They offered the aircraft at about 1/3 the usual price because the F-20's price was so much lower than the F-16's. GD feared if Northrop got a contract then many of allies would have bought the Tigershark, costing GD some export sales. The F-20 was a far more sensible choice for many Allies, being a big improvement over their existing aircraft (having outstanding avionics), costing about 1/2 the price of an F-16 and having much lower operating costs than the Fighting Falcon. The Navy only got a few years use out of their F-16N's and then had to scrap all of them. In the end, the government refused to let Northrop make any sales because the aircraft was "too advanced and would upset the balance of power." Then the same government permitted General Dynamics to the sell the F-16 to anybody who wanted it. There were many dark mutterings in the Engineering Department about that GD General Dynamics (the first GD did NOT stand for the company name). It was widely understood that GD's Congressmen out-numbered our Congressmen. The Texas contingent then being very powerful in various committees of Congress.
Thank you for that. One of John Boyd's associates who developed the original YF-16, was involved with Northrop and worked on the F-5G, later F-20, with Lee Begin. 100 or so, F-20s would come in mighty handy right now, for NORAD, and in Ukraine.
" the aircraft was "too advanced and would upset the balance of power."
Puts what happened to the CF-105 Avro Arrow into perspective.
@@modsquad20 And, to the BAC TSR-2 in England. Canceled because the F-111K would be "cheaper and better" according to UK politicians. Once the TSR-2 was cancelled then the British government turned around and canceled the F-111K. "You can always tell when a politician is lying, his lips will be moving."
I work at GD and Northrop is currently taking many of our employees. GD doesn't treat employees well and gives us raises less than inflation.
I might move over too xD
Plus, I always loved the F-5
My dad was an engineer at Northrop working on this program. I remember a “family day” out at the Palmdale testing facility when I was in high school in the 80s. The F-20 took off right in front of us, I remember seeing the ailerons tilt up, then the aircraft just went vertical. Like a rocket. Cool.
Edit: I believe those were the “tail elevators” as “ailerons” are on the trailing edge of the wing and are used for turning.
Wait don't you mean "elevators"?
@@jehoiakimelidoronila5450 he said it was his dad who was the engineer at Northrop
Ailerons tilting up wouldn't make it pitch up... Just saying. It would mush. Stabilators were the right part to do it..
@@tomasnokechtesledger1786 stabilators or elevators, I didn't really look that closely.
For all the “elevators vs. ailerons” commenters, I meant the flaps on the rear end of horizontal tail wing thing. I’m not really sure what it’s called. Dad was an aerospace engineer. I’m a civil engineer. Feel free to ask me about the difference between concrete vs. cement.
I was working at Edwards AFB when they were flying it there. There were 2 big issues with the F-20. One was the small nose which caused the radar antenna to be quite small, and limited the size of the radar. This resulted in much poorer detection range compared with the F-16. The bigger issue was the wing. Extraordinary high performance when it was clean. But when weapons were hung on it, the turn rate decreased dramatically. It could hold far far less than an F-16 and was a pig with anything on the wing.
Has anyone talked about it potentially being used more so as an attack and interceptor aircraft rather than a air to air fighter? It seems it would be better for those roles.
I was also stationed at Edward's in the early to mid '80s, Egress troop, and remember the big fly-off with the Tiger Shark and the F-16 XL. I hated working the XL and really wanted the F-20 to go into production.
One of my favorite memories was watching Chuck Yeager film commercials for AC Delco using the Tiger Shark as a prop, with male models in pristine jump suits "working" the jet.
TH-cam has the video with Gen. Yeager that I mentioned in my post. I was there when they filmed this commercial (working an F15 in next hangar) and it was not raining... that was added in post.
The civilians working the jet wore jeans and t-shirts, but the models in the ad had black jump suits and white ascots. Would have sucked wearing that garb on the flight line in the summer at Edwards.
th-cam.com/video/SWiAc2TV8oo/w-d-xo.html
Wow, cool detail! Man, with that one comment you just helped preserve a little history. Thanks for that. Albert Smith, thanks to you too!
@@albertsmith9315 After two of them were crashed that was it!
Many friends from my YF-22A days were from the F-20 Tigershark and the A-12 Avenger II programs. They were all excellent engineers that worked hard on a failed program for no fault of their own. Fortunately they found the YF-22A and enjoyed the success that working on that program brought.
F-20 was impressive but as far as the best fighter never built I'm going with the YF-23.
I agree, point well taken!
Agreed!
Yes, now THAT is the greatest fighter never built!!
Same!!!
Outstanding!
Back when I was in aviation classes at the former CMSU, the news of the Tigershark's development was quite the exciting topic.
You must be ancient
@@callumbush1 Any older I might have been there to see Orville and Wilbur decide who got to try to take their contraception up first.
@@JAEUFM 😂👍🏽
@@callumbush1 - Well some of us are ancient. I designed our 1st supersonic trainer T-38 Talon in '54, & still scooting Astronauts wherever they have to go! Gramps Henry Ford's 1st apprentice in '01, 1st to drive FMC Unit #1 w/Henry running alongside admiring their handywork. Might that be ancient enough for you??
As a note, the end cost for the f16 was just $1.5m more expensive than the f20. In the end it made more sense to build a ton of f16, then export old models when they were available
It should be noted that the maneuverability of aircraft by that time was becoming less of an issue, because nowadays air-to-air combat no longer takes place. Missiles like the Sidewinder are so fast and accurate that there can’t be a dogfight. Most missiles have a range of thirty miles, or more. So the “performance” of the F-35 is of no value; it would get shot down just like any other plane. Russian air-to-air missiles are very good. And so are their ground-to-air missiles. The F-35’s were a total waste of money, it would still make sense to scrap them and build F-16’s. Nobody in the whole world wants an F-35, it’s the Chinese Ford Pinto.
@@ronliebermann With heatseakers you need to get them on to the hear signature, that means dogfighting or getting an upper hand over your oponnent in some other way, also they are not BVR. What is BVR is radar homed missiles - they need a radar lock from the carrier plane - if you are stealth and cant be locked by your enemy he cant fire SARH lissile at you.
@@akkudakkupl The Russians make a missile called the S-75. It’s supposedly the best ground to air missile in the world. And they’re installed in (I think) hundreds of locations. This missile can probably shoot down an F-35, but the problem is that even if it happens, the Air Force will deny it. So we’ll never know if the F-35 is any good. But we do know that this plane is plagued with problems, and it costs $90,000 an hour to fly. Britain hates them, they want to give them back to us. That’s why this white elephant should be scrapped. It’s a failure, and there’s no reason to throw good money after bad. But in the military, like all government organizations, nobody can be blamed for failure, and nobody can get fired. Unions are like that.
@@ronliebermann I didnt say F-35 was any good ;-) I just said there is more to air combat than you said ;-)
$1.5 million 40 years ago was a fair amount. It would have allowed an Air Force to purchase 12 planes instead of 11.
0:12 And if the F-20 had been shot down and fell into the wrong hands, the Soviets STILL would’ve tried to reverse engineer it and would make their own copy design: the MiG-28
The mysterious MiG-28, was based off of the F-5E/F Tiger II airframe.
That's only because they couldn't get their hands on the improved F-20 plans! Who knows, with their F-20, the whole 1986 encounter could have ended differently...
I had a guy tell me the Mig-28 WAS an F-5 the other day... what a fuckin' idiot. #nottodayISIS
They use MiG-28UB nowadays for Redair BTW. Some uninitiated call those T-38...
Lmao
IMO it being allowed to pull Gs that would allow two experienced pilots to blackout was an issue with the flight control computer, iirc fighters with fly by wire and computers limit the Gs allowable both to the pilot and airframe. One of the main reasons it’s theorized that soon fighters will be unmanned so the planes can perform to their full potential without worrying about the meatbag inside.
They will never offeR the visuals a human pilot can offer
Well. unmanned offers 2 things.
1. More maneuverability (as you mentioned).
2. Less risk of life (no pilot, no risk to the one flying).
Unmanned still have a massive problems as they are hackable systems & there tech can be stolen or recycled in enemy hands this isnt a problem with the f20 however... if its still viable today it would have to be tested. I would say it could be modernized. Kinda wish it was in a simulation on pc ..
The F-15, F-16 and F/A-18 also ‘allow’ pilots to blackout and crash - happened quite often. As such, you can’t hold that ‘issue’ against the Tigershark.
F16 Has Auto GCAS Automatic Ground Collision Avoidance System but if 15 is my all-time favorite
Now I'm inspired to build the F-20 model sitting unassembled on a shelf.
When I was a very small child, my first awareness of fighter jets came from a SNES game called "UN Squadron." The Tiger Shark was one of the first fighters you could buy to improve on your starting F-8 Crusader, and I fell in love with the way it looked. I was later disappointed to hear it wasn't made in any real numbers and never adopted by any military.
I REMEMBER THIS GAME! Oh man, you jarred a memory with that. The concept of flying a crusader first and hape the option of the tigershark rang a bell, looked for gameplay and sure enough memories came back. Thank you lol.
That was the local version of the video game based on the Area 88 anime. The Tiger Shark was flyable in Ace Combat Infinity and even had the skin with the flaming unicorn logo for those lucky enough to get it.🦄 🔥
And don't forget the F-23 stealth fighter option. Another pipe dream. Ah, well. Maybe Japan.
I tended to stick with tje A-10, due to the 2 guns& ground ordinance.
@@Reepicheep-1 I wish Ace Combat had the YF-23 but that would take away from their own special planes. Those were the only ones better than the F-22.
@@Invidrule Ace Combat does have the YF-23, I believe it's been in all games except for the first and third games in the series
I always loved this plane. Sleek, clean lines, and a great performer.
Wow, that F-20 turned into an X-15 during that crash footage. That is some spectacular technology.
...and to a F/A-18 aswell!😜🤣
This is the one non production plane I'd love to see simulated in DCS World flight simulator. It would be a fantastic monument to all the work Northrop employees put into developing this aircraft. It's old enough to be completely unclassified as well. I would really love to learn more about this aircraft from the (simulated) inside.
Is the F-23 in the game?
@@michaellinner7772 the Black Widow? No sadly. We have stuff like B-2s, F-117, and B-1B but they are AI controlled only. But there is always the possibility that given enough of a outreach for it a model maker may take a look at making it.
There's a DLC T-38 trainer jet in X plane 11 that's very similar to this bird. Very agile and fast. Good for sightseeing.
I believe you can pick a real, flying one up for a couple hundred $K...
@@scaleworksRC Only substantial difference between the F-5/T-38/F-20 is 2 engine vs single engine.
Never seen a second generation MiG-28 this close before
I discovered this channel 3 days ago. Binged half of it and was like "too bad there's no F-20 Video". Guess who was just pleasently surprised.
Was it me!? I’ve been watching too long, must have been you 👈🏼
FYI Just don’t take his word as gospel. He always has factual inaccuracy’s in these videos.
Years ago when I heard about the tigershark, I was instantly excited then immediately disappointed... This brings it all back.
One of the most beautiful aircraft ever created.
This aircraft was the fighter the main character uses in "Area 88" an old Japanese manga and OVA. The mechanical designers seemed to love this fighter too.
then on the remake it was change to the tiger II
Was also a fighter that could be used in Ace Combat games 5, Zero, & Infinity. With Infinity having an Area 88 special edition with enhanced stats.
Used the Tigershark a lot in Zero. Real hot rod of a fighter - smallest airframe with the biggest engine they could stuff in it.
If I'm not mistaken, Shin, uses the F-8 then F-5 and finally the F-20 as the manga progresses.
@@overkill1340 Don't think he flew the F-20. He replaced the F-5 with the Saab F-35 Draken.
@@mothafraker That's possible, I haven't read the manga. Might be only the OVA(s). I could have sworn he had one in the anime too, but it looks like he only ever flew the F-8 and two different F-5s.
I remember reading an article in a military magazine in the 80's when Northrop was still trying to sell the F-20 Tigershark. It was a very convincing article on why it was better than the F-16, including the selling points you mentioned about being cheaper and easier to maintain. I remember reading about how the gun was better, i think it was able to fire more rounds per min if I remember correctly. Wish I saved that article, read it when I was a kid. I always loved the design of the F-5, looks cool and sleek imo, the F-20 being basically an OP version of it, and was hoping real hard that our govt would go ahead and purchase some, sadly as we all know that never came to fruition.
Bad politics kills another good aircraft. This has become a meme.
Have you ever heard of the Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow? 🇨🇦
My mother had a childhood friend, flannel wearing butch lesbian who had worked in the General Dynamics FW factory that built the F-16 before the Lockheed takeover.
I was this wide eyed kid, so excited, "WoW you built F-16's?!"
Her: "...yeah, they are sh%t! You wouldn't believe how badly we slapped them together, no standards!"
Me: "......." I like to think Lockheed fixed the production issues by the mid 1990s, but I still laugh at her reply. Literal opposite of what I expected to hear.
What hasn’t become a meme….
F-20 wasn't any good. That's why only one of them is left out of three known! they crash for a reason.
It was a good decision for USAF and USN not to buy any F-20s. Combat radius was maybe 160nm on a good day with minimal load. Radar was tiny with no effective detection and tracking range relevant to other fighters of the era. I think the MiG-21 Radome had more growth potential. In this case, the bean counters were actually right.
This one hurts the most, because of all the missed opportunities, this was the biggest one. That was a fantastic plane, and it's a shame it never got to see production.
The F-16 is far more versatile and useful than this would've been. They made the right decision.
The f16 was the better choice. The fact its still in production today speaks for itself.
I know it was a different time and different mission but I have to say one of the greatest military planes never built is the Avro Arrow. There is no doubt the F-20 and previously mentioned YF-23 were amazing planes as well. Great video.
And the F-15 STOL/MTD
What about the Dark Star from the .Movie "Maverick"?😅
I remember having models this as a kid and loved it. Too bad it was never built.
Sure it was this and not the F-5/T-38?
@@lyianx i had this model as a kid and on the box it read F-20 TigerShark and looked just like this.
@@lyianx yeah, I’m sure. My dad is retired AF and I grew up on AF bases. I was really into planes as a kid.
Yes, it was a Monogram model kit in 1/48 scale. I also had the same kit. There’s a different manufacturer that has produced an F-20 kit. But I’m not sure if it’s a rebox of the old kit, or a new tooling.
@@xairman565 I’m hoping a 1/32 kit comes out. That would be a fantastic jet to build.
I'm curious, did the private sector ever fall for this kind of thing again? The whole, you develop it and we'll market it for you but you're not allowed to sell it directly schtick? DoD basically killed Northrop with this bull.
Probably. DoD is like Wal-Mart when it comes to military contracts. The have full control of the contracts because the contractors know if they are able to win it, its not only alot of money, but a long production and support life for whatever it is they build until something better is needed. This is also why when something better IS needed, the 'current contractor' does what it can to modify the current build to fit the new requirements. I'm sure Boeing is LOVING that the B-52 is still in service and looking for upgrades.
They had a hard on for Bill Northrop! since 1939 he was a out side the box thinker
Finally he got the b2 ! Thank God! If this plane was up graded with modern everything engines/ avionics it would be awesome !
Had business relations with northrop folks back in the 1980’s. The F-20 was the best air superiority fighter at the time compared with all available fighters at the time. Another advantage, beyond its maneuverability was its small size. With the right paint, it was almost impossible to see it at any reasonable distance, so it could outfly and be a gnat they could see to swat. Sad what happened. It caused all kinds of layoffs at Northrop.
A pity that Northrop didn't bypass that nonsense via an under the table sale of the F-20 blueprints to Taiwan.
@@ssaraccoii Quick question: do you think there may have been shenanigans going on between the DoD and Boeing? I've seen so many videos where concepts from other firms have been nixed as the US military have gone with the other, usually Boeing, option.
dark skyes I love your videos
Good story, I remember the development of this plane. I was shocked when the Air Force chose the F-16 over F-20. Now, the F-16 has proven its worth, but it showed to me that no matter what the US asked for, it will ALWAYS go with the more expensive plane.
@joe garza What?
Tell that to the YF-23
F20 was never intended for USAF use, it was a budget plane to market to Allies like South Korea, Middle East, etc.
dimwit you should LISTEN to the narration, where certain VALID REASONS for choosing the f-16 were stated.!!!!!!!
The F-16 has been great because it has high technology and growth potential.
Sure the F-20 was designed as a multi role fighter but it just barely met that definition of the term. It had no room for growth. It was a 1950s design that had already evolved as much as it could.
The F-16 meanwhile has evolved from a vanilla day fighter to one of the best all-weather multi role fighters in the world. Even better at air to ground than the A-10 in non-permissive environments.
Love this video, such an awesome jet! Keep them coming fella's. Requesting a video on the A-10, I think everyone would love to see Dark's take on this legendary air frame.
Government: “Hey, you spend your money to develop a plane and we’ll sell it”
What possibly could go wrong?…
It is more complex than just that.
@@Juandinggong yeah, too many people were threatened by it being too effective and not expensive enough.
@@chrissinclair4442 Um, no.
It was not "too effective". The F-20 could only compete in a close-in fight if it were in a clean configuration, meaning no hardpoints carrying weapons. There's a lot to be said for actually carrying weapons in a fight, and the moment you hung anything on the -20's wings, it lost much of that maneuverability. The radar was small and insufficient even by 1980s standards--the F-16's radar completely outclassed it. The plane would have, at absolute best, been a decent export option for countries that didn't have the money to spend on more advanced planes, or the need to fly against such planes. The F-20 was no match for an F-16. For one thing, the Tigershark's only hope was that it would survive BVR...which only was a good bet against an enemy still flying F-86 Sabres, lol. The -20's radar had literally half the tracking range of the F-16A's APG-66. And again, while the F-16 can carry AIM-7s and now AIM-120s, the only way the -20 could do so was to put them on underwing hardpoints...which, as mentioned, took away much of the F-20 performance that it could not do without to have any chance. It wasn't that good. We saw 3 prototypes fly, which were not fully equipped combat ready planes.
@@jonnycomfort9271 The Gripen ,Mirage 2000 and JF-17 doesn’t seem to have that kind of problem though,And they are in the same weight class.
@@jonnycomfort9271 Nah as an ASEAN country that once has the interest to buy it would say this is all cause by invisible hand who want to fattening their pocket with money, F-20 is self funded and everyone wants it for sure for being low cost 4th gen Aircraft. But man since F-16 can give more profits than a cheapskate refurbish shit (pardon me), who didn't want to be rich right?
F-20 would have a long ass relevant development if given a chance to be exported for foreign 3rd word ally countries but mang, your congress really pushing us into buying a Mig-29N for real sake.
I remember seeing the F-20 at the Farnborough Airshow in the '80s and being super impressed by it.
You and me both!! I always wondered what happened to this aircraft as it put in a very good display showcasing it's agility. Quite a sad story really, especially as it was a purely private enterprise, I'm surprised that Northrop executives didn't get more assurances from the US government that production aircraft would be purchased to facilitate export orders.
I love the look of the Tigershark, I even bought and built a model of it.
It was one of the best looking models I've built, it had a very detailed cockpit and pilot figure as well..
I had an RC version of the tiger shark. I own and have flown a number of RC jets and the tiger shark is the only one I have ever crashed, it was a handful to fly, very fast.
I love the heck out of the F-20 and I dearly wish that some country would have taken a shine to it, even if only to see airshow footage or in a museum. Thanks for the documentary.
Closest well get is the F-5 Modern made by Brazil which can compete even with some of the newer Gen F-16s. And it’s still only the two original F-5E engines which is wild.
In Jaws:
Hooper: "That's not a great white. That's a tiger shark."
One of the guys who captured the tiger shark: "A whaaat?"
love your channel. as a guy that grew up buried in Janes fighting ships and the like. This channel is awesome.
Shin Kazama's personal favorite.
Ha! I just discovered that game a couple of years ago, the SNES version. I'd read about it in Nintendo Power magazine, but was never able to find it to rent or buy locally back then. I finally got to try it through an emulator. Cool mix of nostalgia and a little childhood wish fulfillment.
@@aries144 Actually, it's the game based on the Area 88 manga from 1979-1985. There's also a 2004 anime, but, CGI planes look shit. The manga had 3 movie-like OVAs, with incredible animation even for today's standards (jets get blown up in various ways, engines being torn apart, cannon fire ripping wings and missiles, ammo belts flying off from the damaged aircraft, etc.)
The F5-G >> F20 was an Amazing aircraft! I am proud to have worked on it.
6:11........man, after looking at the F-20 for a few minutes, once you see the F-16 pop up, it becomes very obvious how revolutionary it was. Whereas the F-20 was merely evolutionary, looking more like a modernized F-104 and barely any different than the F-5.
IMO it was a right decision to go with F-16. Much better airframe und have potential for decades.
@@MlTGLIED as much as I love the F-20, I have to agree with you there. At the time the F-20 probably was the better plane, but F-16 had a brighter future.
Not sure how it looks like a modernized F-104 and not a modernized F-5. Interestingly enough, look at where they were going with the next iterations of the F-104, the CL-1200 lancer / X-27 series of prototypes the were part of the lightweight fighter program, which ultimately resulted in the F-16.
Excellent stuff bro
"best x that never was" seems to be a running theme in the US military industrial complex
It’s a running theme among amateur aviation enthusiasts looking for an angle, who have very limited understanding of the big picture or realities of each coulda/shoulda/woulda program.
Thank you for the video report .
The “teen” series of fighters, starting with the F-14…up to and including the F-20, are the best set of fighters ever produced, in succession.
Once upon a time, or rather, since this is a "sea story", this is no shit:
Many years ago I was stationed at Naval Weapons Station China Lake.
For whatever reason, NWC was hosting an interservice air show. (As an aside, as I recall it, the pair of PA-75 COIN aircraft, aka turboprop P-51, were there, amongst others.)
At one point our flightline had at least one example of an F-4, F-14, F-15, F-16, FA-18, and F-20. And, yes, it was cool.
Alas, it does not seem to have occurred to anyone who could have made it happen to put them all up in formation for a photo.
@@johnmothershead1690 I spent four years at Edwards. Just about every day was airshow day! We sent aircraft to China Navel Air station all the time, The are like next to each other. I've been there also. We had those turbo prop p-51's at Edwards for a short period of time. We had the F-20's also. Best looking aircraft had to be the F-16 XL. It only failed to replace the F-16 because NATO and the USA has like 3,000 plus F-16s total. Most of them have interchangable parts, they are basically all the same.
@@johnmothershead1690 We used to go to China Lake frequently, including air shows, since we were just down at Edwards. The attack demos at China Lake were really cool in the 1980s. I think I took VHS video of one of them.
I'd throw in the f-15 and f-18 as well. all of these birds were just outstanding fighter aircraft!!!
@@skyfoxf1113 …Yes they’re included in my list, as I stated above…F-14 and every fighter in succession following, the F-15, F-16, F-16XL, YF-17 which became the Navy’s F-18 and lastly the F-20.
Love your videos.
This was a pretty cool and capable little jet, but it was far from the best fighter never built. That honor belongs to the F8U-3 Super Crusader. It was pitted against the F-4. In a fly-off, it did literally everything better than the Phantom...it flew faster, further, higher, turned better, at all altitudes. The Super Crusader was doomed by two conditions. First, the two-crew, two-engine plan of the Phantom provided what was believed to be an extra safety margin, especially over open water. Second, the Phantom could carry a larger A-G payload. Had there been sufficient funding for the Navy, I believe they would have taken both aircraft and kept the Phantom for mud moving missions primarily. The F8U-3 cost less and did far better in the air to air role.
Performance wise, the Super'sader looked great. But...not just A-G payload limited: it could only carry 3 Sparrows to the Phantom's four (plus Sidewinders and gas bags nonconformally..), and there was absolutely no room for any kind of development for the radar. Especially without a backseater, the F8U-3 would've been little better that a 1950s-style visual-range interceptor, despite its speed and performance, of pretty limited practical application, like a naval F-106..and I kind of suspect that the huge folding ventral fin would've been regretted while coming on board the carrier.
@@n.w.1803 First, you've left off the rest of the F8U-3's intended armament. It was to carry 3 Sparrows, 4 Sidewinders, and 4 20mm cannon...not just the 3 Sparrows you mention. Second, the F8U-3 used the same exact radar that the prototype Phantom did. To claim that there was no room for development is to ignore the obvious--the nose of the plane had plenty of room to do just that but since it was canceled after just 5 being built, there was obviously no need to try. In fact, the radar would likely have followed a similar path as it did for the F-4, as it was already in use in other planes as well.
The competition was not for an all around multi role fighter. It was for a fleet defense interceptor. The multi-role mutation of the original Phantom design does not in any way mean that the F8U-3 could not have been modified in similar fashion. It just means that McDonnell Douglas went that way initially. Let's not forget, the Navy already had ground attack planes (and more on the way in the form of the Intruder, Corsair, etc) and this competition was never intended to replace or even supplement those. The F8U-3 did literally everything better than the Phantom in the competition...it was faster, flew higher, was far more maneuverable, was planned to have gun armament that the Phantom lacked, had better range on internal fuel than the Phantom with a centerline drop tank. It also cost less than the Phantom. In mock combat, the F8U-3 flew circles around the F4H-1.
By the way, the ventral fins would have presented no problem on the deck. They folded up and completely out of the way. I suspect that an explosive bolt system could have easily been adapted to shear them off to allow safe landing in the event that they did not fold up for some reason. Remember, they were only needed for high speed flight, so it would have been no issue at all for low speed carrier landing, etc. They essentially were, in landing configuration, nothing more than a second set of horizontal tails in structure. Funny how virtually every single USN carrier aircraft has had horizontal tails and none of them had issues landing on the deck as a result, but suddenly you seem to think this would be different? I don't see it.
You need to think in other way... There are many country own many F5. If F20 was ever built, those country would be enhance their air force immediately... and cheap.
Was F8U-3m got this potential?
@@hsuwei-yen472 that's not the point and never was. Many of those nations cannot afford even the F-20 today, so that alone kills your statement. Also, the Crusader was exported to two other nations as well, even though it was never designed or built for that purpose. Crusader production was similar in number to the F-5E, so there's also that. The comment was the greatest fighter never put into production. And the truth is simply this--the F20, while a noted improvement over the 5, still suffered from many of the same issues that the 5 did to start with. Once you hang anything on its wings, it became a dog that couldn't compete. By comparison, the F8U-3 was designed to carry more weaponry, and more types of weaponry, than the Crusader....further, faster, and better.
@@jonnycomfort9271 really... that bad?
Ok
great video, keep up the good work.
The little old F-5 with modern electronics can still out fly most modern fighters, it is a beast in a dogfight. Tragedy the F-20 never went into production.
The problem is that it doesn't stand as much of a chance of surviving BVR against modern fighters. not with the missile technology we have today. During Vietnam? Sure. Our BVR missile, the Sparrow, had something like a 12% success rate. But the missile and sensor tech today is far better. Plus, with the advent of stealth technology, better planes than this one are smoked routinely in exercises before they even know where the shooter is. Even the F-16 is better optimized for high G forces for the pilot and it's not a new design.
@@jonnycomfort9271 People still think they are fighting the Korean War.
Why would you want to WW2 dogfight in the 21st century?
@@rotary7372 *Even* during WW2 dogfights were best avoided. Any high scoring ace on any side would rarely dogfight and instead utilize the most efficient method of downing enemy aircraft by surprise, speed and marksmanship. The bottom line is that the really good pilots never got to the stage a dogfight was necessary for they had already downed their enemy swiftly.
still love this plane
It was devastating to watch the F-20 crash in Goose Bay, Labrador. The whole town and base would practically stop to watch the unbelievable performance of this aircraft.
Yup. I saw it happen. We were pretty shocked when it did...
This would have been a much better investment for the Airforce and Navy aggressor squadrons.
Less overall cost and much lower maintenance costs than the F-16 .
Northrop is so underrated it's not even funny at this point.
Totally agree.
Truly underappreciated visionaries
@@TheJJluv123 yes.
I always preferred Northrop's offerings over those from Lockheed Martin
@@SpecJack15 yeah. Like the YF-23.
Beautiful 💎
I was at an air show a year after the F20 program was cancelled and talked to a Northrop F20 test pilot. He said that the F20 outperformed the F16 in most categories. Then he told me one of the main reason the F20 was not selected that while the F20 was better there was not a high enough difference between them to justify shutting down an existing production line and tool up a new one for the F20.
It's also that tech creep meant that acceptable parameters for newer aircraft meant that the plane needs to get larger to fit in all the required items (please remember that fuel itself is also a "required item"). The F-5 were essentially point defence interceptors that could not "reach out and touch someone" due to the lack of space in the airframe for fuel and the small nose meant that larger radars could not be fitted. It's not only production costs, what people demand of their aircraft also increased. The F-16 IMO barely scraped in. The F-5/F-20 lineage fell below the bar when demands went up.
I always liked the F5/F20 from an aesthetically pleasing jet. I did have one interaction with an F20. In 1984 while serving in Korea as a CH-47 Pilot, I was tasked to fly up to Suwon and pick up and carry what was left of the F20 externally as a sling load back to Osan Airbase. When I arrived at Suwon, the jet had crashed inverted on Suwon Airbase. The preliminary word was that it stalled during inverted flight. The nose was broken off just in front of the cockpit. The tail was severed just aft of the wing. Otherwise it was mostly intact. It didn’t ride well as a sling load as I was only able to get about 35 to 40 knots of airspeed with it. Fortunately, it was a relatively short flight back to Osan. It was such a disappointment to see that program cancelled but I’ll always remember my interaction with the F-20 Tigershark.
Sweden's Grippen seems to have continued the learning from this program.In fact I can't help but think that the Swedes approach to software design as well as 'cost effective AND attack effective' plane design is an effective model that deserves to be better appreciated in today's 'more complex' fighter design efforts from other military blocs.
All reasons why I want my country, Canada, to adopt the fighter into our fleet.
It's a great plane; and for a country without tons of money, it would be a great replacement with lots of versatility and low maintenance costs.
@@ShadowMKII It has less range than the alternatives.
Considering that the Brazilians are paying 150 million per Gripen I don't see the "cost effective" part.
Seems to me that the Gripen picks up where the F-20 left off. It's basically the F-20-sized airplane (and engine) that relevant nations should want, but with enough lift area to carry useful payload, and enough space for modern avionics and growth potential (witness the Gripen NE). The F-20 was a beautiful jet, no doubt, but obsolete before it could be produced; the end-progression of an outdated airframe.
It would've made a fine point-defence interceptor, but the very concept of such was already reaching uselessness. The F-15, and even the Viper and F/A-18, were already in the 1970s showing that a relatively small jet could handle a capable multimode radar and multiple BVR missiles. Combined with then-new aerial surveillance, the whole idea of individual interceptors scrambling on short notice to get individual targets at short range was just no longer cost-effective. Jets in general had become too expensive to put airbases and interceptors everywhere important. In other words, such a mission would have been futile.
I like to say that the F-20 lost out, because it offered about 60% of the F-16's ability, at 85% of the cost (more if only limited production).
I wonder if the F-20 could be built and offered as a multirole light fighter today, competing with the JAS-39 Gripen, FC1, Texas? Of course with new technology, fly by wire system, aesa radar, etc? Can be possible?
I wish!
My father worked on the F-20 project. He went on to the B2 Stealth program after. He spent a lot of years out at Edward's
Mine too! I bet our dads knew each other.
@@jfdillard my father was flight test electrical engineer, Russell Gordon.
Did yours work on the F18 also?
In the 1980's, put a plane in a TV commercial with Gen. Chuck Yeager and that plane was going to become a grassroots rock star. We had heroes back then.
I had just started at Northop in oct of 86, it was a dark day at Northrop for sure. They gave us a shot at the ATF, we built the YF-23 & got jipped out of that contest having a faster, stealthier, and just better looking plane.
Rumor at Edwards was GD wouldn't allow F-16's to fly when the F-20 was up for fear a mock dogfight would show the F-20 to be better. IDK that was the rumor.
Great video.
I always liked the F5 and F20. They were sleek and simply beautiful. They had great performance for a low cost fighter.
Also one of the quickest to take off and quickest to work on due to how it was builtx
The sales ad for the F-20 is phenomenal!
Time to play some oldschool UN Squadron...
My aviation mentor and friend is a retired USAF Colonel. He flew combat missions in the F4 in Vietnam, and eventually flew the SR-71. I asked him over lunch what the greatest fighter he ever flew was. I was shocked to hear his answer: hands down, the F-20. He was an evaluation pilot for the F-20 program.
My grandfather was an engineer for Northrop, and I have several boxes of F-20 marketing material, including wood desktop models and various posters, pamphlets, etc.
Would've been interesting to follow the development path of this. Would we have a quasi-4.5-gen plane today in something similar to an F-16 Block 70/72 Viper variant?
No, because the F-20 was the end of the T-38/F-5 line and the F-16 was the beginning of a new era back then.
F-16, for example, is way better than F-20 canopy wise.
That seems like what’s going to happen with the USAF announcing they’ll replace the F-16…with more F-16s
Nope. F-20 was killing its pilots re: high G loads back then. You would need a complete redesign to try to fix that--you cannot just slap a 30 degree seat in and call it good.. Plus, the F-16's engines have developed a significant increase in power, while the F-20's engine has been in use by no less than 16 different aircraft platforms worldwide and yet still never got those increases. An F-16 from 1988 had more thrust in mil power than an F-20 did in full burner, and since the F404's performance is the same today as it was in the early 80s, that stat would be the same today.
F-20 would have been an attractive low cost jet to the right customer, but think F-104. High G performance would not do well in most of those possible countries' hands. Low cost generally means everything is low cost--including the training, limiting the hours of flying for those pilots, etc.
But the USAF's plans turned the F-16 into the best multi role jet of its era. The F-20 carried half as many weapons, half as far, and without the room for upgrading. Some things I'm sure could have been improved but it was always designed to do less. That's the whole trade-off of low-cost alternatives.
F-5G was a 3.5 Gen point defense fighter at best, with limited growth potential and already weak capabilities in all the critical areas...range, Radar, payload, ground clearance for weapons, etc.
Hi, I worked at Teledyne/Ryan Aircraft in the early 80's on many aircraft mock-ups / tooling reference models. One was the F-5G, later the F20 Tiger Shark and worked on the master model setting templates, later fairing tooling plaster in-between templates making the aft fuselage for the F-20/F-5G. The work was very precise..
Definitely love this plane in Ace Combat Zero, I still remember the Belkan Aces using F-20
Those were the games!!! Especially AC5 and AC0. 👍
TH-cam now runs commercials every 30 seconds...
The F20 and the Avro Arrow were two huge lost opportunities
The Avro Arrow was obsolete before it even flew. Turn-key interceptors like the CF-101 we’re available faster and we’re more effective (they could take automatic control from NORAD SAGE computers rather than painfully slow and inaccurate voice GCI) plus cheaper.
It was good that we dumped expensive money pits and concentrated on civilian aircraft that made money. The biggest lost opportunity in Canadian aviation was actually the C-Series (A220).
I’m 70 years old, and It’s still so upsetting to realize all the potential income and military advancements lost to the incompetence of a politician and party infighting and back stabbing that is still crippling our country. It is what it is, c’est la vie.
Kenny, I am also 70 and I was working at Northrop on the F-18, the F-5 and the F-20 aircraft in the 80's. All outstanding aircraft. Yes, I have a bias. Northrop has some very talented engineers. And, yes , the Pentagon has their head up their ass.
Nice looking jet. Innovative avionics. Impressive performance
Severely range and maneuverability limited when carrying external ordinance.
Even the NATO countries weren’t really interested in it as an F-16 didn’t cost all that much more and had better performance. Also more countries flew the F-16 so there was the interoperability consideration with other air forces.
The government asked for the aircraft to be built (at company expense) to replace old junk like Hawker Hunters, F-84's, F-100's, MiG-17's and Mystere's. It wasn't meant as a competitor for the F-16 (that was our F-17). The administration wanted an inexpensive fighter (primarily a point-defense fighter) that had som light attack capability. Also, the U.S. Navy and Air Force needed some new aggressor aircraft that could simulate MiG-21's, etc. Northrop produced exactly what the government asked for. The U.S. didn't want every little pip-squeak nation to have something as sophisticated as an F-16. The F-20 was designed to be "better than what they had" but NOT competitive with U.S. frontline aircraft. Many allies wanted the F-20, and the Navy was ready to buy. Then, General Dynamics panicked, fearing they might loose a few dollars in sales. They had refused to produce the plane the fed's asked for but didn't want anybody else to have the business. So GD suddenly "discovered" that F-16's could be produced for almost nothing and offered the F-16N to the Navy to kill off the F-20, which it did. Then the F-16N's started falling apart and had to be scrapped while the Navy continued to fly "pre-historic" F-5's.
Excellent
I got to see one of these fly at the El Toro air show! It was amazing! I’d never seen a plane “slide” like that. It was supposed to be the export fighter. Everyone wanted the F-16? Ok.
I was there, too! At El Toro and seeing it "slide" as it banked and climbed from right to left above the runaway! I never seen a fighter "slide" like that, too. But from what I understand most fighters can "slide" too by pilot input! F-105's did the same thing Vietnam when they came off targets to throw gunner's aim!
One of the most beautiful planes ever thought up. God it's gorgeous.
Idk why but ive always loved these and the f5e. they look incredible easily my favorite jet behind the f22.
Northrop drew inspiration and even some participation from members of John Boyd's "light weight fighter mafia" who were disappointed in the weight growth, bulk, costs, etc, of the F-16s entering production.
Excellent take on the T-38/F-5/F20 airframe! I would like to see your take on the evolution of the Minuteman ICBM but that's probably a Dark Space thing, what ya think?
Wasn’t the X-29 based on a F-20 as well?
@@aaroncarr5725 No, the X-29s were actually built using the forward fuselage of two F-5A's and some components of F-16s. They were built by Grumman.
Great video as always.
I’ve always wondered about that aircraft! I’ve been a wing nut since I was a kid! Ty
Thanks
Nice to see you here sir.
Phil Air Force got the luck to try it out from the evaluation flights but... As the thing again, it never went into production and only a handful of lucky PHAF pilots tasted this beauty. Even got a cute PHAF insignia at the intakes, both sides.
Wait-hold on, some of our Filipino pilots got their hands on testing the jet out?! The more I know, the more ironic it becomes sadly...
*Thanks Reagan.* We could've had at least some tigersharks by now if it wasn't for his decision.
Glad it didn't happen if one knows why the other two crashed , your better off never getting F-20's. F-16s were a lot safer , and could do so much more. More fuel load,and more weapons load.
@@troyb.4101 Yeah good point; but it (F-20) was cheaper & can do the same thing as the f-16 (sans external and fuel loads).
And Philippines can't afford even a handful with their budget at the time. Plus the G-LOC would've been rectified with some training (& g-suits)
@@jehoiakimelidoronila5450 How wrong you are, is the F-20 as stealthy as the F-16? can it take off with the same loads as the F-16S. You add fuel takes and you just reduced the payload it could have carried. No it can not do what an F-16 can do. not even close.
@@troyb.4101 Hey it's not as stealthy as the f-16. AND F-16s @ that time aren't even stealthy to begin with! Certainly not even today. But F-20's? It's *cheaper.* The name of the game is affordability. And that's the whole point they're endorsing it to other countries who couldn't afford, let's say, *f-16s.*
Fascinating history on this F-5 to F-20 evolution.
Not as fascinating as the F5 to hornet to super hornet evolution
The Swedish JAS39 has a lineage to this one, it was a contender for the replacement of the SAAB 35 and was very well studied, the result was the SAAB 39 GRIPEN.
Also , the Gripen tail is very similar to the f-20's tail . Sweden provided the vertical stabilizer for the f-5 aircraft
sweden has an air force? - in case heidi comes for her dishes back?
@@recoswell Heidi how. Are referring to the little Swiss girl who lived in the Alps, she is not from SWEDEN, she is from SWITZERLAND, You know those with high pointy mountains, the cheese and the chocolate? Sweden are the country with the midnight sun, pretty girls and a lot of water, and a f.cking awesome aerospace industry. The Swiss was to eventually buy some JAS, but it was overruled in a referendum. Their loss!
My dad was working for Northrup in Hawthorne in the late 70's and often flying people on the side, usually to Catalina island and that this plane sat on the west end of the Hawthorne runway for years. My name is Bicycle Bob and I approved this message.
When Australia was looking for a replacement fighter for its Mirage IIIs, the F-20 Tigershark was one of those on the early list. After a great deal of delay, wrangling and general angst, we went with the F/A-18 - which has certainly served us well. But there were people who thought we would do much better to go with the F-20 Tigershark and develop it as a purely home-built fighter, with the possibility for export elsewhere.
I think one big reason we didn't go that path was because of the then-recent development problems the RAAF had with the F-111. That turned out to be a superb aircraft, but the years of problems beforehand were extremely embarrassing for the Australian government, and so they clearly went with a 'safe' option.
One of those 'What If' things, I daresay.
I would hazard a guess that another reason the F-20 was scratched was, as they also said about the F-16, was that it had "one too few engines". In other words, at a time when Mirage III's were literally falling out of the skies due to engine failures, having a twin engine aircraft became the preferred option. The F-15 was rejected, officially due to its cost as the most expensive aircraft on the list (Unofficially due to "force-projection" concerns alongside the F-111), the Tornado was rejected because it wasn't really a fighter, the F-14 was the second most expensive & we'd be lumped with Iran as the only export customers, the Viggen because it was just too weird for us at the time, & anything else only had a single engine.
Looks like an F5 with a 1 big engine
Pretty much that was the idea.
@@WALTERBROADDUS i see
The F-5, despite never getting an order from the USAF, was hugely successful in export markets.
Literally is
That "big" engine is the same one the f-18a-d had 2 of. That should give you an idea how small the f-20 was.
I had an airfix model of this plane as a kid, I still think it's one of the best looking jets ever.
When northrop pitched this jet to India they gave iaf a customised scale model of f 20 signed by the lead designer , when i visited the iaf headquarters on official visit they gave me the model as a souvenir it's really cool
Luckily, the idea of a low-cost fighter that could be exported to allies eventually came to fruition with the F-16, an impressive machine in its own right.
Sustainment costs on the F-16 are WAY higher than they would've been on the F-20.
F-16 is an excellent plane but would have likely lost in a dogfight to the F-20. Not to mention lifetime costs. BUT the F-16 had better range and a bunch of congressman waiting to ****** ***** ****, so it had its own advantages. F-16 is a great plane in its own right, but it's hard to not think what might have been.
Man, can anyone my age (42) imagine being a 9 year old now, just this channel alone, if you were into planes, as a kid you could literally learn in a days videos what would have taken a library of reading in the early 90's.
I hope the future plane designers are here as kids and soaking all this up.
As a plane nut from the same era, I'm happier that I didn't have the resources that 9 year olds have. Even if this video were reliable, you'd probably have to swim through a sea of clickbait to find it. It was precisely because information was so hard to come by that it was so prized.
F20 and F16 had a similar cost? NOT!
The F-20 still lives on. The Swedish put delta wings on it and the Gripen was born. Another beautiful plan.
When your own air force won't buy the F-20, how do you expect foreign countries to buy it? The old adage in selling is "You gotta eat your own dog food first!"
Didn't stop the F-5A Freedom Fighter, F-5E Tiger 2 or F-104 Starfighter from selling huge numbers to foreign customers. All 3 of which the US only bought enough for testing/evaluation and not as mainline combat aircraft.
@@Ushio01 - Exactly! Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me. Those countries learned wouldn't you say?
@@NeutronRob The F-104 did fine as long as it was used for what it was designed for high altitude intercepts which is what the Japanese did with a very low accident rate.
The German's problem is they tried to use it as a high speed, very low altitude tactical bomber which is what killed lots of pilots.
The Italian's also had a very low accident rate with the F-104 as they also used it as an interceptor and not a strike aircraft.
The Canadian's were fine with the F-104 it had less accidents in double the service life compared to the F-86 Sabre in Canadian service and only had issues in low altitude strike training not high altitude intercept training.
The F-5E Tiger 2 is still in service in first world militaries because it's a good aircraft and no country that bought it had problems.
@@Ushio01 - And many of those foreign military recipients of those aircraft purchased them because they were a part of military assistance packages the U.S. Govt provided them. We considered those military assistance packages foreign aid loans. West Germany and Italy were NATO and the U.S. was the primary financial contributor to that organization. Even though they may have had domestic aircraft industries, they were hooked into buying certain aircraft from our defense companies. By the time the F-20 came around things had evidently changed. They probably saw that it was a souped up variant of the F-5 and said no thanks. As you can now see, the Europe is less dependent on American defense industries over the last 40 years.
@@Ushio01 Not so with the F-104. While the USAF didn't purchase thousands or use it as their mainstay aircraft, more than 270 -A through -D models were built and supplied to the USAF. Its service life was short and they were relegated to the ANG after just a few years, for use as defense interceptor aircraft.
The best Fighter Jet Never Build was actually the Canadian Arrow (Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow). It was a modern delta winged aircraft that had incredible performance specifications. It was too much a threat to the economics of the US aerospace industry and hence cancelled.
Huh? Arrow was slower than airplanes that had alrweady been developed. It was actually one of the latter delta-winged designs, arriving after the Avro-Vulcan. B-58, Mirage III, F-102, F-105 and MiG-21. The first Phantoms flew about 2 months after the Arrow, and proved to be much faster, had better range, carried longer-ranged missiles, could handle a wider array of missions and was cheaper. Arrow was cancelled because Canada couldn't afford it. They couldn't afford Phantom or a license-built F-105 either/
"Political environment in the late 70's and early 80's" and he shows footage of Kennedy :D
Par for the course…
Because the original plan started under Kennedy under the F5.
Duh, because Jack Kennedy faked his death, son! He lives at Area 51, knows location of Amelia Earhart, runs the Illuminati, has Jimmy Hoffa's skull on his desk, and heads the program that puts chemtrails in the atmosphere from commercial airlines.
He also talks about the F-20 crashes while showing footage of X-15 crashes. You'll get used to it...
Ah most of the video's are slightly off, but do present far better info than any History channel type of analysis.
It seems the thing was perfect for fighting MiG- 19's and 21's and maybe even MiG-23's cheap being the best description
I remember reading Chuck Yeager’s autobiography. He said it was the best plane he ever flew.
I'm sure that had something to do with the money he received
I always wanted to know about this plane, thanks for a wonderful, historical production.
I would swear that some of the footage was a hornet with 2 rear stabilizers.
So as I recall from my model building days the f-18 evolved from this aircraft because they wanted something that's much easier maintenance wise than the f-14 was in the fa 18 is a lot more simplified in its maintenance so there is some direct lineage between this the t38 and the fa 18 and I gleaned all this from the model kits in the boxes and books I had at the time
It's a shame the bureaucrats killed it.
The modern incarnation of this fighter can be clearly seen in the Saab JAS 39 Gripen
Those SAABs were greating looking aircraft!
The 70s and 60s had so many sexy planes. They were so advanced that the pilots couldn’t handle the g-forces.
A shame, really. This was an outstanding aircraft on a proven airframe. The nations that ultimately went with the F-16 sure must have received some sweetheart deals from GD given how much better the F-20 seemed to be in several circumstances. For that matter, this could still be a solid export fighter even today.
Shame? F-16 proved itself as the most capable, versatile, reliable, maneuverable and economically viable fighter of all times. F-16 is so good that all the air forces are planning to use it for another 30 years.
Tigersharks only advantage over F-16 was it's high speed performance due to its small and unmaneuverable wings.
@@bastadimasta The F20 wasn't given the same opportunity as the F16, not to mention the fact that the 16 was built as a USAF front line fighter. The F20 was designed from the start for export. That's a huge difference. Did you even watch the video? Apparently not. Go back and watch it again, perhaps more slowly this time.
Only advantage was speed? Uh, no. Better thrust to weight ratio, better angle of attack, and HALF the price with similar or better performance in direct comparison. It's all stated quite clearly if you pay attention.
@@Ghostrider0067 what is a better angle of attack is good for in case for F-5?
@@bastadimasta I'm not going to explain aeronautics to you and what having a high AoA means or how it's beneficial.
@@Ghostrider0067 F-5 having 5 degrees higher AoA is not an advantage over F-16. F-16 can outturn, outmaneuver, outperform F-5 in any case because of its superior wings, aeordynamics and structural strength. High AoA is nothing useful by itself.
The same is true for thrust-to-weight ratio. The slight advantage (0.45%) of F-20 in in that category cannot give the aircraft a better rate of climb because of its tiny wings.
In every case F-16 is a better aircraft.