The F-5G / F-20 Tigershark; Northrop’s Bane
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 24 ส.ค. 2024
- CORRECTION: The F-5A/B were not 'Tigers'. they were 'Freedom Fighters'. The F-5C, used by the USAF in Vietnam, was the 'Skoshi Tiger', which led on to the F-5E being called the 'Tiger II'. My bad.
Still a controversial fighter, the Northrop F-20 had it all - on paper at least.
An extremely capable aircraft, built to a US government specification, it could have been a one of the world's primary fighter aircraft even today.
But the vagaries of government policy and various machinations means that the F-20 never made it - making it possibly the biggest "what-if?" fighter in history.
If you like this content please consider supporting me at Patreon:
/ ednash
Want another way to help support this channel? Maybe consider buying my book on my time fighting ISIS:
amzn.to/3preYyO
Interested in military affairs/history?
militarymatters...
My father was a Computer Analyst Specialist for the Northrop on the F-20 project in Hawthorn, Ca.. He helped to create the fly by wire and routing the avionics for it. I remember being about 13 or 14 and seeing them sitting outside of a hanger getting preflight checks before they taxied and took off. To this day one of the coolest things I had ever seen.
You're a lucky man
We must be about the same age. I have the same memory with my dad who worked there at Hawthorne as well. We saw them fly out in Palmdale. I think that’s where you must have seen them as well. I don’t think the Hawthorne facility was directly connected to any runways.
So sick dude
You must be very proud of your father.
FBW was new back then, and they surprisingly got a lot right considering how hard it is.
The funny thing is, several of the nations that got the F-5 never got F-16's and really could have used the F-20s.
Exactly. That's what I thought. Malaysia never thought it was alright to later buy Russian, read Mig29s. Their pilots and engineers disliked the smokey engines and heavy maintenance required. They were also not entirely happy with subsequent F18 and SU30 buys as these were expensive buys. The F20s would have been heavensent to cash strapped air forces.
@@m.salleh5919 Well, they could buy those South Korean jet trainers like Philippines did
@@fulcrum2168
To my mind, the Korean FA50s are just supersonic LIFT fighter- trainers. That makes the Pak JF17 a bit better than them
As a good example, Canada went from F-5a’s to F-18s
@@DrSmallarms I was thinking more along the lines of Mexico, Philippines, and a few others.
I worked on this very program for a year, until just before it was canceled. Very well done video. An interesting sidebar you didn't mention was the B-2 was in the design process at the same time. Engineers, like myself, were hired into the F-20 program, like a holding pen. We were vetted while working working on the F20, and those that passed muster were moved over to the B2. I didn't make it; I had changed address too many times. That shows the level of secrecy on the B2 program.
I thought about mentioning B2, but the video ran too long as it was.
Did you work in the PDC or the Tech Center? Your name is vaguely familiar.
The criteria they use for determining security clearances are so random and arbitrary.
Ain’t that the truth. You have too much debt so we’re pulling your clearance until it’s resolved. No clearance means no work so you accrue more debt. I see a red flag with someone having a lot of debt and suddenly paying it all off. Pull their clearance until it’s investigated.
@@MrWasurfer86 If you have debt, it could be assumed that you would be more willing to do things for money than those without debt...like sell design plans to the Russians etc.
Still probably the most 'correct' looking fighter ever built.
It just _looks_ right.
Bad visibility to the rear is the only drawback. The Tigershark's problem was that the Viper did everything better.
@@svenschwingel8632 And at at lot more cost.
@@TurboMountTV which nobody in the government cared about since the taxpayer had to pay it anyway 🤷🏼♂️
came here to say the same thing just a good looking plane not that the teen planes didn't look good but the F5/20 just looks right.
It looks like it's doing 1,000,000 mph, even when stopped.
If looks could kill.
I’m a big F-5 fan and the F-20 Tigershark looked so cool.Shame it never went into full production.
Blame congress. They paid countries to buy F-16's - so they were getting them cheaper than they could have bought the F-20
Love the Northrop designs. The Cobra was its ultimate evolution.
It’s a very popular model. Ask anyone at a hobby shop.
The F-20 spirit lives on in the Grippen.
@@blingbling574 FA-50 (mini-F-16) and T-7 (mini-F-18) also has GE-404 engines.
Northrop Grumman is literally the what if brand. I'm shocked they accepted the B2 spirit, The YF23 was an epic piece of kit.
It was a better aircraft than the F-22 in so many ways. Ironic that the USAF wants rid of the F-22.
@@davidrussell8783 Maybe the YF23 should have been developed into a F24 for the Navy the way the YF17 was developed into the F18.
@@psychohist I don't know that either could be suitable by design for carrier duty. And the F-35 "joint" stealth fighter was coming anyway. But the F-23 may not yet be dead. Rumor is that Northrop Grumman has been given a green light to continue its development with the Japanese ASDF.
Yes, but it proved to be too radical, and I think the flyaway cost, along with the cost of maintaining the aircraft throughout its projected lifetime meant that it lost to the YF-22 in the ATF competition. Also, in regards to maximum speed, the YF-22 demonstrated a higher speed of Mach-2.0, while the YF-23's max speed was Mach-1.80
@@psychohist It was Navy that casted vote for F-22 - even though formally withdrawn at the time from ATF programme, it felt F-22 will be easier to navalize. Also everything boils down to fact, that Lockheed Martin asked brass "ok, here are reqs....now what do you REALLY want" - and they responded "Super F-15". LM had more aggresive test flight schedule, was felt as less risky design overall and in retrospective.... while all YF-23 issues could have been worked out, eventually (more stealthy canopy, lack of contrails on wingtips ) it would still make sense only with GE engines; F-22 still has no competitor and carries more missiles than YF-23 could.
I was with the AGRESSORS (crewchief) at Nellis AFB from 1980-83. We actually received literature and brochures on the F20. It was to be the new plane for the squadron. (57AGS / 64th AMU).
When I see photos of #57 w/ Michael Christiansen ( my trainer out of FTD) stenciled on the canopy I trip down memory lane. I also had an unbeknownst appearance in the movie RED FLAG. After launching out an aircraft one of the film crew walked up to me and told me my launch was going to be in the movie. (They had been filming launches from the THUNDERBIRDS' hangar.)
Hadn't thought about those days in a very long time........
I missed you by a few years…Assigned Nellis T/A 86-89. Originally inbound to A-10 phase dock.
Trivia: Born in USA, chief designer of N-156 (T-38/F-5) was Velko Gasic of Yugoslav origin (father from what is now state of Bosnia&Herzegovina). He worked on F-5 development up to F-20, also on YF-17 and Senior Ice (Northrop B-2 Spirit).
Watched the F-20 go down in May of 1985 Goose Bay, Labrador. The whole community was in disbelief and shock. But what an jet it was...we were all left in awe of its performance...seriously, the base would practically stop and watch this amazing aircraft tear up the skies.
If Soviets copied the F-20 it would've been called Mig 28
I would like to see a tigershark with a mig-28 paint job
Fighters were all odd numbers, bombers even numbers, even for a movie, this was well known in in 80s for people into military aviation, and just makes the scene in top gun kind of ridiculous.
EDIT: I’m talking about Soviet/Russian aircraft, which is why the MiG-28 designation does not make sense.
They did copy it and called it the JF-17
They did flight test the F5's captured in Vietnam.
Are you REALLY a Sith lord?
Be honest
The F-5 / F-20 platform is still the sexiest fighter jet in my books. F-15 a close second. Based on looks alone and not performance.
Love the sleek lines on the intakes. Reminds me of a classic muscle car.
Performance in the Tigershark version isn't shabby. I imagine if stealth technology was applied, it could hold its own today. It's already small and fast.
@@georgesakellaropoulos8162 I’ve made my own design which still isn’t super stealthy but would be more than a viable light strike aircraft. Shorter from nose length being shorter but bigger wings somewhat. But with the F-22 engine inside it’s uh, a beast?
Another great show Ed. Always thought the F5 was a pugnacious little fighter . Looks like Northrop got kicked in the nuts to the tune of $1billion + ! Ouch ! Thanks Ed.
And they went back and did it again with the F-23, and it happened again.
That's why they protected themselves on the B-2! #NeverAgain!
Northrop got even building the B2 at 2 billion a pop..
@@dalestephan6777 Since fewer than 75 were built, Northrop-Grumman was awarded 1.5 billion dollars for their tooling. They spend about 34 billion on research and tooling, and each plan cost about 600 million to build, roughly the same as the Boeing 747, but the research and tooling cost had to be spread over only 21 aircraft. That is why it was so expensive. The same research and tooling was designed for building the 134 aircraft that the Air Force said they wanted.
Lockheed attempted to buy NorthropGrumman, but was prevented by DoD, for anti-trust reasons. No other companies had as good a handle on Stealth, even today.
Small correction, the F-5A and F-5B were named Freedom Fighter.
The Tiger was in fact the F-11.
The F-5E was named after the squadron that flew F-5A’s in Vietnam “Skoshi Tigers”, since Tiger was already used the next number in the line was “II” hence “Tiger II”
Indeed. My bad
@@EdNashsMilitaryMatters Still a very good video, featuring one of my favorite aircraft. Thank you
@@raz562 Germany, Canada and Japan did have an interest in the F11-1F Super Tiger but Lockheed happened.
The F-5 then evolved into the Cobra then Cobra become the Hornet. Northrop's designs are a beauty.
@@Joshua_N-A Hornet has further two derivatives with F/A-18E Super Hornet and T-7 Red Hawk.
Easy to maintain and cheap is not what the Pentagon wants. Always loved this beautiful plane.
Fighter Mafia
I saw Northrop's test pilot Darrell Cornell fly the F20 at Farnborough in 1984. It was truly spectacular and was awarded "Best Display in Show" by SBAC. Tragically Cornell died one month later whilst demonstrating the F20 to the Korean Airforce, G-LOC being judged to be the cause.
Interesting comment that brought back a memory. I was in Korea when Mr. Cornell perished in the F-20 at Suwon Airbase, a Korean base. The crash occurred just a few hundred yards west of the runway. I know it crashed inverted and I believe the video segment showing the F-20 descending inverted with virtually no airspeed was the Suwon accident. I was serving in the Army as a CH-47 instructor and was assigned to relocate the remains of the jet consisting of fuselage aft of the cockpit, wings, and fuselage aft the wings but forward of the tail. It was amazingly pretty much intact. I picked it up on slings and drogue externally with the Chinook and flew it to Osan Airbase at airspeeds between 30-40 knots. It was not a stable load in it’s inverted condition. I sat it down in one of the keyhole parking areas and returned to Camp Humphreys, Korea. The reason it was relocated to Osan, a USAF base, is so that it could be disassembled and loaded out on a C-5 or C-141 cargo plane for return to Northrop.
Great comment. 👌
It must have been awfully sad to know that something bad had happened to pilot Cornel.
Respect for your jobs, gents.
At least Shin was able to put it to good use in Area 88 :)
Yep, indeed he was. Still my favorite anime to this day...
@@Tigershark_3082 but he shot down 20 mig-21s in his F-8 Crusader in one dogfight that was insane
@@alexmcaruthur6966 Indeed. Then again, most of those Mig-21 pilots were inexperienced
Is this a un squadron reference?
@@Rick1984FL ye
When I worked for Northrop in in the 1980s I had an opportunity to fly from Hawthorne to Edwards AFB in a small, twin engine company plane. My pilot was Darrell Cornell, Northrop's chief F-20 test pilot. Less than 6 months later he was killed in the Korea crash.
When the YF-23 was rejected in favor of the YF-22, can't blame Northrop for thinking the government had an axe to grind against them.
Well, after the cost-overruns that plagued the B-2 program, perhaps they do.
The B2 expense was pure retribution, for the gutfuck Northrop was handed during the development of the F20.
The YF-23 was basically a vaporware offering with almost all key technologies not included on the prototype as it didn't yet exist.
The Airforce would have been stupid to pick it
NG is building the B-21 for God-only-knows how much money, so I'd say their relations with the gov't are OK!
From the perspective of maintenance, it was great working on something that was made to be worked on. You didn't need platforms for every other chore and the engine swapped out fairly fast. It was the plane I wanted to bring home from work, it was just neat.
I felt really sorry for Northrop at the time and I think that in more than one aspect the JAS-39 C/D/E/F Gripen and Korean T/F-50 Golden Eagle show, what potential that truly lightweight fighter had. Let's comfort ourselves with the thought that the Swedes and South Koreans took its concept a few steps further and that the F-5/F-20 heritage lives on in a way in these designs.
I agree in some ways, I've always been an F-5 fanboi. That said, I think that platform had basically reached the end of it's life, which is why all of the planes carrying on it's legacy are based on new platforms.
Same thing happened with the JF-17, it started off as the ultimate MiG 21 but eventually became an entirely new aircraft.
The F-17 Cobra represents Northrop's more focused attempt at building a proper successor, but the requirements resulted in a bigger plane than the F-5 series. In theory Northrop could have developed a smaller, lighter, single-engine Cobra, but that's not where the money was to be made so they filled that job with a hot-rodded F-5.
Since I like light fighters I might sketch up a lighter, single engine Cobra.
F20's legacy today lives on in the shape of Jf17 thunders. actually it really is a modernized F20, its the same design essentially with little tweaks here n there to as part of its modernization.
@@Blackbirdz2000 I still like my new design better. As there’s no way this aircraft was near its potential. At least not now, with the tech we have now we could make the F-5 a viable option for 4.5 Gen replacements. Maybe even 5th Gen if you can make it stealthy. My design wasn’t but already would be a better option than the current version of the F-16
The F/A-18 is also a distant relative of the F-5 family.
@@fjeezy1305 True. But not as light as the other single engine ones. Still you can tell the relation by the Hornet's long nose with the gun mounted in front of the cockpit.
As a lifetime military aircraft geek, I just discovered Ed Nash's channel yesterday. I have to say that this is absolutely fabulous! You won't consistently find this type of content anywhere else. Well done, Mr. Nash!
yeah, his channel is a little goldmine.
“If it doesn’t cost 6 trillion dollars....it’s not a real fighter jet.” - Lockheed Martin
stupid comment is stupid
@@davidrice4165 You have to ignore stupidity, and ignorance.
Exactly!!
Another current Lockheed motto: "Promise the moon, and deliver a half-assed product 10 years late".
“Well, with a name like Tiger Shark it’d better be good!!”
Northrop Grumman should make a new carrier capable fighter and call it King Shark.
F-20, "Nice kitty."
Tiger Sharks live and thrive underwater ... so, maybe not the best name ... 😂
Many thanks to you for doing this great video. As a Taiwanese, I have mixed feelings about whole story. To against China's air force, we produced and operated 300+ F-5E/Fs since 1970s and still keep around 40+ of them as a lead-in fighter trainer role. You can image how we rely on these wonderful tiny fighters. F-5G or F-X program gave us a opportunity to keep air superiority but politics killed it and depressed us for a very long time.
So we have to try another route, IDF program came up with tone of limitation by politics (again). Some of F-5G/F-20 technologies merged into IDF program and it succeed in the end, we got the fast scrambling capability, high reliability, availability, maintainability fighter (better than F-16 block 20 and Mirage 2000-5 in our air force).
We appreciate everything happened as time went on, no matter good or bad things. Thank Northrop for creating this great fighter.
F5系列我也有捐贈出我自己的零用錢，我真的很愛F5從A到G！❤❤❤
Pretty sure every single one of my military aviation nerd friends is in love with the Tigershark, and so am I.. Wish it became a proper service aircraft back then and a DCS module now..
Shocked it hasn’t considered all the other mods that are out. And they easily can use the F-5E base model as a good place to start.
There have been WIP mods for the Tigershark that have popped up, but none succeeded. Oddly like the Tigershark
Poor Carter. Couldn’t come up with a good decision if his life depended on it.
He will shine after we see four years of biden
To be fair to Carter, he deregulated a fair number of things, including the airline, rail, and beer industries. I don't think Biden remembers what that word means.
Carter's problem is he was just a nice guy. President Mr Rogers.
@@springbloom5940 He's a racist POS
This thread is a circle jerk of nonsense.
When the program finally matured enough to overcome its humble roots the, F-20's time had passed.
I remember Chuck Yeager doing demos for the TigerShark
Sad that the F-20 program ended the way it did, but I think we can take comfort in the fact that the F-5 lineage lives on to this day in the F/A-18.
True....and yet the Legacy Hornet itself was vastly inferior to the F-16.
( I say Legacy Hornet because the Super Hornet is a similar looking but mostly unrelated development. A different bird.)
I was 15 years old in 1989 when I was reading a Jane's Military vehicle book, when I came across this beauty. Ever since I have loved the look and capabilities of this little fighter, too bad it did not get to shine as the others. I wonder what it would be like now if we kept up with updating it and finally mass produced for sale.
Strange idea here we are looking for a new close air support aircraft we also retiring our trainer which is basically at F5 as a trainer
It wouldn't have sold. People are nostalgic about this aircraft and for good reasons, it was a solid workhorse but there were some limitations. It was too light. But light is good right? Faster and more agile? Not really. Equipment was also getting heavier and when it comes to percentages, a heavier fighter has an advantage. Why? Because an increase in the same weight is a smaller percentage increase of a heavier fighter, so the F-5 lost out when it comes to new equipment. Engines were getting bigger and more powerful too so ironically a heavier fighter could and often did match the performance of the F-5 with the ability to carry more as a bonus.
In the end, what killed the F-5 was not politics like people claim but the fact that technology started to go beyond what the F-5 could do. Hell, remember that the F-5 engines were recycled engines from the Quail decoy, there was a limit as to what they could do.
I mean I can show you. I’ve worked on my own modernization of the F-5G. Naturally I placed in the F-22’s engine minus the thrust vectoring as it doesn’t need it.
@@davidmehrhoff8271 we replaced that already.
Can you imagine how strong this guy's accent would be 6 pints down the tube??
If you drank the 6 pints, you'd find he'd have no longer an accent!! Pints are magical!!
@@Guilhem74
🤣👍
The RNZAF should have replaced its ancient Skyhawks with the F-20.
I'd love to see an up to date F-20 + YF-23 wingbody planform . Both were breathtaking Northrop designs, 👍
Even Chuck Yeager couldn’t sell the F-20
He did his thing, and took his fee; the government at the time was really watching retired military with contractors. Now the revolving door is off its hinges; witness your DOD Secretary!!!
@@jamesunger6892 …. It is a revolving door. Yeager was recruited for his celebrity
What an awesome and proper video. Your channel is a gem, keep it up man.
I love flying the F-5E in DCS, it's underpowered and has many other limitations, yet its simplicity is unmatched, great cockpit layout, very intuitive + forgiving. The Tigershark would have been a great addition.
Heard that the cockpit was very cramped, any truth in that?
@@danielc2701 yes, but that is the cost of being a light strike fighter. Believe it or not outside of a better visibility the A-10 is equally as cramped in my own opinion.
The T-38 tactical trainer was based on the F5. It has unmatched stability. The main reason NASA uses it to this day for pilot training and certification.
This plane would be perfect for countries like the Philippines Ireland and New Zealand to name a few.
... even the USA.
Facts! The US Army wanted the F5/20 but the USAF denied them that capability
I imagine it could probably be resurrected today with updated avionics, electronics and weaponry, as a budget platform for countries that cannot afford the expense of today's modern warplanes.
I always remember seeing F5's and watching how manoverable they were.
it would be a tough sell, just look how hard it is for Saab to sell the gripen and thats one very very capable and affordable multi mission fighter.
and as time goes by there will be less and less use for manned fighters especially cheap ones. already close air support is being done by reaper drones, drones will very soon kill the market for light attack aircraft like the Super Tucano
Northrup is too busy with the B-21 right now, along with Black projects, and who even knows about 6th-Generation.
The US airforce still uses this airframe as a training jet.
I also believe one of the "new" Iranian jets is a modified version of this as well.
I already did it.
@@LSwick-ss6nm no we just got new trainers to replace em and more to come in the future to entirely replace the T-38, sadly.
2 x 20mm cannon in the nose, ufff that's a bit of firepower right there. As a young tech in the Canadian Air Force, the CF-5 was the 1st aircraft I worked on.
What's amazing is how many fighter jocks get totally f'ed up by an opponent (still) with guns. You can't imagine how many, even Duke Cunningham, will have an "Oh, Shit!" memory of going head-to-head with a MIG-17 or 19 only to see those funny flashes, then esclaiming, "I forgot about those!"
Old Air Reservist here: I worked with an old airframe tech who had Saber, Voodoo, Star Fighter, CF5, and F/A 18 time and he had nothing but praise for the CF5. Best in reliability and ease of maintenance out of the whole bunch.
Thank you for the video Mr. Nash! The F-20 is one of my favorite aircraft, and your video analysis is superb!
Kudos to your ability to analyze these aircraft & military matters in general. Really.
F-20 was the ultimate evolution of an older airframe.
The F-17 and F/A-18 are based on another much more substantial evolution of the F-5. Personally, I'd like to have seen an even lighter (F-5 sized) single engine variant of that, even if it's only based on Northrop concept art.
I had a buddy that flew it. Really liked the plane. He said the Air Force liked it too, except that it lacked range and carrying capacity versus an F-16 and had a different engine than The F-16 which was common with the f-15 so the Air Force only had that one engine to contend with. He also said it had 59 minutes of fuel on it, too small for what the Air Force was looking for. Other than that he said it flew great.
At the same time that the world was told the Air Force didn't want an F404 engine aircraft, the Air Force had F-117s that used two F404 engines.
Navy TOPGUN instructors were really drooling over this. They’d already dubbed it the Gomershark, and they were all dreaming of the dirty tricks they were going to pull on their students.
Suggestions for future videos Mirage 4000, Mirage IV Nuclear Bomber, Mirage 2000N
Excellent planes, i never understood why Dassault ended the mirage line production. They could had been a great combination for any european country to have a combination of EF2000 and Mirage 2000
It’s the AR 180 of fighters
Despite all its flaws, I still think the F-5 is the most beautiful military airframe ever produced.
I was a crew chief on F-5E's in the USAF back in the 70's. They were such sweet jets to work on.
*Resurrect this fighter please!*
They're lot of 3rd world countries who really need budget fighter jets, in friction of cost before they choose China designed JF17.
Too late buddy. JF-17 Block-3 is in the league of JAS-39NG.
It almost came back as competitor for the TX program.
Why'd NG pull out? Any reasons?
@@Joshua_N-A My money is on politics... Grumman was always a Navy shop, Northrop never seemed to have particularly close ties to the AF either.
@@Joshua_N-A NG looked at the decision makers, and they seemed to be in bed with Lockheed, Boeing, McDonnell-Douglas.
@@Joshua_N-A My bet is politics. NG usually produces the most capable aircraft, but the politicians are in bed with the other manufacturers.
@@ztunelover is that also the reason the Navy didn't get the ST-21 Tomcat too?
I always considered this one of the best fighters ever. It was tiny, making it hard to spot. It didn’t have smoke plumes from the engines like the F-4, further making it hard to spot. “1st look, 1st shot, 1st kill” is out the window at that point. And it could carry the newest weapons, allowing it to close within BVR and be a threat to anything in a dogfight.
Just had an F-5E fly over yesterday, cool!
Sad Malaysia retire them years ago.
@Mark Hepworth Reno, NV he landed at the airport. Probably based at Fallon NAS
Hope you do the YF-17 Cobra soon.
A few favorite should-have-beens
YF-23
F-20
Cobra/YF-17
N-400
Tomcat 21
But the YF-17 became the F18. And the F-5/F-20 program led to the YF-17 to begin with.
YF-17 couldn't match the YF-16. Turn rate, F-100 common with F-15, plus backing of USAF Fighter Mafia too! Yeah, the 404s are reliable; so what? Strakes?
definitely not the YF-23
Super overrated
what's the N-400
The F-5/F-20 is one of the all-time coolest looking jet fighters. It's so sleek and beautiful, it's too bad we never saw the F-20 in full production.
But interestingly enough, Saab designed a fighter around the same small GE F414 engine, and the result is the JAS 39 Gripen, a highly-regarded fighter that has some enjoyed some export sales.
agreed Saab updated and built the F-20
The name of the F-5A, and B was Freedom Fighter, not Tiger. The Tiger name came from the USAF's F-5 Combat Evaluation program: " Project Skoshi Tiger", which saw the air force sponsor the modification of the basic F-5A into the F-5C, by upgrading the twin J85 engines, the weapons delivery system, and adding light weight armor, and an inflight refueling probe.
I love this series! This is quality content! Great stuff for aviation fans!
I've come back to this video a year later, and it's still my favorite video on the Tigershark.
Not only did you absolutely nail the story, but you did so in a non-biased and easy-to-understand/digest way. From now on, if any of my friends ever ask about the Tigershark, I'll send them this video.
Thanks you!
Got some other very interesting American "what ifs" in the pipeline as well.
@@EdNashsMilitaryMatters That's great! I really look forward to hearing about them!
(sorry about the late response, by the way)
I guess F20 was the true inspiration for the "Mig 28" in Top Gun, since it was a really advanced fighter compared to the original F5s.
Oh, Please. Hollyweird ain't that smart!
Oh will we get Lavi next?
Thank you for another great video. Can I suggest an episode about the Fiat G91? Cheers!
Another excellent video, Mr. Nash
This is a great video. But it downplays the intrinsic performance differences between the F-20 and the F-16A/B. The F-16 has more hard points and carries nearly double the weapons load. The F-20 has the same wing size as the F-5. While both the F-16's and the F-20's turning performance degrades with a heavy weapons load, the F-20 performance degrades much more severely. It was a total pig with any load at all.
The other big difference was that the tiny airframe of the F-20 could not hold as much internal electronics, and the radome (and therefore the size of the radar antenna) is much smaller than the F-16. Although the APG-67 radar in the F-20 was capable, the physics of the tiny antenna placed a limit on its performance.
I remember this plane and at the time it had a laser INS which could set under 2 minutes. In the end it lacked payload and that’s where the Falcon had it beat.
Wrong, it had more hard points than the initial Falcons, and the system was an under 60 seconds align and launch - - it's right in the sales video!
@@jamesunger6892 We were at Edwards AFB during the development of the F-5G/F-20A and I studied it quite closely. F-20A never had the weapons station count or payload of any F-16. F-16A had 9 hardpoints with higher weight allowances for stations 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9. F-20A had 7 stations with significant limits. If you carried AIM-7s on the F-20, weather conditions would result in fin strikes on the runway due to the instability of the roll axis with certain crosswinds. AIM-7 was a non-starter for that reason, as it would FOD a runway for every recovery in-practice without a perfect wings-level touchdown. F-20A also only had 1/3 the combat radius of an F-16A, even with the F-16 carrying more payload.
Fire Control Radar on the F-20A was a sad joke in terms of detection and tracking ranges. The avionics were great, but Radar antennae size was constrained by the tiny radome size, even with Northrop moving the bulkhead back to buy more radome volume.
Then there was the lack of rear visibility and limited thrust-to-weight ratio, even though it significantly improved on the F-5E’s anemic T/W.
F-16C was under development at the time and had USAF Mil-Std INS.
F-20 was dead on arrival. I liked the aircraft a lot, but wasn’t aware of all its limits until I saw the numbers.
Could you do a video om the different sidewinders and their preformance differences?
@@intag8655 fucking legend. Wiki makes it a pain in the ass to find soecific info sometimes
@@intag8655 dude Thank you 🙏
@@intag8655 this is an excellent breakdown of the sidewinder variants.
Anybody notice the similarity in philosophy between the F-20 and the Gripen? Both small, very agile, very cost effective aircraft, both single engine (and basically, the same engine, for that matter), both Mach 2 capable. While the designs obviously have NO commonality, the end result in both cases was fairly similar.
Some commonality exists... basically Same engine.
A little known aspect is that this was virtually a GE airplane. GE had the engine, engine control, heads up display engine, guns flight control and radar. Each division picked up a piece without corporate realizing how deeply they were into it. The radar was especially difficult but ultimately achieved very high reliability very early.
As we understood it, it had low range which was regarded as a plus since it limited the F-20 to self defense.
I make Leupold scope parts. Does that mean Leupold Scopes are virtually "Dan Escobar Scopes?" Naw, not how it works.
Not the same, If Luepold sold their scopes with your parts in them and they were key parts thhey could well be clled the Escobar versions. Making aftermarket repair parts is not the same as providing OEM.
It's a shame the F-20 didn't make it.
I had to endure Jimmy Carter as governor when I was in college, then as President after I graduated and went into the Air Force. He has always portrayed himself as an honest, down-to-earth peanut farmer. I know better. It helped that a former governor of Georgia, Marvin Griffin, was a close family friend of ours. He once confided in me an incident about the real political of nature of Carter that I have no reason to doubt is true. Just thinking about the good men we lost in the aborted Iran rescue mission still makes me mad as Hell.
It was certainly not JC's fault that operation Eagle Claw failed. Not even a US President can cause sandstorms in the Middle East to get US helicopters to crash. And why would he have wanted to that operation to fail?
It is questionable wether F-20 would have had the same potential for upgrades as F-16 while it is rather ironic that the latest F-16 variant is marketed as F-21.
Politics, politics, and more politics is what doomed the F20. Miniaturization of Radars & Computer Systems from 1975 through to today means that the F20 would have had a great future. These same advances are keeping the F5 flying with many air forces even today.
Those same advances could have been applied to aircraft the us had already developed.
but we would rather have aircraft that are super expensive to maintain, and cannot give to other nations such as Ukraine...where we don't want them to have the best of US tech...
Best alternative to MiG-21s and MiG-23/27s and it's variants.
The Tigershark It would have been an excellent fighter platform….the Pentagon was and still is very short sighted…
Look at what the USAF/DOD Fighter Mafia had to do to get the F-16 and A-10! And you should hear them bitch about how the USAF grew the YF-16 and added all the weight!
This aircraft has been one of my favorites since I was quite young. I think that's because of its striking lines that just make it LOOK like a great plane. Funny how the vagaries of governmental acquisitions kill off completely viable, perhaps excellent, platforms.
I was thinking the B2's insane price tag was Northrop getting the money they were owed.
NO!
They were determined not to get screwed again. So the contract was fixed, be it for 130+ planes or the eventual 21. Take the contract price and divide by airframes produced, and that's the simple math behind the cost of a B-2.
The F20 had a lot going for it. Unfortunately it cost the same to buy as an F16, so the airforces of the world chose the latter instead..
Like the YF-23, this is an aircraft that should have been.
In 1981, when six Israeli F-16A’s put at least 8 dumb unguided 2,000 pound bombs through the reactor containment dome of the Iraqi Osirak facility - that was a big selling point.
Whenever I see the F-5’s, and even more so the F-20, I imagine a designer coming up with the most aesthetically pleasing “vision” of a jet fighter. Truly beautiful aircraft. Since then, the in service U.S. aircraft that comes the closest to such beauty is the legacy F/A-18 Hornet… IMHO.
There is a book called "Warriors" by Barrett Tillman. It is a short easy read but it is a book that I have repeatedly read because it exemplifies what a small determined group of professional airmen can do with a small inexpensive but capable fighter aircraft, namely the F20. I think the US Government made a mistake by not investing further into the development and production of this machine since it was perfect for a small localized conflict. The ease of maintenance and serviceability at small out of the way fields was a key factor in the F20 as the book points out when the plane is selected. Unfortunately the Government was on a kick for multirole aircraft instead of a dedicated fighter but had the F20 been selected for production, I am sure it would have proven to be as valuable as the A10 Warthog is to ground troops.
The US Government dosen't like Northrop. F5 was a struggle. Then YF17, YF23, F20 to name a few.
Don't forget the wing bombers.
I always felt they didn't like Jack Northrop and his company.
What are you talking about? The YF-17 lost, but the govt said "everybody gets a medal" and ressurected it for the Navy!
Northrop was ahead of its time in other areas as well. Back in the early 80's they were running ads which included this phrase: "Equal opportunity employer, M/F/H." I don't recall seeing any other big company being so openly and actively accepting of gays in that era.
@@dl6519 I'm not sure if that's supposed to be sarcasm, but back then the world wasn't anywhere near as mentally ill and immoral as it is now, so companies weren't forced to cater to abnormal / deviant lifestyle choices back then. The "H" stands for *Handicapped*.
@@GoogleEqualsEvil No sarcasm intended; I had assumed for all these years that the "H" was for "Homosexual". But now I think you are correct, that it stood for "Handicapped". Thanks for the education!
Jimmy Carter's intelligence was short-sighted In fact, it had an astigmatism
Carter was incredibly naive, it's fortunate he was only a one term president.
@@kutter_ttl6786 He sacked the general who told him [correctly] that he couldn't cut off military support to South Korea. Carter can rest easy now that he is no longer in contention for worst U.S. President against Ulysses S. Grant now that Creepy Joe has snatched that title only four months into his Marxist puppetcy!
@@nunyabidniz2868 lol. Touché. But we cant forget to include woodrow wilson (federal reserve) 😒
16:27 - "And here it is a thing about the F-20: Yes, it was an excellent aircraft, but the US already had three of those available.
The F-15, F-16 and F-18.
All of these were proved export successes."
Correct me if I'm wrong: The focus of the F-5G / F-20 was low cost of acquisition and low cost of maintenance.
F-15 and F-18 both are twin engines. No low cost of maintenance here.
"Okay, so we have the F-16, correct?"
No. At that time, both the acquisition cost AND the maintenance of it was high (because it was new (at that time - we're talking about late seventies, beggining of the eighties).
The F-16/79 was projected exactly to try to "kill" the F-20 competition.
I'm from Brazil, and I remember that the F-5G/F-20 was also offered to us, and I was cheering of the possibility of having it around here (I was around 12 years old at that time), but Brazil already had "recently" (at the beggining of the seventies) bought a Mach 2 interceptor (the Mirage IIIE), and it was relatively new at the time of the F-20 offer, and we were experiencing lots of economic troubles during the eighties (here there's a nickname for it: "the lost decade"), so we declined the opportunity of acquiring such incredible "bird".
About that possibility, I have to mention a curiosity: since the late seventies / beggining of the eighties, Brazil uses alcohol (from sugar cane) as fuel for cars.
I recall that in this century there were an F/A-18 that was modified to use alcohol (from corn), because USA was (correctly) concerned about the future of fighter fuel not being sustainable (oil based). Imagine what would/could/should happen if there was a joint work between USA and Brazil for developing that technology, with all the know-how that we have with alcohol powered engines? The F/A-18 engine is a derivative of the one that was used on the prototypes of the F-5G/F-20.
Now we have the Saab Gripen, that also uses a derivative of that engine. Maybe we'll see something about it (alcohol powered jet engine) in the near future.
I like the new T7 red hawk. Seems like it could fill a similar role to this.
There is little doubt at Boeing that that will happen. I personally think that it will also someday take over the Thunderbird demo aircraft when the F16’s are too old.
@@frankleespeaking9519 The Canadian snowbirds need a replacement. This would be perfect.
Spain needs to replace its F5, a combat version of them it would be good one
@@sergiom9958 I think an armed version would be a great light fighter.
I don't think there could be a fighter derivative of the T-7A at all, unless the air force sees a need for a fighter version of the Red Hawk, if they see a need for it.
Can you make a video on the modern equivalents to the F-5, such as the FA-50?
There is no modern equivalent. Show me an airframe that can pull 12 -13 G's, and you found your equivalent. Those demo pilots were extremely well qualified pilots, and they both died because of the excessive G-LOC.
Former Yugoslavia was in game for licenced production of F20, and story was serious.
Airplane was good, inexpensive, simple, with radar and avionics simple enough to be produced in Yugoslavia... but in the end it was rejected by one simple reason. It wasn't adopted by USA, not even by national guard airforce.
Yugoslavia ordered MiG29(9.12) instead
Worked as PMO on MCAS Yuma for a year or so. got to see on a regular basis the AV-8B, F-35 (when they first arrived), and the F-5N's. got to also guard some hornets and raptors. But that little plane, its something else. I'd always do a slow roll by when the crews were getting ready for a flight. It's such an under appreciated little craft that had so much potential if not fucked raw dog by the government. There's a reason why we use it for aggressor training squadrons and it needs to be known why. Great video Ed.
Jimmy Carter was the worst
It's like he watched the UK govt doing idiotic things to sabotage Britain's aerospace industry in the 1960's and went, "Hold my peanut beer..."
@@SithLord2066 - Carter had just really awful policies all the way around - the domestic economy, Defense, foreign relations...
@@SithLord2066 Ahem. I believe he would help out his brother and ask you to hold his Billy Beer.
Carter II 2021-2025
The dumb Bush and Trump were far worse.
Ah yes, my absolute favorite plane besides the SR-71 and IAI Kfir C.7
You have an unusual taste of aircraft, in a good way.
@@alperakyuz9702 Thank you. I tend to like the more obscure aircraft (The X-29 is yet another favorite of mine)
F-20 vs. F-21, who wins?
@@skaldlouiscyphre2453 Well, the F-21 Kfir was basically a Mirage with canards and a J79 engine, so I'm gonna go with the F-20 Tigershark
@@Tigershark_3082 Right there with you. Excellent selection of aircraft.
My old man had nothing but praise for the F-5, he started his carreer as an airforce mechanic with the Hawker Hunter before the F-5's were acquired and in the late 80's he was part of a delegation to israel to learn about the operation, installation and maintenance of upgrades made by the IAI.
Imagine running a business that sells an expensive, ultra-sophisticated product to a customer that changes its priorities with every election cycle. No pressure!
Cool looking jet. I wonder what the 6gen fighters will look like. I'm guessing they will have to be fully automated. Human body's limitations, must be at the max it can take with today's 4th and 5th gen fighters
Eh the human isnt really a limiting factor as they have to support humans on the ground, and such, 6th gen will likely see uav wingmen integrated to the datalink, wider datalink targeting control, millennium 7 has some good vids about it, I actually think the human is one of the best parts of an aircraft
@@flavortown3781 you make good points about the human factor. I'll check those vids out bro. Thanks 😎👍
One of the best looking series of aircraft ever.( I say that about every airplane)
Basically, a cheap and good fighter to operate and maintain, with modern developments in radar and engines can be upgraded easily to keep up to date.
See, Northrop simply forgot the two fundamental rules of military contracts in the US: a) Bribe the right people, and b) Offer to spread production as far as you can through as many Congressional districts as possible -- And if you doubt this, you need look no further than the F-35.
Another pair of great What-Ifs would be the upgraded A6 and A7 the USN were developing that Cheney cancelled when he was Sec Defense. The reengined A6 would be especially useful now.
PF: While I"m a fan of the A-6, by the early 90's it was becoming apparent the A-6's day was ending. It was much slower than the F-14/F-18 and could not keep up to their optimum cruise speeds in a strike package. It also had a huge radar cross section. Smart bombs killed the need for a bomb dump-truck which was the A-6 forte. Finally, the end of the Cold War necessitated multi-mission strike fighters which the A-6 was not.(ret'd NFO).
I do so love a fighter that looks the part. (60 million dollar 50ft-wide missile trucks just don't do it for me)
My Dad worked on the f 20 project in support systems . Cool to see it again .
The really funny part, is this airframe. If combined with a 6th gen engine and modern electronics/weapons. With or without a pilot, could be a substantial threat to any airforce.
Small, exceptionally agile, as well as difficult to see. Thrust vectoring, super sonic w/o after burner. These planes could engage hostile forces. Before anyone knew they were airborne. A truly awesome backup to any airborne stealth fighters. Especially if the X-29, wing configuration is used.
the issue with the x-29's wing configuration is the stress high speed puts on the wing roots. Less a problem with modern composites, but still pretty bad. Other types of bleed-air boundary-layer control are around today that let you get similar performance out of a conventional wing. Which is great, because it'd be cheap as dirt compared to an F-35 or the proposed replacement for the 22....
@@DFX2KX That was well understood before the X-29 was built. The stresses would effect airframe longevity. But there's the issue of human limits The human body, however honed and toned. Just doesn't do well in a zero to 9G+ maneuvering environment.
Well balanced vid