Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

StolichnayaStrafer wrote:

Maybe I'm wrong, but I always thought that the intakes were the primary deciding factor contributing to maximum airspeed on an airframe for the most part once swept wings came into use.

The F-20 would have been a great export model fo all of our allies with T-38 and F-5 platforms out there. They also would have been great for ANG aircraft and disimilar combat training equipment. That being said, how could you compete with the follow on F-16C/D aircraft for both indigenous and export use? Much as I loved that aircraft, I see in hindsight that it certainly stood no chance against a solidly supported addition to the USAF/Export iindustry even though it was fathered by a proven trainer/point defense fighter heritage. Quite an achievement though, being born from a platform originally powered by engines from a decoy drone that was to be carried by the B-52(AKA the Quail). Still saddens me though that it never came to fruition...

Salute

P.S.: Would it have been easily adaptable for AIM-120 use since they tested AIM-7 Sparrows on them during trials? It would have been a great driving point for the ANG/Export applications I had mentioned earlier. Maintenance would possibly been a bit easier as well for them I would care to wager. Bet them budget cutters would have loved that in the long run!

To address your second paragraph first, the F-20 was already capable of using AIM-120. Although the missile itself had not yet entered service, the fire control, illumination, launch characteristics and mounting requirements were already known. If an F-20 customer was cleared to receive AIM-120, the aircraft would have been capable of using it. Regarding maintenance, it wouldn't have been a bit easier, it would have been a Lot easier; that was one of the design drivers.

Regarding competing with the F-16C/D. Initially the Falcon C/D was aimed at a separate market as it was just entering service with USAF. Growth was planned for the F-20. Electronics-wise, it could already do many, if not most of the things the F-16C/D of the day could do, and some things it couldn't. Of course there were some things the C/D could do that the initial F-20s couldn't but many of those were US-oriented things. The big wing I mentioned before was part of the plan, but a driver would be what you could do with the F404. More thrust would be needed to counter weight growth, but there was no F110 equivalent in the F404 thrust class like there was for the F-16 in its class. They probably could have gotten 20,000+ out of the F404 if need be, but the market would have to be large enough to justify developing that increase without compromising engine life. Then again, Sweden seemed to greatly enhance the superb Gripen with out having to grow the F404 until their new, radically improved NG.

Regarding ANG, there was a lot of interest there, because they didn't have all the resources of USAF to support their mission, and the capabilities vs. cost equation of the F20 was very attractive to their operations. USAF, though, opposed F-20s for the ANG. Your point about USAF/Export industry is well taken. They'd be selling against USAF, yet expecting USAF to represent them (see my previous post). If they'd already sold 200+ F-20s by the time the F-16 C/D with big engines became available for export, they'd do well in spite of USAF. But that never happened, so this all remains in the realm of "might have been".

F-16.net Sponsor

I reckon neither South Korea nor Taiwan would have resorted to homegrown fighter programs along the lines of the F-CK-1/T-50 if something like the F-20A/B program was realized. The F-CK-1 was hamstrung on range according to political sensitivities so the F-20A may have actually been too long legged for their needs.

madrat wrote:

I reckon neither South Korea nor Taiwan would have resorted to homegrown fighter programs along the lines of the F-CK-1/T-50 if something like the F-20A/B program was realized. The F-CK-1 was hamstrung on range according to political sensitivities so the F-20A may have actually been too long legged for their needs.

I would agree with your speculation on Taiwan and South Korea, especially the former. It's been noted with some curiosity that although Northrop was not allowed to sell the F-20 to Taiwan, it was perfectly OK for GD to help Taiwan to develop a plane for the same purpose. By the way, the F-CK-1 program did not develop its own radar and fire control, nor did the T-50 when the attack version was developed. They both used a version of a superb system developed for another aircraft -- the F-20. Amazing how these things work out

Quote:

Regarding ANG, there was a lot of interest there, because they didn't have all the resources of USAF to support their mission, and the capabilities vs. cost equation of the F20 was very attractive to their operations. USAF, though, opposed F-20s for the ANG.

At that time, the Guard would have welcomed anything with an F prefix that was single seat with a pointy nose and reheat.

The beat up old two-seat F-4’s and subsonic A-7’s that were available did not advance the Guard’s recruiting or PR efforts in either the tactical or air defense mission. Very few pilots wanted to go from F-100’s or F-106’s to either of the alternatives, although the A-7 was the lesser of two evils.

The A-7, though eventually recognized as a fine aircraft, was not initially well liked compared to the F-100’s which the Guard had operated for 10-15 years, and which were in fantastic condition thanks to Guard MX.

The F-4 brought with it the problem of recruiting WSO’s for units which had previously operated single seat fighters. Not to mention, once again, the three or so years it would take Guard (or Reserve) MX to get the old Phantoms back in tip top shape. After that the Phantom’s performance won most guys over.

The F-20 really looked good under these circumstances. Heck, the F-5E looked good enough. But historically that was not the way the Guard got their aircraft. It was very fortunate that the Guard had already been supplied with Vipers when USAF determined once again that they actually needed the Guard.

OL

(note: The Reserves had trouble getting WSO’s in the 80’s and went with ex C-5 navs who had lost their jobs to inertial navigation systems. On the upside, this essentially made the F-4 a single seat aircraft with occasional background noise.)

madrat wrote:

I reckon neither South Korea nor Taiwan would have resorted to homegrown fighter programs along the lines of the F-CK-1/T-50 if something like the F-20A/B program was realized. The F-CK-1 was hamstrung on range according to political sensitivities so the F-20A may have actually been too long legged for their needs.

I'm not so sure, I'm under the impression that they wanted to foster domestic industry as much as they wanted aircraft.

Prinz_Eugn wrote:

madrat wrote:

I reckon neither South Korea nor Taiwan would have resorted to homegrown fighter programs along the lines of the F-CK-1/T-50 if something like the F-20A/B program was realized. The F-CK-1 was hamstrung on range according to political sensitivities so the F-20A may have actually been too long legged for their needs.

I'm not so sure, I'm under the impression that they wanted to foster domestic industry as much as they wanted aircraft.

In the case of Taiwan, their requirement was for an aircraft to defend against attack. However, with the situation that they couldn't get the aircraft they needed from an external source, they were forced to develop one internally. The US allowed GD to help them (may have even been some taxpayer money involved, I don't know) as long as the aircraft involved wasn't too capable. This meant an aircraft less capable than the F-20. Interestingly, their plane does use a variant of the F-20 radar.

In the case of Korea, they kept drawing out their fighter selection to the point where Northrop simply couldn't keep bleeding money waiting for them to make up their mind. The T-50 came much later (program started in 1992, suspended in 1995, restarted in 1999) as a supersonic trainer and light attack aircraft. The A-50 version also uses a variant of the F-20 radar.

In an example of those ironies that show up in the world GE, who developed the AN/APG-67 financed by Northrop for the F-20, sold its radar business to Lockheed, who now manufactures the system. Lockheed also bought GD. Meanwhile, at a later point Northrop bought Westinghouse's radar business. Westinghouse designed the APG-66 & 68 radars for the F-16. So now we're in the situation that the company that paid for the development of the radar for the F-20 now builds radars for the F-16, while the company that builds the F-16 now sells radars developed for the F-20!

Salute!

Can't believe I missed this thread. Maybe it appeared elsewhere under another topic long ago.

+++++++++++++++

I came within a few hours of flying the thing back in early 1985. After 50,60 maybe a 100 hours in the sim I went to Edwards and the basic "blindfold cockpit check" and such in preparation.

I was on the legal team for a lawsuit between MacAir and Northrop concerning technology transfer ( F-18 versus F-20). I shall not discuss details unless the lawyers release me, sorry.

During the night our legal team decided that I wouldn't fly the jet, nor would the ex-Navy pilot on our "team". Reason was simple - we would have to let the MacAir "experts" fly the thing. As we already had Yeager on our team of "expert pilots", it was thought we had enuf to go to trial.

+++++++++++++++

Outlaw has the deal analyzed well. Some others also have the deal analyzed.

The jet was a logical follow-on to the F-5 market. It had better aero performance and the avionics were eye-watering.

Problem was a combination of politics and competition from other manufacturers competing for the F-5 market.

I can go into detail later about some of the neat things the plane had for its time and the politics.

++++++++++++

As part of the legal agreements, I also had the oppo to fly the F-18 sim for maybe 20 hours.

Was neat, and reminded me of an A-7D that could climb and turn lots better, plus updated avionics and a true A2A capability.

All this was in late 1984 and early 1985, so I was blessed to be in on stuff at the beginning.

Gums sends...

outlaw162 wrote:

Quote:

Regarding ANG, there was a lot of interest there, because they didn't have all the resources of USAF to support their mission, and the capabilities vs. cost equation of the F20 was very attractive to their operations. USAF, though, opposed F-20s for the ANG.

At that time, the Guard would have welcomed anything with an F prefix that was single seat with a pointy nose and reheat.

The beat up old two-seat F-4’s and subsonic A-7’s that were available did not advance the Guard’s recruiting or PR efforts in either the tactical or air defense mission. Very few pilots wanted to go from F-100’s or F-106’s to either of the alternatives, although the A-7 was the lesser of two evils.

The A-7, though eventually recognized as a fine aircraft, was not initially well liked compared to the F-100’s which the Guard had operated for 10-15 years, and which were in fantastic condition thanks to Guard MX.

The F-4 brought with it the problem of recruiting WSO’s for units which had previously operated single seat fighters. Not to mention, once again, the three or so years it would take Guard (or Reserve) MX to get the old Phantoms back in tip top shape. After that the Phantom’s performance won most guys over.

The F-20 really looked good under these circumstances. Heck, the F-5E looked good enough. But historically that was not the way the Guard got their aircraft. It was very fortunate that the Guard had already been supplied with Vipers when USAF determined once again that they actually needed the Guard.

OL

(note: The Reserves had trouble getting WSO’s in the 80’s and went with ex C-5 navs who had lost their jobs to inertial navigation systems. On the upside, this essentially made the F-4 a single seat aircraft with occasional background noise.)

I could see why crews coming out of the Hun would be less than ecstatic going to the A-7. While it was far, far better in it role than the F100, no way was it considered 'exciting'. The SLUF is probably a classic example of an aircraft that never really got the recognition it deserved. When you look at all that it did and how good it was at it, it's sad that it isn't more honored.

As for the F-106 (once they fixed the ejection system), people who flew it adored it. Col. Jack Broughton ("Thud Ridge") has repeatedly stated that of all the aircraft he flew in his career, if he could have one to keep in his garage, it would be the F-106 ('course he never flew the Tigershark, but I digress).

What the F-20 offered to the Guard was the chance to get a new, not hand-me-down, aircraft that was more capable than the F-16s they were going to get. Even more importantly to them, its maintenance, operating and support costs were significantly lower, always a big factor to the Guard and Reserves given the resources traditionally supplied to them. The Guard wasn't alone in this situation, of course. The USN was was known to, when it was running low on O&M money would dump aircraft into Reserve squadrons and have them support out of Reserve budgets, and then as money got freed up pull them back into the Fleet.

It’s somewhat “unlucky” that at the time the Guard FWS was trying to convince the Guard Bureau that new F-20’s were the logical future for ANG for the reasons you state, USAF was providing the Guard with brand new A-7D’s off the LTV line. USAF was getting out of the A-7 business before the last one was built.

The last 24 new aircraft off the line went to the Tucson Guard & the Sioux City Guard. I can’t say for sure, but I believe this the first time the ANG ever got brand new fighters from the factory. I picked up the last two A-7D’s built (408 & 409) from LTV at Dallas for the Tucson Guard. These also happened to be the first two A-7D’s built with the Automatic Maneuvering Flaps (AMF) which made it a different aircraft below 300 knots. Even though they were eventually retrofitted to all A-7D’s, for a period of time, this may have been the first time the Guard ever had something the USAF didn’t.

I'd rather have been picking up F-20’s, but for USAF that would have been an exponential leap over just letting the Guard have maneuvering flaps. If the Guard operated F-20’s and USAF didn’t, I don’t think either the USAF or the Guard could have withstood the eventual comparisons that would have been drawn.

OL

(At the time we had another dumb idea...how about a Guard guy on the Thunderbirds?)

What if Northrop had offered an F-20 Lite option, say substituting the tfe1042-7? Jump all over the F-19 designation that was conveniently skipped. (Giving it a magical trifecta of numbering designations; three in a row.) Use the F/A in the designation to denote its multipurpose roles. Give it a catchy name based on a predator or ancient warrior. Partnered up with Grumman a few years earlier, then offering relative versions from each like how automobile makers varied similar models using the same wheelbase in that time period. (i.e. Grumman F/A-19 Tiger III versus Northrop F/A-19 Ninja) Offer a proper gatling gun; maybe a three barrel 20mm variant based on the M61. Offer a refueling probe. Pushed a little harder on the affordability front with regards for the export crowd. Perhaps this lesser option would have more up the alley of countries using the F-5 already. I like the F-20A, but it may have been too much to swallow coming out of the gates for its target audience.

outlaw162 wrote:

It’s somewhat “unlucky” that at the time the Guard FWS was trying to convince the Guard Bureau that new F-20’s were the logical future for ANG for the reasons you state, USAF was providing the Guard with brand new A-7D’s off the LTV line. USAF was getting out of the A-7 business before the last one was built.

The last 24 new aircraft off the line went to the Tucson Guard & the Sioux City Guard. I can’t say for sure, but I believe this the first time the ANG ever got brand new fighters from the factory. I picked up the last two A-7D’s built (408 & 409) from LTV at Dallas for the Tucson Guard. These also happened to be the first two A-7D’s built with the Automatic Maneuvering Flaps (AMF) which made it a different aircraft below 300 knots. Even though they were eventually retrofitted to all A-7D’s, for a period of time, this may have been the first time the Guard ever had something the USAF didn’t.

I'd rather have been picking up F-20’s, but for USAF that would have been an exponential leap over just letting the Guard have maneuvering flaps. If the Guard operated F-20’s and USAF didn’t, I don’t think either the USAF or the Guard could have withstood the eventual comparisons that would have been drawn.

OL

(At the time we had another dumb idea...how about a Guard guy on the Thunderbirds?)

It wasn't AF generositiy that got the Guard brand new A-7s. AF was getting rid of the A-7 early partly, IMHO, because even though they were the ones that really made the plane soar, it was a Navy design. Also, they wanted to make room for the A-10 (originally they told Congress they were going to keep both), which was a plane they were not sure what they were going to do with (another discussion for another time). So some of the last ones went direct to the Guard. Also, in FY75 Congress added funding for additional unrequested A-7Ds so those went straight to the Guard and Reserves.

madrat wrote:

What if Northrop had offered an F-20 Lite option, say substituting the tfe1042-7? Jump all over the F-19 designation that was conveniently skipped. (Giving it a magical trifecta of numbering designations; three in a row.) Use the F/A in the designation to denote its multipurpose roles. Give it a catchy name based on a predator or ancient warrior. Partnered up with Grumman a few years earlier, then offering relative versions from each like how automobile makers varied similar models using the same wheelbase in that time period. (i.e. Grumman F/A-19 Tiger III versus Northrop F/A-19 Ninja) Offer a proper gatling gun; maybe a three barrel 20mm variant based on the M61. Offer a refueling probe. Pushed a little harder on the affordability front with regards for the export crowd. Perhaps this lesser option would have more up the alley of countries using the F-5 already. I like the F-20A, but it may have been too much to swallow coming out of the gates for its target audience.

An F-20 lite likely would have served no purpose. If there was any interest in something like that, the F-16/79 would have been looked at as the answer to customer's dreams, rather than an insult (If I wanted to be naughty, I could say there was already an F-20 lite, the F-16Ajavascript:emoticon(' Wink

') ).

Affordability would not be an issue as the F-20 was already less expensive than the competition. In some cases, we'd probably be lending/giving the country the money to buy the planes whatever they were, so price wouldn't be that big an issue. Actually, customers were more concerned with support costs and effort, and the F-20 really shined here. Also, putting in less capable systems, say the APG-66, wouldn't really reduce costs all that much as you'd have to pay all the integration and testing costs again after you'd already done that for the AN/APG-67. BTW, at program cancellation, the full-blown APG-67 was expected to cost ~ ! million each, based on a run of 500.

Frankly, customers kept wanting more and more capability, and the competition moved from the F-16A to the F-16C (even not everyone would be allowed to buy it). the F-16C helped Northrop a little bit because its growth in weight reduced its performance relative to the A. The timely arrival of the F110 engine mostly restored the earlier model's level of performance rather than take the Falcon to new heights (except, of course, for the N). This actually led to work on the gatling type weapon you advocate.

One of the customers wanted the F-20 to be able to match the F-16C's radar range in search. This couldn't be done with the existing antenna, so the entire radar installation had to be moved back so a larger antenna could be fitted if a customer needed that range. This meant deleting one or both of the M-39s. The F-20 Project Manager wouldn't hear of deleting both and one M-39 may have not been salable. He pushed for a new gun. Northrop sole sourced a new design 30mm caseless ammunition air-to-air gatling gun from Philco Ford for those who wanted the big antenna. Frankly, I don't know how well that would have worked out, since they were the same folks who couldn't produce a 25mm such weapon for the F-15 and Northrop would be out a pretty penny (car companies were not known for being fond of risk sharing)

While you are all having orgasms over the F-20, please remember it had roughly half the range and half the weapon load of the F-16, with roughly two thirds the cost. Setting up the logistics support would have eaten up much of the cost advantage. Those three prototypes were in no way production-ready and would have required billions to fully develop and prepare for full production.

I fully admit to being biased in my judgement. It gave me great pleasure to help flight test the YF-16, the F-16, the Taiwanese IDF, and the Korean T-50, in part to rub Northrop's nose in the dirt just a bit more.

Quote:

While you are all having orgasms over the F-20, please remember it had roughly half the range...

Guard fighter pilots only had to fly at least 45 minutes to get paid for a Flight Training Period. Anything over that was a donation of your own valuable time.

In any case, the Guard was not offered the 9.0/6.0/4.4/5.2/7.2/6.5/5.5 “G” F-16.

A-7, F-4 (which was certainly not cheap to operate) or F-20?

You make the call.

More viagra.

OL

(BTW, the AFReserves never operated the A-7D.)

While the F-20 may have been superior for the continental defense role of the guard, look what happens if the unit is deployed in something like ODS. Then you want F-16's.

Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

F-20 Tigershark