Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

Exactly the point. The Guard wanted F-16’s. They were NOT available and unless you had a crystal ball, you had no idea when they would become available.

It wasn’t a matter of which was better for what, it was a matter of what could be sitting on the ramp.

The Guard had F-16’s for ODS because ODS happened to occur AFTER the Guard happened to be given F-16’s.

Not because the Guard was able to sell the idea they needed F-16’s in case they were deployed.

If it had occurred earlier, you might have seen a few squadrons of A-7D’s in ODS, but more likely, just additional regular F-16 squadrons and nothing from the Guard.

OL

F-16.net Sponsor

The F-20A would have been fine for the F-16's roles in ODS, don't kid yourself.

madrat wrote:

The F-20A would have been fine for the F-16's roles in ODS, don't kid yourself.

As pointed out, only if you wanted to massively increase tankage available and send more aircraft after the same targets.

madrat wrote:

The F-20A would have been fine for the F-16's roles in ODS, don't kid yourself.

Range payload is so basic I couldn't believe the post above until I checked the handle.

Prinz_Eugn wrote:

madrat wrote:

The F-20A would have been fine for the F-16's roles in ODS, don't kid yourself.

As pointed out, only if you wanted to massively increase tankage available and send more aircraft after the same targets.

He was talking about missions solely performed by the ANG units. You are discarding the reality that the USAF still used the F-16.

Last edited by aaam on Sep 08, 2010 - 03:16 AM; edited 1 time in total

johnwill wrote:

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

It never ceases to amaze me how, after all these years, the Tigershark continues to generate such heat, especially form those on the "other side" ("...to rub Northrop's nose in the dirt just a bit more.").

Once again, remember: the F-20 was not primarily designed or intended for USAF service. That's got to be kept in mind when evaluating the bird. True it was proposed for the ADF role, discussed in my first post, for the sham CAS/BAI competition,and for the ANG but those were later developing scenarios that came up and were not drivers for the aircraft.

To mollify those who take umbrage at nice things being said about the F-20, let me throw out some things were the F-16 was definitely better (leaving aside the obvious logistical advantages it had being already in "USAF service).

The F-16A/B had a significant low speed acceleration advantage over the F-20A. I do not know if that held with Pratt powered F-16C/Ds prior to Block 50. With the F110 and Block 50 Pratts, this advantage probably would have been maintained

The F-16 had better visibility to the rear. If you looked behind you, you saw your own tail. In the F-20, panoramic canopy not withstanding, a good portion of your rear field of view was of the bulkhead.

The F-16 had a better gun. I don't have a lot of confidence that Philco Ford would have pulled off the 30mm gun they were contracted for.

The F-16 could stagger into the air carrying a bigger ultimate warload. Keep in mind that the only ones I knew of who would regularly fly with that much were the Israelis, and their concept was to get airborne and then immediately start looking for the tanker. Most potential F-20 customers didn't have tankers, and in any case, the Tigershark was designed that its normal max load was the warload actually usually carried on operational missions. To get more would require the big wing mentioned before, and at least initially there didn't seem to be enough demand to justify developing that early on.

The F-16 had a greater range with a high altitude cruise. The only potential customer who seemed to really insist on that much range was S Korea, and Northrop proposed increasing the external fuel tank size to 275 gallons to achieve this (the 4th F-20 would have been the first to fly with those tanks).

The F-16 had a higher sustained rate of turn. Northrop proposed to match or beat this with electromagnetic leading and trailing maneuvering flaps. These were to be on Tigershark #4. Not sure whether this would have done it, may have required the big wing for those who wanted it.

The F-16C had a greater radar detection range, though not necessarily a greater tracking range. Korea cared about this to the point where it was a show-stopper. Northrop was planning to move the radar back six inches to fit a larger antenna, which would have increased its detection range to beyond that of the F-16C. This is what drove the proposed gun change, as one of the M-39s would have to be sacrificed.

Those were the biggies.

A few comments on other points raised.

The F-20 cost 2/3 of an F-16A/B, but half of an F-16C/D (always was a problem in competitions, the F-16 under discussion seemed to be an amalgam of the two depending on what capability was being considered).

It would have taken billions for the Air Force to bring the F-20 to production, not Northrop. #s 2 & 3 were built on production tooling (#1 was a demonstrator, not a full-fledged prototype), with some changes in the nose and wing edges required for full production. Tigershark #4 was the production-representative aircraft and assembly had started when the program was abandoned. Keep in mind that since development was a commercial enterprise, Northrop was not bound by the strictures that an Air Force development would have to go through. Northrop was guaranteeing delivery of production aircraft to the launch customer (if they had got one) 24 months after contract signing.

Regarding the Guard deploying with a different aircraft than USAF, keep in mind that over the years the Guard often had different aircraft that regular USAF. Even deploying with an older version of an aircraft still in service in a later mark with the "regulars" can raise some logistical issues. In any case the two ANG units that made it to ODS gave yeoman service, as would have F-20s, most likely in an escort role

madrat wrote:

He was talking about missions solely performed by the ANG units. You are discarding the reality that the USAF still used the F-16.

Uhh... what?

Prinz_Eugn wrote:

madrat wrote:

He was talking about missions solely performed by the ANG units. You are discarding the reality that the USAF still used the F-16.

Uhh... what?

shingen wrote:

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.

outlaw162 wrote:

The Guard had F-16’s for ODS because ODS happened to occur AFTER the Guard happened to be given F-16’s.

Ah, that makes more sense, thanks.

Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

F-20 Tigershark