F-20 Tigershark
- F-16.net Moderator
- Posts: 3997
- Joined: 14 Jan 2004, 07:06
I've talked about this jet in at least one other thread. What a great plane this would have been. It was an updated F-5, sporting an F-18 engine, and with avionics on par with what the F-16 had at the time. When countries found out that they didn't have to buy the F-16/79, they decided to buy the F-16As and Bs instead of the Tigershark. Northrop received no financial assistance from the Government on the project, and it nearly ruined the company. I think that the F-20 was by far the best case of "What Might Have Been" in US military aviation history.
- Senior member
- Posts: 289
- Joined: 11 Nov 2003, 12:49
Anyway, it's always very hard to sell a fighter that your own country doesn't want to buy. I found no case in history showing that a fighter was sold on a noticeable scale to foreign countries whereas it didn't equip its country's air force, but I may be wrong.
I wonder how a F-20 would compare to a Gripen, as they have the same engine and comparable mission. Any idea?
I wonder how a F-20 would compare to a Gripen, as they have the same engine and comparable mission. Any idea?
- Elite 3K
- Posts: 3138
- Joined: 23 Sep 2003, 20:08
Wasn't that it was a bad jet or anything. Just that you would have an overlap of mission abiliy for the USAF and a whole new supply chain management system ( manpower / resources etc ). The USAF already had a loose roadmap at the time and that was the F-16. I think it was a cool jet but that isn't going to cut it when you start talking funding / planning etc. At that time you had:
circa 83-84
) So that by itself was a hard sell. Adding yet another airframe when they were trying to simplify things was a no go. Had USAF come up with a requirement, it would have had an engine that fit in the F-15, F-16. At least it was similar to the F-117s engine but given everything else, that wouldn't be enough. Should have done their market research first then try and sell it. Not, create something then try and create a market / need for it... out of thin air.
As for foeign sales, the infastructure for the F-16 European deals were already up and on their way. That is a big up hill battle by itself. Again at that time, logistics simplicity in the face of a possible Soviet/Fulda Gap scenario was prefered to adding another type of jet.
I saw it demo'd once at Farnborough. Pretty nifty jet.
circa 83-84
- F-4
- F-111
- F-117 (black project)
- F-15
- F-16
- A-7 (would retire in a few years )
- F-105 ( in the process of retiring )
- F-106 (would retire in a few years )
- etc
) So that by itself was a hard sell. Adding yet another airframe when they were trying to simplify things was a no go. Had USAF come up with a requirement, it would have had an engine that fit in the F-15, F-16. At least it was similar to the F-117s engine but given everything else, that wouldn't be enough. Should have done their market research first then try and sell it. Not, create something then try and create a market / need for it... out of thin air.
As for foeign sales, the infastructure for the F-16 European deals were already up and on their way. That is a big up hill battle by itself. Again at that time, logistics simplicity in the face of a possible Soviet/Fulda Gap scenario was prefered to adding another type of jet.
I saw it demo'd once at Farnborough. Pretty nifty jet.
- ELP -
-
- Elite 2K
- Posts: 2806
- Joined: 16 Dec 2003, 17:26
salute!
Yep, Habu has it nailed. ELP and Wildcat are on to something about the Guard and FMS (Foreign Military Sales).
Here's the deal:
- I was a consultant for the law firm representing Northrop in their fight with McDonnell over technology transfer. Although I believe the statute of limitations has passed, I must be careful about what I wrote and what I concluded. This was in the fall of 1984 and spring of 1985. Hence, I can speak to the F-20 with mucho credibility.
- I flew the sim for maybe 40-50 hours, minimum. I had the cockpit checkout at Edwards (in the real thing) in Jan or Feb of 85 and was about twelve hours from actually flying the thing!!! Lawyers decided we (two ex-SLUF/Hornet/Viper pilots) didn't have to because the other pilot witness/expert was Yeager, heh heh. Rationale was that if we flew it then the McAir pilot experts would have to fly it in order to make 'expert' evaluations of avionics, displays, etc. Talk about being pi&#@%^ ed. Dammit, that would have been really neat. Oh well...
- The F-20 had the neatest cockpit I ever had the pleasure of being in. It had all the displays the SLUF had, plus the upfront keypad right below the HUD. The hands-on controls were awesome. The logic (human factors) was so natural that it took about 10 minutes to be very comfortable selecting functions, entering data and using all the stuff.
- we can get into more detail about the jet later, but I'll expand upon Wildcat and ELP's comments.
-- The deal with the Guard was in the works when Korea and a South American country and some Arab states cancelled their orders/lost interest. The fact that USAF was not gonna buy it hurt. Secondly, General Dynamics lowered their price for a FMS version of the Viper to below cost, best I could tell. This really hurt Northrop's marketing.
-- I also had the distinct impression from several of the foreign buyers that their 'ruler' would rather have a single F-15 for his birthday parade flyby than a fleet of useful jets that his people could actually maintain!!!
Last comment for now: The thing had the right stuff and at the right time for many foreign nations. It also had the right price and would have fit in very nicely in those countries who already had the F-5 series.
In my not so humble opinion, the F-20 was the best plane for small countries all over the world. It's a crying shame that requirements took a back seat to politics and the egos of many heads of state.
out,
Yep, Habu has it nailed. ELP and Wildcat are on to something about the Guard and FMS (Foreign Military Sales).
Here's the deal:
- I was a consultant for the law firm representing Northrop in their fight with McDonnell over technology transfer. Although I believe the statute of limitations has passed, I must be careful about what I wrote and what I concluded. This was in the fall of 1984 and spring of 1985. Hence, I can speak to the F-20 with mucho credibility.
- I flew the sim for maybe 40-50 hours, minimum. I had the cockpit checkout at Edwards (in the real thing) in Jan or Feb of 85 and was about twelve hours from actually flying the thing!!! Lawyers decided we (two ex-SLUF/Hornet/Viper pilots) didn't have to because the other pilot witness/expert was Yeager, heh heh. Rationale was that if we flew it then the McAir pilot experts would have to fly it in order to make 'expert' evaluations of avionics, displays, etc. Talk about being pi&#@%^ ed. Dammit, that would have been really neat. Oh well...
- The F-20 had the neatest cockpit I ever had the pleasure of being in. It had all the displays the SLUF had, plus the upfront keypad right below the HUD. The hands-on controls were awesome. The logic (human factors) was so natural that it took about 10 minutes to be very comfortable selecting functions, entering data and using all the stuff.
- we can get into more detail about the jet later, but I'll expand upon Wildcat and ELP's comments.
-- The deal with the Guard was in the works when Korea and a South American country and some Arab states cancelled their orders/lost interest. The fact that USAF was not gonna buy it hurt. Secondly, General Dynamics lowered their price for a FMS version of the Viper to below cost, best I could tell. This really hurt Northrop's marketing.
-- I also had the distinct impression from several of the foreign buyers that their 'ruler' would rather have a single F-15 for his birthday parade flyby than a fleet of useful jets that his people could actually maintain!!!
Last comment for now: The thing had the right stuff and at the right time for many foreign nations. It also had the right price and would have fit in very nicely in those countries who already had the F-5 series.
In my not so humble opinion, the F-20 was the best plane for small countries all over the world. It's a crying shame that requirements took a back seat to politics and the egos of many heads of state.
out,
Gums
Viper pilot '79
"God in your guts, good men at your back, wings that stay on - and Tally Ho!"
Viper pilot '79
"God in your guts, good men at your back, wings that stay on - and Tally Ho!"
- Elite 2K
- Posts: 2809
- Joined: 05 Sep 2003, 20:36
Don't forget the role of politics. Northrop was sucking up a lot of DoD $$$$$ on ATB (B-2) at the time and someone in Washington may have felt they did not "need" another contract - both the $$$ and the distraction from ATB. Then there's that little bribery scandal involving Northrop during the LWF days...
Northrop was on a really bad run of "luck". They lost out on Senior Trend (F-117) after their Have Blue prototype failed, they lost out on F-20, then they lost out on ATF (their YF-23). All of these were probably very cabaple aircraft but, once you "p*ss off" DoD you pretty much have to wait for whoever is currently in favor to screw up and hope you get their place. No doubt Lockheed has been in favor for a while and, IMO, Boeing's multiple lapses recently will make it hard for them to unseat Lockheed.
Northrop was on a really bad run of "luck". They lost out on Senior Trend (F-117) after their Have Blue prototype failed, they lost out on F-20, then they lost out on ATF (their YF-23). All of these were probably very cabaple aircraft but, once you "p*ss off" DoD you pretty much have to wait for whoever is currently in favor to screw up and hope you get their place. No doubt Lockheed has been in favor for a while and, IMO, Boeing's multiple lapses recently will make it hard for them to unseat Lockheed.
Reality Is For People Who Can't Handle Simulation
- Elite 3K
- Posts: 3138
- Joined: 23 Sep 2003, 20:08
I really liked it too. Too bad this is one of those situations where the procurement process is a real pain.
As for comparing it to the F-16 in an FMS deal, help me out. We do so much offsetting in a deal that the actual unit cost gets real fuzzy and in some cases in those offset deals, any shortfall is picked up by the taxpayer under some oddball color of money. So I really wonder if with some customers, unit price mattered all that much ( your comment: "General Dynamics lowered their price for a FMS version of the Viper to below cost, best I could tell. This really hurt Northrop's marketing. " ) Besides the demo... in a lot of cases it is who has the most politcal horsepower and the sexiest offset deal ( read giveaways ) to the "customer" who "pays" for it sometimes with oddball portions of already existing billions of foreign military aid, and/or 0 interest loans that don't need a first payment for years etc. Of course every deal is different, but a lot of them have the same playbook. I think Iran might be one of the few exceptions where for the Tomcat deal the Shah put up hard cash to help out with R&D of the jet. Hard for the general public to understand that this is a "traditional sales environment" for this type of procurement.
( be my friend and I'll give you a parking lot of jets and I'll even make it look like a normal sales deal (like buying cars or something) to the U.S. taxpayer.
As for comparing it to the F-16 in an FMS deal, help me out. We do so much offsetting in a deal that the actual unit cost gets real fuzzy and in some cases in those offset deals, any shortfall is picked up by the taxpayer under some oddball color of money. So I really wonder if with some customers, unit price mattered all that much ( your comment: "General Dynamics lowered their price for a FMS version of the Viper to below cost, best I could tell. This really hurt Northrop's marketing. " ) Besides the demo... in a lot of cases it is who has the most politcal horsepower and the sexiest offset deal ( read giveaways ) to the "customer" who "pays" for it sometimes with oddball portions of already existing billions of foreign military aid, and/or 0 interest loans that don't need a first payment for years etc. Of course every deal is different, but a lot of them have the same playbook. I think Iran might be one of the few exceptions where for the Tomcat deal the Shah put up hard cash to help out with R&D of the jet. Hard for the general public to understand that this is a "traditional sales environment" for this type of procurement.
( be my friend and I'll give you a parking lot of jets and I'll even make it look like a normal sales deal (like buying cars or something) to the U.S. taxpayer. Last edited by elp on 27 Jan 2004, 06:16, edited 1 time in total.
- ELP -
- F-16.net Moderator
- Posts: 3997
- Joined: 14 Jan 2004, 07:06
Right on ELP! That's exactly how it can work, except that the John Q.'s out there will never know that. There's a lot of "You scratch my back, I scratch yours" that goes on in international dealings. Unfortunately for Northrop, as many of you have said, it came back and bit em where it counts. They really should have waited for the greenlight from the US gov't to start the project. Would have saved them loads of time and grief. If nothing else, the F-20 would have been a great aggressor aircraft for USAF FWS and Top Gun. I seem to recall that 2(?) of the Tigershark prototypes were involved in mishaps. That would leave one, according to my math. Where is it now?
-
- Elite 2K
- Posts: 2806
- Joined: 16 Dec 2003, 17:26
Salute!
Super thread about 'reality' of military acquisition process.
We'll talk about the A-10 versus A-7D later, but for now....
HABU: I have about 450 hours in T-33, 120 or so in T-37, 400 in F-101B, 70 in F-102, 1400 hours in A-37, 1000 hours in A-7D and maybe 600 in F-16. I got two back-seat rides in T-38 and one front seat ride after not flying for 3 years (F-16 checkout requirement). I flew a F-111D at Cannon AFB on a training mission in the right seat and landed the thing without help. I flew two choppers ( Bell H-13 and Kaman H-43) and did OK. I Flew a back seat in the F-100D back in 1961. Yeager was Wing King at the time - check it out. Flew C-119 with an un-named pilot a few hours over Southern California in the 60's. Flew O-1A and O-2A with Fac's, including one mission over Ho Chi Minh Trail. Flew Champs, Luscombes and Taylorcraft when I was 16-17 years old - musta been a hundred years ago, heh heh. Flew C-47 an hour or so in early 60's, no landings, but still was fun. Flew a J-3 Cub that was even older than me about a year and a half ago (5 touch and go's, plus full stop, all unassisted). Had a formation ride in a T-6 Warbird back in the 70's at an airshow. Flew the F-15 sim at Goodyear's main place for evaluation of limited field of view sim USAF could use. Flew F-20 sim many hours and F-18 sim maybe 15-20 hours (at McAir, St Louis).
As part of my job from 1984 to 1997 I worked on weapons integration projects involving the A-10A, AH-1S, AH-64, AH-56, AH/RA-66, F-14D, F-15C/E, F-16A/C, F-18A/C, F-117A, B-52H, B-1B, B-2A, V-22, A-? ( Navy stealth attack jet).
I also roomed with a shuttle commander and MIR resident, taught another shuttle commander and have a classmate who was first black CO of a shuttle. I knew Ed White personally, as his brother was in my squad at USAFA.
Anything else?
later,
Super thread about 'reality' of military acquisition process.
We'll talk about the A-10 versus A-7D later, but for now....
HABU: I have about 450 hours in T-33, 120 or so in T-37, 400 in F-101B, 70 in F-102, 1400 hours in A-37, 1000 hours in A-7D and maybe 600 in F-16. I got two back-seat rides in T-38 and one front seat ride after not flying for 3 years (F-16 checkout requirement). I flew a F-111D at Cannon AFB on a training mission in the right seat and landed the thing without help. I flew two choppers ( Bell H-13 and Kaman H-43) and did OK. I Flew a back seat in the F-100D back in 1961. Yeager was Wing King at the time - check it out. Flew C-119 with an un-named pilot a few hours over Southern California in the 60's. Flew O-1A and O-2A with Fac's, including one mission over Ho Chi Minh Trail. Flew Champs, Luscombes and Taylorcraft when I was 16-17 years old - musta been a hundred years ago, heh heh. Flew C-47 an hour or so in early 60's, no landings, but still was fun. Flew a J-3 Cub that was even older than me about a year and a half ago (5 touch and go's, plus full stop, all unassisted). Had a formation ride in a T-6 Warbird back in the 70's at an airshow. Flew the F-15 sim at Goodyear's main place for evaluation of limited field of view sim USAF could use. Flew F-20 sim many hours and F-18 sim maybe 15-20 hours (at McAir, St Louis).
As part of my job from 1984 to 1997 I worked on weapons integration projects involving the A-10A, AH-1S, AH-64, AH-56, AH/RA-66, F-14D, F-15C/E, F-16A/C, F-18A/C, F-117A, B-52H, B-1B, B-2A, V-22, A-? ( Navy stealth attack jet).
I also roomed with a shuttle commander and MIR resident, taught another shuttle commander and have a classmate who was first black CO of a shuttle. I knew Ed White personally, as his brother was in my squad at USAFA.
Anything else?
later,
Gums
Viper pilot '79
"God in your guts, good men at your back, wings that stay on - and Tally Ho!"
Viper pilot '79
"God in your guts, good men at your back, wings that stay on - and Tally Ho!"
- F-16.net Moderator
- Posts: 3997
- Joined: 14 Jan 2004, 07:06
Gums, with a resume like that, you're either at Edwards or Eglin. I live about an hour away from Eglin, and they always have a laundry list of aircraft they are either flying operationally or testing. BTW, I believe that first black Shuttle C/C was also a General in the Marines. Charlie...something, or rather...? He was the same man who flew FL Senator Bill Nelson in the Columbia, one mission before the Challenger disaster. Talk about dodging a bullet, eh?
- Elite 2K
- Posts: 2809
- Joined: 05 Sep 2003, 20:36
A-? ( Navy stealth attack jet)
This ought to bring back some memories (or nightmares):
http://www.habu2.net/a12/avenger2.htm
Reality Is For People Who Can't Handle Simulation
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests