As a former fighter pilot myself, I always loved the look of the Tigershark: sleek, fast and highly manoeuvrable. During my final TDY at Nellis in 1986 (where I was part of the Green Flag staff), we were in Vegas one day when I heard a fighter fly right over the strip, It was gone before I could spot it. But then I heard that local air traffic control had given clearance for Gen Chuck Yeager to overfly the city in a Tigershark (he being one of their ambassadors and test pilots at the time). He was in town for an airshow where the F-20 was one of the star exhibits. If only...
The most "fighter jet" looking fighter jet ever made. Everything about it just embodies the pinnacle of 1980s jet fighter aesthetics. The F-20 doesn't belong in an aviation museum, but an art museum.
The F-20 Tiger shark,to me is one of the nicest and capable design's in the last forty years. Here in LA we have on display at the California science center the last remaining one. Excellent video.
Their ads in Newsweek magazine in the 80s made my mouth water. I would have bought one, but my financial capability back then depended on my meager lunch money.
My wife worked on this program in Hawthorne , Ca. as a Contract Administrator ,Sales , we were really wanting the Air Force to choose the Northrop F-20 Tiger Shark , sadly they chose the General Dynamics F-16 , the F-20 was a fine fighter aircraft ! John
Sadly?? Sadly??? The Viper is one of the most successful fighters of all time! It revolutionized how we approached fighter aircraft design! Thank GOODNESS they chose the Viper over the Tiger!
You had no chance for those sales to be made. At that time Israel was in an economic slump so certain citizens in the U.S. decided it was in there interest to use US money to pay to support Israel by diverting taxpayer dollars to purchase an Israeli based fight built entirely from U.S. based designs. In other words, to finance these certain US citizens they sacrificed Northrupt's superior, tested, and proven aircraft for their own financial gain. They threw some crumbs at Northrupt with the Spirit bomber to pretend they did not do this, but the goal had already been accomplished, transfer U.S. taxpayer dollars into the hands of certain citizens via plane sales of an Israeli fighter that was built on U.S. designs. Corruption by those with money to increase their wealth.
It was SO beautiful! Sadly, the USAF probably chose correctly. In the F-20 the F-5 was at the end of it's development capability, while the F-16 was just beginning.
That is not a true statement. The YF-16 and YF-17 had a flyoff and the F-16 won. There was no F-20 in the picture. The YF-16/YF-17 flyoff happened in 1974. The F-20's first-flight was in 1982, when the F-16 was already well into production.
I had hoped that the Air National Guard would have taken the F-20, since they provided air defense to the continental US. I made a model of the F-20 in Florida Air National Guard markings a few years back. It looked pretty darned cool!
. . .at a higher price than it would have cost to buy brand new Tigersharks. One Senator told the ANG liaison on Capitol Hill "You're not going to want to tell me about being underfunded anytime soon!"
@@SoloPilot6 So what? Eagles are far more capable. It's fine to like something that looks cool because it looks cool, but better to admit that's the only real reason. That extra engine is why F-15 pilots joke about single engined aircraft being an "in flight emergency" due to being shy an engine. When you operate over water as Air Defense must on the coasts being able to RTB on remaining engine is Very Nice. We caught one at KKMC during Desert Storm whose pilot shut down one engine near the Turkish border but easily made it to KKMC. Not everything is a desperate struggle to save money especially given the very long lives of most US airframes.
I remember reading Yeager's autobiography in the mid '80s. As noted, he was very enthusiastic about the Tigershark. It was more or less competitive with the other American fighters, at half the cost, or less. Slightly better in some respects, slightly worse in others, but much cheaper and easy to maintain. If I remember correctly, it lost out a little in beyond visual range, (the radar, was not the equal of what the F-15 had) but in a close dogfight it was the equal or better, to anything. Yeager said the F5 already had wonderful handling and dynamics, but the 'shark was even better. It was a lot of fun to fly. It was not adopted because of politics, back room wheeling and dealing. There was nothing wrong with it, it just didn't make the right friends. The B2 Spirit was a thing, and enormous amounts of money were going to Northrop in that deal, so there was very considerable resistance to buying anything else from them. To do so would have upset the other few companies the US gov was buying from. (Grumman, Boeing, General Dynamics etc.) And the real market place for it, exports, they didn't want to buy it if the US gov themselves didn't want to buy it.
It wasn't adopted because it was a private venture (nobody asked for it) and came 10 years too late to compete with the superior and only slightly more expensive F-16.
The F-20 was only an interim fighter. Had it been adopted, those nations buying it would have ended up either replacing it by around 2000 with either the F-16 or F-18 or finding themselves falling behind their likely adversaries *anyway* . And recall it was explicitly designed as a way to update a 1950s basic design into at least being capable employing the same weapons as 4th Generation fighters. It was quite literally intended to be, "We don't need to buy F-16 - we have F-16 at home!" And when it morphed from the F-5G follow on to the earlier F-5 series into the F-20, it was a private development intended to avoid some of the obstacles put in to block F-16 and F-18 sales to less developed nations. But around the time the F-20 was available, the F-16 and F-18 were cleared for wide scale international sales. The inclusion of AIM-7 (and eventually AMRAAM) capability to the F-16 (against the enraged howls of the Boyd/Sprey led Fighter Mafia), that was the final nail in the F-20's coffin.
At that time Israel was in an economic slump so certain citizens in the U.S. decided it was in there interest to use US money to pay to support Israel by diverting taxpayer dollars to purchase an Israeli based fight built entirely from U.S. based designs. In other words, to finance these certain US citizens they sacrificed Northrupt's superior, tested, and proven aircraft for their own financial gain. They threw some crumbs at Northrupt with the Spirit bomber to pretend they did not do this, but the goal had already been accomplished, transfer U.S. taxpayer dollars into the hands of certain citizens via plane sales of an Israeli fighter that was built on U.S. designs. Corruption by those with money to increase their wealth. ....
Northrop sharing components with the Hornet makes sense from an economy of scale perspective. The biggest issue with the F-20 is that it is a modification of an existing aircraft, the pinnacle if you will, but one at the end of its design cycle. The other platforms mentioned, especially the F-16 when comparing cost and capability, were at the start. We see today that these aircraft have proved a lot more flexible and effective. If countries had bought them at the time, they likely would still be operating them now at severe disadvantage. Those that bought Falcons and Hornets are still competitive.
Yup, Northrop hit a sweet spot with the N-156 and all its offspring, but that origin goes back to the late 1950s. It was so good that with upgrades it was able to maintain a place as a low cost export fighter for a long time, but never could rise to becoming a mainline fighter for a major power air force. The F-16 and F-18 did rise because they couldn't help but surpass the inherent limitations of this decades old design, regardless of how good looking that design remained.
You guys should make a video about F-CK1 Ching Kuo, simply known as Indigenous Defense Fighter. This jet was made under the request of Republic of China Air Force after the sales of F-5G(later known as F-20), F-16/79 and F-18L was forbidden to Taiwan. The Indigenous Defense Fighter is a F-16 derivative with F-5 and F/A-18 lineage due to the fact it was started as the improved F-5E, as the program continues General Dynamic began to send advisors to aid Taiwan, at the meantime Northrop also provided technical data as well, so the jet started to bear more resemblance to the F-16 and F/A-18. Also, nice choice of music, the music used in the video is the same as the actual vintage F-20 advertisement.
Too right mate,these would have been perfect trainers for the R.A.A.F and could have also been used for ground attack/troop support freeing up the F-18's for pure fighter,interceptor etc.I think the F20 would have carried way more ordanace/weapons than the Bae Hawk.🇦🇺
When Australia bought the Hawk, there was no F-20, the world had moved on. The Hawk is an excellent jet trainer and lead into what is now the front line aircraft in the RAAF inventory. The Hawk was bought at time when the RAAF was looking at a replacement for the Hornet, and looking at other aircraft developments, this meant that there likely would not be trainer version of the replacement, which as we know today, there is not.
I’m not sure the F-20 would have been an alternative to the Hawk as a trainer. When you look at the kind of capabilities being put into it, I could imagine the Hawk being the training aircraft before stepping up to the F-20. It’s design to compete with the F-16 makes me think that it wouldn’t have been a training aircraft in the way the Hawk or even the T-38 are, since it’s a bit like saying the F-16 could have replaced the Hawk as a trainer. I trained in the Hawk before moving up to the Typhoon but I’m not sure the F-20 would have been a good training aircraft given the kind of performance it has being quite a major step up. It’s one thing moving up from flying the Prefect, Tudor, or Tucano and stepping into a Hawk or T-38, but stepping from those straight into an F-20 or F-16 is not something I’m sure would have great results. I can’t say for sure though, since I never actually saw the F-20 fly and I’m basing judgement on the very little I know about it. I’ve always liked what I’ve seen of it though.
Forget it? I have built 3 models of it in the past 3 years! I remember Chuck Yeager being interviewed about it on ABC's show 20/20 saying it was an incredible fighter. Been my favorite for years. Probably still be flying today like the T-38.
Great video! Brings back fond memories of the little fighter that roared. As a bit of solace: it seems however that Saab of Sweden and KAI of South Korea did take notice and developed the JAS-39 Gripen and T/F-50 respectively, which in my humkble opinion might be regarded as late stepchildren of the F-20. Both (initially) powered by the same GE-F404 engine. And now, with the T-7A about to replace the T-38 Talon as the USAF's primary jet trainer, there seems to be another. But indeed very sad for Northop that such a marvel had been frustrated possibly to allow an uncontested reign of the F-16. Which, I must say, is a fantastic fighter in its own right as well. Only this year our Royal Netherlands Air Force has retired their last ones after around 40 years of continuous and distinguished service, some of which are now/or will be serving in the Ukrainian Air Force. That is testament I'd say that the F-16 was not such a bad choice after all, albeit costlier and heavier. Back in the days of the Cold War, my kid brother and I often could see F-16A's from Leeuwarden AFB slugging it out high up outside our home town through binocs against the (sadly disbanded) 32nd TFS Wolfhounds of the USAFE from Soesterberg AFB on clear days, the skies thundering with the power of single and double P&W F100 afterburners. The guys in 'the flying tennis court' got their behinds handed to them in those dogfights. Once had the pleasure of speaking to one of the F-15 pilots and he said that in a dogfight he 'easily lost track of those little Dutch critters,' but that in BVR the might Eagle reigned supreme. Imagine how easy Eagle drivers would have lost sight of the F-20... Ah well. Thanks for the video and kind regards from up here to down under! Cheers!
The Gripen used the F-20 and F-16XL as a reference, but continued to refine the aerodynamics which allowed it to Supercruise with payload under the wings and without afterburner. Something neither could do.
Having this jet play the 'iconic' Mig-28 in Top Gun would have been so damn cool! I get that only 3 were ever made but they could have used some fancy editing to seem like there were more in the air at the same time. Seriously, this may even have been a good PR stunt for the Tigershark. Sad waste of a good jet...😁 This story reminds me of today's Gripen. Awesome, cost-effective jet (comparatively speaking) that just won't sell. In the case of the JAS-39, America just has too much pull on the industry (ie., F-35).
Was always a bit sad that these never entered production. I think modern warfare has shown that big loud and super expensive is not always better. A lot of the time, being super cheap and easy to maintain is all you need. Look at the success of the A29 Super Tucano and how many nations have it in their arsenal. I feel as though those nations would also be equipping themselves with the Tigershark if it had entered production.
OK ... The thing not mentioned - is that because the F-16 and F-18 were better than the F-5's - the American Military had bought them. The Air Force liked the F-16 better than the F-17 it was competing against - but - the Navy wanted an aircraft with *_TWO_* engines. Something to do with flying over water a lot ... so it bought a NAVY version of the F-17 - The F-18. Thus - having committed to these two aircraft as their Second Tier Aircraft - after the F-15 and F-14 - they had trained mechanics to work on these planes and invested in a logistics chain to supply them with spare parts. They weren't even going to add a Third Tier Aircraft to their Training and Logistics chains. They had training aircraft - but - these were not in the came category of money spent on them as the Top Tier Fighters. So - the F-20 couldn't be a Third Tier aircraft - it would have had to be head and shoulders better than both the F-16 and F-18 - to get the military to add yet another aircraft to their training and logistics and they were not going to do that - because it wasn't. It wasn't even quite as good. It was _almost_ as good. Here - internal fuel capacity was also a serious issue. If you had to carry your extra fuel externally - then there was something else you wouldn't be carrying. You'll never see a Bombed Up F-20 that looks like a Bombed Up F-14, F-15, F-16 or F-18. The Basic Designs of these aircraft had always been to be Top Tier Aircraft - whereas the F-20 was based on a design intended to be a Cheap Export or Aggressor - Aircraft. The F-5 design the F-20 was a development of - just wasn't good enough to develop a Top Tier Fighter from. As mentioned - a lot of foreign buyers - wanted what the Americans were using - not some "Export Fighter" . Their Pilots had some real influence. The Successors to some of their Kings - had been trained as fighter pilots by the US and had flown F-15's. These men did not want to fly a Second Tier Fighter - much less a Third Tier fighter. If they couldn't get the First Tier Fighters - which some of them did - they weren't going to settle for some Third Tier Export Fighter. These men were going to become the rulers of their countries - and they had a LOT to say about what went on. Northrup may have been able to sell some of it's F-20's to foreign markets - but not the best ones. The Best ones - wanted what the Americans were Flying themselves. Here - as mentioned - the Americans were willing to sell their 1st and 2nd Tier Fighters to some countries - but - if they weren't willing to see their first two tiered fighters to a country - and that's what they all wanted - did they really want to trust that country with something as good as an F-20? The problem with the F-20 was that it was both to good and not good enough. It was to good to sell to countries we didn't trust enough to seel 1st or 2nd Tier Fighters too - and it wasn't good enough for the countries we would sell 1st and 2nd Tier Fighters too. Throughout the History of Aviation - if you look at all those model numbers - they aren't all contiguous. There are gaps throughout the Aircraft Designations. P-35, P-36, P-38, P-39, P-40 ...P-47, P-51 ... P-80 ... etc. All those missing numbers - were assigned to aircraft - that for whatever reason - were not produced in a major way - and that's just the Fighters. Same thing with the Bombers. All these aircraft that were not produced - failed - for any number of reasons. If you look at some of the UA-cam Aviation Channels - there are Videos on some of these aircraft. This is one of those videos - on an aircraft - which for whatever reason - wasn't seriously produced. .
Great video! First off, I love the F-20 Tigershark as a plane and as a concept. I understand why the F-16 took off and the F-20 did not. The F-16 was viewed as a new platform for a Generation 4 to a Gen 4.5 fighter. The F-20 was based on a Gen 3 platform brought up to a Gen 4 specs. So in the concept of "Room to Grow," the F-16 had more to offer than the F-20 as a platform. Keep in mind that the F-117 was already flying and the need for a Gen 5 fighter was starting to come within sight the next decade, which was the F-22. Its also important to keep in mind that you had legacy fighter platforms that were winding down like Vietnam era fighters and earlier models. The Government was looking to simplify logistics by having fewer models of aircraft, I remember that being important in th 1980s and 1990s. I think Congress and Uncle Sam did Northrup dirty on this plane, they CLEARLY should have allowed the company to sell the plane abroad and probably used the plane as a Air National Guard fighter in certain states. I think in the long run the F-20 competing against the F-16 would have had minimal overlap as the cost per flight hour and the need to upgrade the planes would have seen the F-16 take those sales vs a fighter that is primarily used for Domestic protection for the customer. Long and short, the F-20 should have flown and should have been sold. It would be ideal for countries looking to upgrade older fighters and F-5 fleets to a modern standard. It also could have augmented current fleets with F-16s as a reliable partner. Middle East Countries, Asian countries like South Korea and the Philippines, as well as South ans Central American countries would have been ideal buyers for these planes. 😎👍✨
One of the most beautiful birds ever. If the US had purchased the F-20 instead of the F-16, the $6 million dollar savings per aircraft would have ended up being almost $30 billion by the time the F-16c production ended.
Possibly, but in addition to worse performance, the F-20 didn't even have a flyable prototype when the F-16 was accepted into service. By the time the F-20 was actually combat capable, the F-16 had a global supply chain greatly reducing it's long term cost due to the scale of production.
The YF-23 had a glaring question mark over its weapons bay while the F-22 was doing missile firing tests ahead of schedule. They did not get shafted in any way.
The F-20 was just coming on the scene when Canada was looking for a new fighter to replace the CF-104 and the Voodoo. It was considered by the CAF and DND as just an upgraded F-5, of which we had a bunch of A and B models. We bought the F-18 instead - at somewhere close to three times the cost per aircraft and we did not buy spares or include a license for the technology so we could build them ourselves. We could have had an actual air force with enough fighters to keep a qualified cadre of experienced pilots, instead we got three squadrons of hornets, no spares and had to buy (and still do) parts at retail. There's no fixing stupid.
Considering Saab was willing to do a full tech transfer and (if memory serves) joint fund a production plant in Ontario, it still boggles the mind that Ottawa doubled down on the choice to procure the F-35 which [checks notes] have yet to deliver _any_ units after 10 years of waiting. We could have been _building_ Gripens by now, one of the few NATO-compatible fighters designed for "Canadian" climate requirements. Yes, the Lightning should be better over-all, but we needed a replacement for the Hornet a decade ago! An undelivered 'better' is worse than 'good enough' actually in service.
@@Vespuchian Canada placed their first F-35 order last year. They haven't been waiting for anywhere close to 10 years, unless you are talking about their internal politics and indecision.
@@Vespuchian I agree 100%. Apparently more bells and whistles is far more important to the brass at Air Command and NDHQ than useful tools equipment. I agree. A part of that decision also was Bombardier's disinterest in playing a subsidiary role in a Grippen program. The Grippen was the better of all the options on the table. It's no slouch in any of its capabilities, carries a bigger load farther and from unimproved strips. Add in the fact that hangar-flight hours ratio is far, far better than the projected best of the F-35's and it's a real-world known quality. And, we could have had far more of them. But I guess that just makes too much sense.
@@SoloPilot6 although I have mad respect for Yeager, some of the decisions in the later part of his life remain entirely questionable. Almost nothing about this aircraft was better than the Viper, except perhaps cost, and time has proven the airframe as one of the most adaptable and potent aircraft ever made.
I was stationed at Suwon AB (1984) watching the demonstration flight of the F-20 when it crashed. The plane was inverted and stalled, crashed intact but too low to eject. There is a video on YT showing "Northrop F-20 Tigershark Crash (1984)".
Back in the day, Germany was thinking about a new fighter aircraft and I really hoped they would choose the F-20 but they kept the F-4. Something I fail to understand even today. Back then the F-4 was already an older player and the F-20 was top-of-the-line new and up-to-date, it would actually have been cheaper per plane. Sure we already had a F-4 fleet but the aircraft was already massively outclassed in the fighter role, so buying the F-20 would have been the logical step. As she was unmatched in the QRA-relevant parameters.
This shouldn't be the case at all! UA-cam would normally deliver one 'mid-roll' ad every 11min (on average), so there shouldn't have been more than 2 ads disrupting this video. But then, UA-cam seem to just make things up as they go along - especially in dealing with them in demonetizing certain videos for us but then happily plaster ads right through it (and I guess keep all the revenue for themselves!). Sorry about all the ads - not in our control, sadly.
For non-pilots watching, that last shot shows the Tigershark going from too-slow-to-fly to NEAR-VERTICAL in 7 seconds -- less time than it takes an F16 to get back to flying speed in a touch-and-go.
The F-20 had great acceleration, but that's not what it shows here. Stop making stuff up. It was not too slow to fly, any jet can pull the nose vertical, and you are probably comparing a normal mil power touch and go with an afterburner demo maneuver.
The only problem with the F20 was it's internal fuel capacity that didn't increase over the F5E in order save costs, even with a powerful and thirsty GE F404 engine.
@@wololo10 No, it had nowhere near 2000 mile range on internal fuel. The clean range of the F-5E was less than 500 miles on internal fuel, and the F-20 must have been similar.
I think it should be considered that, at the time it was developed, it was _almost_ a match for anything the US already had. Close enough that pilot skill would have been a deciding factor. Add to that it was intended for export sales to nations that might not always remain friendly. So, for example, a couple of highly skilled Iranian Pilots could have been a real threat to our own forces after the fall of the Shah. Add to this the fact that being based on the F-5, it shared that aircraft's ease of maintenance and reliability. Compared to other fighters exported to now-hostile nations, like the F-14, restricting spare parts and tools would have been less effective at keeping them from remaining a threat. In short, it was _too good_ for export under the FX program, and as has been mentioned elsewhere, Northrup was already getting a big chunk of the DoD budget pie with the B-2. It is a shame, though. It was a _lovely_ plane and one I have always admired as the culmination of the F-5 program.
The big party piece of the F-14 was its AIM-54 missiles and the ridiculously powerful radar (at the time) and targeting capabilities its fire control systems offered. Otherwise, the F-14 is just a more expensive, more maintenance-intensive, not quite as fast or maneuverable alternative of the F-15. When the F-14 came out, the only other weapons it carried were the AIM-7 Sparrow and AIM-9 Sidewinder, which weren't particularly remarkable in the 1970s. Upgraded versions of things aren't really all that easy to do without substantial engineering capabilities, which not a lot of countries possess. The countries who can do it are A: US allies and will buy from you because they like having the best stuff (Canada, Australia), B: US allies with their own aerospace capabilities who make their own stuff (France), or C: not allies of the US who aren't buying from you anyway. The Iranian HESA aircraft based on the F-5 are evidence of this. They don't really serve as anything more than an F-5 platform used to either be a TeMu version of the F/A-18, or a way to prove that you can adapt substandard Soviet-era weapon systems onto an American airframe.
The old fighter jet aircrafts were even more aerodynamically optimized compared to the ones of today. Unreached beauty. The Northrop F-5 is my favorite.
Because they thought speed was the most important characteristic. They thought nukes would only be delivered by bombers, so they needed aircraft as fast as possible to intercept them before they reached their targets. Making an aircraft aerodynamically efficient means sacrifices to maneuverability at low and medium speeds.
Yugoslavia almost produced the F-20 under license, the negotiations with Northop were far advanced, but the reluctance of the American government to allow the transfer of technology for the Pratt-Whitney F-100 engine was judged unfavorably, so Yugoslavia chose the French as partners in the Novi Avion project because they were ready to sell their then-new SNECMA M-88 for Novi Avion. The Novi Avion is basically a single-engine Rafale, which is funny due to the fact that both Croatia and Serbia are paying dearly for Rafales now in the 2020s, and they could have produce a single-engine version of their own back in the late 90s.
The reason for the Hornet parts is because the Hornet originally was a Northrop plane, the YF-17 Hornet. It evolved into the F-18A under McDonald Douglas.
Judging by the fact that the sensor suite is still being adapted by KA50, this jet could have been a logical choice for many nations that operate a smaller defense budget
It'll never be forgotten by the F-5E crew chiefs like me. I was soooo hoping it would be chosen but the 'fighter mafia' has a grudge against Northrop for fighters. I was also a crew chief on T-38's and both were so easy to maintain, especially compared to F-4's.
I wonder what a bigger roided-up version of the F-5E or F-20 would have looked like. i.e. A Tiger or Tigershark the size of an F-14 or F-15, to serve as an air superiority fighter. Not that they'd have sold well since both the F-14 and F-15 were already established at that point. Just a fun what-if.
F-5E and F looked like thoroughbreds, F-20 looked slicker than owl shit! Better than F-16? I couldn't say, it looked good but the F-16 has been incredibly adaptable.
Well put together story, using good research and legacy footage of the fighter that could have been. Interesting how politics and economic interests killed what was a very promising fighter.
It would be really interesting to see how the F-20 would have performed had it been out there in the world. I feel like it'd have faired well against its contemporaries, except the F-15 of course, it smokes everything of the time. . .
I think we should retool and build these too. With all the advances in electronics, materials and software, these would still be cheaper and likely 20% to 30% more capable than they were. It would allow the US to have effective planes that are way cheaper to buy and operate, so we can buy hundreds and let out pilots fly more due to the savings. Again, we can also sell them to our allies. For most of our friend nations who don't have huge budgets, this is an excellent platform to defend their airspace and counter any aggressors.
Actually saw one in the air. I think they were being shown off to the ANG and/or Air Force Reserve. It zipped over where I was in the boonies. At first I thought it was an F-5 until the single tailpipe's significance sank in.
I thought the F20 was made because Carter did not want US frontline tech in danger of being caught by the USSR while still provide other countries with high quality equipment. Reagan changed the policy and the F20 was forced to compete with the F16 and F15, etc which it was not designed to do.
I mean, it's a shame what happened to the F-20. But the F-16 went on to be the most successful fighter ever and is still being used and built today. It's hard to say the lesser aircraft won.
and JF-17, many design lessons from F-20, when Pakistan, China, and US worked together before 1989 to improve PAF's J-7 (project Sabre ii iirc). The Sabre II developed to JF17 taking some design from F-20 in the nose, wing & lerx, and empennage.
the F-20 was a great Tactical fighter. the thing about the F-20 like the F-5 it was derived from is that the airframe was capable of pulling 12g's any unwary pilot would become G-locked.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but is the hype around this aircraft based on WarThunder?? I've never played it, I don't understand the recent love for it out of obscurity. It's got a very small skillset (it's pretty looking sure, but it does one thing). It can't be air refueled, it doesn't have the ability to be heavy without completely suffering. I'm not gonna shit on it, but the F-16 was the obvious better choice.
@hunterhalo2 you are not wrong, the F-5/20 is a simple af Fighter Mafia wet dream that is rudely interrupted by reality demanding more capability that the F-16 brings to the table and international politics preventing it from flourishing in its prime internationally. It really had about 10 years to be the off the shelf American fighter for exclusive sale and then the F-16 just took its business by lowering costs due to production scale.
The main character of Area 88 flew the F-20 as his main aircraft towards the end of the original series, it was replaced by an F-5 in the reboot though
In a turning dogfight, the F-5E was slightly better than the MiG-21. Despite the MiG was more powerful and had a higher top speed, it quickly lost energy in a sustained turn. The advantage of the F-5E was better aerodynamics. However, the F-5A and C models had less powerful engines and could not match the performance of the MiG. I saw the F-20 at Farnborough Airshow in the 1980s. Very impressive! The problem was that the F-16 was better.
The Lavi was also cancelled, in large part due to the fact it could not be exported without US consent mainly due to its engine. This was driven by US manufacturers opposing any new competition in the market. It was never going to be a competitor to the F20.
@@MrBozo3dTaken from the military assistance package the US contributed to the peace deal with Egypt under Carter . Split between Israel and Egypt. I think at 3:2 ratio.
10:33 " However there were drawbacks " is heard. "The lifespan would be estimated half of an F16." The F5, or NF5b as we used widely in the Netherlands was notorious for the short fatigue life of the lower wing skin. Cracking originated from countersunk fastener holes near the fuselage junction appeared at half of the projected life time: Fokker had to re-skin the wings. If that life span would be halved again... the F20 would last only 2-3 years in service.
USAF had to replace the wings of its T-38s quite often and eventually had Northup provide stronger replacement wings. They often suffered over-G during training. At lot of them were twisted from asymmetric over-G. Part of preflight was to tap on the wing to detect if the skin was delaminating from the honeycomb core.
I mean, in hindsight, the F-16 was a better aircraft given the length of time it's been in service, but it would have been cool to see the F-20 sold overseas to see how they would have done in large scale exercises, like Red Flag, against the F-16. BTW, I could listen to Chuck Yeager talk for hours.
It's ironic that much was said about the F-16's superiority in dogfighting over the F-5E and later F-20 fighters. But the F-20 is probably the better multirole fighter, especially with the larger wing Northrop was working on and the improvements in avionics and fire control and targeting systems. The way the USAF fights today would actually be better served by the Tigershark. Well, at least before stealth became such a high priority. Now, all the 4th gen fighters days are numbered as front line aircraft.
The Viper, which was chosen over the Tiger by the USAF, is one of the most successful fighters of all time! It revolutionized how we approached fighter aircraft design! The Tiger was an obsolete platform with inherit limitations from the start. It could never have allowed for the sort of capability upgrades we've seen over the years like we did on the F-16.
The F-20 was not in competition with the F16 for the US, so your point makes no sense. It was designed to be an export fighter, deliberately with a slightly lower performance level. At the time, the F20 a better deal for those markets since the F-16's were not even an option at the time. That is why many chose Russian and French fighters instead. In the late 1970's/early 1980's, computer tech was advancing rapidly, so the few years between the design of the F16 and F20 gave the F20 an advantage in power and reliability at the level that would have been allowed to be exported. This was when the very first IBM PC's became available and I recall that the F20 used some of IBM's new commercially available processors instead of the more expensive military-only ones in the F-16. Interestingly, budget cuts prevented the US National Guard from getting F-16's for a number of years, so they had to make due with 1960's-era fighters instead of getting some of the more capable F20's in those years.
@@paulw7404 Yes. You can just type in "F16 Lawn Dart" to learn more. It had a problem with engine flame-outs. I suspect that is the reason that the F20 made such a big deal about being able to go from a cold start to altitude rapidly in the early 1980's ads I remember seeing. The F16 had issues at the time.
@@jfess1911 Here's the problem. The F-20 only makes sense if you're the exporter trying to make a business case to sell the thing to foreign government for all these conditions,which at the end of the day, aren't the things that get politicians reelected. If I'm a stakeholder or decision maker for any of the governments that eventually ended up getting the F-16 (or the countries with extended range considerations, the F-18) anyway (which pretty much end up the ones we trust to fight on our side anyway - NATO and the ones who stuck with us through Vietnam, plus mideast princes and sheikh bribes.) Tell me how, if I'm South Korea, which was seen as THE prime market for these things because they already had the F-5, $13M/ea is anywhere near a good deal when I can just hold out for the F-16 for $15M unit cost, USAF is flying F-16s out of USAF bases in Korea anyway, ensuring future compatibility in training and ogistics, national prestige, a united front and more importantly, ambiguous IFF between ROKAF and USAF if hostile nations want to get frisky? It's a non-starter. Makes no sense for any serious national defemse considerations *as the buyer.*. That's what a lot of these lesser fighters were of that era - wishful thinking on the part of North American aerospace defense contractors. The situation has changed significantly and the world of 2024 actually has room for light fighters, but the time for the F-20 has passed, not that there ever was in the first place.
Remember, in the 70s, the Soviets had a similar policy as the Americans in regard to downgraded types, but done differently. So when some countries received F-5's rather than F-4's from the US, Soviet allies would receive downgraded MiG-23's with the inferior MiG-21 fitted instead.
Such a great aircraft. I can remember seeing them as a kid parked at LAX. Seems sad that they were never given the opportunity to live up to their full potential. Your government at work for you!
If the USAF had made a purchase of the F-20 it would have sent a positive message to international buyers. With the huge F-16 contract awarded to General Dynamics, it implied that the F-16 was the aircraft to purchase, not the F-20.
As a former fighter pilot myself, I always loved the look of the Tigershark: sleek, fast and highly manoeuvrable. During my final TDY at Nellis in 1986 (where I was part of the Green Flag staff), we were in Vegas one day when I heard a fighter fly right over the strip, It was gone before I could spot it. But then I heard that local air traffic control had given clearance for Gen Chuck Yeager to overfly the city in a Tigershark (he being one of their ambassadors and test pilots at the time). He was in town for an airshow where the F-20 was one of the star exhibits. If only...
The most "fighter jet" looking fighter jet ever made. Everything about it just embodies the pinnacle of 1980s jet fighter aesthetics. The F-20 doesn't belong in an aviation museum, but an art museum.
It belongs in the sky serving nations. Upgraded of course.
Who was it who said 'if it looks right, it is right'?
@@AirShark95 you forgot about f-14 tomcat variable sweep wings
According to who? You??? Lmao
@@vijayfulmali1830fr
The F-20 Tiger shark,to me is one of the nicest and capable design's in the last forty years. Here in LA we have on display at the California science center the last remaining one. Excellent video.
Cool.
@@aaronlopez492 Not only to you! I still love this design. I think it was an opportunity missed for Western friendly nations.
Their ads in Newsweek magazine in the 80s made my mouth water. I would have bought one, but my financial capability back then depended on my meager lunch money.
Haha I feel ya!
My wife worked on this program in Hawthorne , Ca. as a Contract Administrator ,Sales , we were really wanting the Air Force to choose the Northrop F-20 Tiger Shark , sadly they chose the General Dynamics F-16 , the F-20 was a fine fighter aircraft ! John
The money flows freely when trying to sell Aircraft. Money was flowing into many hands to keep the F-20 down.
Sadly?? Sadly??? The Viper is one of the most successful fighters of all time! It revolutionized how we approached fighter aircraft design! Thank GOODNESS they chose the Viper over the Tiger!
You had no chance for those sales to be made. At that time Israel was in an economic slump so certain citizens in the U.S. decided it was in there interest to use US money to pay to support Israel by diverting taxpayer dollars to purchase an Israeli based fight built entirely from U.S. based designs. In other words, to finance these certain US citizens they sacrificed Northrupt's superior, tested, and proven aircraft for their own financial gain. They threw some crumbs at Northrupt with the Spirit bomber to pretend they did not do this, but the goal had already been accomplished, transfer U.S. taxpayer dollars into the hands of certain citizens via plane sales of an Israeli fighter that was built on U.S. designs. Corruption by those with money to increase their wealth.
It was SO beautiful!
Sadly, the USAF probably chose correctly. In the F-20 the F-5 was at the end of it's development capability, while the F-16 was just beginning.
That is not a true statement. The YF-16 and YF-17 had a flyoff and the F-16 won. There was no F-20 in the picture. The YF-16/YF-17 flyoff happened in 1974. The F-20's first-flight was in 1982, when the F-16 was already well into production.
Man, those promotional vids are peak 80's. I really love them.
I had hoped that the Air National Guard would have taken the F-20, since they provided air defense to the continental US. I made a model of the F-20 in Florida Air National Guard markings a few years back. It looked pretty darned cool!
When the F-15C came out the USAF dumped a bunch of F-15As with just 5 years of service in the ANGs hands.
@@ChucksSEADnDEAD And those F-15s did/do outstanding service.
. . .at a higher price than it would have cost to buy brand new Tigersharks.
One Senator told the ANG liaison on Capitol Hill "You're not going to want to tell me about being underfunded anytime soon!"
@@SoloPilot6 And they still had more capability than brand new F-20s.
@@SoloPilot6 So what? Eagles are far more capable. It's fine to like something that looks cool because it looks cool, but better to admit that's the only real reason. That extra engine is why F-15 pilots joke about single engined aircraft being an "in flight emergency" due to being shy an engine. When you operate over water as Air Defense must on the coasts being able to RTB on remaining engine is Very Nice. We caught one at KKMC during Desert Storm whose pilot shut down one engine near the Turkish border but easily made it to KKMC. Not everything is a desperate struggle to save money especially given the very long lives of most US airframes.
I remember reading Yeager's autobiography in the mid '80s. As noted, he was very enthusiastic about the Tigershark. It was more or less competitive with the other American fighters, at half the cost, or less. Slightly better in some respects, slightly worse in others, but much cheaper and easy to maintain. If I remember correctly, it lost out a little in beyond visual range, (the radar, was not the equal of what the F-15 had) but in a close dogfight it was the equal or better, to anything. Yeager said the F5 already had wonderful handling and dynamics, but the 'shark was even better. It was a lot of fun to fly.
It was not adopted because of politics, back room wheeling and dealing. There was nothing wrong with it, it just didn't make the right friends. The B2 Spirit was a thing, and enormous amounts of money were going to Northrop in that deal, so there was very considerable resistance to buying anything else from them. To do so would have upset the other few companies the US gov was buying from. (Grumman, Boeing, General Dynamics etc.) And the real market place for it, exports, they didn't want to buy it if the US gov themselves didn't want to buy it.
It wasn't adopted because it was a private venture (nobody asked for it) and came 10 years too late to compete with the superior and only slightly more expensive F-16.
Sen John Tower from Texas home of F-16 manufacturing
The F-20 was only an interim fighter. Had it been adopted, those nations buying it would have ended up either replacing it by around 2000 with either the F-16 or F-18 or finding themselves falling behind their likely adversaries *anyway* .
And recall it was explicitly designed as a way to update a 1950s basic design into at least being capable employing the same weapons as 4th Generation fighters. It was quite literally intended to be, "We don't need to buy F-16 - we have F-16 at home!"
And when it morphed from the F-5G follow on to the earlier F-5 series into the F-20, it was a private development intended to avoid some of the obstacles put in to block F-16 and F-18 sales to less developed nations. But around the time the F-20 was available, the F-16 and F-18 were cleared for wide scale international sales.
The inclusion of AIM-7 (and eventually AMRAAM) capability to the F-16 (against the enraged howls of the Boyd/Sprey led Fighter Mafia), that was the final nail in the F-20's coffin.
@@dumdumbinks274 ~ 👍
At that time Israel was in an economic slump so certain citizens in the U.S. decided it was in there interest to use US money to pay to support Israel by diverting taxpayer dollars to purchase an Israeli based fight built entirely from U.S. based designs. In other words, to finance these certain US citizens they sacrificed Northrupt's superior, tested, and proven aircraft for their own financial gain. They threw some crumbs at Northrupt with the Spirit bomber to pretend they did not do this, but the goal had already been accomplished, transfer U.S. taxpayer dollars into the hands of certain citizens via plane sales of an Israeli fighter that was built on U.S. designs. Corruption by those with money to increase their wealth. ....
Northrop sharing components with the Hornet makes sense from an economy of scale perspective. The biggest issue with the F-20 is that it is a modification of an existing aircraft, the pinnacle if you will, but one at the end of its design cycle. The other platforms mentioned, especially the F-16 when comparing cost and capability, were at the start. We see today that these aircraft have proved a lot more flexible and effective. If countries had bought them at the time, they likely would still be operating them now at severe disadvantage. Those that bought Falcons and Hornets are still competitive.
Yup, Northrop hit a sweet spot with the N-156 and all its offspring, but that origin goes back to the late 1950s. It was so good that with upgrades it was able to maintain a place as a low cost export fighter for a long time, but never could rise to becoming a mainline fighter for a major power air force. The F-16 and F-18 did rise because they couldn't help but surpass the inherent limitations of this decades old design, regardless of how good looking that design remained.
You guys should make a video about F-CK1 Ching Kuo, simply known as Indigenous Defense Fighter. This jet was made under the request of Republic of China Air Force after the sales of F-5G(later known as F-20), F-16/79 and F-18L was forbidden to Taiwan. The Indigenous Defense Fighter is a F-16 derivative with F-5 and F/A-18 lineage due to the fact it was started as the improved F-5E, as the program continues General Dynamic began to send advisors to aid Taiwan, at the meantime Northrop also provided technical data as well, so the jet started to bear more resemblance to the F-16 and F/A-18.
Also, nice choice of music, the music used in the video is the same as the actual vintage F-20 advertisement.
As soon as I saw the F-20 TIGERSHARK (in model form), I thought it was so cool and had to have it.
I am surprised that Australia didn't get these F20 instead of hawk trainers as more common with F18.
Too right mate,these would have been perfect trainers for the R.A.A.F and could have also been used for ground attack/troop support freeing up the F-18's for pure fighter,interceptor etc.I think the F20 would have carried way more ordanace/weapons than the Bae Hawk.🇦🇺
Poor Backing from the US Government made the F-18 a better proposition - Sadly the trend still continues to this day
When Australia bought the Hawk, there was no F-20, the world had moved on. The Hawk is an excellent jet trainer and lead into what is now the front line aircraft in the RAAF inventory. The Hawk was bought at time when the RAAF was looking at a replacement for the Hornet, and looking at other aircraft developments, this meant that there likely would not be trainer version of the replacement, which as we know today, there is not.
I’m not sure the F-20 would have been an alternative to the Hawk as a trainer. When you look at the kind of capabilities being put into it, I could imagine the Hawk being the training aircraft before stepping up to the F-20. It’s design to compete with the F-16 makes me think that it wouldn’t have been a training aircraft in the way the Hawk or even the T-38 are, since it’s a bit like saying the F-16 could have replaced the Hawk as a trainer. I trained in the Hawk before moving up to the Typhoon but I’m not sure the F-20 would have been a good training aircraft given the kind of performance it has being quite a major step up. It’s one thing moving up from flying the Prefect, Tudor, or Tucano and stepping into a Hawk or T-38, but stepping from those straight into an F-20 or F-16 is not something I’m sure would have great results. I can’t say for sure though, since I never actually saw the F-20 fly and I’m basing judgement on the very little I know about it. I’ve always liked what I’ve seen of it though.
Great show and with some funky 80's beats. Great job:)
Forget it? I have built 3 models of it in the past 3 years! I remember Chuck Yeager being interviewed about it on ABC's show 20/20 saying it was an incredible fighter. Been my favorite for years. Probably still be flying today like the T-38.
I always wondered what happened to the F - 2 0 Tiger Shark 🦈
If General Yeager gave it the thumbs 👍 Up it must have been Good
Great video! Brings back fond memories of the little fighter that roared.
As a bit of solace: it seems however that Saab of Sweden and KAI of South Korea did take notice and developed the JAS-39 Gripen and T/F-50 respectively, which in my humkble opinion might be regarded as late stepchildren of the F-20. Both (initially) powered by the same GE-F404 engine.
And now, with the T-7A about to replace the T-38 Talon as the USAF's primary jet trainer, there seems to be another.
But indeed very sad for Northop that such a marvel had been frustrated possibly to allow an uncontested reign of the F-16.
Which, I must say, is a fantastic fighter in its own right as well. Only this year our Royal Netherlands Air Force has retired their last ones after around 40 years of continuous and distinguished service, some of which are now/or will be serving in the Ukrainian Air Force. That is testament I'd say that the F-16 was not such a bad choice after all, albeit costlier and heavier.
Back in the days of the Cold War, my kid brother and I often could see F-16A's from Leeuwarden AFB slugging it out high up outside our home town through binocs against the (sadly disbanded) 32nd TFS Wolfhounds of the USAFE from Soesterberg AFB on clear days, the skies thundering with the power of single and double P&W F100 afterburners. The guys in 'the flying tennis court' got their behinds handed to them in those dogfights.
Once had the pleasure of speaking to one of the F-15 pilots and he said that in a dogfight he 'easily lost track of those little Dutch critters,' but that in BVR the might Eagle reigned supreme.
Imagine how easy Eagle drivers would have lost sight of the F-20...
Ah well. Thanks for the video and kind regards from up here to down under! Cheers!
The F-20 was probably one of the best looking aircraft of the 80s and 90s. It was small, smooth and just looked like it could fly.
really nice documentation about a really cool plane. good work and thank you. hope to see it one day in real life :)
The Gripen used the F-20 and F-16XL as a reference, but continued to refine the aerodynamics which allowed it to Supercruise with payload under the wings and without afterburner. Something neither could do.
The F20 would have been a great asset and a great international sales. Took the F5 to a whole new level.
The competitor to the F-16 (YF-16) was not the F-20 but the YF-17, which later became the F/A-18.
Having this jet play the 'iconic' Mig-28 in Top Gun would have been so damn cool! I get that only 3 were ever made but they could have used some fancy editing to seem like there were more in the air at the same time. Seriously, this may even have been a good PR stunt for the Tigershark. Sad waste of a good jet...😁
This story reminds me of today's Gripen. Awesome, cost-effective jet (comparatively speaking) that just won't sell. In the case of the JAS-39, America just has too much pull on the industry (ie., F-35).
Was always a bit sad that these never entered production. I think modern warfare has shown that big loud and super expensive is not always better. A lot of the time, being super cheap and easy to maintain is all you need. Look at the success of the A29 Super Tucano and how many nations have it in their arsenal. I feel as though those nations would also be equipping themselves with the Tigershark if it had entered production.
Great video. Great music selection too!
Indeed it was one of the most beautiful fighters ever. Made a really good fighter for all the comments I’ve heard. It should have been put in service
The F20 was a superb visual range dogfighter developed in an era when the future was clearly beyond visual range.
I guess they didn't see it coming 🤷
OK ...
The thing not mentioned - is that because the F-16 and F-18 were better than the F-5's - the American Military had bought them. The Air Force liked the F-16 better than the F-17 it was competing against - but - the Navy wanted an aircraft with *_TWO_* engines. Something to do with flying over water a lot ... so it bought a NAVY version of the F-17 - The F-18.
Thus - having committed to these two aircraft as their Second Tier Aircraft - after the F-15 and F-14 - they had trained mechanics to work on these planes and invested in a logistics chain to supply them with spare parts.
They weren't even going to add a Third Tier Aircraft to their Training and Logistics chains. They had training aircraft - but - these were not in the came category of money spent on them as the Top Tier Fighters.
So - the F-20 couldn't be a Third Tier aircraft - it would have had to be head and shoulders better than both the F-16 and F-18 - to get the military to add yet another aircraft to their training and logistics and they were not going to do that - because it wasn't. It wasn't even quite as good. It was _almost_ as good. Here - internal fuel capacity was also a serious issue. If you had to carry your extra fuel externally - then there was something else you wouldn't be carrying.
You'll never see a Bombed Up F-20 that looks like a Bombed Up F-14, F-15, F-16 or F-18. The Basic Designs of these aircraft had always been to be Top Tier Aircraft - whereas the F-20 was based on a design intended to be a Cheap Export or Aggressor - Aircraft. The F-5 design the F-20 was a development of - just wasn't good enough to develop a Top Tier Fighter from.
As mentioned - a lot of foreign buyers - wanted what the Americans were using - not some "Export Fighter" . Their Pilots had some real influence. The Successors to some of their Kings - had been trained as fighter pilots by the US and had flown F-15's. These men did not want to fly a Second Tier Fighter - much less a Third Tier fighter. If they couldn't get the First Tier Fighters - which some of them did - they weren't going to settle for some Third Tier Export Fighter. These men were going to become the rulers of their countries - and they had a LOT to say about what went on.
Northrup may have been able to sell some of it's F-20's to foreign markets - but not the best ones. The Best ones - wanted what the Americans were Flying themselves.
Here - as mentioned - the Americans were willing to sell their 1st and 2nd Tier Fighters to some countries - but - if they weren't willing to see their first two tiered fighters to a country - and that's what they all wanted - did they really want to trust that country with something as good as an F-20?
The problem with the F-20 was that it was both to good and not good enough. It was to good to sell to countries we didn't trust enough to seel 1st or 2nd Tier Fighters too - and it wasn't good enough for the countries we would sell 1st and 2nd Tier Fighters too.
Throughout the History of Aviation - if you look at all those model numbers - they aren't all contiguous. There are gaps throughout the Aircraft Designations.
P-35, P-36, P-38, P-39, P-40 ...P-47, P-51 ... P-80 ... etc. All those missing numbers - were assigned to aircraft - that for whatever reason - were not produced in a major way - and that's just the Fighters. Same thing with the Bombers.
All these aircraft that were not produced - failed - for any number of reasons. If you look at some of the UA-cam Aviation Channels - there are Videos on some of these aircraft. This is one of those videos - on an aircraft - which for whatever reason - wasn't seriously produced.
.
Excellent comment. Very logical. By the way, every prototype fighter never produced was always the best fighter ever. Know what I mean?
Great ad at the end! I want one!
Have been enjoying the videos very much. Thank you.
Very through and Informative video! my favorite one so far
Great video!
First off, I love the F-20 Tigershark as a plane and as a concept. I understand why the F-16 took off and the F-20 did not. The F-16 was viewed as a new platform for a Generation 4 to a Gen 4.5 fighter. The F-20 was based on a Gen 3 platform brought up to a Gen 4 specs. So in the concept of "Room to Grow," the F-16 had more to offer than the F-20 as a platform. Keep in mind that the F-117 was already flying and the need for a Gen 5 fighter was starting to come within sight the next decade, which was the F-22. Its also important to keep in mind that you had legacy fighter platforms that were winding down like Vietnam era fighters and earlier models. The Government was looking to simplify logistics by having fewer models of aircraft, I remember that being important in th 1980s and 1990s.
I think Congress and Uncle Sam did Northrup dirty on this plane, they CLEARLY should have allowed the company to sell the plane abroad and probably used the plane as a Air National Guard fighter in certain states. I think in the long run the F-20 competing against the F-16 would have had minimal overlap as the cost per flight hour and the need to upgrade the planes would have seen the F-16 take those sales vs a fighter that is primarily used for Domestic protection for the customer.
Long and short, the F-20 should have flown and should have been sold. It would be ideal for countries looking to upgrade older fighters and F-5 fleets to a modern standard. It also could have augmented current fleets with F-16s as a reliable partner. Middle East Countries, Asian countries like South Korea and the Philippines, as well as South ans Central American countries would have been ideal buyers for these planes. 😎👍✨
I think a 2 seat F-20 would have been a better replacement for the T-38 .
Early in the TX program about 15+ years ago, Northrop’s concept was almost just that. Then opted for a different design.
One of the most beautiful birds ever. If the US had purchased the F-20 instead of the F-16, the $6 million dollar savings per aircraft would have ended up being almost $30 billion by the time the F-16c production ended.
Possibly, but in addition to worse performance, the F-20 didn't even have a flyable prototype when the F-16 was accepted into service. By the time the F-20 was actually combat capable, the F-16 had a global supply chain greatly reducing it's long term cost due to the scale of production.
Northrop sure got the shaft, between the F-20 and YF-23
@@rogerjohnson6676 Also both being some of the best looking fighters of their generations.
The YF-23 had a glaring question mark over its weapons bay while the F-22 was doing missile firing tests ahead of schedule. They did not get shafted in any way.
Arguably, the B-2 contract as "consolation prize" was the bigger fish the whole time.
@ yeah, but it shouldn’t have to be, the best is the best.
I love the narrator voice, reminds me of my good friend Mike from Perth.
I know Mike!
I remember it being heavily advertised at a Paris airshow and I had no doubt orders by many smaller countries would begin soon.
F-18 family is closely related to the F-5/F-20 family… so the F-5 lives on in a way.
Actually the F-20 started life as the F-5G.
The F-20 was just coming on the scene when Canada was looking for a new fighter to replace the CF-104 and the Voodoo. It was considered by the CAF and DND as just an upgraded F-5, of which we had a bunch of A and B models. We bought the F-18 instead - at somewhere close to three times the cost per aircraft and we did not buy spares or include a license for the technology so we could build them ourselves. We could have had an actual air force with enough fighters to keep a qualified cadre of experienced pilots, instead we got three squadrons of hornets, no spares and had to buy (and still do) parts at retail. There's no fixing stupid.
Considering Saab was willing to do a full tech transfer and (if memory serves) joint fund a production plant in Ontario, it still boggles the mind that Ottawa doubled down on the choice to procure the F-35 which [checks notes] have yet to deliver _any_ units after 10 years of waiting.
We could have been _building_ Gripens by now, one of the few NATO-compatible fighters designed for "Canadian" climate requirements.
Yes, the Lightning should be better over-all, but we needed a replacement for the Hornet a decade ago! An undelivered 'better' is worse than 'good enough' actually in service.
@@Vespuchian Canada placed their first F-35 order last year. They haven't been waiting for anywhere close to 10 years, unless you are talking about their internal politics and indecision.
@@Vespuchian I agree 100%. Apparently more bells and whistles is far more important to the brass at Air Command and NDHQ than useful tools equipment. I agree. A part of that decision also was Bombardier's disinterest in playing a subsidiary role in a Grippen program.
The Grippen was the better of all the options on the table. It's no slouch in any of its capabilities, carries a bigger load farther and from unimproved strips. Add in the fact that hangar-flight hours ratio is far, far better than the projected best of the F-35's and it's a real-world known quality. And, we could have had far more of them. But I guess that just makes too much sense.
Chuck Yeager considered the F20 superior to the F16.
Since he flew both, I'm going to go with his evaluation.
@@SoloPilot6 although I have mad respect for Yeager, some of the decisions in the later part of his life remain entirely questionable. Almost nothing about this aircraft was better than the Viper, except perhaps cost, and time has proven the airframe as one of the most adaptable and potent aircraft ever made.
I was stationed at Suwon AB (1984) watching the demonstration flight of the F-20 when it crashed. The plane was inverted and stalled, crashed intact but too low to eject. There is a video on YT showing "Northrop F-20 Tigershark Crash (1984)".
Back in the day, Germany was thinking about a new fighter aircraft and I really hoped they would choose the F-20 but they kept the F-4. Something I fail to understand even today. Back then the F-4 was already an older player and the F-20 was top-of-the-line new and up-to-date, it would actually have been cheaper per plane. Sure we already had a F-4 fleet but the aircraft was already massively outclassed in the fighter role, so buying the F-20 would have been the logical step. As she was unmatched in the QRA-relevant parameters.
Nice video, thanks. By the way, what's wrong with UA-cam ad policy? They placed ads in minutes 1 5 12 16 20.
This shouldn't be the case at all! UA-cam would normally deliver one 'mid-roll' ad every 11min (on average), so there shouldn't have been more than 2 ads disrupting this video. But then, UA-cam seem to just make things up as they go along - especially in dealing with them in demonetizing certain videos for us but then happily plaster ads right through it (and I guess keep all the revenue for themselves!). Sorry about all the ads - not in our control, sadly.
It should've been marketed as a radical upgrade (but still an upgrade) to the F-5. A service life extension and upgrade in one deal.
For non-pilots watching, that last shot shows the Tigershark going from too-slow-to-fly to NEAR-VERTICAL in 7 seconds -- less time than it takes an F16 to get back to flying speed in a touch-and-go.
The F-20 had great acceleration, but that's not what it shows here. Stop making stuff up. It was not too slow to fly, any jet can pull the nose vertical, and you are probably comparing a normal mil power touch and go with an afterburner demo maneuver.
i love the narrator's baritone voice.
In less then a minute is impressive.
OMG, the most beautiful jet fighter! It just looks *SO* right!
The only problem with the F20 was it's internal fuel capacity that didn't increase over the F5E in order save costs, even with a powerful and thirsty GE F404 engine.
but still 2000 miles of range which is more than OK
@@wololo10 No, it had nowhere near 2000 mile range on internal fuel. The clean range of the F-5E was less than 500 miles on internal fuel, and the F-20 must have been similar.
That’s a badass fighter aircraft !
I think it should be considered that, at the time it was developed, it was _almost_ a match for anything the US already had. Close enough that pilot skill would have been a deciding factor. Add to that it was intended for export sales to nations that might not always remain friendly. So, for example, a couple of highly skilled Iranian Pilots could have been a real threat to our own forces after the fall of the Shah. Add to this the fact that being based on the F-5, it shared that aircraft's ease of maintenance and reliability. Compared to other fighters exported to now-hostile nations, like the F-14, restricting spare parts and tools would have been less effective at keeping them from remaining a threat.
In short, it was _too good_ for export under the FX program, and as has been mentioned elsewhere, Northrup was already getting a big chunk of the DoD budget pie with the B-2. It is a shame, though. It was a _lovely_ plane and one I have always admired as the culmination of the F-5 program.
The big party piece of the F-14 was its AIM-54 missiles and the ridiculously powerful radar (at the time) and targeting capabilities its fire control systems offered. Otherwise, the F-14 is just a more expensive, more maintenance-intensive, not quite as fast or maneuverable alternative of the F-15. When the F-14 came out, the only other weapons it carried were the AIM-7 Sparrow and AIM-9 Sidewinder, which weren't particularly remarkable in the 1970s.
Upgraded versions of things aren't really all that easy to do without substantial engineering capabilities, which not a lot of countries possess. The countries who can do it are A: US allies and will buy from you because they like having the best stuff (Canada, Australia), B: US allies with their own aerospace capabilities who make their own stuff (France), or C: not allies of the US who aren't buying from you anyway.
The Iranian HESA aircraft based on the F-5 are evidence of this. They don't really serve as anything more than an F-5 platform used to either be a TeMu version of the F/A-18, or a way to prove that you can adapt substandard Soviet-era weapon systems onto an American airframe.
Every day I go to work - I see one!
I had a model of the F20, still my favourite looking fighter.
Me too!
Thank you for putting a name to what I have always considered the sexiest fighter design ever!!
The old fighter jet aircrafts were even more aerodynamically optimized compared to the ones of today. Unreached beauty. The Northrop F-5 is my favorite.
Because they thought speed was the most important characteristic. They thought nukes would only be delivered by bombers, so they needed aircraft as fast as possible to intercept them before they reached their targets. Making an aircraft aerodynamically efficient means sacrifices to maneuverability at low and medium speeds.
No, they just looked cool as befits their era.
Both F-5 and F-20 were designed by Veljko Gasic, a Serb from Herzegovina. That's not even a half of his works.
Yugoslavia almost produced the F-20 under license, the negotiations with Northop were far advanced, but the reluctance of the American government to allow the transfer of technology for the Pratt-Whitney F-100 engine was judged unfavorably, so Yugoslavia chose the French as partners in the Novi Avion project because they were ready to sell their then-new SNECMA M-88 for Novi Avion. The Novi Avion is basically a single-engine Rafale, which is funny due to the fact that both Croatia and Serbia are paying dearly for Rafales now in the 2020s, and they could have produce a single-engine version of their own back in the late 90s.
The reason for the Hornet parts is because the Hornet originally was a Northrop plane, the YF-17 Hornet. It evolved into the F-18A under McDonald Douglas.
I remember it. As a long time F-16 mechanic, I still would rather have worked on the F-20... Just don't tell my Viper.
I saw it a few times at Edwards AFB back in the80s. Looked fast just sitting there
This concept of lightweight slender, economical but formidable fighter was inherited in Swedish J-39 Grippen and FA-50 Golden Eagle.
Judging by the fact that the sensor suite is still being adapted by KA50, this jet could have been a logical choice for many nations that operate a smaller defense budget
It'll never be forgotten by the F-5E crew chiefs like me. I was soooo hoping it would be chosen but the 'fighter mafia' has a grudge against Northrop for fighters. I was also a crew chief on T-38's and both were so easy to maintain, especially compared to F-4's.
I wonder what a bigger roided-up version of the F-5E or F-20 would have looked like. i.e. A Tiger or Tigershark the size of an F-14 or F-15, to serve as an air superiority fighter. Not that they'd have sold well since both the F-14 and F-15 were already established at that point. Just a fun what-if.
The F-20 looks fantastic !
Man I loved this plane when it first came out.
F-5E and F looked like thoroughbreds, F-20 looked slicker than owl shit! Better than F-16? I couldn't say, it looked good but the F-16 has been incredibly adaptable.
It was better in most aspects than the F16, politics ruined production. It came out with a better than 1 to 1 thrust ratio.
Well put together story, using good research and legacy footage of the fighter that could have been. Interesting how politics and economic interests killed what was a very promising fighter.
Gorgeous aircraft and shamefully overlooked.
This was my favorite fighter. It's criminal what the Military Industrial Complex did to Grumman.
I tell you what : absolutely noting, nothing at all, is overpowered
I've seen a prototype. It is criminal that this was not adopted.
It also was - imo - gorgeous.
☮
It would be really interesting to see how the F-20 would have performed had it been out there in the world. I feel like it'd have faired well against its contemporaries, except the F-15 of course, it smokes everything of the time. . .
I think we should retool and build these too. With all the advances in electronics, materials and software, these would still be cheaper and likely 20% to 30% more capable than they were. It would allow the US to have effective planes that are way cheaper to buy and operate, so we can buy hundreds and let out pilots fly more due to the savings. Again, we can also sell them to our allies. For most of our friend nations who don't have huge budgets, this is an excellent platform to defend their airspace and counter any aggressors.
Actually saw one in the air. I think they were being shown off to the ANG and/or Air Force Reserve. It zipped over where I was in the boonies. At first I thought it was an F-5 until the single tailpipe's significance sank in.
I thought the F20 was made because Carter did not want US frontline tech in danger of being caught by the USSR while still provide other countries with high quality equipment. Reagan changed the policy and the F20 was forced to compete with the F16 and F15, etc which it was not designed to do.
That's very close
I mean, it's a shame what happened to the F-20. But the F-16 went on to be the most successful fighter ever and is still being used and built today. It's hard to say the lesser aircraft won.
What came out of the F-20 program is the Saab JAS-39 Gripen.
and JF-17, many design lessons from F-20, when Pakistan, China, and US worked together before 1989 to improve PAF's J-7 (project Sabre ii iirc). The Sabre II developed to JF17 taking some design from F-20 in the nose, wing & lerx, and empennage.
the F-20 was a great Tactical fighter. the thing about the F-20 like the F-5 it was derived from is that the airframe was capable of pulling 12g's any unwary pilot would become G-locked.
It was not capable of pulling 12Gs, that's just War Thunder nonsense. It was only ever limited to 9, both due to Human and structural limits.
Fantastic 90's book called Warriors by Barrett Tillman features F-20 Tigershark
Yes! I still have my original copy. Great book with a solid storyline.
Sounds to me like General Dynamics bought the right friends
nice looking plane
Correct me if I'm wrong, but is the hype around this aircraft based on WarThunder?? I've never played it, I don't understand the recent love for it out of obscurity. It's got a very small skillset (it's pretty looking sure, but it does one thing). It can't be air refueled, it doesn't have the ability to be heavy without completely suffering. I'm not gonna shit on it, but the F-16 was the obvious better choice.
@hunterhalo2 you are not wrong, the F-5/20 is a simple af Fighter Mafia wet dream that is rudely interrupted by reality demanding more capability that the F-16 brings to the table and international politics preventing it from flourishing in its prime internationally.
It really had about 10 years to be the off the shelf American fighter for exclusive sale and then the F-16 just took its business by lowering costs due to production scale.
Well, they tried to stretch the design limit of the F-5, which as you can see did not work very well. Overall the F-16 is the better choice.
No, the F-20 has been one of the biggest "what ifs" among aviation enthusiasts for decades.
The main character of Area 88 flew the F-20 as his main aircraft towards the end of the original series, it was replaced by an F-5 in the reboot though
In a turning dogfight, the F-5E was slightly better than the MiG-21. Despite the MiG was more powerful and had a higher top speed, it quickly lost energy in a sustained turn. The advantage of the F-5E was better aerodynamics. However, the F-5A and C models had less powerful engines and could not match the performance of the MiG.
I saw the F-20 at Farnborough Airshow in the 1980s. Very impressive! The problem was that the F-16 was better.
The Lavi was also cancelled, in large part due to the fact it could not be exported without US consent mainly due to its engine. This was driven by US manufacturers opposing any new competition in the market. It was never going to be a competitor to the F20.
and aboit the money US gov put on Lavi projet? What happened?
@@MrBozo3d Somehow became the Chinese J-10.
@@MrBozo3dTaken from the military assistance package the US contributed to the peace deal with Egypt under Carter . Split between Israel and Egypt. I think at 3:2 ratio.
10:33 " However there were drawbacks " is heard. "The lifespan would be estimated half of an F16."
The F5, or NF5b as we used widely in the Netherlands was notorious for the short fatigue life of the lower wing skin. Cracking originated from countersunk fastener holes near the fuselage junction appeared at half of the projected life time: Fokker had to re-skin the wings.
If that life span would be halved again... the F20 would last only 2-3 years in service.
USAF had to replace the wings of its T-38s quite often and eventually had Northup provide stronger replacement wings. They often suffered over-G during training. At lot of them were twisted from asymmetric over-G. Part of preflight was to tap on the wing to detect if the skin was delaminating from the honeycomb core.
I get to see F-5s often out of Key West as they have an adversary squadron flying out of here
I think the JF 17 got it’s inspiration from the F20
I mean, in hindsight, the F-16 was a better aircraft given the length of time it's been in service, but it would have been cool to see the F-20 sold overseas to see how they would have done in large scale exercises, like Red Flag, against the F-16. BTW, I could listen to Chuck Yeager talk for hours.
It's ironic that much was said about the F-16's superiority in dogfighting over the F-5E and later F-20 fighters. But the F-20 is probably the better multirole fighter, especially with the larger wing Northrop was working on and the improvements in avionics and fire control and targeting systems. The way the USAF fights today would actually be better served by the Tigershark. Well, at least before stealth became such a high priority. Now, all the 4th gen fighters days are numbered as front line aircraft.
It really is one of the best looking fighters.
You forgot it's most important achievement - playing the Mig 28 in Top Gun.
That was the F-5E/F
@kibathemechanic4967 Ah, thanks.
The Viper, which was chosen over the Tiger by the USAF, is one of the most successful fighters of all time! It revolutionized how we approached fighter aircraft design! The Tiger was an obsolete platform with inherit limitations from the start. It could never have allowed for the sort of capability upgrades we've seen over the years like we did on the F-16.
The F-20 was not in competition with the F16 for the US, so your point makes no sense. It was designed to be an export fighter, deliberately with a slightly lower performance level. At the time, the F20 a better deal for those markets since the F-16's were not even an option at the time. That is why many chose Russian and French fighters instead. In the late 1970's/early 1980's, computer tech was advancing rapidly, so the few years between the design of the F16 and F20 gave the F20 an advantage in power and reliability at the level that would have been allowed to be exported. This was when the very first IBM PC's became available and I recall that the F20 used some of IBM's new commercially available processors instead of the more expensive military-only ones in the F-16.
Interestingly, budget cuts prevented the US National Guard from getting F-16's for a number of years, so they had to make due with 1960's-era fighters instead of getting some of the more capable F20's in those years.
@@jfess1911 Didn't the F16 in the early years get called the lawn dart due to the number of crashes?
@@paulw7404 Yes. You can just type in "F16 Lawn Dart" to learn more. It had a problem with engine flame-outs. I suspect that is the reason that the F20 made such a big deal about being able to go from a cold start to altitude rapidly in the early 1980's ads I remember seeing. The F16 had issues at the time.
@@jfess1911 Here's the problem. The F-20 only makes sense if you're the exporter trying to make a business case to sell the thing to foreign government for all these conditions,which at the end of the day, aren't the things that get politicians reelected. If I'm a stakeholder or decision maker for any of the governments that eventually ended up getting the F-16 (or the countries with extended range considerations, the F-18) anyway (which pretty much end up the ones we trust to fight on our side anyway - NATO and the ones who stuck with us through Vietnam, plus mideast princes and sheikh bribes.)
Tell me how, if I'm South Korea, which was seen as THE prime market for these things because they already had the F-5, $13M/ea is anywhere near a good deal when I can just hold out for the F-16 for $15M unit cost, USAF is flying F-16s out of USAF bases in Korea anyway, ensuring future compatibility in training and ogistics, national prestige, a united front and more importantly, ambiguous IFF between ROKAF and USAF if hostile nations want to get frisky?
It's a non-starter. Makes no sense for any serious national defemse considerations *as the buyer.*. That's what a lot of these lesser fighters were of that era - wishful thinking on the part of North American aerospace defense contractors. The situation has changed significantly and the world of 2024 actually has room for light fighters, but the time for the F-20 has passed, not that there ever was in the first place.
Remember, in the 70s, the Soviets had a similar policy as the Americans in regard to downgraded types, but done differently. So when some countries received F-5's rather than F-4's from the US, Soviet allies would receive downgraded MiG-23's with the inferior MiG-21 fitted instead.
Such a hot little bird...in retrospect, though, the small size of the F-20 would have severely limited growth.
An aircraft no one ever wanted. Enough said.
Such a great aircraft. I can remember seeing them as a kid parked at LAX. Seems sad that they were never given the opportunity to live up to their full potential. Your government at work for you!
If the USAF had made a purchase of the F-20 it would have sent a positive message to international buyers. With the huge F-16 contract awarded to General Dynamics, it implied that the F-16 was the aircraft to purchase, not the F-20.
USAF already had the F-16. There was no place for the F-20. That would have been acquisition malpractice.
The F-20 actually morphed into the T-50 produced by South Korea KAL today the FA-50.