Corrections: @vincentcooper4420 - At the 18 min mark, please correct; the air national guard didn’t get F-16C’s in the F-106 replacement program the F-20 competed in; it was block 15 F-16A’s w/mods, known as the ADF. The mods included AIM-7’s, an interrogator and the 600g tank.
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...
T-37s, T-38s and F-111s,@@flickingbollocks5542 - but the latter only through RTU qualification training. Cataracts were discovered in each eye as I neared the end of that training, ending my flying career once I got to RAF Lakenheath and acknowledged that my compromised night vision wouldn't cut it.
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.
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. ....
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.
Back in the early 1980s I was attending Northrop Institute of Technology, a trade school for aviation technicians. The student store was selling F-20 Tigershark hats. I bought one and wore it for many years. That's the only connection I have with the Tigershark. ☺
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.
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.
It's said the 'F-16F' prototype from the XL program (ie, the two-seat jet with the F110 engine) could tickle M1.3 or so, with conformal stores. Not really 'supercruise' per se, but well..
The f-5/f-20 feel like the "default character" of fighter jets, and I love them for it. I had a toy f-5 that I got from an airshow and played with as a kid, never knew what specifically it was, but that thing got whooshed like nobody's business.
@@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.
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!
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).
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.
@@danieltynan5301 That’s the point though. It’s still basically an F-5 underneath, a heavily modified one, but still basically the same. The world had advanced a lot further than the design could manage at the time.
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.
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.
Quem ama Aviação, jamais esqueceria dessa caça, o F-20 Tigershark foi um marco na história da viação, eu diria que foi um dos projetos mais bonitos já construído. E eu tenho certeza de que não foi por falta de torcida que esse projeto não decolou; mas foi mais por questões políticas do que técnica. Afinal, ele tinha um ótimo desempenho e capacidade de giro e altamente manobravel
He didn't say it was a competitor to the F-16. he said it was a competitor to the cheaper export variant that was being designed for the same purpose the F-20 was
Down in Key West, FL (USA) the Navy Air Base flies the F5 (previous version of the F20). It was pure joy to see it slice through the sky. I worked on the F20 Flight Control (the Fly by Wire mentioned in the video) back in the day. It was a sad day when the program was cancelled.
Being Dutch we had the f5 in our arsenal. We had a quick thought updating them to the f20 but it was decided, cost effective understandable, we choose the f16. I always liked the f5 and as such the f20. Just a beautiful aircraft
This video was so good it made me want to go buy the Tigershark in war thunder. Then I remembered Im broke 😂. All kidding aside, this was a brilliant presentation mate. Your channel is wonderful, I wish you all the success and growth in the year to come! Much deserved, God speed !
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.
At that time, the Canadian military wanted a twin engine aircraft to operate over the vast wildernesses of Canada. The US Navy also used to prefer twin engine aircraft since they operated over the vast oceans.
At that time, the Canadian military wanted a twin engine aircraft to operate over the vast wildernesses of Canada. The US Navy also used to prefer twin engine aircraft since they operated over the vast oceans.
Some absolutely incredible propellor aircraft were developed at the end of WW2, just in time to become obsolete overnight! (Yes I know quite a few prop planes did ground-attack and CAS in Vietnam)
I loved the F-20 Tigershark it was one sexy fighter jet, living in San Diego at NAS Miramar watching them fly in a and out, along with the F-14 Tomcats i really learned to be a fan.
The F-20 is definitely one of the best looking jets, especially in that Northrop black. But in retrospect I doubt anyone regrets choosing the F-16 over this. If you look at how bulky modern F-16s are there is no way the F-20 could integrate all those systems.
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.
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)".
The F-5 family (F-20, F-5 Tiger II, F-5 Freedom Fighter, and T-38 Talon) have long been my favorite looking airplanes. Slim, streamlined, and striking. Unfortunately, the strongest of the bunch never got adopted. To me, the F-20 story is the saddest airplane-related story there is (not including actual disasters and such, of course). It would have been great to see these still flying.
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.
Buen día tengo una duda en el avión x 30 el avión experimental con alas de flechado invertido ,lo hicieron tomando el fuselaje de el f 20 por qué se ven muy parecidos
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. .
The problem was that politicians and hi up military people were putting their thumb on the scales. It should have suceeded or failed on it's own. People should have been jailed for that.
@@marjoryray2564 the fact is that's just the way the game is played. No major military hardware succeeds on only its merits. Without support from some politicians and generals, most are dead in the water. Any new design has to factor that in. How much work will go to which congressional districts? Will this hardware be good enough to get me another star if I back it?
When the F-20, which was on a demonstration flight in South Korea, crashed, what the general of ROKAF said: "As expected, F-5." The limit of a small fighter using one F404 engine. Today, the JAS-39 and FA-50 are fighter jets that use one F404 engine.
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. 😎👍✨
Nobody forgets the Tigershark. I think it should have been bought for some roll. I recall the dogfights between F-15’s and F-20’s. Guess who routinely won? This bird is a gem.
At 3:50 a mention is made of the Soviets not having the same aversion to sending their latest aircraft to allies. This isn’t exactly right - they did delay and they sent usually nerfed versions.
Didn't they send some Mig-29's to East Germany juuust before reunification kicked off? For a while the West German (soon just German) Luftwaffe, and Nato, had Mig 29's of their own!
The F20 was the favourite Jet of the protagonist in AREA 88. The manga ( and anime) that was the inspiration for ACE COMBAT.😮😮😮 It was in the arcade and SNES game UN squadron.
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.
Gripen, Mirage, Tejas, JF-17, Starfighter, Mig-21, Draken, Su-75 mockup, FA/T-50, F-CK-1, and J-10 are all examples of modern Lightweight Low-cost fighters. Bet those from the F-20 program alive today still look at all of those aircraft and chuckle.
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.
@@DriveCarToBarF15 doesn't compete with the F14 as it is land based while the Tomcat is mostly carrier based More logical to compare F18 to the F14 as both are carrier based
@@pihermoso11 The F14 can operate just as easily from land as it can from a carrier. The Iranian air force does exactly that. But the F/A-18 isn't really a competitor for the F-14. The F/A-18 doesn't have the range or loiter time of the F-14. It doesn't have the same top speed or thrust-weight ratio. The Tomcat's radar was considerably better than the Hornet's or even the initial Super Hornets. The Tomcat is an interceptor and can act as an superiority fighter. It's much more like the F-15 than the F/A-18. Especially given the size and weight of the aircraft in question.
@DriveCarToBar the F18 basically replaced the F14 as the navy's multirole carrier based fighter, the F14's swing wing has the advantage to fold inwards so a carrier could stack more planes side by side, this is why the F18 also has a folding wing so a carrier can stack more planes side by side, the F15 does not have that capability The F18 took on the role of the F14 when they retired the Tomcat
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
At the 18 min mark, please correct; the air national guard didn’t get F-16C’s in the F-106 replacement program the F-20 competed in; it was block 15 F-16A’s w/mods, known as the ADF. The mods included AIM-7’s, an interrogator and the 600g tank.
Corrections: @vincentcooper4420 - At the 18 min mark, please correct; the air national guard didn’t get F-16C’s in the F-106 replacement program the F-20 competed in; it was block 15 F-16A’s w/mods, known as the ADF. The mods included AIM-7’s, an interrogator and the 600g tank.
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...
Which aircraft did you fly?
Was this the enemy MiG in the 1st Top Gun movie? It was painted black and looked bloody awesome. 🇬🇧
Yes,@@TheUFOpilotA51
T-37s, T-38s and F-111s,@@flickingbollocks5542 - but the latter only through RTU qualification training. Cataracts were discovered in each eye as I neared the end of that training, ending my flying career once I got to RAF Lakenheath and acknowledged that my compromised night vision wouldn't cut it.
@@TheUFOpilotA51 No. That was the F-5E
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.
Same here.
Absolutely gorgeous.
Politics and politicians in military and government rarely make good decisions or use common sense
Man, those promotional vids are peak 80's. I really love them.
I expected to hear TopGun music!
President Reagan, it was a golden age for the Military i was in from 83 through 91
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. ....
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!
😂
Buy a model of it before they are gone forever. Politics stop many a good thing.
Give up on your comedy dreams, huge fail thinking you're witty orr funny
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.
Back in the early 1980s I was attending Northrop Institute of Technology, a trade school for aviation technicians.
The student store was selling F-20 Tigershark hats. I bought one and wore it for many years. That's the only connection I have with the Tigershark. ☺
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.
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.
It's said the 'F-16F' prototype from the XL program (ie, the two-seat jet with the F110 engine) could tickle M1.3 or so, with conformal stores. Not really 'supercruise' per se, but well..
The F-16XL could supercruise and so can aggressor versions of the F-16.
This episode is filled with VHS video from 80's and looks like the best aviation documentaries of that era.
The f-5/f-20 feel like the "default character" of fighter jets, and I love them for it.
I had a toy f-5 that I got from an airshow and played with as a kid, never knew what specifically it was, but that thing got whooshed like nobody's business.
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.
@@valkyrie321Yeah, he was also a paid spokesperson so🤷
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 F20 would have been a great asset and a great international sales. Took the F5 to a whole new level.
those promotional vids are peak 80's. I really love them.
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.
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).
Fantastic journalism and professional production. 👏🏻⚡
Watching that airman pull the charging cable on the M39A2 single barrel 20 mm cannon brought back some memories. 👍
Great ad at the end! I want one!
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.
Good point 👍🏻
Funnily enough, the Swiss bought F-5s and then Hornets when it came time to replace them...
I don't believe the supposed development costs.... It was an F5 built using FA,18 parts..... Doesn't at all mean it's bad....
@@danieltynan5301 That’s the point though. It’s still basically an F-5 underneath, a heavily modified one, but still basically the same. The world had advanced a lot further than the design could manage at the time.
@@mrkeogh ...and sell the Tigers to the US now ;)
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.
interesting designator acronym they chose for that aircraft
Impressive cold start INS alignment , and airborne in under a minute.
really nice documentation about a really cool plane. good work and thank you. hope to see it one day in real life :)
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.
Quem ama Aviação, jamais esqueceria dessa caça, o F-20 Tigershark foi um marco na história da viação, eu diria que foi um dos projetos mais bonitos já construído. E eu tenho certeza de que não foi por falta de torcida que esse projeto não decolou; mas foi mais por questões políticas do que técnica. Afinal, ele tinha um ótimo desempenho e capacidade de giro e altamente manobravel
Great video. Great music selection too!
Great show and with some funky 80's beats. Great job:)
love the music background :)
The competitor to the F-16 (YF-16) was not the F-20 but the YF-17, which later became the F/A-18.
He didn't say it was a competitor to the F-16. he said it was a competitor to the cheaper export variant that was being designed for the same purpose the F-20 was
It's really interesting, please share more technologies and other types of aircraft.
I love the narrator voice, reminds me of my good friend Mike from Perth.
I know Mike!
In less then a minute is impressive.
Have been enjoying the videos very much. Thank you.
Down in Key West, FL (USA) the Navy Air Base flies the F5 (previous version of the F20). It was pure joy to see it slice through the sky. I worked on the F20 Flight Control (the Fly by Wire mentioned in the video) back in the day. It was a sad day when the program was cancelled.
Being Dutch we had the f5 in our arsenal. We had a quick thought updating them to the f20 but it was decided, cost effective understandable, we choose the f16.
I always liked the f5 and as such the f20. Just a beautiful aircraft
We should have bought the Tigershark as well.
This video was so good it made me want to go buy the Tigershark in war thunder. Then I remembered Im broke 😂. All kidding aside, this was a brilliant presentation mate. Your channel is wonderful, I wish you all the success and growth in the year to come! Much deserved, God speed !
The F-20 was freakin’ awesome! I got to see a demo at the El Toro Air Show. So impressive!1
As soon as I saw the F-20 TIGERSHARK (in model form), I thought it was so cool and had to have it.
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.
At that time, the Canadian military wanted a twin engine aircraft to operate over the vast wildernesses of Canada. The US Navy also used to prefer twin engine aircraft since they operated over the vast oceans.
At that time, the Canadian military wanted a twin engine aircraft to operate over the vast wildernesses of Canada. The US Navy also used to prefer twin engine aircraft since they operated over the vast oceans.
Man those old magazine/print promos looked great. A lost art. That black paint scheme on the F-20 was tight.
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 🤷
@@TurboHappyCarthey did see it lol.😅
Some absolutely incredible propellor aircraft were developed at the end of WW2, just in time to become obsolete overnight! (Yes I know quite a few prop planes did ground-attack and CAS in Vietnam)
@@TurboHappyCar badum tish! 👏
@ 16:28, I'm pretty sure F-16 was made by General Dynamics, not General Electric.
I loved the F-20 Tigershark it was one sexy fighter jet, living in San Diego at NAS Miramar watching them fly in a
and out, along with the F-14 Tomcats i really learned to be a fan.
It also was - imo - gorgeous.
☮
The future of military machinery is here, and it’s incredible!
The F-20 is definitely one of the best looking jets, especially in that Northrop black. But in retrospect I doubt anyone regrets choosing the F-16 over this. If you look at how bulky modern F-16s are there is no way the F-20 could integrate all those systems.
Canada owned numerous F-5’s. Never advertised at the time, but I’ve seen them in action in Trenton AFB.
This is Really Good for Navy!
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.
The hawk trainer was way cheaper to maintain and cost a lot less. Training, maintenance and fuel eat up a lot of air force budget.
This concept of lightweight slender, economical but formidable fighter was inherited in Swedish J-39 Grippen and FA-50 Golden Eagle.
The F20 and F5 were my favorites!
I remember it being heavily advertised at a Paris airshow and I had no doubt orders by many smaller countries would begin soon.
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)".
A very interesting documentary, Thank you.
Nice video.
These machines represent the future of military technology, truly astonishing
The F-5 family (F-20, F-5 Tiger II, F-5 Freedom Fighter, and T-38 Talon) have long been my favorite looking airplanes. Slim, streamlined, and striking. Unfortunately, the strongest of the bunch never got adopted. To me, the F-20 story is the saddest airplane-related story there is (not including actual disasters and such, of course). It would have been great to see these still flying.
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.
Hands down the best looking aircraft of that era. No other plane looked as hot as the F5
Sweden was interested in this project. But built the JAS39 instead, that was very close in many aspects.
I love these 1980’s promotional videos.
Buen día tengo una duda en el avión x 30 el avión experimental con alas de flechado invertido ,lo hicieron tomando el fuselaje de el f 20 por qué se ven muy parecidos
I like the side by side dual engine set up.
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
Who forgot this marvel? The spec was unique and wise. The result was a marvel. That is what I miss today. In almost any product.
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?
The problem was that politicians and hi up military people were putting their thumb on the scales. It should have suceeded or failed on it's own. People should have been jailed for that.
@@marjoryray2564 the fact is that's just the way the game is played. No major military hardware succeeds on only its merits. Without support from some politicians and generals, most are dead in the water. Any new design has to factor that in. How much work will go to which congressional districts? Will this hardware be good enough to get me another star if I back it?
The F-20 was in a TV commercial ad in the '80s with General Yaeger. Can't remember what he was selling though.
When the F-20, which was on a demonstration flight in South Korea, crashed, what the general of ROKAF said: "As expected, F-5."
The limit of a small fighter using one F404 engine. Today, the JAS-39 and FA-50 are fighter jets that use one F404 engine.
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. 😎👍✨
Nobody forgets the Tigershark. I think it should have been bought for some roll. I recall the dogfights between F-15’s and F-20’s. Guess who routinely won? This bird is a gem.
13:25 Back in 1987, this video within a video was playing in the lobby at Northrop (Pico Rivera) where I was interviewing for a job.
Always loved the T-38, F-5, F-20 airframe.
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.
The Tigershark is my favorite jet of all time.
At 3:50 a mention is made of the Soviets not having the same aversion to sending their latest aircraft to allies. This isn’t exactly right - they did delay and they sent usually nerfed versions.
Didn't they send some Mig-29's to East Germany juuust before reunification kicked off? For a while the West German (soon just German) Luftwaffe, and Nato, had Mig 29's of their own!
I saw it fly in 84 or 85 at the El Toro Airshow, not sure exactly what year, but have pics of it somewhere in a box.
The F20 was the favourite Jet of the protagonist in AREA 88. The manga ( and anime) that was the inspiration for ACE COMBAT.😮😮😮 It was in the arcade and SNES game UN squadron.
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.
Thank you for putting a name to what I have always considered the sexiest fighter design ever!!
That’s a badass fighter aircraft !
My second favourite looking jet fighter of all-time, just behind the Angel Interceptors from Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons.
What's the music at the beginning of the video?
Man I loved this plane when it first came out.
The F-20 looks fantastic !
Gripen, Mirage, Tejas, JF-17, Starfighter, Mig-21, Draken, Su-75 mockup, FA/T-50, F-CK-1, and J-10 are all examples of modern Lightweight Low-cost fighters.
Bet those from the F-20 program alive today still look at all of those aircraft and chuckle.
The cartridge start is cool
Gorgeous aircraft and shamefully overlooked.
Amazing!
That F-20 intro video music 😙👌🏻
Maravilloso y hermoso avión. Sería genial tenerlo en Chile reemplazando los f5E y con aviónica actualizada sería increible. Se vale soñar.
Music when Postscript starts please?
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.
@@DriveCarToBarF15 doesn't compete with the F14 as it is land based while the Tomcat is mostly carrier based
More logical to compare F18 to the F14 as both are carrier based
@@pihermoso11 The F14 can operate just as easily from land as it can from a carrier. The Iranian air force does exactly that.
But the F/A-18 isn't really a competitor for the F-14. The F/A-18 doesn't have the range or loiter time of the F-14. It doesn't have the same top speed or thrust-weight ratio. The Tomcat's radar was considerably better than the Hornet's or even the initial Super Hornets. The Tomcat is an interceptor and can act as an superiority fighter. It's much more like the F-15 than the F/A-18. Especially given the size and weight of the aircraft in question.
@DriveCarToBar the F18 basically replaced the F14 as the navy's multirole carrier based fighter, the F14's swing wing has the advantage to fold inwards so a carrier could stack more planes side by side, this is why the F18 also has a folding wing so a carrier can stack more planes side by side, the F15 does not have that capability
The F18 took on the role of the F14 when they retired the Tomcat
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
At the 18 min mark, please correct; the air national guard didn’t get F-16C’s in the F-106 replacement program the F-20 competed in; it was block 15 F-16A’s w/mods, known as the ADF. The mods included AIM-7’s, an interrogator and the 600g tank.
I've put it as a pinned comment. We can add other legit corrections there as well. Thanks Vince
General Chuck Yager a true American BADASS
Este avión siempre me gustó desde que lo ví en la revista Defensa Militar en los '80s, y no sé bien porqué, pero me atrajo desde el primer momento.