The F-20 Tigershark

"You can tell a Finn but you can't tell him much" (youcantellafinn) 03/14/2014 at 10:59 • Filed to: PLANELOPNIK, F-20 TIGERSHARK

6

17

This might be the best performing failure of a relatively modern fighter. It was developed by Northrop in the 70's to be used as a cheap export fighter. At the time the U.S. wouldn't allow the export of current gen front line weapons systems. Northrop developed this based on their existing F-5 with an eye towards exporting it. Before any sales could be finalized the U.S. changed their policy and allowed the export of the contemporary F-16.

!!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! was developed in response to the FX program initiated by the DoD. The FX program was intended to develop high performance aircraft for friendly nations that would be capable against front line Soviet aircraft but would exclude sensitive technologies to prevent them from possibly falling into Soviet hands. Performance of the F-20 compared favorably to the performance of the F-16, but the cost to purchase and maintain the F-20 would have been significantly lower due to the lack of sensitive technology. Even with the simplified technology present the F-20 was capable of carrying most current U.S. arms and was capable of beyond visual range air combat with radar guided missiles. It was also capable of delivering air to surface payloads like the AGM-65 Maverick in addition to unguided bombs.

The combination of changing market conditions, competition, politics and a screwed up sales channel combined to do in the F-20. The planes development was fully funded by Northrop. But sales could only be handled by the State Department, whom by the time the F-20 would have been ready for sales was able to sell the F-16. Since the Pentagon was also buying the F-16 it was in the governments interest to sell F-16's as that would drive the per unit cost down making it cheaper for their own F-16 purchases. To make a long story short, Northrop spent in the neighborhood of $1 billion dollars to develop an airframe that they were not allowed to market themselves. Since the State Department and Pentagon had no incentive to sell the plane it ended up being a total failure with only the three development copies being built.

It is a shame that this ended up being a failure as it was a very capable and affordable fighter. Plus in my opinion it is one of the best looking jet fighters ever. It just has classic proportions and such sleek lines. All photos from !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! , where there are many more.

ttyymmnn > You can tell a Finn but you can't tell him much 03/14/2014 at 11:04

1

A great plane with epically bad timing. If this guy can't sell your plane, you're SOL.

daender > You can tell a Finn but you can't tell him much 03/14/2014 at 11:05

2

Back when I was addicted to Ace Combat, I was curious as to the fate of the F-20 since I never saw any real examples at all the bases I've lived in/airshows seen. In the game, it was a nice step up from the beginner F-5.

Jcarr > You can tell a Finn but you can't tell him much 03/14/2014 at 11:07

0

I agree, this has always been one of my favorite looking aircraft. Shame it didn't get a chance.

You can tell a Finn but you can't tell him much > daender 03/14/2014 at 11:08

1

Of the three that were built, two were destroyed in fatal crashes and the third is hanging from the ceiling in a museum in California. Says which one in the Wikipedia article but I don't feel like searching for it.

You can tell a Finn but you can't tell him much > ttyymmnn 03/14/2014 at 11:09

0

That is the truth right there. And the timing might be worse than epically bad. It might actually be apocaliptically bad timing for the F-20.

Jcarr > daender 03/14/2014 at 11:10

2

I loved Ace Combat. I still have AC4, AC5 and ACZero, but no PS2 to play them on. The dialogue was beyond cheesy, but they were such beautiful games.

The Transporter > You can tell a Finn but you can't tell him much 03/14/2014 at 11:13

1

The F-20 was a decade too soon. If Northrup marketed the Tigershark after the fall of the Iron Curtain, they would have sold like hotcakes.

You can tell a Finn but you can't tell him much > The Transporter 03/14/2014 at 11:24

0

That makes for an interesting debate, but I think it really came to maturity a few years too late. Ten years later it would have had competitive performance, especially considering its price point. But it would have been even further behind in terms of avionics and targeting systems.

Part of what did it in was the relaxing of export restrictions which allowed the F-16 to be sold without having to severely restrict the avionics package. Had it matured a couple years earlier, before the export restrictions were eased, and been allowed to be marketed by Northrop directly instead of being sold by the State Department it would be a different story. State had no vested interest in seeing the design succeed, so there was no incentive for them to make any great effort to actively sell it. Throw in the politics of the Pentagon not wanting to purchase an airframe that they had no involvement in developing, even for their aggressor squadron and you basically have a perfect storm of circumstances conspiring against making any sales.

Had the Air Force purchased the F-20 for their aggressor squadron several foreign countries would have likely been willing to buy it. But since the AF wasn't willing to purchase it nobody else would either.

Kugelblitz > You can tell a Finn but you can't tell him much 03/14/2014 at 11:40

0

True fact: I built a 1/72 scale model of the F20 and the sob could actually fly. I think it was the first plastic model I ever had that could do so.

pauljones > You can tell a Finn but you can't tell him much 03/14/2014 at 12:01

0

It was, indeed, and awesome jet. In my opinion, though, it was overshadowed by its predecessor, the YF-17, for being one of the greatest hot rods of the sky ever built.

It's kind of interesting that the YF-17 came first; both it and the F-20 are evolutions of the basic F-5 platform, though the YF-17 that came first was the more advanced evolution. The YF-17 would later evolve into the Hornet, and then the Super Hornet. how cool is it that you can look at a brand new Super Hornet and think that it is still distantly related to the F-5 and T-38, and is the latest evolution in a lineage that dates back the 1950s.

You can tell a Finn but you can't tell him much > pauljones 03/14/2014 at 13:25

0

I did not know that the YF-17 / F/A-18 came from the F-5 line. I knew the YF-17 was a submission to the LWF competition against the YF-16 which it lost to. The Navy wasn't willing to accept a single engine fighter, but they were pressured into taking advantage of the LWF program which led to the F/A-18 being developed from the losing YF-17. But I always thought the YF-17 and subsequent F/A-18 were McDonnell-Douglass designs. Interesting to learn the the F-20 in a way lives on as the F/A-18.

daender > Jcarr 03/14/2014 at 14:00

0

AC4 had the least whiny dialogue and ACZero had the best dogfights/best wingman ever (fuck you PJ).

user314 > You can tell a Finn but you can't tell him much 03/15/2014 at 13:42

0

The two X-29s were partially based on F-5s (the front fuselage and landing gear).

DoomBuggie > ttyymmnn 03/19/2014 at 14:18

0

Chuck Yeager is a badass.

BTDUBS > pauljones 03/19/2014 at 14:59

1

While the F/A-18 and YF-17 share a basic appearance, they share nothing in common. The F/A-18 A is signifantly larger and is the idea of the YF-17 matured. The Super Hornet again shares almost nothing in common with the older Hornets as well except for appearance.

pauljones > BTDUBS 03/19/2014 at 15:54

0

Nor did I state that they did. In fact, if you look very specifically, I said the following:

"The YF-17 would later evolve into the Hornet, and then the Super Hornet."

At no point in time did I suggest that they shared a whole lot in common per se; rather, I suggested that they all evolved from the same point and all had a common (if distant) ancestor: The F-5.

Also, however, your assertion is partially wrong - the Hornet and the Super Hornet share a great deal common in terms of avionics and systems. That was the general idea behind the Super Hornet. Irrespective of the time and the orders of magnitude that separate the F-5A from the Super Hornet, the string of evolution is still there. You can see it in Northrop's own design documentation.

BTDUBS > pauljones 03/19/2014 at 17:57

0

I miss-read the evolved statement, but the super hornet is a brand new aircraft from the forward fuselage back. Also, the cockpit and flight systems are newer than even the updated C's and D's.

Also, have you seem the advanced Super Hornet? Pretty cool.