Northrop F-20 Tigershark on Wings

[MegaAnkylosaurus]

Dude, if these were in the military when we went to war, Bush could've just said "Send in the Tigersharks!" and Iran probably wouldn't even be there anymore.

[otochari]

I know little about these or the F-5s or T-38s but just looking at the small size and shape of the airframes would give me the impression these aircraft could do high G turns like nobody's business.

[lSaif]

If I was a leader of a country I'd purchase the prototypes and the blue prints for this aircraft, its similar to the F-16 but much cheaper!

[harris3693]

@lSaif even the F-16 is a POS in front of the F-20!!!!!

[lSaif]

@harris3693 POS?

[harris3693]

@lSaif POS= Peice Of Shit

[lSaif]

@harris3693 Hella yeah!

[jbird0168]

Best program ever to get the axe. At least aside from that plane with the single intake behind the cockpit. I dont think the pilots were thrilled with the idea of getting sucked into an engine at ejection tho'.

[principalsuspeito]

Well, keep in mind MD-11 even after all it´s upgrades. Couldn´t withstand 777 and A-340.

[catbug666]

f-20 lived with chinese fc-1 thunderjet!.

[KingprestorJohn]

I read somewhere a long time ago that it outperformed the F-16 in all but one area. Often it comes down to politics. Locheed seemed to get the lion's share of aviation contracts from the mid 1980s through the 1990s. The F20 was a beefed up F5 with more up to date avionics at the time.

[Soonerg2121]

@KingprestorJohn Think about it. It was cheaper then the F-16 as well as easier for maintenance was considered more efficient.This is why war is a racket and money corrupt.

[drfan2004]

Had the Soviets produced anything as good as this aircraft,it would have caused mayhem for US allies and client states.

[MabusZero]

It's a pity they didn't adopt this rather then the F-16. Would have been lovely to see what else would have come up with our current replacement of fighters, instead of the boondoggles of the F-22 and F-35.

[RomelioSanzz]

F-20 was not necessary for American Air Forces because they already had an Air Superiority Fighter (F-15), a Multi role (F-16) and a Navy Fighter (F/A-18) so F-20 was a disgusting competitor of the F-16, but the F-16 was and is over-valuated and it had so much propaganda.

[nomadnametab]

70% more thrust. oh boy. Wish the US had adopted it, or taken it on as foreign assistance as with the F-5A

[nakazatoGTR]

anyone knows if it was possible to upgrade f5s to F-20 standards?

and if it is, how much?

[macuss87]

@nakazatoGTR Can't really upgrade it, different airframe, single engine, instead of two it was larger thant the F-5 as well.

[nakazatoGTR]

@macuss87 well at least upgrade F-5s to F-20 standards, though not to exact F-20 specs is what i mean.. it still beats building new airframe from ground up, including manufacturing facilities, since you get a complete airframe

[peepeevagi]

Imagine this with one of the F-16 designed MATV Thrust vectoring engines. It'd be awesome!

[ironroad18]

The F-16 took some modifications before it became the cutting edge killer it is today.

Early F-16 use have shorts in their flight controls (making the plane pitch down)

They could not carry radar guided missiles

They did not carry laser guided weapons.

Was not until the later blocks (and during the late 1980s with F-16A ADF for the Air National Guard/Reserves) that plane became truly BVR and LGB capable.

The F-20 would have been able to do all of that from the start.

[cr9527]

F-20's airframe was designed from ground up, to be a lesser version of the F-16.

[ironroad18]

No the airframe was designed to have commonality with the F-5 series (which came in long before the F-16 and the fighter mafia existed.)

The F-16 is a great fighter and still cost effective. However the block C models that you see today (firing radar guided missiles, dropping JDAMs, SDBs, and LGBs) come after years of trials and added weight/cost to the original F-16.

The F-20 was supposed to be able to fight BVR and carry laser guided weapons from the assembly line.

[cr9527]

F-20, designed from ground up to be an export fighter for smaller countries, similar to the F-5's purpose.

[ironroad18]

Never said it wasn't. Sherlock Holmeslice...

Nor was the F-16 designed to be an expensive long range heavy/expensive fighter like the F-14 or F-15.

[cr9527]

F-16 was designed to be in actual US service.

[ironroad18]

Look up Defense Secretary James R. Schlesinger and ACF contest

Then you will see which Nato countries were originally on board with the YF-16

[cr9527]

isn't that for YF-16 vs YF-17? Which is unrelated to this discussion...

F-16, F-14, F-18, and F-15 were all designed to be used by USAF or USN. Not the case for F-5, or F-20.

[ironroad18]

O' Rly??? And How is it unrelated??

The USAF was not fully on board with the F-16 program until after the rest of Nato was going to buy. Even though there were advocates for lightweight fighters within the service, the notion in TAC was to stick with more F-15s, and tactical fighter bombers (F-111s and F-4s).

What clinched the F-16's place was the European Market.

Did I ever say the F-20 was never an export plane???

[cr9527]

Analyze what the Export Plane.

USAF needed a light weight fighter, the choices were YF16 or YF-17. YF-16 won, and there we have it.

F-111s and F-4s are quite out dated, and needed to be replaced.

[ironroad18]

The F-16 was never meant to replace the F-111...

[cr9527]

but F-111 needed replacement. Not saying F-16 was going to do that.

[22250rmntn]

@ironroad18

You also forgot to mention President Reagan's overturning of U.S. foreign policy of restricting front-line military tech export after he got into office. This also help killed the F20 as any foreign nation that had the money and was an enemy of Communism was given access to the F-16. Thus, why buy a fighter based on an updated 1950 design when you can have a (then) brand new 1980 design? But the sad thing was the F20 was actually better overall than the early F16 in the 1980s.

[munteanuioan]

petty.good aircraft for poor countrys.lets face it if u put new materials:carbon fibre,compsites,etc,new radar,more powerful engine,and that baby can jas-39 rival or f-16.plus id cheaper.

[RezViper]

did he say f-5G or T?

[STABxYOUxRAWR]

G. F-5G.

[yooutube321321]

It is sad that the buyers did not see the possible potential of the Tigershark. It was the AK-47 among fighterplanes. Cheap, effective and reliable.

[markvinas31]

yeah an F-5 with a thrust of an F-16

[STABxYOUxRAWR]

With half the thrust of the F/A-18.

[ironroad18]

However both the F-20(could) and the F-16 can out run a hornet at low alt, and a super hornet.....lol......

[cr9527]

but like the AK-47, it doesn't stand up against its more advanced counterparts, the F-16.

[yooutube321321]

I think that the Tigershark could match F-16 in many roles, and AK-47 is the world's most successful and used weapon, even though it was never meant to be superior. It was meant to be cheap, easy to maintain and effective, just like the F-20.

[cr9527]

AK-47 is Effective in Guerrila armies, rebels, terrorists, militias. Not in a modernized army.

[ironroad18]

You must have neglected the upgraded versions Ak-74 and onwards.

The Ak when it first came out was not as accurate as the M-16 but it had more stopping power and more reliability.

BTW Special Forces groups like the Spetz Naz have not complained about the AK, nor have standing armies that use a mix of Russian and Western weapons.

[cr9527]

Spetz Naz is hardly a good example of an Eltie force.

Look at the SAS, Rangers, Seals, etc.

Iraqi soldiers are already trading their AKs for M16s.

AK-74 is nice, but it is based upon an old design, the sights are terrible for longer ranges, and are inheritantly less accurate.

[ironroad18]

Never said the thing was as precise as a SR25 or even an M4 with a reflex, but you can not discount it and under estimate it just a gun used by little boys who are use to throwing rocks.

A properly trained solider can use an AK very effectively.

[yooutube321321]

Well in a total war, like WW2, I think that the AK-47 would most likely be more effective than for example an m-4 due to its simple design ,roughness and the fact that AK-47 is easy to produce fast in enormous numbers. M-4 is a supiriour weapon in these times though.

[XxCyanexX]

All I remember is the Air Force wouldn't buy it, but the DOD didn't want it sold overseas either, I guess it's performance was "too good" against our own at the time ( F-14 - 15 - 16 )

[cr9527]

No, this plane was intended for Overseas, and was never intended for the air force.

But when DOD granted sales of better F-16s to foreign customers, it effectively eliminated F-20 out of the competition, and thus caused its cancellation.

[brettt777]

Was there ever a 2 seat trainer version of the Tigershark made?

[vfIskullangel]

Area-88 is all I was thinking off.

[goodnews82]

Had the tigershark gone into production by now the latest models would probably have upgraded powerplants,avionics,..D,E, or F model by now, keeping it just as ahead of the F-16 now as it was in 1986.

[chashavko]

Its realy nice how thay managed to put so many things into so small plane.And the only thing F-16A was better is his flight radius.

F-20 would be a good plane for small countries like Yugoslavia,Hungary,Austria...

[jdan007]

kinda resent the "small" country, yugoslavia had a larger army than italy

[heintze168]

i like the f-20 tigershark and it's a shame they discontinue production by 1986. poorer countries air force could still have it and still do an excellent job protecting their air space if it still was being produce even up to now.

[MickZewOMG]

@heintze168"Poseidon" is right, & as well, we as a country, we can not sell weapons that are not in production, no matter how good they might be. This plane won out in all categories, but the US military did not want it because it was not made by military personal, but made to military specs. They axed it due to politics & it was a fantastic plane & our country does not always make the proper choices for the right reasons. It could have been striped of all armaments & adapted out later ? "OOPS"

[BudweiserDiary]

Ponder this thought for awhile. The f-20 was built without any military backing. Also the subcontractor who built different parts for the planes where companys that the military thought were not good enough. Final thought, they had to make sure that it never got built. Because if it did perform well it would have been the first example of the civilian avation market making the usaf look like, well you get the picture.

[belkan991]

man the f-5 sucks compared to the f-20 i wonder why no one bought it

[22250rmntn]

Its because of President Regan and General Dynamics.

[Estuarchaos0]

The Tigershark is the most badass jet in the world BY FAR, in my opinion.

I like everything about it, the awesome aerodynamic looks, the two nose mounted 20mm cannons, the short wings on the streamlined body, etc.

I really wish that it would have been put into service.

Atleast the Tiger II exists in large numbers, and it's pretty awesome too.

[airnb75]

EXCELLENT VIDEO!!!!!Northrop developed flying wings(XB35,YB49,B2),the YF17(later morphed to F18),the N156,T38,F5A's & E's and..the fantastic F5G/F20 Tigershark!!!*****:)

[Spanduer90]

imagine an f-20 with thrust vectoring!

[Maverick82102]

Hell yeah!

[thegrandemperor]

spanduer90- that would pwn!! It would be funny if it could take out planes like the f-22, su-37, and Eurofighter typoon!!!

[joaofga123]

i don't think so =\ I think the F-16 with thrust vectoring can do it,but not a F-20 xD

[thegrandemperor]

joaofga123- why not?? =(

[Poseidon500]

There most certainly WERE target customers, but the Regan administration was trying to push the f-16 instead. I bet Canada would have bought a pile of them.

[tacoman202]

man this thing shoulda entered service

[Poseidon500]

Well, it almost did, but customers did not want to buy a plane that was not one of the U.S.'s front line fighters. It was never meant for service in the U.S. but for their allies. Naturally, the "allies" do not trust American business or politics and would not order the plane. Also, Regan decided to sell the F-15 and f-16 to anybody who could afford it. It is really a shame however because this plane could do the job properly.

[leadman1979]

It would have been a good plane for the US as well.

[MickZewOMG]

@Poseidon500 - This Jet beat out the F-16 in all categories from what I understand. I do not think the F-16 even has a cannon on it & this had two 20mm or two 30mm depending on packages. Crying shame that we wasted such a great aircraft & opportunity & sold out to the "Brass" so they could have their way & the F-16 did not do so great in 1st. Gulf War ? At least were going all out with the raptors now ! Do you think they are all they say they are,Or will we find out the many flaws that plague ?

[Poseidon500]

@MickZewOMG Yet still, it was never going to be used as a frontline fighter for the U.S.

As far as the raptor is concerned, they halted production at 187 aircraft and plan on purchasing more f-35's.

No doubt, the Raptor is an excellent military aircraft, if not over expensive. The U.S. economy is so fragile that they could not afford to buy the planned amount.

[wwclay86]

@MickZewOMG f-16 has a cannon..... m-61 vulcan. 20mm same gun in the f-15, 14, 18, 22.

[cable124]

A great F-20 vid, thank you for uploading this, my favorite jet fighter of all time..

[moahoah]

I agree, dude. It's such a shame that Northrop didn't mass produce it for the Air Force. Imagine how they would perform during the Gulf War. That would've been something.

[DanielBrettOlivier]

I think the last one resides in the california science museum

[jacknorthrop]

hermoso caza. el northrop F20 tigershark fue un diseño de caza ligero, economico, y perfectamente capaz de competir con, y derrotar a cualquier caza de cuarta generacion. es una lastima que no le hayan encontrado un lugar. fueron los politicos estadounidenses quienes dieron una puñalada por la espalda a northrop. gracias por mandar este video, encontrar videos de este caza es muy dificil