F-20 class aircraft

doolyii

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
46
Reaction score
1
I remember I did some long discussion in about 10 yrs ago with experts that F-16 is not the same class for a F-5 successor, and US not providing product of that class (something like JAS-39 or something cheaper and lighter in current term, or F-20 back then), US actually lost (and still) of that particular market segment...What's the general opinion about that argument ?

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA228122&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf
 

Attachments

  • 002-1920-50.png
    002-1920-50.png
    526.6 KB · Views: 209

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,872
Reaction score
2,370
doolyii said:
I remember I did some long discussion in about 10 yrs ago with experts that F-16 is not the same class for a F-5 successor, and US not providing product of that class (something like JAS-39 or something cheaper and lighter in current term, or F-20 back then), US actually lost (and still) of that particular market segment...What's the general opinion about that argument ?

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA228122&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf

Well, sales of the other "F-20 class" aircraft since the demise of the Tigershark have been pretty minimal (some Gripens, arguably the Taiwanese ADC, and perhaps the T-50/A-50). At the same time, F-16 sales have been pretty robust. Hard to say that the US lost a huge amount of actual sales as a result.
 

doolyii

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
46
Reaction score
1
I meant the current F-5 / Mig-21 users who could not afford to have F-16 (or no need), but kept operational by modernizing or fixing up.
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,869
Reaction score
430
doolyii said:
I remember I did some long discussion in about 10 yrs ago with experts that F-16 is not the same class for a F-5 successor, and US not providing product of that class (something like JAS-39 or something cheaper and lighter in current term, or F-20 back then), US actually lost (and still) of that particular market segment...What's the general opinion about that argument ?

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA228122&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf

Actually, the F-20 was in a class with the F-16Cs of the time, except in sheer lifting power and high altitude range, neither of which were major considerations to the target market. JAS-39 is arguably better than the F-16.

However, the F-16 is in use all over the world, it's a "safe" choice, and benefited from some of the most brilliant marketing ever.
 

Matej

Multiuniversal creator
Joined
Feb 13, 2006
Messages
2,613
Reaction score
198
Website
www.hitechweb.genezis.eu
As TomS said, there is not a big demand for such an aircraft. The country, that cant afford Gripen or F-16 can hardly afford any real jet fighter. The only reason why they still have MiGs-21 is that they are still able to fly. Once they will retire, there will be no substitution. MiG had the project to replace them - izdelije 33 - but it was abandoned in favor of the MFI/LFI programs. BAe made the Hawk 200 but as far as I know it went nowhere. So if some country wants the aircraft of this class, they can do better thing to buy some advanced trainer/light attacker such as Aermacchi M-346, T-50 Golden Eagle or subsonic Aero L-159 Alca.
 

Similar threads

Top