Northrop F-5G / F-20 Tigershark

[Triton]

Wikipedia mentions that the Carter Administration's export policy was also motivated by concern that front-line fighter technology might get in the hands of the Soviet Union or used against the United States. Unfortunately, I cannot find this information verified from the graduate school theses or articles that are linked to the footnotes. Is this true?

"F-20" designation could be thought of as a marketing ploy, but it could also be said that "F-5G" was even more a marketing ploy.

When Carter set up the "export fighter" program, one of the requirements was that the planes had to be a derivative of an existing aircraft, preferably not as good. F-16/79 certainly was this. Northrop adopted the designation "F-5G" to go along with this, although the Tigershark was more a new, much more capable aircraft. It was based on and shared components with, but was not a derivative of, the F-5 series. A parallel would be the F9F Panthers and Cougars, although the difference was more dramatic.

Once President Reagan came into office, the "export fighter" concept died a deserved death. Northrop realized that the export fighter program was effectively telling nations , "You aren't good enough to deserve first line stuff", which made it kind of hard to market aircraft.

The Carter Administration believed that they could some how keep the peace without selling fighters and other advanced weapon systems to nations outside the NATO countries, Japan, and Australia. He reasoned that the United States could not be "both the world's champion of peace and the world's leading supplier of the weapons of war." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-20_Tigershark#cite_note-saga-9] Unfortunately, the Administration only succeeded in forcing friendly countries to look to Europe for arms including sales of the Dassault Mirage 2000.

I understand that the FX program was originally intended to create an austere fighter aircraft for the Third World between the F-5E and the F-16 in capability. I presume that the idea was to create and sell a fighter that was capable of providing air defense, a national right, but limited in its capabilities to wage war on neighboring countries. The market for the Northrop F-5G was totally dependent on the continuation of the Carter Administration's export control policies. The ability to purchase the Northrop F-5G as a reward for good behavior. Unfortunately, even the Carter Administration did not follow its export control policies when it allowed the sale of the F-16 to Israel as a reward for the Camp David Accords and the Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty.

If Jimmy Carter had won re-election in 1980, the story of the F-20 Tigershark may have been different and the F-16 may not have been available to countries who wanted it. Unfortunately for Northrop, the Reagan Administration relaxed the Carter Administration's export control policies.

Because the F-5G/F-20 was born from the FX program, Northrop could not market the aircraft directly to foreign air forces. Only the State Department could market the F-5G/F-20 and Northrop was forced to submit all marketing materials to the State Department for approval, which could take months. Northrop complained that the State Department did not do enough to sell the F-5G/F-20. Unfortunately, the Reagan Administration never allowed Northrop to market the aircraft directly to foreign air forces.

Another complaint leveled against the F-20 Tigershark was that it was not good enough for the United States Air Force. Why should foreign air forces buy an aircraft that was not good enough for the United States Air Force or be added to the United States inventory? The aircraft was not chosen in 1985 as a dissimilar "aggressor aircraft" for combat training by the United States Air Force or the United States Navy. Rumor has it that the F-16 was sold at a loss to the United States Navy to keep Northrop out of the market. The aircraft also lost the 270 aircraft Air Defense Fighter (ADF) competition for the Air National Guard to the General Dynamics F-16C in 1986. The United States Air Force decided later to cancel the order and retrofit existing F-16As to the F-16C for the air defense role.

Despite Northrop's re-marketing of the F-5G Tiger II as the F-20 Tigershark and its numerous improvements, it was always seen by potential customers as a deliberately inferior aircraft to the F-16.

 

[sferrin]

I can't help but wonder, if they'd left it as "F-5G" if it might have been perceived by the pols as less of a problem for export. "Because the F-5G is just an upgrade to a fighter we've been selling for years. But the F-20, well now, THAT'S a new fighter plane."

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Thanks, F-14D.


I decidedly have a hard time getting myself understood. When I said I could only think of one other example, I didn't speak of the "Y" prefix... I was talking about the lack of the compulsary "A" suffix that comes after every newly procured type in the DoD inventory.

Ah.

The key here, then, is that the F-20 was never a US gov't program.

Indeed - you answered your own question Stephane. How many F-20's were procured? None.

 

[Triton]

I can't help but wonder, if they'd left it as "F-5G" if it might have been perceived by the pols as less of a problem for export. "Because the F-5G is just an upgrade to a fighter we've been selling for years. But the F-20, well now, THAT'S a new fighter plane."

The Reagan Administration had agreed to sell the F-16 to Pakistan in 1981 because of the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 and the Administration's new policy of containment. This sale was seen as a relaxing of the Carter Administration's export control policies for front-line fighters. Northrop decided that the F-5G should be upgraded to better match the capabilities of the General Dynamics F-16. Northrop requested the F-20 designation in 1982 and the name Tigershark in 1983 as an attempt to distance the much-improved aircraft from the FX program and the earlier F-5G Tiger II.

 

[Stargazer]

Northrop requested the F-20 designation in 1982 and the name Tigershark in 1983 as an attempt to distance the much-improved aircraft from the FX program and the earlier F-5G Tiger II.

Which means that despite what is written all over the web and even in books, the F-5G and F-20 designations did NOT both correspond to the Tigershark, but only the latter.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Northrop requested the F-20 designation in 1982 and the name Tigershark in 1983 as an attempt to distance the much-improved aircraft from the FX program and the earlier F-5G Tiger II.

Which means that despite what is written all over the web and even in books, the F-5G and F-20 designations did NOT both correspond to the Tigershark, but only the latter.

Petty semantics and wrong. Northrop called it F-5G Tigershark.

E.g:


http://www.nytimes.com/1982/07/30/business/introducing-northrop-s-f-5g.html

LOS ANGELES, July 29— Two years ago, Thomas V. Jones, chairman and chief executive officer of the Northrop Corporation, set out on his own to develop a new plane without Government help.

Now, as Northrop prepares for the ceremonial rollout here Sunday of Mr. Jones's latest creation, the F-5G Tigershark, an agile, low-cost jet fighter believed to be highly marketable in third world countries, his reputation as a shrewd innovator is on the line.

Northrop, after spending $350 million to develop the Tigershark and suffering a $24 million loss for the first half of 1982, has not received a single order for the new plane and has had to put an innovative production system on hold.

The outward mood at Northrop is buoyant. Thirty countries fly more than 2,500 of Northrop's F-5 fighters and most, with exceptions like Vietnam and Iran, are considered good prospects for the Tigershark.

Talks With 42 Countries

Northrop is talking with 42 countries. One of them is India, which is said to be considering an initial purchase of more than 50 Tigersharks, an order that would be worth at least $400 million. The sale was expected to be among the topics discussedbetween President Reagan and Prime Minister Indira Gandhi at their meeting today in Washington, according to an industry source.

Military specialists say a powerful new engine and increased agility make the plane superior to the Soviet-built MIG-21's and MIG 23's that it is likely to face in battle well into the 1990's.

''We know these people and they are very pleased with the progress of the plane,'' Mr. Jones said. ''Some orders could still come this year. We're very confident.''

''There are a lot of candidates,'' said Morton Langer, an aerospace analyst with Bear, Stearns & Company. ''It's just a question of timing.''

But Pentagon and Wall Street analysts say they are not so sure of that. Wars in the Middle East and the transition from Alexander M. Haig to George P. Shultz as Secretary of State have slowed policy talks in the State Department, which must approve all military sales to foreign governments.

Ultimately, Mr. Shultz is expected to look more favorably on military exports to Arab countries than Mr. Haig. And few doubt that the Tigershark will someday become a mainstay in the air forces of developing countries like South Korea, Turkey and Saudi Arabia. Challenges by Competitors

But there are other problems. Northrop is being challenged for orders by General Dynamics' F-16/79, the French-built Mirage, the British Harrier and a new Swedish entry.

''There is always a certain amount of gamble in going into the foreign market,'' said William W. Kaufmann, a military planning specialist and professor of political science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. ''Today the market is more crowded and the uncertainties are greater.''

In addition, many countries are holding back until they can review the Tigershark's performance after it begins flight testing in September. ''That is a very important marketing tool,'' said C. Robert Gates, a Northrop vice president and head of the F-5G program.

Then, too, some nations covet a large fleet of the faster, longerrange F-16's and F-15's favored by the United States Air Force, the aircraft that the Israelis sent with such devastating results into Lebanon. 'Unstated Change of Policy'

Those planes, however, are likely to be parceled out sparingly, according to a Pentagon spokesman. Both the Carter and Reagan Administrations called for ''an intermediate fighter'' that allies could use mainly as an interceptor to defend their borders as well as United States air bases.

If the more aggressive and expensive F-16's are approved for export in competition with the Tigershark, it would amount to ''an unstated change in United States policy,'' said Les Daly, Northrop's vice president for public affairs. It would also use up a limited account in the military budget for financing sales of military exports, he added.

According to Northrop, the existing ''intermediate'' fighters pale beside the brilliantly colored, red-and-white Tigershark on several key points. The Tigershark, powered by an F-404 engine designed by the General Electric Company in partnership with Northrop, has 70 percent more thrust than its predecessor, the F-5E.

Its new electronics systems, developed by the Bendix Corporation, Honeywell Inc. and General Electric, allow the Tigershark to maneuver quickly and, in effect, take on several MIG 21's and 23's simultaneously. That is crucial, according to Mr. Jones, because MIG's are expected to outnumber Western-made tactical fighters by four to one by the end of the decade. Tigershark Is Less Expensive

With the Tigershark, ''you don't even have to point at your target anymore, you don't even have to see him,'' said Harry Harwood, an aerosapce analyst with Bateman Eichler, Hill Richards Inc., a Los Angeles-based brokerage.

The Tigershark, at a cost of about $9 million a plane, is less expensive than the F-16/79, a trimmed-down F-16 that General Dynamics lists at about $13 million. The Tigershark also requires about half as much fuel and maintenance labor as comparable fighters now being flown, Northrop boasts that its total operating and maintenance costs are about one-third of the current average.

''Third world countries are looking for an aircraft that is easy to maintain, easy to fly, inexpensive and for use in a defensive role,'' Mr. Langer of Bear, Stearns said. ''Clearly, this is more than adequate.'' Mr. Kaufmann, the M.I.T. defense specialist, added: ''I wouldn't like to send an aircraft against it.''

The Tigershark is the first fighter built in this country completely without Government funds. Mr. Jones has long argued against the cost overruns and waste in conventional military programs. Northrop Reports Loss

The Tigershark's developmental expenses caused Northrop's earnings to fall 45 percent last year, and analysts are divided over whether Northrop will make any money this year if no F-5G orders are booked.

Last week Northrop reported a $1.6 million loss in the second quarter, compared with a net income of $5.2 million in the corresponding period last year. Sales, however, jumped 21 percent, to $467.1 million.

For the first half of 1982, the loss was $23.9 million, compared with a profit of $28.3 million a year ago, on a 17 percent sales gain, to $1.06 billion. With $162 million allotted for Tigershark development in the first six months, the heavy spending push is nearly complete.

Mr. Jones announced in late June that Northrop had canceled any firm production schedule for next year since no orders had been placed. Instead, Mr. Jones said, Northrop will pace production to match the flow of orders, a cost-saving move that some analysts said would return Northrop to profitability this quarter. Stock Price Remains Strong

The strong price of Northrop's common shares has mirrored Wall Street's confidence in the company. It closed today in consolidated trading at $53.50, up $1, below its high of $55 for the last 12 months.

Analysts said the price was buttressed by the prospects for the F-5G, as well as Northrop's multibillion-dollar contracts for the F-18, a new Navy fighter plane, and the Stealth bomber, a futuristic craft designed to elude enemy surveillance.

Indeed, they see a rebound to earnings of $8.50 a share next year, and as high as $17 a share in 1985. ''Hey, look, this company has everything going for it,'' said one aerospace analyst who recommends the stock. ''The demand for these kind of airplanes from here on out is going to be significant.''

 

[Stargazer]

Thanks Paul. I was misled by the phrase "the earlier F-5G Tiger II" which seemed to indicate that the F-5G proposal was not called the Tigershark and was prior to the F-20.

 

[Triton]

I presume that the FX program and the Carter Administration's export control policies were heavily influenced by the Islamic Revolution of Iran in 1979. Between the years 1976 and 1978, the United States delivered 79 Grumman F-14 Tomcat fighters, AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles, and 284 AIM-54A Phoenix missiles to the Imperial Iranian Air Force. I understand that the Iranian Tomcats were virtually identical to the US Navy version, with only a few classified avionics items being omitted. The Iranian revolution came as a surprise to many as did the holding of 52 American diplomats hostage for four hundred forty-four days. I imagine that there were fears that the United States might have to fight an enemy equipped with the latest front-line American fighters and missiles. The hostages were released and war with the Islamic Republic of Iran did not come.

 

[Triton]

Petty semantics and wrong. Northrop called it F-5G Tigershark.

Thank you for the correction, Paul.

 

[F-14D]

I can't help but wonder, if they'd left it as "F-5G" if it might have been perceived by the pols as less of a problem for export. "Because the F-5G is just an upgrade to a fighter we've been selling for years. But the F-20, well now, THAT'S a new fighter plane."

Northrop felt that the F-5G designation was problem for export, but they had to use it to maintain the fiction that what they were developing really was in the spirit of the FX program, which program they knew was insulting to potential customers. But the F-5G really was a new airplane from the get-go. Once the FX program went away, they wanted something to acknowledge that what they had was so much more. Actually, your last two sentences are the reason are the argument in favor of the designation change. Countires wanted a "first line" aircraft, not a "derivative" of an older, lesser one. Northrop wanted to show they had an F-16 class machine.

 

[F-14D]

Wikipedia mentions that the Carter Administration's export policy was also motivated by concern that front-line fighter technology might get in the hands of the Soviet Union or used against the United States. Unfortunately, I cannot find this information verified from the graduate school theses or articles that are linked to the footnotes. Is this true?

<snip>

The Carter Administration believed that they could some how keep the peace without selling fighters and other advanced weapon systems to nations outside the NATO countries, Japan, and Australia. He reasoned that the United States could not be "both the world's champion of peace and the world's leading supplier of the weapons of war." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-20_Tigershark#cite_note-saga-9] Unfortunately, the Administration only succeeded in forcing friendly countries to look to Europe for arms including sales of the Dassault Mirage 2000.

I understand that the FX program was originally intended to create an austere fighter aircraft for the Third World between the F-5E and the F-16 in capability. I presume that the idea was to create and sell a fighter that was capable of providing air defense, a national right, but limited in its capabilities to wage war on neighboring countries. The market for the Northrop F-5G was totally dependent on the continuation of the Carter Administration's export control policies. The ability to purchase the Northrop F-5G as a reward for good behavior. Unfortunately, even the Carter Administration did not follow its export control policies when it allowed the sale of the F-16 to Israel as a reward for the Camp David Accords and the Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty.

If Jimmy Carter had won re-election in 1980, the story of the F-20 Tigershark may have been different and the F-16 may not have been available to countries who wanted it. Unfortunately for Northrop, the Reagan Administration relaxed the Carter Administration's export control policies.

Because the F-5G/F-20 was born from the FX program, Northrop could not market the aircraft directly to foreign air forces. Only the State Department could market the F-5G/F-20 and Northrop was forced to submit all marketing materials to the State Department for approval, which could take months. Northrop complained that the State Department did not do enough to sell the F-5G/F-20. Unfortunately, the Reagan Administration never allowed Northrop to market the aircraft directly to foreign air forces.

Another complaint leveled against the F-20 Tigershark was that it was not good enough for the United States Air Force. Why should foreign air forces buy an aircraft that was not good enough for the United States Air Force or be added to the United States inventory? The aircraft was not chosen in 1985 as a dissimilar "aggressor aircraft" for combat training by the United States Air Force or the United States Navy. Rumor has it that the F-16 was sold at a loss to the United States Navy to keep Northrop out of the market. The aircraft also lost the 270 aircraft Air Defense Fighter (ADF) competition for the Air National Guard to the General Dynamics F-16C in 1986. The United States Air Force decided later to cancel the order and retrofit existing F-16As to the F-16C for the air defense role.

Despite Northrop's re-marketing of the F-5G Tiger II as the F-20 Tigershark and its numerous improvements, it was always seen by potential customers as a deliberately inferior aircraft to the F-16.

Wordy time, while I'm here.

Originally, Carter felt many of these countries shouldn't be spending money on these things, instead on more noble purposes and tried to motivate them to same. When that went nowhere, he attempted to pressure countries, especially in South America, by threatening to reduce the amount of aid we sent by the cost of what they spent on weapons of which we didn't approve. That was equally successful, and now US companies were complaining that as long as they were going to buy stuff anyway, we were losing sales to France and whomever else would sell. Thus was born FX, which basically said, "You can have these lesser aircraft of which we deem you worthy".

As you say, State has to approve foreign sales of weapons and what could said in the marketing, although they don't necessarily have to do the marketing. To get FMS money, Northrop needed a military service to represent and "certify" their aircraft; they chose USAF (boy are there stories there I'm not completely free to tell), who also had to approve marketing materials and statements. One thing that came out of that was that in those areas where the F-20 was better, Northrop was not allowed to explicitly say "F-16". So, whenever you see the words, "other world class aircraft" or "...fighter", that's what they meant.

Most nations wanted to be the 2nd nation to operate a new aircraft so that someone else can take the risk and can be pointed to to say, "They bought it so it must be OK". The F-16 was the "safe" choice in this regard. You wouldn't get lined up against a wall if you bought the F-16 and it went bad. Plus GD had superb marketing, much better than Northrop's, and really knew how to work the system. Plus it didn't hurt that the service representing and certifying both aircraft had a vested interest in more F-16 sales. Those countries that were willing to go ahead and be the first with significant orders for the F-20 (Only Taiwan has ever been publicly discussed) were denied permission to acquire it.

Your point about being perceived as "not good enough for USAF" is extremely well taken, especially given USAF's less than enthusiastic pushing of the a/c when asked. There was no chance, really of USAF ever buying the F-20 for DACT, I doubt if it was even seriously proposed (I can't remember if USAF ever used anything besides T-38s and captured MiGs for DACT) . For Navy, GD offered the stripped down F-16N, while Northrop offered a full blown F-20. While the latter would allow all-weather training, much lower operating costs and had a number of logistical advantages, there was the concern that the plane would be ordered and because the Navy order probably wasn't big enough, would never renter production. I've heard rumors that all the instructors at the fighter Weapons School at the time want the F-20, but the CO wanted the F-16. Yes, the F-16N was probably sold at a loss. From GD's perspective it didn't matter if the F-16 won so long as the F-20 lost.

Regarding ADF, neither F-16 or F-20 were optimum for that role. It came about as a possible way for F-20 to enter US inventory, if it won, which would help sales abroad. The F-20 was pitted against the forthcoming F-16C. However, I don't believe the latter actually won. In October 1986 USAF announced that instead of new ADFs, operational Block 15 F-16As would be used to fill the ADF role. Again, it wasn't so much that F-16 had to win new production as much as it was that F-20 didn't get any production. The F-16/ADFs were not brought up to full F-16C standard. They were brought up to block 15OCU standard, which was happening to other F-16As. They got new secure communications and an improved IFF. The APG-66 was modified for look-down shoot-down capability and to provide continuous wave illumination for AIM-7 (the APG-67 of the Tigershark already had look/shoot, AIM-7 and -120 when it would became operational, capability). They got a 150,000 candlepower light on the port side.

I'm sure it's just coincidence that with the F-20 safely dead, although the first ADF conversion was only completed in 1989, by 1994 USAF was retiring them from service.

 

[Stargazer]

may also be appropriate at the discretion of the moderators

Well, for a start this is not a little-known project, but a well-known and largely documented type, itself derived from a widely produced type.

Then, as has been said previously, the three aircraft were not quite prototype-standard but near-production standard machines.

But above all, a large part of the topic is made of discussions about political decision-making that pretty much fit in the "Aerospace" section.


All of this being said, if the admin or any of the other moderators believe I made a wrong decision here I'll be glad to move it back to where it was.

 

[Triton]

To quote Aeronautical engineer Sir Sydney Camm "All modern aircraft have four dimensions: span, length, height and politics."

 

[RAP]

F-20 options. Unfortunately I don't have a copy of the Options brochure that is referenced which looks like it would be an interesting document.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Went to MOTAT (Museum of Transport and Technology) yesterday and found, in a display of what I think was supposed to be "toys through the years", a large scale model (1:32 perhaps?) of an F-20 presented to the New Zealand Prime Minister Robert Muldoon, which makes it probably from 1984 or earlier. It's in New Zealand Air Force markings in an anti-ship configuration with a centreline Sea Eagle, twin fuel tanks and outboard Mavericks.


I would have taken pics but I didn't have my camera and my phone couldn't get a usable image.Next visit...

 

[Sundog]

Went to MOTAT (Museum of Transport and Technology) yesterday and found, in a display of what I think was supposed to be "toys through the years", a large scale model (1:32 perhaps?) of an F-20 presented to the New Zealand Prime Minister Robert Muldoon, which makes it probably from 1984 or earlier. It's in New Zealand Air Force markings in an anti-ship configuration with a centreline Sea Eagle, twin fuel tanks and outboard Mavericks.


I would have taken pics but I didn't have my camera and my phone couldn't get a usable image.Next visit...

Was it in a low viz grey scheme, or the green and grey NZ scheme?

 

[RAP]

Here is a little info from the Executive Summary for New Zealand from May '83. Unfortunately it does not include proposed markings. A nice 3-view in NZ markings would have been nice.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Went to MOTAT (Museum of Transport and Technology) yesterday and found, in a display of what I think was supposed to be "toys through the years", a large scale model (1:32 perhaps?) of an F-20 presented to the New Zealand Prime Minister Robert Muldoon, which makes it probably from 1984 or earlier. It's in New Zealand Air Force markings in an anti-ship configuration with a centreline Sea Eagle, twin fuel tanks and outboard Mavericks.


I would have taken pics but I didn't have my camera and my phone couldn't get a usable image.Next visit...

Maybe blues and greys?
Was it in a low viz grey scheme, or the green and grey NZ scheme?

Grey, light blue, green?

 

[F-14D]

Here is a little info from the Executive Summary for New Zealand from May '83. Unfortunately it does not include proposed markings. A nice 3-view in NZ markings would have been nice.

For perspective, in today's dollars, the flyaway cost would be $25.13 million , and the total two year cost would be $640.22 million.

 

[Stargazer]

A different version of the cutaway view already posted here:

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Allen Rockwell took this pic of a beautiful cutaway model at the Western Museum of Flight


https://www.flickr.com/photos/allenrockwell/4433224234

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

F-20 in NZ markings from MOTAT (Museum of Transport and Technology), Auckland. In a display of 70s toys....

 

[Stargazer]

Gosh! Some toy! Were they for sale or just an exhibit? Because if sold at the price of a 70s toy you might have had a great bargain here!

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Unfortunately its in a museum so no buying.


It was given to Robert Muldoon, then prime minister of New Zealand, in the early 80s. It's a large original Northrop display model in great shape. No idea why its in a toy display in the museum.

 

[GTX]

No idea why its in a toy display in the museum.

Probably because whomever gave it to the museum didn't know better.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

From Ron Monroe's Flickr:


https://www.flickr.com/photos/52810288@N05/sets/72157627625417939/

 

[Kiltonge]

Was there ever any serious interest from India on buying the whole F-20 technical package ( afer the project was terminated ), or was that just speculation from the press?

For example:

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1986/1986%20-%203156.html

One potential customer is India, which has already specified an F404-powered aircraft as the basis of its Light Combat Aircraft program.

which sounds to me very speculative, some Flight journalists connecting the dots. It's one of those 'facts' that has been picked-up and widely disseminated but I can't find a source.

 

[Kiltonge]

Bizarrely I did find this from 1988 though:

Bristol Aerospace is negotiating to restart the Northrop F-20 Tigershark project in Canada.

The company's director of international marketing, A. Van Cauwenbergh, says that the bid, "depends on
who takes office in Washington this year".

~~

Prior to termination, another country to which Northrop offered the F-20 was Malaysia

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1985/1985%20-%203173.html

It is understood that Northrop has offered the F-20 Tigershark on favourable terms to enhance the air defence force, and Dassault has offered the Mirage 2000.

Portugal also considered the F-20.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Was there ever any serious interest from India on buying the whole F-20 technical package ( afer the project was terminated ), or was that just speculation from the press?

For example:

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1986/1986%20-%203156.html

One potential customer is India, which has already specified an F404-powered aircraft as the basis of its Light Combat Aircraft program.

which sounds to me very speculative, some Flight journalists connecting the dots. It's one of those 'facts' that has been picked-up and widely disseminated but I can't find a source.

http://www.nytimes.com/1982/07/30/business/introducing-northrop-s-f-5g.html

Talks With 42 Countries

Northrop is talking with 42 countries. One of them is India, which is said to be considering an initial purchase of more than 50 Tigersharks, an order that would be worth at least $400 million. The sale was expected to be among the topics discussedbetween President Reagan and Prime Minister Indira Gandhi at their meeting today in Washington, according to an industry source.

 

[sferrin]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_VcNlOTu8g


Heh. Wonder if they ever dared to pull the trigger with that gun pod they have mounted there at 8:48.

 

[Steve Pace]

Chuck Yeager liked it, the $ Northrop gave him to promote it. -SP

 

[TomS]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_VcNlOTu8g

Heh. Wonder if they ever dared to pull the trigger with that gun pod they have mounted there at 8:48.

I expect they did. Apparently the Thai Air Force operated their F-5Es with the GPU-5 pod for many years, so why not the F-20?

 

[sferrin]

Apparently it shook up the F-16 ("A-16") quite a bit and left a lot to be desired in the accuracy dept. I wouldn't think it would do any better on the lighter F-20.

"The GPU-5 pod, however, proved unsatisfactory in service. It was briefly tried on some Air National Guard F-16 Fighting Falcons during the 1991 Gulf War, but was removed from service after barely a day of combat use because of its very poor accuracy. Despite the cannon's impressive ballistic characteristics, the pylon mounting was not sufficiently rigid to prevent deflection, and the weapon's heavy recoil exacerbated the problem by causing pylon misalignment. Further, the GPU-5 was not integrated into the F-16's sighting system. The GPU-5 is no longer in U.S. service, although some Thai F-5E Tiger II aircraft still carry the weapon, experimented also with F-20 Tigershark."

Wiki.

 

[TomS]

It might be the pylon rather than the pod. I've certainly seen comments by people associated with the program who say the real reason for the withdrawal was that the pilots didn't like the mission profile and that the vibration issue was just an acceptable excuse. The fact that the version deployed to ODS didn't have the software to do CCIP aiming with the pod was probably also a major factor.

 

[sferrin]

It might be the pylon rather than the pod. I've certainly seen comments by people associated with the program who say the real reason for the withdrawal was that the pilots didn't like the mission profile and that the vibration issue was just an acceptable excuse. The fact that the version deployed to ODS didn't have the software to do CCIP aiming with the pod was probably also a major factor.

Yeah, I don't know the details. Still trying to find the picture of the original Strike Eagle demonstrator with 3 of those pods though. I know they flew it in that config.

 

[doolyii]

US tried to fill in this fighter market with F-16 or F-18..but it really did not happen the way they tried?, Saab Gripen, FA-50, Tejas, (just F404 class engine basis), JF-17 and few others made it to market..and there hasn't been really no successor of F-5 from USA...F-6/F-18 are ted bit too big (and expensive), JSF is really not that kind of airplane..

 

[TomS]

I'd say the F-16 filled the market space very well. For a period there in the 1980s and 90s, it was hands down the most successful export fighter in the world, and many of those went to customers who were replacing F-5s or similar early-generation fighters. None of the aircraft you list have had anything like the sales success of the F-16.

 

[GTX]

I'd say the F-16 filled the market space very well. For a period there in the 1980s and 90s, it was hands down the most successful export fighter in the world, and many of those went to customers who were replacing F-5s or similar early-generation fighters. None of the aircraft you list have had anything like the sales success of the F-16.

I agree. Moreover, the listed aircraft all came after the F-20 and often were developed for domestic reasons with export only given a secondary (if any) consideration:

F-20 was flying in early '80s
Gripen - didn't really enter service until late '90s and was driven by Swedish domestic requirements although has been probably the closest thing to a pure F-5 replacement
FA-50 - only really entering service now (though the T-50 version did enter service about 10yrs ago) - largely driven by Sth Korean domestic requirements although is now finding some exports
Tejas - only just entering service now and purely driven by Indian domestic requirements with little, if any, consideration given to exports (I doubt it will even be seriously offered to anyone)
JF-17 - entered service around 5yrs ago and although obviously driven by some export considerations this is yet to really materialise. It does have the potential to be a F-5 replacement though.

 

[doolyii]

I was just putting those airplanes where specific weight class (18000 thrust class, tactical fighter). F-16 is really not that class (lightweight for USA, but not to everybody else, almost), neither F-18. Demand has been there, but never fully serviced by USA (as was used to be military assistance program)), so market is being filled by those airplanes. For almost same reason, JSF will not be able to succeed F-16/F-18 (too fancy, too expensive, un-exportable stealth tech?).

 

[Triton]

I was just putting those airplanes where specific weight class (18000 thrust class, tactical fighter). F-16 is really not that class (lightweight for USA, but not to everybody else, almost), neither F-18. Demand has been there, but never fully serviced by USA (as was used to be military assistance program)), so market is being filled by those airplanes. For almost same reason, JSF will not be able to succeed F-16/F-18 (too fancy, too expensive, un-exportable stealth tech?).

The Northrop F-5 Freedom Fighter/Tiger II was a product created for the Mutual Defense Assistance Act, in which the United States government offered foreign military aid. No United States aerospace manufacturer is going to create a new small fighter on their own dime like Northrop did for the F-20 Tigershark.