NOYB, e-mail, 10.12.2024 10:57 Not gonna happen, unless the AEW&C platform is down or your dogfighter is Stealthy, unfortunately. The ability of a MiG-17 to lurk in the weeds while the 'F/A' -4 flies into it's dogfight range was always limited and they certainly didn't 'jump' much, though the MiG-19 and certainly MiG-21 did. Even in Vietnam, it was far more common for us to see them coming (QRC-248 IFF interrogator on the EC-121 or Red Crown) and watch them pass down the formation at frozen-stick speeds, trying to scatter us before someone screamed and cursed as the MiG-21s we didn't see snapped up _through our 9-14,000ft altitude band_, fired a couple Atolls and then vanished back down into the clouds, never exiting burner. This height band was determined, not by the MiG threat but by the SAM one and the cloud bands, above and below as the space to tally the rising missiles. We needed time to beat the SAM threat as they came through the cloud floor and we had limits, for altitude (the F-105 was clapped out by 14,000ft, when loaded, the F-4 by 19,000ft), based on airframe performance and available G, due to wing and thrust loading. This made us visible to their Tall King etc. early warning radars at quite a long distance (coming off the tanker orbits over Laos to be honest) and so the VPAF had no problem vectoring their fighters against us. The difference of course is that none of the early B/C/D/E Phantoms had the PD radar of say the F-4J or certainly the F-14/15. And so looking into clutter was not possible, never mind LDSD, firing a Sparrow down into the lolo interceptor threat. Today, that would not be a problem and so, again absent stealth on the penetrating OCA jet, you're just not going to get close before either you put an AMRAAM through their canopy bow or they fire a lofted, 200km, S-400 shot which does the same for you. What made the F-20 special was the fact that it's APG-67 radar could actually support both AIM-7 and AIM-120, in full lookdown, at a time when the APG-66 on the F-16A was able to do neither and was a 50hr MTBF pig besides. Early block F-16s were MMH:FH nightmares, every bit as bad as the F-15A and while both rapidly grew out of that post-FSD ramp umbrella phase, what the F-20 did better was as much about sortie economics as absolute performance superiority. We could _match_ the F-16 at about half the cost per flying hour. Which meant that a customer could have more jets on his flightline or pay far less for the same capacity. It was a wonderful jet. In many ways almost more than a man could handle with the ability to onset Gs very rapidly. But after about 1978, the ability to combine that nose-hose capability with ALASCA missiles was no longer completely ours alone (R-60M) and by ~1982 the Archer, with it's helmet driven HOBS to about 40`, was actually better than the AIM-9M. We would have needed the AMRAAM (then about 9 years from service readiness) to match that threat and the DOD was certainly not going to release it to a competitive export fighter that threatened their F-16 volume buy economies of scale. AIM-7 on any lightweight fighter is something of an anchor, especially asymmetric, and good as the APG-67 was, it was not an APG-63V. Appreciate the enthusiasm, just trying to give you a bit of balance.

edc, 19.11.2023 01:08 I agree, and lets not forget the pilots killed flying the f16 with both the dod and gd blaming it on pilot error, only to be proven the f16 design flaws cause the crashes. The f20 was a much better platform out the box by far.

Travis Blackburn, e-mail, 30.10.2021 22:45 Hello, all great points. The one observation I have is that the F-16 at low speed had to throttle up slowly at first due to many flame outs by pushing the throttle up too quickly. I was at a air show watching 2 F-16's doing a demonstration low and slow when they both sped up one flamed out but had enough runway to put it down safely. F-20 pilots could advance the throttle rapidly with no issues.

Dragoslav, e-mail, 07.08.2021 17:08 I'am still medicated because of diagnoses F20! I'am fine but they don't belive me. Bravo for your incredible plane.

Dragoslav, e-mail, 07.08.2021 17:07 I'am still medicated because of diagnoses F20! I'am fine but they don't belive me. Bravo for your incredible plane.

Travis, e-mail, 28.05.2020 01:08 Hello everyone. I have read almost all comments and Love the fact that everyone seems well informed. As a pilot I prefer to have a a/c that has a engine that doesn't flame out because I added power too fast. if you remember in the early 80s we lost a good number of F-16s do to flame outs. Another point is with the F-16 the intake is almost down in the dirt so you need a clean paved runway. Best of all, the F-20 doesn't need a computer to stay in the air. It's a good platform and a pilots aircraft. Oh and remember the F-20 out flew the F-15 which has repeatedly beat the F-16. Yea I know the F-16 fans are going to eat me alive for these comments but I will Live. Thanks, Dexter B US Army retired attack helicopter pilot. 1979 - 2001. everyone stay safe

jimmy boom semtex, e-mail, 19.09.2017 23:52 F-20 production improvements were to be: bigger wing 220 sq foot compared to 185 bigger mission computer 1k lb extra thrust from the engine so 18k not 17k bigger underwing drop tanks bigger nose for bigger radar antenna more weapons down the line eg AMRAAM a 2nd seat from 4th or 5th built jet and other improvements i forget i love this jet and it's a sad what if. Even now an awesome jet.

Goose, e-mail, 21.12.2016 06:05 Oops. F - 20 is the Mig - 28 in the "Top Gun" Bull shit.

Stan Nonis, e-mail, 22.03.2016 09:56 Nick C, what happened to all the F20 production tooling. Given cost escalations of the F35 making it out of reach of most nations and a market full of MLU F16s with the F16 line looking to shut there is still a market for the F20 more then ever.

Nick C, e-mail, 09.03.2016 02:05 I worked on the F-20 project and it did not help that we lost two of the prototype planes in demonstration flights.

Bill, e-mail, 11.07.2015 10:35 WFflyer don't know what he is talking about.

Bill, e-mail, 11.07.2015 10:33 The main problem with the F-20 was it was not developed by an Air Force contract My dealings with the Air Force System Safety people was they didn't know Squat about airplanes but they were always saying that the Air Force wouldn't accept what Northrop designed and what made the F-20 such a great aircraft. It was 1st choice by several countries and could best the pants off the F-4, F-16 and other Aircraft the Air Force invested in.

ALLEN HILL, e-mail, 10.06.2015 11:02 IN THE LONG PLANNED UP COMING WWIII THE F-20 IS VASTLY SUPERIOR TO ANY OTHER FIGHTER WE HAVE BECAUSE: IF IS 50% CHEAPER TO OPERATE, IT CAN OPERATE ON VERY BASIC RUNWAYS UNSUITABLE FOR ALL OTHE US FIGHTER AIRCRAFT, IT IS MUCH EASIER AND CHEAPER TO MAINTAIN, MUCH QUICKER TO GET STARTED, INTO THE AIR AND AT ALTITUDE THAN ANYTHING ELSE, IT CAN HOLD ITS OWN IN JUST ABOUT ANYTHING IT NEEDS TO DO FOR AN AIR SUPERIORITY FIGHTER WHILE BEING THE BEST DOG FIGHTER OF THEM ALL. WITH PRES. CLINTON AND CONTINUED TO THIS DAY STANDING DOWN OF OUR BALISTIC MISSILE SYSTEMS, ONLY THE SURVIVING AIR CRAFT AFTER THE PLANNED RUSSIAN/CHINESE FIRST STRIKE WILL SURVIVE. THE F-20 IS BUILT TO OPERATE IN THIS ENVIRONMENT AND NOT OTHER FIGHTING AIRCRAFT THE US HAS CAN DO THAT!

TORBJÖRN KAMPE, e-mail, 25.04.2015 03:19 It only takes 3 minutes for a MIG-25 and MIG-31 to come to Sweden from Finland. The cowardly geeks JAS-39 Gripen, it takes a 15 minutes to get up in the air. WHEN THE GRIFFIN PLAN IS IN THE AIR TO HAVE ME-31 Snapped ALL JAS-39 Gripen. Uner one minute is more a 80% OF SWEDISH AIR FORCE verdict.

Matt, 27.09.2014 00:33 F-20 is faster and has longer range than F-35.

Charles, e-mail, 13.08.2013 22:58 The text above says there was a 21% increase in empty weight, but when I use the empty weight figure given above for the F-20A in comparison to the F-5E, the increase is only 16%. Even so, that's quite a bit of weight- what accounted for such a large increase?

jerry, e-mail, 04.09.2012 20:29 really?? a spin up time of 20 seconds. I was one if the engingeers developing the F20 radar system. the radars used a TWT that had to warm up for about 60 seconds before it could transmit. it could do this while the plane was rolling down the tarmack. Once the Weight on wheels signal (WOW) indicated that plane was off the ground the radar could transmit. WOW prevented transmitter operation on the ground so that ground personnel were not irradiated by the radar. The real slowdown of a fighter air craft of that era was the spin up time of the inertial navigation system. The F20 used ring Lasers rather than gyroscopes. They were solid state having no moving parts to get to operational speed and at stability, thus nearly instant on.

Ron, e-mail, 13.12.2011 16:05 The Tigershark was last offered to USAF (as the Air Guard Air Defense Fighter) with a fixed price 20 yr, $550/flight hour, warranty. All logistics support for the weapon system was provided by Northrop Grumman except for operating base maintenance personnel. Maintenance Man Hours per flight hour were half of the F-16 and cost per flight hour was approximately one third that of the F-16. Included in the warranty was a guaranteed readiness rate.

Mahon MacRi, e-mail, 07.02.2011 15:48 Although I'm not a pilot, I'm a lifelong aviation enthusiast with well over 10,000 hours of simulation time (everything from WWI/WWII tail-draggers to Gen 4+ jets) and I've spent decades researching the history, performance specifications and capabilities of various military airframes. This final incarnation of the F5 Freedom Fighter/Tiger II family (aka "the flying razorblade," especially to pilots who flew against it at Top Gun/Red Flag, because it was "murderously hard to see until it was right on top of you") exhibited vastly superior performance to the Fighting Falcon in many respects. Unfortunately, double-dealing back-room politics killed this magnificent fighter, leaving the US and its NATO allies in the lurch and forced to rely on the lesser Fighting Falcon and the compromise-laden Hornet strike/fighter instead. The F20 Tigershark was a 100% privately-funded development; a 1.1/1 thrust/weight ratio, dedicated air superiority fighter that was a joy to handle and exhibited no vices of any kind. in fact, it has often been said that she would not "depart" under all but the most extraordinary circumstances. I've spoken with two high-hour pilots who flew the Tigershark, and they were unanimous in their praise of her capabilities. Especially praiseworthy was the F20's ability to achieve supersonic speeds at milpo (which the Falcon needs reheat to accomplish!) and its superb trust-to-weight ratio and high alpha capabilities, which meant it could hang in there in prolonged high-G turns that would've left the Falcon sucking dust. The hard-earned lessons of the past have been largely forgotten by buzz-word-addicted politicians/procurement-committee-types and air staff officers, most of whom have never seen combat and have been promoted far beyond their level of competence. One of the most important of these lessons is that it is ALWAYS more cost-effective to maintain a mix of purpose-built fighter/strike types than to develop and maintain a handful of overly-expensive, compromise-laden multi-mission/multi-role "self-escorting" strike/fighters. The problem with that kind of heavily compromised airframe is that when bounced by purpose-built dogfighters (even ones that are one or two generations older, as we saw repeatedly in Vietnam) these "self-escorting" F/A strike fighters have to dump their heavy A/G loads in order to fight effectively in the A/A role. This amounts to nothing short of a "mission kill," and as all fighter pilots know, "a mission kill is almost as good as a real kill." That's why they should bring back the mixed approach of dedicated strike planes doing what they' best at, all the while being covered by dedicated dogfighters doing what they're best at.

Charles, e-mail, 30.12.2010 15:24 Since the F-16's couldn't hack Red Flag and Top Gun without structural fatigue problems, they should at least invest in an upgraded F-5 to restore DACT. It's to bad Northrop also fell on the wrong side of politics with the F-23. The Pentagon chose the F-22 because they had plants in Georgia. The chairman of the Senate Armed services Committee at the time was Sam Nunn (from Georgia, of course).

ForTheRecord, e-mail, 28.12.2010 14:38 For the record, the primary reason the F16 won is because it uses the exact same engine as the F15 which created a considerable savings in interchangeability, people training (which is always the highest cost), and speed to manufacture. F16 was not targeted to be an air superiority fighter. What they were looking for was a 'cheaper' F15. I am a fan of the F18 over the F16 but the F16 was a much smarter decision as the F18 was much smarter in its carrier and multifunction role.

shark, 03.08.2010 22:40 The F-16 did have greater range at altitude due to its turbofan engine, although the F-20 had slightly better range on the deck. However, longer range was not one of the main criteria for the target market and the F-20 had sufficient range to meet the objectives. Compared with the then current F-16 it had better radar, a better fire control, had better flying characteristics, greater versatility, got airborne Much faster and had all systems up sooner, had a better engine, a more comfortable cockpit, was cheaper to acquire and operate, was easier to maintain and was much, much more reliable. Also, those who had flown both and didn't have a vested interest reported it was easier and more fun to fly. USAF's objection was that for every F-20 sold an F-16 wasn't sold, and the more sales of F-16s lowered their price. GD also knew how to market better. Taiwan wanted up to 250, but the sale was blocked by State because the Chinese objected. At least one other sale was reportedly blocked for similar reasons. There was a competition between the F-20 and the F-16 for an Air Defense fighter for the US. Neither plane was really suitable for US air defense, but the F-20 was better at the role, and this became clear. Then midway through the competition, USAF announced it wouldn't buy either but rather would modify some existing older F-16s. This became the F-16 ADC. At this point it was clear what was happening and Northrop threw in the towel. The F-16 ADC entered service, but having already performed its function to kill the F-20, was quickly retired.

swarón, e-mail, 29.03.2010 05:03 y asi de esa manera con 3 derrotas consecutivas y el recorte del presupuesto del B-2, fue herida de muerte la Northrop, una lastima, pues sinceramente la empresa del Sr. Walther Northrop merecia algo mas que ser absorbida por otras compañias.

Joe, e-mail, 06.02.2010 03:36 The only thing the F-16 had over the F-20 was political maneuvering, as Frank correctly stated. The F-20 had PLENTY of range, weapons carrying capability, and flight characteristics that made it too hot to sell overseas - the USAF couldn't export a fighter that would beat the pants off their F-16. Switzerland, Israel, S. Korea, Taiwan, and others were lining up 3-deep to buy them. But politics won out - Switzerland is the hardest buyer to please - and they refused to buy the F-16. They kept their F-5s instead. U.S. taxpayers got a politically-expedient G.D. shortcoming for their hard-spent dollars.

FWflyer, e-mail, 02.02.2010 08:57 The F-20 was great if you wanted to bomb the end of the runway. It had no range which is one of the main reasons why the F-16 won the competition.

Animal, e-mail, 26.10.2009 01:51 It will rise again

Animal, e-mail, 26.10.2009 01:51 It will rise again

Frank, e-mail, 03.04.2009 21:01 I remember following the competition between the F-20 and the F-16. The F-20 beat the balls off the F-16 in almost every category of competition except lobbying Congress. There is where GD won out and the nation lost.

nick, 19.08.2008 08:30 did you nwowe that its rader had a spinap time of 20sescones