Nodeo-Franvier
Airman 1st Class
- 121
- Jul 13, 2020
If nation like Iran buy them to supplement their F-14 would it be worth it? Or it still would be less cost-efficient than competitors like F-16 and F-18?
F-20 potential in high-low configuration.
- Thread starter Nodeo-Franvier
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 3,954
- Jun 25, 2013
Buying them instead of the F-14 would probably have made more sense. While the F-14 was a great aircraft, it was also not easy to fly or maintain.
vikingBerserker
Lieutenant General
It was an amazing aircraft.
- Thread starter
- #4
Nodeo-Franvier
Airman 1st Class
- 121
- Jul 13, 2020
F-20 or F-14?
G
gomwolf
Guest
F-14 is expensive, hard to maintain, and spending crazy amount of fuel. Clearly it is not a good aircraft for iran(at least nowdays.) F-20 is fit for them.
But you know, Northrop made a shitty airshow plan and it destroyed whole business.
But you know, Northrop made a shitty airshow plan and it destroyed whole business.
vikingBerserker
Lieutenant General
Sorry, F-20. I am still suprpised it did not do as well as the F-5 on the international market.
Shortround6
Major General
One story has it that while the F-20 under development the F-16 was banned from export.
If America will not buy the F-20 and then releases the F-16 for export what are it's actual sales potential?
It is not good enough for the American Air Force (Foreign perception) and it does not have the WOW factor of the F-16 or show that the purchasing country is a close ally of the US (gets the same stuff the US is using).
Much of the F-20s failure was due to marketing and timing, not anything to do with the actual capabilities of the plane.
If America will not buy the F-20 and then releases the F-16 for export what are it's actual sales potential?
It is not good enough for the American Air Force (Foreign perception) and it does not have the WOW factor of the F-16 or show that the purchasing country is a close ally of the US (gets the same stuff the US is using).
Much of the F-20s failure was due to marketing and timing, not anything to do with the actual capabilities of the plane.
Bingo.
Have the 1st flight happen in 1978 instead of 1982 wile offering perhaps 15-20% lower price than the F-16, and air-forces around the world might put it very high on the shopping list.
Shortround6
Major General
Northrop F-20 Tigershark - Wikipedia
Is a pretty good history of the program.
A lot of politics and juggling of requirements (advanced but not to advanced and balanced against foreign competitors).
Refusal of the US to buy any, even for training squadrons, sure didn't help.
Is a pretty good history of the program.
A lot of politics and juggling of requirements (advanced but not to advanced and balanced against foreign competitors).
Refusal of the US to buy any, even for training squadrons, sure didn't help.
IIRC Sidney Cam said that (military?) aircraft have 4 dimensions - length, width, height and politics.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
When I was in the naval reserve, we had a few F-14 guys come into our squadron (P-3s). They said it was their "retirement."
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
It did offer something the F-16 could not, at least for the first few years, and that was all weather capability. F-20 radar could support the AIM-7 radar guided missile, the F-16 radar could not, and it did not have all weather capability until the AMRAAM became available after 1991.
I'm having a little trouble with this. The F-5 was never a front line fighter for the USAF, or even a second line fighter, but rather a training aide. Still many foreign countries gobbled them up, and, as far as I know, loved them. A side story, I hired on at Northrop in 1976, to work on the F-5E Saudi. They had been given a list of possible options which could be provided on the F-5E, e.g, in-flight refueling, INS, Laser designator, advanced radar, more weapons, etc., etc. The Saudis came back and wanted EVERYTHING! This stunned Northrop, they had never planned to include everything. Much work went on and Northrop was successful in providing the desired configuration.
I saw the F-20 fly at a special Northrop airshow. It was amazing, it seemed to ski through turns and not fly through them. I knew the widow of the Northrop pilot who died in Canada. I saw cockpit videos as he flew through a high "g" maneuver. He straighten out, his head fell to to the side and he stayed that way as the aircraft settled into the ground.
- Thread starter
- #13
Nodeo-Franvier
Airman 1st Class
- 121
- Jul 13, 2020
Would it be safe to say that F-20 is Mig-29 Equal?
Since both doesn't have fly by wire.
And does the high-low configuration really worth it? Since most nations including France and EU members prefer to field only light fighter.
Since both doesn't have fly by wire.
And does the high-low configuration really worth it? Since most nations including France and EU members prefer to field only light fighter.
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
Mig 29 is a much larger aircraft with an empty weight twice as much as the F-20 with about twice the thrust so thrust to weight ratio is similar. Max TO weight to empty weight is the same for both, 16k lbs. The F-20 had 2/3 the fuel of the Mig 29 but the Mig 29 had twice the weight and twice the engine thrust. With equivalent carry weight the range would probably be similar. There probably would be a 50% reduction in fuel usage and in maintenance cost for the F-20. Combat wise, they seem similar only the small size of the F-20 would be an advantage.
Countries with low defense budget would save a lot of money with a single aircraft capable of multiple missions, similar to the Navy wanting the same thing on carriers.
One on one, MiG-29 will probably come out as winner via it's missiles and HMCS?
However - unless the Soviets hand out the MiG-29s as candy, a fleet of F-20s will be much cheaper to buy. It will be far easier & cheaper to keep the fleet of a fixed numbers of F-20s and it's pilots flying, than it will be so for the MiG-29 fleet. F-20 should afford better range.
The F-20 was what MiG should've been making instead of MiG-29. Yes, that comes from a guy that has a MiG-29K in the sig here. It took Chinese and Pakistanis to emulate F-20 after a few decades, while the Swedes did it but with different 'packaging' in a relatively timely manner.
- Thread starter
- #16
Nodeo-Franvier
Airman 1st Class
- 121
- Jul 13, 2020
Wouldn't Mig-29 optical sensor also be a major advantage?
Last edited:
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
Possibly, assuming the F-20 had not been upgraded with one.
- Thread starter
- #18
Nodeo-Franvier
Airman 1st Class
- 121
- Jul 13, 2020
That would have been barely better than Mig-23.
Care to elaborate?
- Thread starter
- #20
Nodeo-Franvier
Airman 1st Class
- 121
- Jul 13, 2020
IMHO Mig-23 with upgraded avionics would be just as good as Soviet F-20,considering what they did with Mig-29.
Mig-23 itself wasn't that expensive either. I also think Mig-23P and MLD is superior to F-20.
