F-20 and F-23

the F-20 was an upgrade of the F-5. One powerful engine, don't remember which one, and other upgrades. Three prototypes were built and tested. The Air Force preferred the the F-16 and wouldn't buy any. Since they wouldn't, no other air force would, so it died.

The F-23 was the Boeing competitor for the F-22. It lost too.

QUOTE: the F-20 was an upgrade of the F-5. One powerful engine, don't remember which one, and other upgrades. Three prototypes were built and tested. The Air Force preferred the the F-16 and wouldn't buy any. Since they wouldn't, no other air force would, so it died.

Kind of creates a dilemma because the F-5 was bought by NASA and several foreign powers. Why didn't they buy the upgrade? Typical military thinking.

The F20 (Tigershark) ran into problems when it went into export competition, head to head with the F16.

Foreign airforces looked at it and asked why the USAF had chosen the F-16 over it, and went for the F-16 instead.

I saw the F20 display at Farnborough in 1980 and at the time I was amazed that no one bought into it.

As mentioned above, the YF-23 lost out to the (then) YF-22 during a competitive fly off, rather like the X-35 just beat the X-32 in the JSF competition.

With a little luck I may just get my hands on a real F-35 in a couple of years!

Cheers,

Rob M.

Also known as the f-5G, the Great Chuck Yeager was one of the test pilots for the F-20 project. He said it was the best aircraft he has ever flown. They only built 3 of them, there is only 1 left on display after the other 2 crashed.

Check these sites out for more info:

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-20.htm
http://members.aon.at/mwade/
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/fighter/f20.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-20.htm
http://www.casciencectr.org/Exhibits/AirAndSpace/AirAndAircraft/F20.php
http://www.squadron.com/old/f20/f20review.htm

Just a few places to visit. I hope this helps.

It has been said... (donning helmet and chickenplate armor)
that both aircraft were killed for political reasons. I'm a big proponent of the F-23, and after seeing the projected data on the F-23 with the F-119 engines (which never flew) I'm convinced that the DoD chose the YF-22 for political reasons.

The most hilarious thing about the whole ATF competition was that McDonnell Douglas (now Boeing) proposed the F-15X as an alternative. It was basically a stealthy F-15. Would cost billions less in development and used off the shelf components. After the ATF competition was won by the YF-22 the bird was completely redesigned. Now it looks like.... you guessed it....

A stealthy F-15!

I too am a great proponent of the YF-23, but, then, I'm biased. Politics definately played a pivotal role in the decisions made regarding both these aircraft. Sad, but true.

Speaking of the YF-23, I know that the USAF Museum has one of them but does anyone know the name of the museum that has the other Black Widow? I could do a search, but I'm getting lazy!


Fade to Black...

I don't think that it was as much political as much as the new advanced design of the wings and tail section. At least that is what was said on a documentary I had watched a few months back concerning the X-32 & X-35 JSF project

Go here to see where the 2 YF-23's are.

http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/photo/YF-23/

The F-20 was believed to have been lost, among other reasons, because of its high resemblance to the highly obsolescent F-5 series. People actually thought that the redesignation (F-5 to F-20) was a marketing hype and that they looked so alike so everyone got too suspicious. I believe it was to their lost though. The F-20 was better on almost all respects than the F-16 except ordnance carriage.

I was stationed at Nellis AFB when the Intercept fly off of the F-20 to the F-15 & F-16, the little 20 kicked the others butts in climb for time to intercept, the F-20 wnet from engine start to taxi to climb to intercept just under 3 minutes, the F-16 did it about 2 minutes later, and the F-15 dropped the ball completely at 10+ minutes, the reasons the AF never went in production, 1) is that Northrop was involved with the B-2 program, 2) the AF never wanted a true Interseptor A/C, 3) the European countries who went into production of the F-16 didn't want to retool for the New F-20, so the little fighter that could was never to be, ,also after the fly off the F-16's started to take over the fast Intersepts leaving the F-15's for the long range intersepts
as for the F-23's fate was because of no really commonality of parts was it's demise, as for her contender the F-22 it shares alot of parts with her step sisters the F-15's & F-16's( like the fly off with the F-16 & F-17), and also Northrops production of the B-2 program Congress wanted to share the wealth with in the A/C manufacturing companies an not just give all the cash to only 1 company, Don't get me wrong Northrop has come up with some beautiful aircraft in their history but the government really calls the shots(with the help of the Fighter Mafia too) and a lot of good looking planes are scrapped,
as for the F-15X Stealth Fighter in the world of stealth the F-15 would be like a Dump Truck Driving Through A Nitro-Glisseron Factory On A Hot Day

Cuda,

Gotta disagree with you. The F-23 was built primarily using off the shelf technology (its main gear are F-18 mains, it carried an APG-63 radar from an F-15, and lots of other readily available stuff). It had TOO MUCH commonality and wasn't all shiny new stuff to dazzle the Air Force brass.

The problem was, McDonnell Douglas (owner of the Northrop corporation at that point) had so severely dropped the ball on the A-12 Avenger II ($2 billion spent and not even a functional prototype) that they were simply punished for costing the government (and the taxpayer) so much money without ANY return. That's the political end of things on the ATF competition

Performance-wise, the F-23 was faster, had a longer range, carried more, was stealthier and was more maneuverable in SOME flight regimes. One of its biggest problems was low speed maneuverability, where it became inherently unstable in the yaw axis. This could have been correctable, but the AF decided to go forward with the 22 instead.

I think the reason why the X-32 didn't win was purely esthetics..

Michael,

Well, the damn thing looked like a bullfrog! Most fighter pilots wouldn't be caught dead flying something that looks like that!

hey Cobra;
Hate to break it to you Grumman Northrop hasn't been owned by Mac/Dac in anytime in the history of the company, a few years ago Congress killed the merger with Lockheed/Martin & Grumman/Northrop because of the thought of L/M would be the largest Aerospace contractor in the country and would corner the market,
as for APG-63 radar it would have to be tweeked so much that it would have lost it's stealthy edge and leave the aircraft easy located by it's pulse, unlike the newer technology having longer range without leaving the large pulse
and for the F-22 it is being built by 2 corperations(Lockheed/Martin & Boeing) and not 1(Grumman/Northrop) now, but during the fly offs there was 3 (L/M, G/D, Boeing)for the F-22 and 2(G/N & Mac Dac) for the F-23

Fights On

In this corner we have Cobrahistorian
and
In this corner we have 72cuda
Just having fun with this.

Besides, I am getting useful information out of it

The F-20 Tigershark was a much better performer than the F-16 but the USAF never really purchased the F-5; that was an export around the world. Eventually the USAF grudgingly formed aggressor squadrons utilizing the Tiger and Talon fighters. Northrup was counting on replacing aging foreign F-5 Tigers with the F-20 Tigershark, but the fact that the F-16 was purchased by the USAF helped tip the balance in favor of the Falcon over the Tigershark. I also think there was a technology transfer issue in terms of avionics or radar with the F-20. Of 3 aircraft, 2 were lost and one remains in storage somewhere.

mtollens,

Please do not take this the wrong way, i'm not trying to rude. I do not know where you have received your info, because that info you have stated is more incorrect than correct. In 1954, the US government, issued a study that indicated a need for a high performance fighter that could be flown by allied nations that lack the technology and experience to pilot more advanced fighters. This also included the level of cost to purchase and maintain the emerging advanced, high cost aircraft that the US Air Force and Navy have as the first-line fighters. So, the study had shown that the fighter in question had to be "cheap" as well as easy to fly and maintain. Northrop was already involved in a "private" development program of the such desired fighter. By 1962, the US government had approved the series of F-5's, F-5A & F-B, that had been developed as the new light fighter. Later, Northrop would make a large improvement on the F-5 with a larger powerplant. But the USAF would not accept the new fighter until it proved itself. With the new J85-GE-21 engines that were transplanted into the F-5A & F-5B, later evolved into the F-5E & F-5F, had shown the USAF it was more than capable. After many performance tests, it was accepted by the US government. One main reason for the upgrade in engines was to match the performance of Soviet MiG's of the time. In the 70's the USAF would form the famed aggressor squadrons to help train USAF, Navy and allied pilots. The program would be called "Red Flag." As far as I have researched, the US government did not "grudgingly" form the aggressor squadrons. It was formed out of need to properly train our pilots to counter the so-called "Soviet" threat. It has been said that many aggressor pilots at Nellis AFB praise the F-5's performance and abilities. When the F-15 became the main fighter of the USAF, you could buy 10 F-5E's for the price of 1 F-15. It is also fact that the aggressors can out fly the F-15, F-16, F-14 and any other fighter of the "free" world on a regular basis. You must take into consideration that it is the skill of the pilot as well as the advancement of the fighter. Think of it this way, hamburger is still hamburger no matter what kind of "wrapper" you use. Not that the F-5's were "aging" as more as Northrop wanting to make more advancements to the F-5 airframe. First designated as the F-5G, later becoming the F-20, Northrop wanted to sell the aircraft to the allied countries around the world as well to the USAF as an improvement to the F-5E. As history shows, the F-16 won that compitition. As I have stated in earlier posts, there were only 3 F-20's produced. 2 would crash at sales demonstrations while the last surviving F-20 is diplay here: http://www.casciencectr.org/Exhibits/AirAndSpace/AirAndAircraft/F20.php
The F-20 is powered by a single F404 engine, the same that you would find in the first few production series of the F/A-18. Also as I have stated in an earlier post, The Great Chuck Yeager, had said that the F-20 is the best fighter aircraft he has ever flown.

Kage,

I have oversimplified the story but the facts are that other than T-38 training squadrons the only USAF squadrons to use the F-5 series were the aggressor squadrons. I should rephrase what I said; I meant that the USAF begrudgingly took the F-5 into inventory; it formed the aggressors out of necessity following the example of the Navy "Top Gun" school. The F-5 program was primarily an allied nation program like you said; to arm allies with advanced but simple and inexpensive fighters. The Tigershark hoped to replace the F-5 in foreign service, but without the USAF purchasing it the program died.
The Tigershark would have been the ultimate interceptor and dogfighter in the hands of capable pilots, and I've always liked the F-5/F-20 family of aircraft.

mtollens,

The USAF did not "begrudgingly" "inventory" the F-5. Nor, did the USAF "formed the aggressors out of necessity following the example of the Navy "Top Gun" school." "Top Gun" was developed in the 60's to help improve the Navy and Marine pilots dogfighting skills. During WWII, the kill ratio was pretty high, around 12 to 1, if I remember correctly. Then it fell down somewhere around 3 to 1 during the Korean war. The US military wanted those numbers back up. When the Vietnam conflict was in the early stages, the kill ratio was not on the rise, our pilots relied to much on missle warfare. Top Gun was born. One of the first instructors of Top Gun was a Vietnam Ace. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, would instruct the pilots how to use the guns to achieve the goal of downing enemy aircraft. Dogfighting! The ratio would rise up somewhere around 10 to 1, if I remember correctly. A great improvement ! Later, during the early 70's, the USAF had organized the aggressors as a part of the Red Flag training missions. Top Gun instructors and Red Flag aggressors are in no way the same kind of pilot. The aggressors have learned to read, speak, think, eat, sleep like their russian counterparts. That is a major difference between the two programs. The F-20 was also a non-military backed project. There wasn't a government contract or proposal wanting to replace the F-5. Northrop funded the whole project "out of pocket." Without sufficicient advertising and support, those helped put the the other "nails" in the coffin.

Air Combat Maneuvering, not gun use was the main reason for the improved kill/loss ratio in Naval Aviation. F-4's simply did not believe in ACM because of the radar Sparrow missile; Beyond Visual Range (BVR) didn't require ACM. And then the F-4 met up with the small and agile MIG-17, had to deal with Rules of Engagement that negated BVR...........
The F-8 community was the only one that kept the faith in terms of ACM, and eventually 4 F-8 pilots went to Udorn in 1972 to instruct the USAF on the lost art of ACM.

The Crusader had the best kill/loss ratio in SEA, 6:1. USN/USAF Phantoms combined for a 3.8:1 ratio in comparison. Heatseeker kills totaled around 80; gun and radar kills were around 52 each.

F-8 pilots that had transitioned to F-4s began the Top Gun program in 1969 in order to utilize the corporate knowledge of ACM that was prevalent in the Crusader community. Top Gun's charter was written by Capt. Frank Ault.

I'm sorry, I guess I should have used the proper term to describe what Fighter Weapon School and especially "Duke" Cunningham were trying to teach. Answer this for me. Why did the pilots during the Vietnam conflict persuade Mcdonnell Douglas to equip the F-4 with "guns?"

If anyone is curious about Duke Cunningham, check these places out:

http://www.house.gov/cunningham/about_duke.htm
http://www.acepilots.com/vietnam/cunningham.html
http://www.topguninc.com/bio.html

QUOTE: [i] Answer this for me. Why did the pilots during the Vietnam conflict persuade Mcdonnell Douglas to equip the F-4 with "guns?"

Because of the dumb rules of engagement. Our pilots had to have visual conformation of any aircraft before they could take any action. The AIM-7D and AIM-9B was not good at close range maneurvering targets. The Aim-7 was most effective when fired at mediam range where the missile had time to track and guide. It would then catch the enemy un aware and it would be hard to see because the rocket motor would have burned out and the missile was in the coast mode. At short range the missile would not have time to stabilize and get on a good track.

The AIM-9B was a back shooter and only worked when fired at the rear of the enemy aircraft. It would be very easy to dodge the missile as it wasn't very maneurverable.

The F-105 and F-8 scored more kills with the gun than the F-4E.

http://www.inpayne.com/models/models_losers.html

:)

I had forgot about the F-16XL. Are there still no other kits around of that besides that snap kit?

John P,

Where's the Super Crusader in the Losers Gallery? It lost out to the F-4B!

berny13 is right on about the ROE in Vietnam negating use of BVR missiles, and once in visual range only effective weapons were AIM-9 and cannon fire. Since the F-4 had no gun they were at a disadvantage once the MIG-17 was inside of AIM-9 minimum parameters. The F-4 pilots had no reason to practice ACM since they were counting on using the Sparrow; the radar missile would be fired before a bandit even knew there was a threat to them, so there was no reason for an F-4 to jink around to avoid being shot at.

The early AIM-9 wouldn't track until it was released, but later was able to track while still on the rack,proved its ability to intercept a target as it came off the airplane. Much later its sensitivity was increased to allow a head on shot as it sensed the heat coming off the leading edges. The Sparrow was worse in its unreliability as it couldn't stand up to being manhandled by ordies loading the plane and it didn't take G's well while mounted to the aircraft.

Cuda,

Hmmm.... AFAIK, the corporation was McDonnell Douglas/Northrop. It then bought out Grumman shortly thereafter. Its been a while since I paid attention to defense contractors. You may be right. I'm still thinking its a Hughes AH-64! BUT, your comment was that the F-22 used more off the shelf materials than the F-23. I was simply saying that it was the other way around. Tweaking the APG-63 has been done numerous times, (APG-70, and several new mods on the original 63 sets in the F-15C fleet that have brought em up to modern standards) but that's not the point. The F-23 used off the shelf components and was a formidable aircraft. It lost out in the ATF competition because of politics and never got to perform the full test program because of it. Its one major flaw was low speed instability in the yaw axis, something that could have easily been corrected

The F-23, made by McDonnell-Douglas-Northrop-Grumman-Whomever was the better airplane. Just dealt a crappy hand.

in Aviation Weekly a few years back Hughes was trying to get the APG-63 for the F-22 but the AF showed studies that the newer APG system still had a lower pulse id then the older 63, the 63 could track target up to 100 NM but the Advessary would be able to pick it up too, I agree that the Black Widow II was a better A/C but the manufacturing tooling was of the same of the F-15's & F-16's and N/G would need to pruduce the tooling for the new A/C that's what I meant by sharing the same parts sorry for the parts I meant tooling (I worked for Martin Marietta for a few years and they call tooling = parts)

Cuda,

AHA!!! I gotcha.... makes total sense!


I'd love to see what the capabilities of the new LPI radar for the 22 are. Pretty cool stuff. Then again, I'm happy with the APG-78 in the Longbow Apache!