Flash from the Past: Anyone Remember the F-20 Tigershark? Chuck Yeager Does!

April 8, 2017

FighterSweep Staff 26 Comments Air Force, Military Aviation, Photos, Video

Back in the 1980’s Northrop privately funded the building of the F-20 Tigershark. A variant of the F-5 it was initially designated the F-5G. The Tigershark first flew in 1982 and only three aircraft were ever built.

Watch the F-20 Tigershark in Action

The F-20 had a single General Electric F404-GE-100 turbofan engine with 17,000 pounds of thrust which was about 40 percent more powerful than the twin-engined F-5E. It was touted by Northrop as being the world’s premier fighter jet claiming it would even outperform the F-16A Falcon at a lower cost.

An interesting note about the F-20 is that famed aviator, Chuck Yeager (the man who broke the sound barrier) was hired by Northrop to be a public spokesman for the Tigershark and at the age of 61 he flew the aircraft two times.

In the mid 1980’s the Reagan administration decided against the F-20 and no more aircraft were manufactured.

Who thinks the F-20 would have made a great fighter for the US in the 80’s? Let’s hear your thoughts.

Oh, and make sure you get your A/C/Delco sparkplugs…Chuck says so!

Featured image of the F-20 Tigershark and Chuck Yeager by Northrop

Photo by Northrop

Kurt Eskildsen

I think it was a missed opportunity. This would have been a great light attack aircraft, fighter and a superb aggressor aircraft. Probably wasn’t expensive enough to line congressional pockets.
- Dolf Brouwers
  
  Exactly right…..it was too cheap….
  now we face the F35 at 100 million + a piece…that will line some pockets
  - E1 Kabong
    
    Not even remotely the same requirements….
    - Dolf Brouwers
      
      Maybe true now, but 30 years ago the F20 ticked all the boxes
      - AD
        
        Would you care to expand on the “ticked all the boxes” comment and the general superiority of the F-20? I am going to leave the bribery accusations, as those are a fruitless discussion.
        
        The F-20 was never intended for US adoption. It was made by Northrop in hopes of replicating the success they achieved with the F-5. The US had no interest in the F-5, either, instead purchasing the aircraft to supply to allies during the Cold War. The few aggressor aircraft that were purchased were as much an accident of history as anything else (the F-5E was a good substitute for training to fight against the MiG-21, something that became a requirement from lessons learned during the Vietnam conflict).
        
        The USAF already had the F-16 by the time the F-20 was built and the F-20 was supposed to be used for government foreign sales so that the best US technology would not go to those countries. There was a version of the F-16 built for the same purpose, called the F-16/79, which replaced the PW F100 engine with the GE J79 turbojet and less sophisticated electronics. But potential buyers declined the second-rate equipment while, at the same time, the Pentagon began to realize that selling more full-blown F-16s would lower the cost of each aircraft for the USAF. Congress eventually dropped the “second rate” requirement and approved sales of standard F-16s to more allies. That dried up any potential market the F-20 had, including aggressor roles, as F-16s could do the job.
        
        In short, Northrop built the F-20 specifically for a US government foreign sales program at a time that program began to collapse. The F-16, which was previously forbidden to some countries, was opened up for sale (by lobbying, no doubt). Northrop tried to get out the program, but by then it was too late. Cool plane, but a victim of history.
      - Dolf Brouwers
        
        you are right in many aspects, but remember the 104 ? a failure in the USAF, but all pilots loved it…after some good bribery they sold a lot to NATO and the GAF lost many pilots to the 104.
        The F20 was loved by old school pilots (like Yeager) whereas the F16 did not
        do well in the beginning against F15’s
        The big question now is if the F35 will perform if and when the IAF take on the Iranian airforce.
        
        btw. the Swiss airforce does still use the F5e and are happy with it.
      - E1 Kabong
        
        Was the F-35 around 30 years ago?
        
        No, the F-20 never, “ticked all the boxes” regarding the CALF/JSF/JAST requirements.
        
        Please, feel free to list them.
      - Dolf Brouwers
        
        Read the comments of John.
        at that time the competition was very strong with the F16 (electric jet) and the F18.
        The pilots that flew the F20 where all impressed with it , but the decision
        was taken high up and
        the F16 was a big hit with
        Nato and IAF
      - E1 Kabong
        
        Stay on topic.
        
        “..at that time the competition was very strong with the F16 (electric jet) and the F18.”????
        
        WTH?
        Which competition was that, exactly?
        
        The LWF? That was between the YF-17 and YF-16.
        
        “…the F16 was a big hit with Nato and IAF…”?
        
        Cite your sources.
        
        AGAIN, the F-20 was NOT designed in any way, shape or form, to be in the same class as the F-35 or ANYTHING the F-35 is replacing.
        
        The first rule for when you find yourself in a hole, is to quit digging.
      - Dolf Brouwers
        
        I am talking about an issue of 30 years ago !!!
        
        regarding IAF, ever heard
        about the raid on Osirak ?
        
        I was in the airforce before you were born, so I am an old fart learning to fly
        dangerous equipment without computers….
        
        no hole for me ! I go for
        cremation
      - E1 Kabong
        
        So why did you mention the F-35?
        
        Keep squirming, it’s amusing me.
        
        AGAIN, the F-20 was NOT in the running for the F-104 replacement was it?
        
        ONCE MORE, the F-20 was NOT in the competition to replace the A-4’s, etc. for the Israelis, was it?
        
        SURE you were in the military…..
        
        What was your MOC?
      - Dolf Brouwers
        
        Roger and out
      - Oskar
        
        Don’t go away mad, just go away BUSTED!!!
Cyber Jethro

Yes, it would have been awesome, however I much prefer the successor to this (FA-18). The FA-18 has the same DNA and technology concepts that the F5 and F20 has.
- E1 Kabong
  
  No.
  The Hornet descended from the YF-17.
  - Kelly Pedron
    
    Yes, the F/A-18 is descended directly from the YF-17, but a lot of the preliminary aerodynamic data came from modified F-5/F-20 airframes:
    
    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/87ead6a600d0e03b09203c1556f569150e1b890de5ef1c14244ba5a5333e9577.jpg
    - E1 Kabong
      
      Hilarious!
      
      “…a lot of the preliminary aerodynamic data came from modified F-5/F-20…”?
      
      AKA: PAPER PROJECTS.
      
      Light, land based fighter to medium weight carrier based multirole strike fighter….
      
      I can make the F-14 sound similar to the F3F if you like?
John Campbell

AD has it mostly right. I was the Air Staff F-20 Program Element Monitor (PEM) in 1985-86 and was part of the AF F-16/F-20 road show that we took around to potential customers as the “honest broker” as a reality check on the Northrop/GD market pitches. The airplane was impressive, with a ring-laser gyro INS, capable radar (which could be tailored to specific export restrictions), and AIM-7 capability; and performed better (on paper) than the F-16 in many of the scenarios that potential customers were interested in. As we know, Northrop built three flying examples and allowed potential customers to try them out (as I recall, F-5-current pilots just got a cockpit orientation before flight, while other fighter-current pilots got a dual F-5 ride first). That program was very successful and the flying examples lived up to the hype. Additionally Northrop offered a guaranteed cost/flying hour (excluding POL). As I recall it was $500/hr which, even in 1985 seemed crazy low, but, as we know, they never got the opportunity to show they could do it. AS AD notes, US policy created a niche for the F-20 by positioning it as a “stepping stone” to an advanced fighter like the F-16. Jordan and South Korea were seriously interested but could never get past Congressional approval and never meet the minimum numbers to justify production startup. Part of the problem for many customers was the original F-5G designation: fighters are a prestige item and few customers, even those (like Saudi Arabia) with an F-5 inventory, didn’t see much prestige in an upgraded F-5. Even after the F-20 designation, few potential customers wanted a jet that the USAF didn’t operate, remembering the Israeli experience in the Yom Kippur war when the US supplied F-4s to the IAF. Northrop made a big effort to market the F-20 as an Aggressor or ANG aircraft, but the USAF had little interest in an F-16 competitor. The two nails in the F-20 coffin were the change in US views on F-16 sales which closed the policy niche, and the crashes of two of the three prototypes (both attributed to GLOC as I recall). The F-20 promised to be a really capable airplane and I think would likely have sold well if Northrop could have ever hit the critical number to start production, but the timing was bad and the headwinds were a bit too strong.
- E1 Kabong
  
  Well said.
  
  Another factor was General Dynamics low-balling the F-16ADF cost while competing with the F-20 as an Air Defence replacement.
  
  Once the USAF fell for that and chose the F-16, they failed to put a guaranteed price on those F-16’s, and Northrop cancelled the F-20 program.
  
  Surprise!
  
  The F-16ADF cost then skyrocketed….
  - John Campbell
    
    Funny what a little competition (or threat of competition) will do. One of the favorite F-20 scenarios was the air defense scramble: F-20 and F-16 are both cocked with the pilots standing on the ladder. When the scramble order comes the F-20 is ready to go as soon as the pilot is strapped in as all the avionics come on as soon as power is applied and the RLG INS aligns in 30 secs or so. The F-16 INS is still aligning as the F-20 takes off and the F-20 is 30 miles downrange when the F-16 takes off. The F-20 has an AIM-7 and can take a front-aspect shot while the F-16 (still a day/VFR fighter at the time) has an AIM-9P and has to convert. I forget the exact numbers, but no surprise the F-20 had a huge advantage in this scenario. While it’s all on paper, as I recall the F-20 did demo a guided AIM-7 shot during test.
    - E1 Kabong
      
      Agreed.
      I recall the same things.
      Northrop did a QRA simulation and it was the fastest off the ground compared to any NATO fighter.
      
      Too bad the Pentagon is full of suckers who are easily played by defence contractors.
      
      On a related note, whoever fell for the Super Hornet being a mere “derivative” of a legacy Hornet, to compete against the Super Tomcat, should be publicly flogged….
Bill Hertel

I was an adversary pilot with vf-43 at NAS Oceana in 1981, we were tasked along with “topgun” to evaluate a new airframe for the USN adversary mission. Skipper C R Brun flew the F-16/79 six sorties against our F-5e and A-4f “super fox” aircraft. Likewise I flew 5 hops with Neil Anderson in the back, Lockheed offered a low price with Navy gfe j-79 engines. Northrop presented Secnav with a lease program soon after with only a mockup available at the time. Halfway through the dog and pony he proclaimed he’d heard enough and to resked when they were serious. The Navy got F-16s with big GE motors and ran out of airframe life in short order with fuse cracks. As I recall the F-20 problems were more related to loss of control issues while demoing with stores, some folks didn’t make it. I loved the F-5E and never saw a real F-20.
- E1 Kabong
  
  The two crashes were G-LOC related.
  
  The USN F-16N’s were worked hard and wore out.
Eric Bostwick

Would a two seat version be a good choice for the new air force trainer? It’s airframe is similar to the T-38, so should handle similarly, but with more energy. Just don’t use the afterburner until the student is ready for the extra performance. It’s already tested and we know it can operate as a light strike aircraft. Just wondering aloud.
- E1 Kabong
  
  It’s too late and too expensive to resurrect an old design.
  
  Plus, modern manufacturing processes and materials would make redesigning it as costly as a clean sheet design.
  
  Don’t get me wrong, the F-20 had a lot of potential that was lost to politics and egos (the US doesn’t use it so we won’t buy it, nonsense).
Weathership Tango Delta

I was an Air Traffic Controller during the height of the cold war. Soviet block flights (non stop Montreal to Cuba) would, from time to time, drift off their approved flight plans and not respond to ATC instructions often towards SAC bases; or other military installations. We literally had the Red Phone immediately above our screen, which scrambled Tigersharks to intercept these flights.

The climb rate (52,000ft per minute!) of these planes never ceased to amaze me. They made the displayed altitude in their data block tracking them look like slot machines after you pulled the lever. Awesome interceptors.