Thanks for the impute guys, I’m going through boxes in the garage to find some papers from years back, which specifically relate to F-5/F-20 and
F-16/F-18 topic we’re discussing in the other thread.
I happen to come across the pamphlet and just had to ask what those pictures were.
Thanks to all, and I’m still looking for the documents for the F-16 thread.
From my rusty memory it was a development assessment report which early on made it clear that F-16s air intake will have severe problems, that its
airframe/landing gear will not allow it to be adapted for Navy use which will require the development of an entirely different aircraft (F/A-18),
that continuing changes of F-16s role and tech modifications will result in a all around average performer with questionable reliability, all while
development of the F-5 family could have fulfilled all of the requirements including models for Navy use.
Basically McDonnell Douglas knowing that General Dynamics General 401-16B/ YF-16 out lobbied Northrop’s P-530 / P-600 / P-610 / YF-17, jumped on the
opportunity and also began lobbying their butts of against Northrop, thus finally managing to kill the F-20 by 1986, all while through out the time
they were working on the 18 which first flew 1978, and to add insult to injury, both T20 and F-18 were powered by the same F404 engines.
The whole thing was a power struggle between airspace corporations, which is clear especially considering that Northrop later joined up with McDonnell
Douglas to make some dirty deals for which they were cough back in 1993.
Northrop got cough making payoffs to undercut Beloit Corporation, all while they joined up with McDonnell Douglas to sell 64 F/A-18s to Finland for
the total of $3 billion.
The F-20 is powered by a General Electric F404 engine, with 17,000 pounds of thrust. The F404 is recognized as one of the world's most reliable
advanced technology engines. It is also used to power the U.S. Navy/Marine Corps F/A-18A Hornet strike fighter. Aerodynamic features of the F-20
included an enlarged leading edge extension to the wing, which generated up to 30 percent of the lift maneuvers. The "shark-shaped" nose allowed the
F-20 to maneuver at much higher angles of attack than current operational fighters. The F-20 airframe could withstand nine G's.
The F-20 was reliable and easy to maintain. Based on comparisons with the average of contemporary international fighters, the F-20 consumed 53 percent
less fuel, required 52 percent less maintenance manpower, had 63 percent lower operating and maintenance costs and had four times the
I’m sure everybody here will agree upon uncanny similarities between F-5s airframe/configuration and that of F/A-18, all while F-5 first flew in
Ironically, even back in the 80s testing showed that F-20 outperformed F-18 and did not have aerodynamic problems that Hornet did.
Another great example of that is the Iranian "Azarakhsh", which is what F-5 should have been back in the 60s, but instead together with the
unnecessary, unreliable and redundant F-16 we got the F/A-18 but about two decades late.
The only good things about F-16 are great export numbers and high profit margins. It’s was all about the business, the profits, and the all mighty
I’ll keep looking for the report so I can scan it in and get back on topic in the original thread, and if moderators think it’s appropriate and
needed fell free to move this post to the F-16 thread, I don’t mind.