One of the many fascinating things about Yeager is that, despite the fact that he (at the time of this video) had a lifetime of world-class experience, he was still cutting-edge. He clearly did not want to reminisce about the "good old days," but instead wanted to keep pushing for the ultimate aeronautical achievement and progressing to ever greater heights (both literally & figuratively).
@@nautical6825 With all the information that has been given to this day. It would still be the quickest scrambling jet to this day in the US. Which is a shame with how technology advances, which means let notice and higher risk to national security. I read that a F-22 is about 2 mins(then be able to taxi to runway) and a F-16 is 5 mins(on alert). I believe the F-16 still requires ground air supply to start. The F-22 has an auto-start system that runs through its own checklist. Which the more I think about it F-16 ok you win but, leaves no reason why the US government could not have made a small purchase for Air-Defense.
I was assigned to Osan AB and cleared this Pilot and aircraft when it arrived in S. Korea. The pilot was very proud to fly this aircraft. He gave us an F20 Tigershark label pin as a keepsake. It was horrifying to hear of the crash and his death the following day.
We dont even ask u anything..so keep quite..your story doesnt sound true maybe a fiction that youre cretaed by yourself..keep your F self busy and stop making fake story
@@itsmejoe1401 He could very well have been stationed at Osan AB...i was stationed at Suwon AB, Korea where the crash happened and watched it from the flightline fence next to our barracks...was an awesome demo till he crashed. Then i went in changed and guarded the crash site for 12 hours that night, as we only had 60 Security Police at Suwon and being a lowly E-3 thats what you get to do...This plane was 1 of 2, the #2 plane was on static display at Suwon for the ROKAF to inspect and get their questions answered and the #1 plane which crashed, took off from Osan, flew to Suwon, was supposed to do the demo flight land and let the Koreans ask more questions. The entire program was a sales call per se, from Northrup to sell the F-20 to the ROKAF...the F-20 lost out in the US to the F-16 and eventually lost out to the F-16 in Korea as well.
I will say this. First, his death was a tragic way to go.Quite sad, and early. Second, It also killed the F-20. A fine aircraft that died an early death that could have gone farther. That happens.
10 years later here, and there would STILL be market for an F-20. So many countries still operate the F-5 and could use such an upgrade this would provide.
I was a US Navy aggressor pilot in the early 80's. We were flown to LA and wined/dined to try to get us interested in it as an aggressor platform. The only orders they had at that time were for 5 from the Sultan of Bahrain, which wasn't going to hack it. It's downfall, as much as anything else, was that it looked too much like an F-5, which was being used by a lot of Bamboo airforces. They asked why they should buy new ones when they had planes that looked just like them. I got to fly the simulator and was impressed by it's performance and avionics. A poor man's Hornet.
I was a USAF (ret) driver of both the F-5 and F-15.. and I would never say looking like an F-5 was a down side at all.. if anything it was a huge plus since the 5 is so loved by everyone I've ever talked with that had the chance to fly it. It was an excellent evolution of an extremely capable design. Sadly though politics killed it. btw Mirimar? We loved hassling you guys on occasion when I was a EAFB As for the sim of the 20.. never got the chance here sadly,... I've have loved to get my paws on it though!
I was out of Lemoore. Agree completely on F5/F20 family being superb, but they were dealing with folks who couldn't see past the similar looks and also wanted 2 engines. We did a lot with Nellis FWS and Red Flag as well as a little with Edwards in the R2508complex. Not sure what they call it now...
Dean Koehler Hmm never been there.. but that's not too far from eafb. Maybe I encounted some of your fellows when I was active (long time ago but past your time).. but not that I can specifically remember. F-5 base was amazing.. but sadly I ahve to agree about those seeing similar looks.. but not understanding that to be a good thing. As for engines.. I advocate for 2 personally.. depending on the role. For example in Canada's needs (I"m a canuck btw) a twin is definately better for Ncap.. but that is hardly the only role in the world. In some cases an F-20 / F-16 etc is a better choice. That is one factor why I don't vote for the newest Grippen for Canada's needs.. despite it being a very capable design. The 35 is a steaming pile of crap IMO and massively over priced and won't even do the job needed here. Hence why as I've posted many times elsewhere.. I advocate for the top contenders being either the 15SE (not production yet etc).. or the EFT over the 35 hands down. It would be interesting to hear your opinion on that. Though I don't know your full experience.. I do know if anyone that qualified as an aggressor has to know what they hell they were doing. (Trust me I got my ass kicked more than once by such LMAO)
I flew against some Canadian CF5s at Nellis. '82. Kids really, but knew how to move them around just fine! I want to say they were Cold Lake guys. Surprised us when they switched to French during the fights! I am not a fan of the 35, but this is from an armchair perspective. My objections are in price/bang for the buck and too many expensive screw-ups which are just shrugged off and paid for. There is a lot to be said for 1000 relatively simple yet reliable fighters vs. 100 that are super complex and broken. My tactical experience only runs as deep as F/A-18A/B, A7E and A4F superFox. My favorite of them was the very capable Corsair which did not need 3 drop tanks to get anywhere and wasn't constantly screaming for a tanker like the Hornet. It's costly to be sexy... My career was '76 to '02.
I saw the second crash in Goose bay, Labrador. I was 13 when it happened and a bunch of us were waiting for the bus to school when we saw the f20 doing some maneuvers off in the distance. Next thing we know there's a dull thud and a large plume of black smoke rising up...
My Grandpa Built one of the three F-20 Tigersharks when he worked at Northrop. Its sad that the pilot didn't survive after the crash. Honestly I wish I can see this plane go into production and see them fly at least once. The F-20 looks like a really cool fighter jet to fly. Shame it only flew very briefly and only one remains at a static museum.
ThamMalaysia Yes a lot of reports mentioned it was caused by G-LOC. I also remember reading a somewhere that the hydraulic lines malfunctioned and caused one of the two crashes. I remember talking a bit about this with my uncle.
No sir, it WAS lack of need. You telling me this was a better option than the Viper? At the time they were similar, yes, but the Viper had the same engine as the already bought Eagle = savings; also the F-16 was upgradable, this was....?? The USN was interested initially too for use as an aggressor, but outside of that there was no real interest in the plane in the US. It's target market was, or maybe should have been, the same countries who bought the F-5, folks who can only afford planes like this. If the USAF would have needed it they would have ended up with it, there was a powerhouse little tight knit group unofficially known as the "fighter mafia" who pushed planes like the Eagle and Viper...and even though there was no vision in the Air Force they pushed the A-10. The USAF got exactly what it needed when it did.
Northrop was demonstrating this F-20 at Suwon AB, South Korea when it crashed. The pilot ejected upside down into the ground. I heard F-20 throttle up, but it was to late to recover. The plane was still in one piece and it did not exploded.
Actually, they did not use the F-20 in the Aggressor Squadron at Top Gun. The Navy used the F-5E, the A-4M (Mongoose),and the F-16N. There were only 3 full prototypes built and one mock-up (not sure on this last bit). Two of the prototypes crashed and the last flyable prototype is at the California Institute of Science (or is it Museum of Science), the same place the Endeavor and the Toyota Tundra that towed it are.
Wow, I just stumbled across this and it took me back to that day. I was there as well (A-10 Crew Chief 81-0651) and saw this happen. I'm surprised there aren't more photos and vids since it happened to be "Camera Day" on the flightline. Unfortunately, the pilot did not survive having ejected inverted at about 50 feet from the ground. Like Twolife mentioned, he did throttle up but the airframe was completely stalled out, upside-down, with zero airspeed and maybe 300 ft above ground.
The F-5 family and F-20 share a departure regime called the inverted pitch hang up. With the flaps programmed down any sustained negative AOA will get the aircraft to tuck. Usually encountered when upside down.
Interesting, that explains the plane's behavior when he G-LOC'd at the top of that loop. I thought he went out and then did one last push on the stick in the gyrations happening there.
The US Airforce underrated this jet since it's Tiger days in Vietnam. It's more than a match to anything Russia can sent to air. But the US at that time is ditching the gun fighter to BVR and the first they sent is the F-4Phantom and relegate the F-5Tigers to ground support roles. US even warned others not to engage their F-5 to dogfighting.
It isn't on the tape because it isn't shown on this tape. You don't see the crash and see the fire and smoke eather. But who had to tell you the plane crashed. You can see that the aircraft was inverted as it went down. That was about 38 to 41 seconds into the film. BTW, his brother was the one who identified his body. He was flying the other F-20.
I believe that you misinterpreted my meaning about the F-5 and F-20. What meant when I stated "if we add the technology to use the AMRAAM and the future ASRAAM/IRIS-T next gen heatseeker a2a missile" is that, if the Tigershark had been built along with the Fighting Falcon, both would have more than likely been updated on a regular basis and today we might have something like a Block-60 Tigershark with the APG-77/78/80 radar system capable of employing modern Sidewinder and AMRAAM missiles. KW
Unos de los mejores aviones construidos en el mundo , no tenía nada que envidiarle a ningún avión de la época , no me sorprendería si lo volvieran a construir , materiales de punta y tecnología de ultima generación , creo firmemente que seria un avión formidable
Yeager brought this thing to my country, Indonesia, did a few demo on it. As we needed a modernizatio on a squadron that was still relying on F86 ex Australian af. We were also visited by Panavia Tornado and Mirage 2000 later in 89 we put our choice on F16. Idk why we didn't take F20. A speculation said because the US doesn't have it so how could the company would convince another country while they couldn't sell it to their own country?
Greg I was stationed next door down the rode from you guys at Osan I was a security police and I actually had to guard the wreakage on MAC Ramp at the Terminal
@KIBProductionz - No the pilot Darrel Cornell died I was there the day this happen and had just looked over the aircraft egress system with him. Darrel had explain to me how easy it was to services. Suwon AB was a strange airfield for Darrel and no practice had been allowed before his demonstration he stalled it during a climb and roll with flaps and landing gear extended in could not recover. Koreans got scared and brought the F-16's my opinion the F-20 was a better aircraft. RIP Darrel
@JetMechMA - On my 2nd tour of duty in Korea we fazed out the F-4's in brought the F-16's block 42's into Osan AB and not 1 of them could make the trip from Fort Worth to Osan AB without breaking somewhere alone the way. The F-16 also is an Beautiful aircraft but comes with a very health price tag to build, fly and maintain. I'm sure someone in the pentagon or 3rd world countries are saying to someone during this economical crises " we should have went with the F-20 as a front line fighter
The engine quits as the cause of the crash and pilots hand was seen turning ON the fuel supply switch. It only indicates that the problem is in the fuel system. It can be corrected not only with the fuel system but also install an inverted tank like that of the F-18Hornet for continues fuel supply at any situation the jet goes.
I'm sure you don't lose your speed that quickly if your engine quits,. and if your engines do die you have more than enough time to eject. The official story is that the pilot blacked out and that is why the plane is in such a bad situation.
These didn't sell because of the architecture of the airframe. The low wing and short gear left little room for any sizeable ordnance. Also the main gear folding arrangement meant that all the wing hard points were way out from the center line and hence only rated for lightweight stores. Too bad - a badass sexy looking piece of kit.
A twin of this accident happened again in Labrador, Newfoundland, Canada once again killing the pilot and putting one of the final nails in the F-20's coffin.
This was my everday ride in Vietnam God bless our Country God Bless my fallen Brothers And Sisters I flew and took the enemy out for you folks for your freedom it was a fucked up war that did not need to happen With love and respect John
Only 3 F-20s built, your ride in ' NAM was with a T-38 trainer, or an F-5 tiger. The F-20 had a single large turbofan engine, fly by wire flight controls, advanced radar, and a glass cockpit.
If I remember correctly, the official report claimed G LOC as the cause. (G induced Loss Of Consiousnes). A rapid onset of G loading causing instant blackout.
Agreed that the F-35 is not good. However, coming from someone who has fought F-5's, while they are underrated, they are no match for anything in the inventories of any nation. Not only that, they do not have the capability to use modern A/A missiles as knightewolfe has implied.
@bobvan309tfs I remember that crash quite well. I was at the AGE shop, and that aircraft was directly over me when the engine went 'bang' as he ran out of fuel. My roommate was the guy who bagged the body (He said that the guy looked ok, except his eyes had blown out on impact with the ground). If you remember, he got the emergency fuel turned on and restarted the engine, as he was heading directly at the bomb dump used by the A-10 squadron on the base. He just missed structure full of Mark 82s
Are you speaking about the Lightning II or the F-5E Tiger II? If you're talking about the Tiger II, some late build Tiger II's have been updated by an Italian company. Improving and updating the radar to allow for use of AiM - 9X and AiM - 7E missiles. In my opinion, if the Tiger II's radar is updated to modern specs, then it would be possible to use the AMRAAM and the still in development ASRAAM/IRIS-T missiles.
Plain old sabotage by General Dynamics who had a billion dollar gamble that the government would pick the F-16 over the Northrop F20 TigerShark. The F20 was superior plane in all aspects compared to the fat F16.
There was no gamble. The usaf had already chosen the F-16 years before the F-20 had flown. The Tigershark first flew in 1982, years after the F-16's first flew, and 4 years after that plane entered service with USAF. By 1982, deliveries had been made to Israel, Belgium, Norway, and Denmark.
F20 was initially up against The f16/79 down engined budget version for an export fighter. It was never intended to be a Frontline US fighter. When the restrictions on exporting the Frontline f16 were lifted, countries opted to have the same plane the USAF flew rather than the f20. Had the restrictions stayed in place the f20 probably would have been the export choice because the 16/79 was not significantly cheaper than the 16 and was underpowered (f4 engine). Political kill, GD had nothing to do with it unless they lobbied to have the restrictions removed. Either way they banked as the f16 was cranked out in the thousands almost like the f4
Dan Reeves , he was actually right. The competitor to the F-16 which eventually lost was the Northrop YF-17 Cobra. That aircraft took a few design cues from the F-5 & T-38 designs also made by Northrop, most visually, the leading edge root extensions at the forward part of the wing. It was years later when McDonnell Douglas reworked the YF-17 into the F/A-18 for the USN. 🤔
If we had this plane today (along with the F-16) we probably would not be in this deal with the F-35 Lightning II. Hell, if the Tigershark had gone into production alongside the Fighting Falcon, maybe we would not have the economical problems we're having now. build new and updated versions of the plane, add the technology to use the AMRAAM and the future ASRAAM/IRIS-T next gen heatseeker a2a missile and sell it to countries who want to build or update their air forces.
Phantom-051-plane guy 8 months ago @Dan Reeves It's sad that the F-20 was never bought by anyone. Also, I'm glad the crash wasn't caused by any fault of the aircraft itself. If I can remember correctly, the pilot passed out due to pulling excessive Gs, and lost control
Uhhhhhh.... It was my understanding that the crashed because pilot (Darrell Cornell) blacked out from excessive Gs. That's what Wiki says anyway. The second plane crashed the following May in Goose Bay, Labrador from the same cause. Not trying to say you don't know what you're talking about. Please don't think that. This is just what I have heard/read. I know for a fact that Wiki is not always correct.
That's Suwon airbase , South Korea. I used to serve the country as an airman for 2years. 2011~2013. South Korea's president was there to watch the flight of it. Atfer the accident, it's canceled to but that aircraft..
The reason why the bird crashed is because if you look closely the flaps are toggled down which causes drag which means the flaps are on combat at a low speed which causes way too much drag for the aircraft to handle for pulling upwards
I loved flying the Corsair. Roomy cockpit. Nice weapons system for it's day. Good loiter time and cross country legs. Not a knife fighter, but if you wanted bombs/bullets on target the first time, it was a worthy invitee to the party.
+Dean Koehler I can only imagine how good the A-7F would have been, with the F-100 and/or F110 powerplant. Make a two seater and bam, you've pretty much got night/low level penetration/strike done for cheap. The prototypes happily supercruised in military power, so while not aimed at A2A, she'd keep her energy up in a fight, and leave everyone else in the dust at low level. Would've been full circle, so to speak, the F-8 coming back with more saavy, thrust, and avionics. Probably would have ended up with a APG-65 radar, so she would probably be keeping a brace of AIM-7F/Ms on her flanks for trouble makers. Cheers!
All possible, but LTV was no longer a player, so whatever they planned for an update was going to look old in comparison to the YF17 nee F/A18. Sex(y) sells...
If talking about the A-7 vs. USAF's bad fighter choices, we might as well mention the F-8 Crusader and the XF-8u3 Crusader III. I understand wanting two engines but did the USAF really cancel the Crusader III because of the F-4? Not one of their better moments. That's about as frustrating as choosing the F-22 over the F-23.
Johan Smith The Crusader III (XF8U-3) was a Navy BuAIR deal, the USAF's buy into the F-4 program came later after MacNamara basically held a gun to TAC's head. The Navy was big on the F-4's dedicated WSO, the better bomb-hauling ability and BVR weapons. Working early air-intercept radar was a science/magic in and of itself, so the dedicated WSO allowed full time specialization, the pilot could be left alone to do pilot stuff. F-4s could replace or augment A-4s A-3s, A-5s, FJ1-4s, F-8s in the nuclear strike role, F3D, F-3H, F4D and F-8, rolling up night/all weather interception and BARCAP. It wasn't hard to see a navalized RF-4 at that point, while waiting for the RA-5 fleet to run down. Although Ironically they went with the RF-8. Point is, at time of introduction, the F-4 could do the jobs of 8 out of the 12 or so Naval combat aircraft types then in service, and the F8U-3 could handle maybe 4, with some capabilities limitations. Mostly about cost-savings.
I think they bought the F-4 to be everything but a great fighter, which I don't think it really was. I think they would have offset some cost of less flexible platforms by using single engine planes with half the crews, which also offered a longer competitive life potential due to far better performance. The original F-8 was a great alternative to the F-4 for secondary missions. I suspect politics and the idea we can't use lightweight naval air. Other overlooked century fighters likely killed by politics were the F-106 and F-107- smaller, single engine planes or development planes with a lot a of potential. To their credit they built the F-16 but abandoned the "fighter mafia" approach. The 16 had far more potential in it, like the XL which they never seriously evaluated, because honestly it would have been cheaper and I think threatening to the almost $1 trillion pentagon budget. Even the F-17 deserves a mention. First super cruising fighter, but the lightweight approach was abandoned. Going with the F-22 was a timid choice possibly influenced by silly, mostly useless airshow maneuvers. The 23 was the better plane that would remain competitive in service the longest. More recently the distinct lack of interest in the F-15 Silent Eagle variant is also a disappointing whitewash of F-35 mismanagement .
The F20 just could not compete against the established F-16 production line, nor did it have the growth capability of the F16 airframe. Absent a decent USAF purchase nobody would've bought it - the F16's sales subsequently more than justified the cancellation of the F20 project.
Very sad to see this and god bless the pilot. I read that Northrop wanted to sell the fighter to South Korea to replace the older F-5 Freedom Fighter. The trouble was the engine was too powerful for the aerodynamics is what one military aircraft expert said.
I've never seen any aircraft, before, or since, that could slew it's frontal aspect (nose) around like the F-20, which is the essience of point an shoot.
Yes I do believe...here is the link...so sorry for your loss...must have been devastating...I saw the crash as many did in my small town. Everybody was deeply shaken. www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1985-05-16-8501300926-story.html+
F-20 crashes was said to be caused by pilots blacking out from excessive G force. This is a case of the plane being too good. This jet might be workable today using software that limits it's maneuverability. Slap an AI pilot on it and nothing will beat it in dogfighting.
In year 2017; The TF-X competiton goes... This platform could have a new life in the 21st century. This is one of the most proven platform out there. Belong to T-38 family... all new neccesarry upgrades and a seat for instructor... that's it.
There is the third proto-type hanging from the ceiling at the Museum of Science and Industry, in Los Angeles, Calif. If your ever out that way drop in for the afternoon, it'll be the best money you ever spend. The Airframe is there but the Powerplant has went somewhere else..? If my memory serves right, the other prime conractors' sold fighters w/two engines and since thte F-20 only had one, this was another reason for the programs' demise.. lat'r Buzz
What a bad crash. The pilot tried to do an upward move pitching the aircraft downwards, and it's like he lost airspeed and stalled. If he would have tried to yaw the aircraft hard left or right to re orientate himself he might have either ejected and survived or hard throttle to try and accelerate. At best he could have ejected and survived. What ashame. Can anyone see whether he had enough afterburner to make that type of move with a single engine jet?
Did this aircraft have too much vulgar display of power for the pilots? I read that both pilots that died passed out from the G-forces before the planes crashed, which is why they didn't eject.
+sirlordwhitman He did eject while inverted about 40 ft of the ground and was killed instantly. The aircraft landed softly upside down and stayed mostly intact about 200 ft from him.
They probably figured out how to fix this problem using new automated gas injection system just like in cars nowadays. Unfortunately the cost of installation of new injection system for that $10M plane will be higher than 5 times the plane cost, so therefore it's more economically to buy new $100M planes instead of upgrading old $10M one with new technology, lol.
I don't take it personally.I read a lot from people who comment on things that they didn't see or experience firsthand. It happens. Some, like ME's (medical examiners) have expertise in fields I don't that give them better views than I do. I can only ( and really) comment on what I do know about. What do you say if the autopsy says that he had a heart attack and that killed him? The evidence shows what it shows. I only comment on what I remember. Most corroborates MSGT VanAlstyne's statement.
I was standing DIRECTLY under the aircraft in the AGE yard when I heard a bang. I have been told he had just run out of primary fuel, while inverted. He switched over to secondary (emergency) fuel and restarted the aircraft while still heading toward the base bomb dump. he dropped the nose to climb (he was still inverted) to miss the bomb dump, then ejected. Unfortunately, he went straight into the ground, which killed him. My room mate at the time worked in the dining facility, and was sent to collect the body with a crew. Northrop bought the rice field the F-20 impacted into. We evacuated our side of the base to the north end of the field as hydrazine was used for the starter motor. Very toxic. Also, his body had to be identified by his brother, the other F-20 test pilot who was at Suwon A.B.
@@ALB437 Any other time, I would think about the physical, mechanical, operational situations. However, recently, I think about what has happened in Kabul, Afghanistan as of late. I think about how many persons in uniform from all the services, and those who we serve. I think of how much our country has changed since those days in how we viewed ourselves, our country. I think about the time I was a student in junior high and high school, and compare how it is now. I remember going to school with trucks and cars at school with loaded rifles and shotguns in them, in racks on the back windows of the trucks. And not a single school shooting anywhere. I remember swearing the National Anthem, and school prayers. Also true, I remember school protest about integration. However, through it was forced in the south, it still exists in the north schools like Boston, Mass. New York, and Delaware. I feel sad about the loss of the aircraft and crew of that single B-2. But the other is quite a bit more tragic and considerable more costly to behold.
@@RMRobin7373msn - Europe had his last shooting yesterday in Trieste/Italy - 6-8 people involved - none killed but one in severe conditions. Albanian’s vs Kosovars.
if only Northrop made it a little bit bigger w/ wider wing more powerful powerplant, US airforce might have ordered squadrons of f20, it's agile jet fighter & that was the take-off design pattern of YF18 w its leading edge extension.
Google search Northrop "YF-17" which is recycled for USN's F/A-18. www.milavia.net/airshows/display-teams/swiss-hornet-display/#img/1 In 2014, the Swiss Air Force (Schweizer Luftwaffe) F/A-18C Hornet solo display is flown by Hauptmann Julien "Teddy" Meister from Fliegerstaffel 17, Payerne. The Swiss Hornets delivered in the 1990s were the first Hornets that could be stressed up to +9g rather than the +7.5g limit, and no longer have the angle-of-attack limiter. The Swiss Hornet Display showcases this with high AoA maneuvers throughout the routine, including a square loop ----- Sources: Jane’s 1996-’97, “F/A-18A/B/C/D 9G Flight Test Program” by Dr. Jennifer Long Patuxent River, Maryland In 1996, McDonnell Douglas up-rated the F/A-18C/D Hornet to pull 9gs in the ‘clean’ configuration (air/air weapons only and centerline drop tank EMPTY). The process involved strengthening the landing gear uplock pawls, wing fold hinges, and fuel tank retaining clips. A few extra hundred pounds of honeycombing was added for additional fatigue life. The first foreign buyer of the 9g F/A-18C/D Hornet was Switzerland. Furthermore, a well conditioned pilot wearing an ATAGS (Advanced Technology Anti-G Suit) is certainly capable of hooning the daylights out of a 9g Hornet! -------- F-18L 9G lived on with year 1996 F/A-18C 9G land based models. YF-17 didn't match USAF's single F-15 engine requirement.
@f5benny Well? What happened here was plain and simple. He had no business to try to upward the Jet with out having enough air speed and enough altitude to recover in-case the F-20 stalled like it did. Either he became severely (Vertigo) disorientated or he must have been insane to maneuver this aircraft with out considering the consequences. This was pilot error that proved to be deadly.
The F-20 was plagued with all of the short comings of the N-156 / F-5 aircraft, as mentioned in the prior posts. The USAF was never going to buy a rehashed fighter from the 1950's for front line use. That is why Northrop could not sell them in the begining. It was just not good enough, nor needed. It was sold as a front line economy fighter to many of our allies, and the T-38 was bought as an affordable jet trainer
Cela coûterait entre 30 et 70 par personne. En fonction du nombre (-10) on sera 10 minutes pour 30 CHF. Mais si on est plus on peut faire un grand prix qui coûte entre jusqu'à 70 CHF pour 10+10+15 minutes.
No, from what they make out is that the pilot blacked out due to pulling too much Gs, they call G lock or something The plane was very agile. Logically he should have ejected but did not.
The Tiger Shark was up against the F-16 and also Mirages and Mig-21s in an iffy export market for light fighters. I'm wondering if the pilots that crashed the two jets were trying to hot dog the plane into ultra-flashy maneuvers to impress the potential investors and partners in promoting it. *:/*
The increase in power from updated engines and composite materials cutting down the weight would make this a very effective air superiority fighter. And the price would not be outrageous. Radar absorbing paint, and upgraded avionics in the new composite airframe would humiliate any F35 or F22. There was a good reason they used this jet for years as the aggressor squadron at the Top Gun school.
@Better Mouztrap Perhaps that question should be directed to a modern fighter aircraft designer. There are very few that design purely for radar invisibility and most design for dogfighting still to this day. And the very short ranged fighters of yesterday would still be more affordable than the weapon systems of today. Hence for the same amount of money you could purchase far more aircraft to provide a wider coverage with upgraded engines and avionics and it would be comparable to a lot of the high priced fighters available today. Think upgrades as the producers of a lot of the aircraft flying today are offering as options for new purchases. (Eurofighter-Hornets- Gripen...etc )
Yeah, F-35 is a piece of shite, and I think the F-16 is probably the best all-around fighter you're going to get. This said, I think the F-5 (and therefore the F-20) are extremely underrated, and would be an excellent counterpoint to the F-16. Cheap and cheaper, and they can do almost anything any fighter costing many times more can. The only reason I don't complain more about the money they waste on other fighters, is that at least it's going to one of the few remaining American industries.=/
@Julian Crooks my college was near an airport that the local air force use, so i used to see the F5 breaking sound barrier overhead; astonishing to see a dark object passed by the corner of your eyes and a second later the sound came in
While yes, they would be a formidable adversary, but only in the front-line, point defense role. I unfortunately doubt there is room inside the F-5 (or F-20) for the upgraded avionics for modern radars, and BVR missiles. Sure, you can strap a modern heater onto just about anything, but radars take a massive amount of space that for one the tiny nose of the F-5 just can't accommodate, without serious modifications that would crush any gained capabilities...But yes, once again, the 35 is a...
The F-20 had the multimode APG-67 by GE. Also used on Taiwan's IDF as the Golden Dragon 53. Could fire AMRAAMs, as well as the IDF's active Sky Sword 2. www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/taiwan/idf.htm
Wow! you need to do some research. The F-20 when it debuted was the premier Tactical Fighter and far ahead of anything in it's day. It was all digital with a powerful radar and was BVR enabled with the AIM 120 AMRRAM missiles. The airframe could and still does out dogfight literally almost anything you care to toss at it, and had a power to weight ratio better than 1 to 1. With the F404 engine you could literally stand the aircraft on it's tail and it would accelerate straight up at a normal combat loading weight, not stripped down with no weapons and with a light fuel load for a damn airshow. As for the F-5 series, Israeli Military Industries has been upgrading and converting the F-5E and F-5F aircraft of many countries with even better avionics and more powerful ESA "electronic synthetic aperture" radars which are better and much smaller than the current radars our own latest F-15 and F-16 aircraft. The upgraded suits with fiber optical cabling are far lighter and more compact than ever and lend themselves to the small airframe with better engines is now more capable today than many fourth/fifth gen fighters at an extremely low cost.
Well the F-35 is over budget and delayed,but lets focus on what it does have. -All aspect stealth (little less in the rear, little more in the front) -Super cruise (the F-35 has limited supercruise,Mach 1.2 up to 150 miles without AB) -Maneuverability (depending on who you ask,ask any hater who has never flown an aircraft and they'll tell u that its thw worst maneuvering fighter ever but ask the pilots who have actually tested the F-35 to its limits, this is what you'll get watch?v=2cjvx5DsGqo
