Universally loved warplane

LordChaos · Post by **LordChaos** » 2002-09-11 03:37pm

Shaka[Zulu] wrote:Oh, I forgot one other...

of those that never got the chance...
the Avro Arrow... way ahead of its' time

My choice for "never got the chance" would be the F-20 Tigershark. Would have kicked seven kinds of crap out of the equivalent F-16, and cost less to boot!

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2002-09-11 04:23pm

LordChaos wrote:
Shaka[Zulu] wrote:Oh, I forgot one other...

of those that never got the chance...
the Avro Arrow... way ahead of its' time
My choice for "never got the chance" would be the F-20 Tigershark. Would have kicked seven kinds of crap out of the equivalent F-16, and cost less to boot!

Aiiee, not the Tigershark fanboys!

::runs::

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2002-09-11 04:32pm

LordChaos wrote:
Shaka[Zulu] wrote:Oh, I forgot one other...

of those that never got the chance...
the Avro Arrow... way ahead of its' time
My choice for "never got the chance" would be the F-20 Tigershark. Would have kicked seven kinds of crap out of the equivalent F-16, and cost less to boot!

Don’t think to highly of the F-20, it was better then the F-16 in the air defense role to an extent, but not better for ground attack. However an F-16 equipped for Sparrow retained the full air to ground capacity of the baseline.

Post by **Vympel** » 2002-09-11 09:39pm

F-20 Tigershark ... aren't some F-5s becoming equivalent to this standard thanks to upgrades?

The F-16 only really came into its own with the C model ... before that it didn't even have BVR- if WW3 had broken out in the 1980s you would've had the totally unacceptable situation of NATO's newest/ most numerically important fighter with a shorter stick than MiG-23s, let alone MiG-29s!

Of course- the F-16 keeps getting heavier and heavier (it doesn't matter how much bigger of an engine you put in there- due to wing loading the Block 60 ain't exactly as nimble as a Block 15) and its airframe life ain't pretty- the Navy aggressor models wore out in a VERY short time.

Oh well, its still primarily a bomber not a fighter.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2002-09-11 09:58pm

Vympel wrote:F-20 Tigershark ... aren't some F-5s becoming equivalent to this standard thanks to upgrades?

The F-16 only really came into its own with the C model ... before that it didn't even have BVR- if WW3 had broken out in the 1980s you would've had the totally unacceptable situation of NATO's newest/ most numerically important fighter with a shorter stick than MiG-23s, let alone MiG-29s!

Not really… The threats you speak of existing in marginal numbers at best

Less then 600 MiG-23s with High Lark radar, the only version which had worth while BVR, were produced, and even then the AA-7 was basically a failure. That’s why the MiG-21 is outlasting the MiG-23 in so many cases. As for MiG-29's, there was less then one regiment facing NATO central front in 1984, signficant numbers did not arrive until the late 80s when the Soviets began to withdraw…

By the time the Soviets had enough modern BVR aircraft on the central front, the F-16 had gotten Sparrow and there were swarms of F-15's on hand. And the F4 could hold its own with ease before that.

No F-5s could be called close to the F-20. Even the biggest upgrades make them marginal with Sparrows or AMRAAM's hung, the drag and weight kills them and makes there useage near imposibul with most models. The F-20 on the other hand could carry a several without problumes plus a tank and Winders.

LordChaos · Post by **LordChaos** » 2002-09-12 01:50am

Sea Skimmer wrote:
LordChaos wrote:
Shaka[Zulu] wrote:Oh, I forgot one other...

of those that never got the chance...
the Avro Arrow... way ahead of its' time
My choice for "never got the chance" would be the F-20 Tigershark. Would have kicked seven kinds of crap out of the equivalent F-16, and cost less to boot!
Don’t think to highly of the F-20, it was better then the F-16 in the air defense role to an extent, but not better for ground attack. However an F-16 equipped for Sparrow retained the full air to ground capacity of the baseline.

Actualy, at the time, the F-16 didn't have any ground capacity worth mentioning. The F-16's advantages over the F-20 (at the time) were :

A - already in service.

B - could sustain various manouvers longer then the Tigershark could (didn't bleed off as much speed). (that's going from memory, could have it wrong, but I don't think so).

The F-20 was faster, IIRC longer ranged, quicker climb rate, unparralleled time to hight from a cold start, could carry MORE ordanance then the -16 in service then, BVR capacity, etc etc etc.

it was a superior aircraft. The airforce just didn't think it was superior eniough to warrent adding an additional airframe to their logistic structure.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2002-09-12 02:14am

LordChaos wrote:
Sea Skimmer wrote:
LordChaos wrote: My choice for "never got the chance" would be the F-20 Tigershark. Would have kicked seven kinds of crap out of the equivalent F-16, and cost less to boot!
Don’t think to highly of the F-20, it was better then the F-16 in the air defense role to an extent, but not better for ground attack. However an F-16 equipped for Sparrow retained the full air to ground capacity of the baseline.
Actualy, at the time, the F-16 didn't have any ground capacity worth mentioning. The F-16's advantages over the F-20 (at the time) were :

A - already in service.

B - could sustain various manouvers longer then the Tigershark could (didn't bleed off as much speed). (that's going from memory, could have it wrong, but I don't think so).

The F-20 was faster, IIRC longer ranged, quicker climb rate, unparralleled time to hight from a cold start, could carry MORE ordanance then the -16 in service then, BVR capacity, etc etc etc.

it was a superior aircraft. The airforce just didn't think it was superior eniough to warrent adding an additional airframe to their logistic structure.

Except Iron and cluster bombs with CCIP, which would make up the majority of the planes warlord to this very day. Any F-20 ordinance capacity advantage is theoretical at best, drag and pylon limitation would keep it inferior to even the baseline F-16.

LordChaos · Post by **LordChaos** » 2002-09-12 04:43pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:
LordChaos wrote:
Sea Skimmer wrote: Don’t think to highly of the F-20, it was better then the F-16 in the air defense role to an extent, but not better for ground attack. However an F-16 equipped for Sparrow retained the full air to ground capacity of the baseline.
Actualy, at the time, the F-16 didn't have any ground capacity worth mentioning. The F-16's advantages over the F-20 (at the time) were :

A - already in service.

B - could sustain various manouvers longer then the Tigershark could (didn't bleed off as much speed). (that's going from memory, could have it wrong, but I don't think so).

The F-20 was faster, IIRC longer ranged, quicker climb rate, unparralleled time to hight from a cold start, could carry MORE ordanance then the -16 in service then, BVR capacity, etc etc etc.

it was a superior aircraft. The airforce just didn't think it was superior eniough to warrent adding an additional airframe to their logistic structure.
Except Iron and cluster bombs with CCIP, which would make up the majority of the planes warlord to this very day. Any F-20 ordinance capacity advantage is theoretical at best, drag and pylon limitation would keep it inferior to even the baseline F-16.

Quite the contrary, at the time it was the F-16 who was limited by it's pylon availablity to a lower total ordinance (numbers and mass both) then the F-20 was. Drag was not a limiting factor as much, and even if it was, the F-20 had a superior power / weight ratio to overcome it.