Aircraft that never lived up to their promise

"Peter Stickney" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"Tarver Engineering" writes:

"Vicente Vazquez" wrote in message
...
"Dweezil Dwarftosser" escreveu na mensagem
...
The successful failu the F-16.

Is it correct to say that the F-16 is also implicated on the failure of
the
F-20 Tigershark project ??

In brief :

- F-20 should be an aircraft cleared for export for non-NATO countries
(F-16 weren't cleared for that)
- F-16 were cleared for export (Seems like General Dynamics was in
deep
financial trouble)
- F-20 program went down the drain

Does that kind of affirmation have some veridical background or is it
just
another BS that can be found in some "not very reliable" books and
magazines?

Northrop developed the F-20 on speculation and all aviation is politics.
Some have lamented the F-16 being made available, as some sort of
conspiracy
against Northrop, but export law changes were a part of the times for
the
entire arospace industry.

Dangit, John!
I'll say this for you, when you're wrong, you're wrong, but when
you're right, you're right.

I remember when you were wrong, Peter.

Northrop certainly was gambling on selling the F-5G/F-20 to the same
customers who'd bought the F-5A/E - nations that coulsn't get approval
to purchase the Fighter of Choice (F-104 or F-4, in the F-5's day), or
who couldn't affort to fly/maintain the more sophisticated jets.

A "closely held" entity like GD can have better personal relationships with
Congress, than a regular corporation can. Perhaps even buy a President a fw
hookers.

Unfortunately for Northrop, the world had changed. The export
restrictions were loosened, and a lot of smaller countries realiezed
that they could keep F-16s running.
Sometimes you guess right, and sometimes you guess wrong.

Northrop bet against Reagan.

On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 16:48:22 -0200, "Vicente Vazquez"
wrote:

"Dweezil Dwarftosser" escreveu na mensagem
...
The successful failu the F-16.

Is it correct to say that the F-16 is also implicated on the failure of the
F-20 Tigershark project ??

In brief :

- F-20 should be an aircraft cleared for export for non-NATO countries
(F-16 weren't cleared for that)
- F-16 were cleared for export (Seems like General Dynamics was in deep
financial trouble)
- F-20 program went down the drain

Does that kind of affirmation have some veridical background or is it just
another BS that can be found in some "not very reliable" books and
magazines?

There's a lot of truth in the sequence. The policy, pre-Carter, was to
provide second level (similar to Soviet "export" version) aircraft to
third-world/developing nation AFs. These were the folks that were
principal customers for the NF-156 Freedom Fighter (AKA F-5A program).

Northrop developed a follow-on to the F-5 to sell to existing
customers who were not eligible for US equippage, i.e. F-15/F-16
aircraft. There were other contenders, such as the F-16/79--a Viper
without advanced avionics and pushed by a J-79 engine. It was a viable
market for an arguably competitive airplane.

When Carter breached the dike by contracting for F-16As to Pakistan
and then S. Korea, the list of potential F-20 customers disappeared as
they all demanded first level equipment, i.e. F-16s.

Later Northrop tried to flog the airplane to Air Defense Command and
as a potential diversification airplane for TAC, but it simply
couldn't compete against the already existing Viper base.

Having flown the F-20 cockpit (albeit not with F-20 flight models)
during F-23 Dem/Val, I would say that the F-20 was not ready to
compete with the ergonomics of F-16.

Throw in a couple of demo aircraft prangs and you have all the
ingredients of a failed program.

Ed Rasimus wrote in message . ..
On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 16:48:22 -0200, "Vicente Vazquez"
wrote:

"Dweezil Dwarftosser" escreveu na mensagem
...
The successful failu the F-16.

Is it correct to say that the F-16 is also implicated on the failure of the
F-20 Tigershark project ??

In brief :

- F-20 should be an aircraft cleared for export for non-NATO countries
(F-16 weren't cleared for that)
- F-16 were cleared for export (Seems like General Dynamics was in deep
financial trouble)
- F-20 program went down the drain

Does that kind of affirmation have some veridical background or is it just
another BS that can be found in some "not very reliable" books and
magazines?

There's a lot of truth in the sequence. The policy, pre-Carter, was to
provide second level (similar to Soviet "export" version) aircraft to
third-world/developing nation AFs. These were the folks that were
principal customers for the NF-156 Freedom Fighter (AKA F-5A program).

Northrop developed a follow-on to the F-5 to sell to existing
customers who were not eligible for US equippage, i.e. F-15/F-16
aircraft. There were other contenders, such as the F-16/79--a Viper
without advanced avionics and pushed by a J-79 engine. It was a viable
market for an arguably competitive airplane.

When Carter breached the dike by contracting for F-16As to Pakistan
and then S. Korea, the list of potential F-20 customers disappeared as
they all demanded first level equipment, i.e. F-16s.

Carter did not just breach the dyke, he *created* it in the first
place. It was * his * "no first tier exports" policy that was
announced in 1977. Prior to that we had sold quite a few "first tier"
aircraft to "developing nations", as long as they had the cash to buy
them, or if they were considered critical allies (nations like Israel,
Pakistan, Iran, the ROC, Australia, etc.), so I don't think your
characterization of this policy as existing "pre-Carter" is entirely
accurate.

"In February of 1977, in a well-meaning but ultimately futile gesture,
President Jimmy Carter announced a new arms transfer policy in an
attempt to reduce arms proliferation throughout the world. Under this
policy, American manufacturers could no longer sell to foreign air
forces any combat aircraft that were the equal of those in the US
inventory...To cater for the 'embargoed' air forces, the FX Export
Fighter Program was proposed...In 1980, President Carter relaxed his
policy and allowed the delivery of some export F-16A/Bs to proceed..."
(www.f-16.net/reference/versions/f16_79.html )


I believe the F-20 program originated pre-Carter, and was oriented
more towards what Northrop perceived to be a lucrative market, namely
those nations which did *not* have either the cash required or the
clout needed to swing aircraft like the F-15/16 in their direction,
and especially those many nations that had already bought into the F-5
program years before. Carter's policy did provide the impetus for the
ill-begotten F-16/79 program, and his subsequent policy backpeddle in
1980 sounded the death knell for that program. All in all, the most
that can be said for Carter's short journey into idealistic export
policy is that the French may owe him a medal for taking the US out of
play for some fighter procurement deals.


Later Northrop tried to flog the airplane to Air Defense Command and
as a potential diversification airplane for TAC, but it simply
couldn't compete against the already existing Viper base.

ISTR the ANG threw some support behind the idea of purchasing the F-20
to replace the A-7, etc., as well as the F-106's they owned at the
time.

Brooks


Having flown the F-20 cockpit (albeit not with F-20 flight models)
during F-23 Dem/Val, I would say that the F-20 was not ready to
compete with the ergonomics of F-16.

Throw in a couple of demo aircraft prangs and you have all the
ingredients of a failed program.

"Kevin Brooks" escreveu na mensagem
om...
All in all, the most
that can be said for Carter's short journey into idealistic export
policy is that the French may owe him a medal for taking the US out of
play for some fighter procurement deals.


Example: Our Air Force, back in the beginning of the '70s, bought Mirage
IIEBR's as the US wouldn't sell us the F-4's our AF had pointed out as the
aircraft of choice. The American offer at the time was the F-5A, which was
far below what was needed. OTOH, Brazil bought F-5E's later on ... Same for
many other Latin American countries.

Now our aging Mirage III's will be replaced (should have been a long time
ago, BTW) and by Feb 10th 2004 our government will probably announce that
its replacement will be the Mirage 2000BR (-5), mostly due to political
reasons and to the strong relationship of our national aircraft industry and
the French, which own 20% of EMBRAER. Unless something really unexpected
happens, our AF's dreams come true and they get the Su-35's they are eager
for. The US offered the F-18 and the F-16. The F-18 was discarded in the
very beginning of the process due to its price. The F-16, though regarded by
all as an excellent aircraft, is considered too short-legged. Also, there
are restrictions to the sale of BVR missiles and AFAIK the missiles would be
kept in storage in the US and sent to Brazil only in case of need.
(!!!??!!!). We would receive only the "training missiles". The Russians have
no kind of restriction in terms of weapons sales and technology transfer.
Same for the French.

Douglas DC5, Martin 202, Lockheed 880/990, every Curtiss fighter after
the P40, all the flying automobiles, XP77, XP85, Brabazon, Saro
Princess, sheesh - there's a thousand of them! Barling B9, so slow
it's cruise speed was its top speed and both were just above liftoff
speed. Find a copy of 'Back to The Drawing Board' by Bill Gunston. Oh,
yeah, Me210, unstable around all three axes, for starters. That cost
the LW a bundle of aircraft when they needed every one they could get.
Me 163 - VFR only, 60 mile radius, about 8 minutes powered time . . .
hairy but fun to fly, more danger to its crews as a weapon. For darn
sure killed more German pilots than Allied airmen. This could go on
for pages more but you get the point - they're out there, mostly as
scrap thank God. A few left in museums or on sticks.
Walt BJ

Many aircraft did poorly in ther intended roll only to become stars in
the roll they wound up in. An example is the F-111, it was to be the
air superority ground attack fighter for the Navy and the Air Force,
It wound up being one of the best ground attack aircraft in the USAF,
and never even made Navy service.

The F-105 was supposed to be the fast nuke bomber of the 60's but
became the workhorse of Viet Nam.

I am not at all sure the F-104 was a success, the USAF sure didn't
like it. NATO bought a bunch, but it's not clear that it would have
done well in Europe had it been necessary.

I guess its all in how you look at it.

"Earl Watkins" wrote in message
om...

Many aircraft did poorly in ther intended roll only to become stars in
the roll they wound up in. An example is the F-111, it was to be the
air superority ground attack fighter for the Navy and the Air Force,
It wound up being one of the best ground attack aircraft in the USAF,
and never even made Navy service.


The USAF and Navy versions of the F-111 shared an airframe and powerplants
but not missions. The USAF version was to be a long-range, low-level
supersonic, all-weather strike aircraft while the Navy version was to be an
all-weather, carrier-based fleet defense fighter.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Earl Watkins" wrote in message
om...

Many aircraft did poorly in ther intended roll only to become stars in
the roll they wound up in. An example is the F-111, it was to be the
air superority ground attack fighter for the Navy and the Air Force,
It wound up being one of the best ground attack aircraft in the USAF,
and never even made Navy service.


The USAF and Navy versions of the F-111 shared an airframe and powerplants
but not missions. The USAF version was to be a long-range, low-level
supersonic, all-weather strike aircraft while the Navy version was to be
an
all-weather, carrier-based fleet defense fighter.


There were airframe differences, the nose on the navy version was
8ft 6" shorter and it had 3 feet 6 inch extended wingtips. The F-111B
was grossly overweight (78,000 lbs when the navy had specified an
upper weight limit of 55,000 lbs) and was seriously underpowered.

Keith

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

There were airframe differences, the nose on the navy version was
8ft 6" shorter and it had 3 feet 6 inch extended wingtips. The F-111B
was grossly overweight (78,000 lbs when the navy had specified an
upper weight limit of 55,000 lbs) and was seriously underpowered.


Yes, they weren't exactly alike. The USAF versions had differences among
them as well, the FB-111A/F-111G had a longer wing as did the Australian
F-111C. The point was the USAF and Navy versions were never intended to
perform the same mission in their respective services. The F-111B nose
could be shorter because the AN/AWG-9 radar and associated equipment used in
the Phoenix missile system required less space than AN/APQ-113 attack radar
and AN/APQ-110 terrain-following radar used to deliver air-to-ground stores.

"Keith Willshaw" wrote:
| "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
| nk.net...
|
| "Earl Watkins" wrote in message
| om...
|
| Many aircraft did poorly in ther intended roll only to become
stars in
| the roll they wound up in. An example is the F-111, it was to be
the
| air superority ground attack fighter for the Navy and the Air
Force,
| It wound up being one of the best ground attack aircraft in the
USAF,
| and never even made Navy service.
|
|
| The USAF and Navy versions of the F-111 shared an airframe and
powerplants
| but not missions. The USAF version was to be a long-range,
low-level
| supersonic, all-weather strike aircraft while the Navy version was
to be
| an
| all-weather, carrier-based fleet defense fighter.
|
|
| There were airframe differences, the nose on the navy version was
| 8ft 6" shorter and it had 3 feet 6 inch extended wingtips. The F-111B
| was grossly overweight (78,000 lbs when the navy had specified an
| upper weight limit of 55,000 lbs) and was seriously underpowered.

You really should define "grossly overweight" since "the replacement",
the F-14 ended up with a similar maximum weight and similar engines. The
Navy's primary concern with weight in the 1960's would have been
elevator loading, arrested landing and catapult launch. Yet the F-111B
replacement aircraft based on weight and engines had similar issues and
it was accepted.