Read the forum code of contact
By: - 19th April 2016 at 07:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
people like to compare the Tejas and JF-17 with the F-16, but its more comparable in size and engine power to the F-20 tigershark of the 80s.
but has it even surpassed this 40 year old fighter?
Add the gripen c/d to the mix too
By: - 19th April 2016 at 12:52 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
and the FA-50...
By: - 19th April 2016 at 13:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
And to remind ourselves on why exactly the f-20 didn't find any takers.
The F-16.
I am quite surprised none of the European users of f-16 didn't see a newbuild f-16 as a partial solution for the replacement their old f-16. What is wrong with a hi-lo mix of new f-16 and smaller numbers of f-35? And the window for a newbuild f-16 is getting smaller by the day.
By: - 19th April 2016 at 13:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
And to remind ourselves on why exactly the f-20 didn't find any takers.The F-16.
I am quite surprised none of the European users of f-16 didn't see a newbuild f-16 as a partial solution for the replacement their old f-16. What is wrong with a hi-lo mix of new f-16 and smaller numbers of f-35? And the window for a newbuild f-16 is getting smaller by the day.
This. :)
By: - 19th April 2016 at 14:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
And to remind ourselves on why exactly the f-20 didn't find any takers.The F-16.
I am quite surprised none of the European users of f-16 didn't see a newbuild f-16 as a partial solution for the replacement their old f-16. What is wrong with a hi-lo mix of new f-16 and smaller numbers of f-35? And the window for a newbuild f-16 is getting smaller by the day.
This. :)
Is the same reason because the F-20 doesn't pass at its own times, the introduction of another plane would have crippled the F-16 orders. Also foreign customers would not any plane that wouldn't be endorsed by the US itself.
For the rest how would have it performed against latest MiG-23ML versions ( whose production ended in 1984) or even the Mirage 2000 or the IAI Kfir?
By: - 19th April 2016 at 16:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Is the same reason because the F-20 doesn't pass at its own times, the introduction of another plane would have crippled the F-16 orders. Also foreign customers would not any plane that wouldn't be endorsed by the US itself.
For the rest how would have it performed against latest MiG-23ML versions ( whose production ended in 1984) or even the Mirage 2000 or the IAI Kfir?
It could still sell if northrop has a strong media team like the gripen :dev2:
The small price, big capability gap between the f-20 and f-16 is what doomed it in the end. But still people buy hawk 200s in those times, and it is very expensive for what it is too (with similar catchy "cheap to operate" selling points like the gripen)
As for newbuild f-16s, yes it is not in LM's interest to still promote the f-16 in competition with its own f-35. It must be a strong need from the buyer itself to want it while the line is still there, and to read through all the LM smoke and mirrors to understand that the f-35 is still not yet ready and to have an all f-35 fleet would be more expensive than a hi-lo mix of newbuild f-16 and f-35.
By: - 19th April 2016 at 17:36 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I'm pretty sure both IAF and PAF would be delighted if their principal adversary decided to trade in in their modern semi-indigenous light fighters for 1980s Tigersharks. Does that answer the question?
By: - 20th April 2016 at 12:02 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I quite like the F-20 as an fine example of good engineering, but it is obviously a dated design and "performance" alone is both a vague and flawed metric. Does a 2016 Toyota Prius surpass the performance of a 1963 Corvette?
Also, whilst the F-20 never got a chance to mature, both the Tejas and the J-17 will continue to evolve and improve, so the performance of today is not as critical as the ability to get better in the future.
By: - 20th April 2016 at 13:54 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I quite like the F-20 as an fine example of good engineering, but it is obviously a dated design and "performance" alone is both a vague and flawed metric. Does a 2016 Toyota Prius surpass the performance of a 1963 Corvette?Also, whilst the F-20 never got a chance to mature, both the Tejas and the J-17 will continue to evolve and improve, so the performance of today is not as critical as the ability to get better in the future.
^ this. The expression apples and oranges comes to mind.
By: - 20th April 2016 at 16:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It could still sell if northrop has a strong media team like the gripen :dev2:The small price, big capability gap between the f-20 and f-16 is what doomed it in the end. But still people buy hawk 200s in those times, and it is very expensive for what it is too (with similar catchy "cheap to operate" selling points like the gripen)
As for newbuild f-16s, yes it is not in LM's interest to still promote the f-16 in competition with its own f-35. It must be a strong need from the buyer itself to want it while the line is still there, and to read through all the LM smoke and mirrors to understand that the f-35 is still not yet ready and to have an all f-35 fleet would be more expensive than a hi-lo mix of newbuild F-16 and F-35.
There is another fundamental difference between the actual "indigenous fighters" and the F-20 and it is in the word itself.
Tigershark was a tentative from the US to gave to their own third world allies an up-to-date plane but without any of the sensible technologies of their own teen fighters, even with a full transfer of technologies such a thing would have not permitted to these nation to advance their own industrial capabilities in any regard.
So in the end taking the F-20 would result in a lose/lose situation for them: no cutting edge performances and no technological progress of any sort.
Even the F-16/79 doesn't meet any simphaty into potential buyers for the same reason, while instead the original intended prime customer for the F-20, the ROC took a great overall advantage in being permitted to develop its own Ching Kuo with technological transfer from US (and others) in compensation for the cancellation of initial deal.
By: - 21st April 2016 at 02:05 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I quite like the F-20 as an fine example of good engineering, but it is obviously a dated design and "performance" alone is both a vague and flawed metric. Does a 2016 Toyota Prius surpass the performance of a 1963 Corvette?Also, whilst the F-20 never got a chance to mature, both the Tejas and the J-17 will continue to evolve and improve, so the performance of today is not as critical as the ability to get better in the future.
+1
I might also add that back in the day, BVR was not as mature with no AMRAAM in sight and no one trusted the Sparrows much. Sidewinders ruled the day.
Im not sure of the exact dimensions but i dont think the F5/F20 nose cone is big enough to fit a decent radar. Both LCA and JF17 can accommodate 600-650 mm dia radars. Anyone got the nose dia specs for the F20?
By: - 21st April 2016 at 02:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The only real significance of JF-17 is its relative inexpensive BVR capability. There is no ground breaking ground attack capability, nor relative high performance capability.
By: - 21st April 2016 at 03:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
There is another fundamental difference between the actual "indigenous fighters" and the F-20 and it is in the word itself.
Tigershark was a tentative from the US to gave to their own third world allies an up-to-date plane but without any of the sensible technologies of their own teen fighters, even with a full transfer of technologies such a thing would have not permitted to these nation to advance their own industrial capabilities in any regard.
So in the end taking the F-20 would result in a lose/lose situation for them: cutting edge performances and no technological progress of any sort.
Even the F-16/79 doesn't meet any simphaty into potential buyers for the same reason, while instead the original intended prime customer for the F-20, the ROC took a great overall advantage in being permitted to develop its own Ching Kuo with technological transfer from US (and others) in compensation for the cancellation of initial deal.
The F20 didn't have inferior system regarding the 16. Nobody wanted this and Northrop was looking for... customers. In fact, Northrop's engineers had to find a parallel way to make for a powerful radar (as much as the 16 at least) that fitted inside the small nose, with a lower maintenance cost (an hint to who it inspired?). Doing so, they selected a radar that had been rejected by the USAF for the 16 but had a promising potential. This led them through a painfull and costly dev but, at the end, the Radar was so advanced that it dwarfed the one on the 16 in term of range, growth potential and maintenance.
So much that the Radar was latter integrated on the 16.
Dassault was then so much interested in the technology that it formed the basis of the ... Rafale radar.
SO much was it that Dassault gained confidence that it could swap the MLU contract on the... F16 fleet.
So So so much (ouioui) that it led to one of th most despicable scandal in Eu arm sales...
So, let's say that in the end, the most countries that had benefited from a "full transfer of technologies [that] such a thing would have not permitted to these nation to advance their own industrial capabilities in any regard" were... the USA, the NATO and France!
Not personal.. Just that sometime lecturing history is the surest way to make a big... splash ;) *
Source:
From my non reliable on board memory and http://www.thecid.com/f20a/index.html
*and it happens to me often!
By: - 21st April 2016 at 07:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The F20 didn't have inferior system regarding the 16. Nobody wanted this and Northrop was looking for... customers. In fact, Northrop's engineers had to find a parallel way to make for a powerful radar (as much as the 16 at least) that fitted inside the small nose, with a lower maintenance cost (an hint to who it inspired?). Doing so, they selected a radar that had been rejected by the USAF for the 16 but had a promising potential. This led them through a painfull and costly dev but, at the end, the Radar was so advanced that it dwarfed the one on the 16 in term of range, growth potential and maintenance.
So much that the Radar was latter integrated on the 16.
Dassault was then so much interested in the technology that it formed the basis of the ... Rafale radar.
SO much was it that Dassault gained confidence that it could swap the MLU contract on the... F16 fleet.
So So so much (ouioui) that it led to one of th most despicable scandal in Eu arm sales...So, let's say that in the end, the most countries that had benefited from a "full transfer of technologies [that] such a thing would have not permitted to these nation to advance their own industrial capabilities in any regard" were... the USA, the NATO and France!
Not personal.. Just that sometime lecturing history is the surest way to make a big... splash ;) *
Source:
From my non reliable on board memory and http://www.thecid.com/f20a/index.html*and it happens to me often!
No problems at all, Tomcat, we are all there to learn and discuss not to display our ego.
So, almost for the radar, F-20 have something of really advanced and infact the radar was taken and developed further, the rest doesn't find any customer, certainly also because it was boycotted in any way by its own country's establishment.
However, I still stand on my word, in the overall, adopting a complete fighter off the shelf was not in the intended customer country long term interest, while developing it with on their own (even with foreign help) certainly was, also in the case the end result would end up being somewhat inferior of what it was initially offered.
Jf-17 in this is still an halfway solution being still a mainly chinese, not pak thing.
By: - 21st April 2016 at 11:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
No problems at all, Tomcat, we are all there to learn and discuss not to display our ego.
So, almost for the radar, F-20 have something of really advanced and infact the radar was taken and developed further, the rest doesn't find any customer, certainly also because it was boycotted in any way by its own country's establishment.
However, I still stand on my word, in the overall, adopting a complete fighter off the shelf was not in the intended customer country long term interest, while developing it with on their own (even with foreign help) certainly was, also in the case the end result would end up being somewhat inferior of what it was initially offered.
Jf-17 in this is still an halfway solution being still a mainly chinese, not pak thing.
JF-17 is a good aircraft but it is watered down for Pakistan needs. Pakistan wanted something to replace the J-7 but
1. doesn't have the engineering background to design the aircraft on their own
2. doesn't have the manufacturing skills to produce it
so China had to
1. design the whole thing
2. design it to the limitations of Pakistani manufacturing
China could design the J-10 or j-31 for Pakistan but doesn't mean they can build it. It had to be simple enough but capable and the JF-17 does a good job on that.
the Tejas is inferior to the F-20. it is heavier, worse thrust to weight ratio, higher wing loading, and radar capability about the same. I think the biggest limitation is that they chose to build a design over 1 meter shorter and a pure delta. this severely limits the growth potential and upgrade of the Tejas. But either way, Indian bureacracy will kill the program.
Give Pakistan a fleet of JF-17 or F-20, it will have the performance edge over the Tejas.
By: - 21st April 2016 at 11:59 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
JF-17 is a good aircraft but it is watered down for Pakistan needs. Pakistan wanted something to replace the J-7 but
1. doesn't have the engineering background to design the aircraft on their own
2. doesn't have the manufacturing skills to produce itso China had to
1. design the whole thing
2. design it to the limitations of Pakistani manufacturingChina could design the J-10 or j-31 for Pakistan but doesn't mean they can build it. It had to be simple enough but capable and the JF-17 does a good job on that.
the Tejas is inferior to the F-20. it is heavier, worse thrust to weight ratio, higher wing loading, and radar capability about the same. I think the biggest limitation is that they chose to build a design over 1 meter shorter and a pure delta. this severely limits the growth potential and upgrade of the Tejas. But either way, Indian bureacracy will kill the program.
Give Pakistan a fleet of JF-17 or F-20, it will have the performance edge over the Tejas.
I think it is too early to judge LCA performance. We will have to wait few years so a handful can be inducted in IAF in their final (block-1??) version. The parameters keep on changing on a routine basis so the end result could be very different once it is inducted.
By: - 21st April 2016 at 15:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The F20 didn't have inferior system regarding the 16. Nobody wanted this and Northrop was looking for... customers. In fact, Northrop's engineers had to find a parallel way to make for a powerful radar (as much as the 16 at least) that fitted inside the small nose, with a lower maintenance cost (an hint to who it inspired?). Doing so, they selected a radar that had been rejected by the USAF for the 16 but had a promising potential. This led them through a painfull and costly dev but, at the end, the Radar was so advanced that it dwarfed the one on the 16 in term of range, growth potential and maintenance.
So much that the Radar was latter integrated on the 16.
Dassault was then so much interested in the technology that it formed the basis of the ... Rafale radar.
SO much was it that Dassault gained confidence that it could swap the MLU contract on the... F16 fleet.
So So so much (ouioui) that it led to one of th most despicable scandal in Eu arm sales...
Are you sure? The F-20 radar was the General Electric AN/APG-67, now a Lockheed Martin product fitted to light fighters & armed trainers such as the Ching Kuo & IA-63. I've not heard of it being integrated on the F-16. Old F-16s with APG-66 radars have either had the APG-66 upgraded, or replaced by the APG-68 - both made by Northrop Grumman.
And how did the mechanically scanned APG-67 become the basis of the Thales RBE2 PESA radar?
I've never heard of Dassault having any part of the F-16 MLU contract, except in Belgium, where the work was done by SABCA - a Belgian firm in which Dassault Group is the majority shareholder, & which had assembled 222 of the NATO four country F-16s & long done F-16 support for a few air forces, so a logical choice. But SABCA operates separately from Dassault Aviation & Dassault Systemes within the Dassault group.
By: - 21st April 2016 at 18:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Are you sure? The F-20 radar was the General Electric AN/APG-67, now a Lockheed Martin product fitted to light fighters & armed trainers such as the Ching Kuo & IA-63. I've not heard of it being integrated on the F-16. Old F-16s with APG-66 radars have either had the APG-66 upgraded, or replaced by the APG-68 - both made by Northrop Grumman.And how did the mechanically scanned APG-67 become the basis of the Thales RBE2 PESA radar?
I've never heard of Dassault having any part of the F-16 MLU contract, except in Belgium, where the work was done by SABCA - a Belgian firm in which Dassault Group is the majority shareholder, & which had assembled 222 of the NATO four country F-16s & long done F-16 support for a few air forces, so a logical choice. But SABCA operates separately from Dassault Aviation & Dassault Systemes within the Dassault group.
I should have not talked about radar. I took a shortcut. The components are what I should have mentioned. For the link b/w 20 & 16, you can follow the link that I have included in my post. For the link b/w the Rafale Radar and the F16 you should browse the name of the company that originally did work on the RBE2 (US owned). There are not much results with the amount of details needed here to be relevant with this conversation. You will find it pretty easily (could be in Fr)
For the scandal relative to the MLU and Dassault, I did post somewhere here a month ago a press report relating the end-inquiry. I think it's inflammatory enough to not paste it again, especially at this time, even given the situation.
By: - 21st April 2016 at 18:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Jf-17 in this is still an halfway solution being still a mainly chinese, not pak thing.
yes. But it is still a formidable step for Pakistan. Let's be realistic it draws a picture of maturity on several point: technology, professionalism of their armed force (the 17 is not in service in China so, all the OP feedback comes from there) and political support. There is certainly plenty enough to be pride of.
By: - 21st April 2016 at 19:25 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
the Tejas is inferior to the F-20. it is heavier, worse thrust to weight ratio, higher wing loading, and radar capability about the same. I think the biggest limitation is that they chose to build a design over 1 meter shorter and a pure delta. this severely limits the growth potential and upgrade of the Tejas. But either way, Indian bureacracy will kill the program.
Give Pakistan a fleet of JF-17 or F-20, it will have the performance edge over the Tejas.
wrong.
It has the same empty weight as the JF-17 - the so-called "overweight" is because the original design goal was an unrealistic 5500 kgs figure that no other light fighter has managed to attain either..not the Gripen A/B/C/D nor the FA-50 nor the JF-17. Of course, you set a ridiculous target and don't meet it then you get to be pinged for it, but the fact is that it has 270 kgs of ballast that is over and above the 6500 kgs of empty weight. That's it. And that ballast will go away with the Tejas Mk1A version thanks to the AESA radar being heavier.
Tejas has the same MTOW as the JF-17- and their max thrust is almost the same as well..has the same G limits as the JF-17 and the FA-50. It has an Indo-Israeli hybrid radar derived from the Elta El/M-2032 and MMR and you're claiming that this radar is about the same as something that was developed in the 1980s?
the existing version has DASH HMDS, R-73 Archer, Derby BVR and Python-5 WVR missile..not to talk about LGB with self-lasing capability and EW pod that will be integrated, or the Astra BVR missile or the other PGMs and LGBs and ARMs.
And on the Tejas Mk1A which will be the main IAF version and is supposed to be rolled out in 2018, there is going to be an Elta 2052 AESA radar, with EW pod.
Its one thing that the IAF sets a ridiculously high bar versus the PAF which is happy to be replacing the F-7 and A-5s with something modern enough.
Posts: 2,040
By: Y-20 Bacon - 19th April 2016 at 04:47
people like to compare the Tejas and JF-17 with the F-16, but its more comparable in size and engine power to the F-20 tigershark of the 80s.
but has it even surpassed this 40 year old fighter?