What's new

A-10 Thunderbolt II Gets New Wings, Ensures the Sound of Freedom into 2035

Well i know about the Northrop F-20 Tiger Shark being offered to Pakistan and PAF opting for F-16 over it. Not A-10!
Furthermore A-10 and F-16 are for completely different role, One is a a true Mulirole fighter with air combat as first priority (F-16) and the other is a CAS/ Ground attach aircraft (A-10).
These two being offered as alternative of one and other does not makes much sense.
Yes, but the offer was a combo of A-10 and F-20 .... versus F-16, not just A-10 or F-16.

"Compared with the F-5E, the F-20 was much faster, gained beyond-visual-range air-to-air capability, and had a full suite of air-to-ground modes capable of firing most U.S. weapons. With these improved capabilities, the F-20 became competitive with contemporary fighter designs such as the General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon, but was much less expensive to purchase and operate."
Northrop F-20 Tigershark - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


f-20-DF-ST-86-12148.jpg


df-st-86-12144.jpg


F-20_Tigershark_launching_AGM-65_Maverick.jpg


f-20_82.jpg


8645214650_592929599c_b.jpg
 
.
Yes, but the offer was a combo of A-10 and F-20 .... versus F-16, not just A-10 or F-16.

"Compared with the F-5E, the F-20 was much faster, gained beyond-visual-range air-to-air capability, and had a full suite of air-to-ground modes capable of firing most U.S. weapons. With these improved capabilities, the F-20 became competitive with contemporary fighter designs such as the General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon, but was much less expensive to purchase and operate."
Northrop F-20 Tigershark - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


f-20-DF-ST-86-12148.jpg


df-st-86-12144.jpg


F-20_Tigershark_launching_AGM-65_Maverick.jpg


f-20_82.jpg


8645214650_592929599c_b.jpg

Oky i dont know about that, about these being offered together.
Also what would you suggest why is that F20 never made it big and F-16 still, in times of fifth generation fighters, retain its place and is considered to be one hell of a machine. What could have been the reasons?
Oh an by the way, thanks for bringing this back after almost two years, even i have forgotten about this. :)

AND if you check that old post, you will notice that my point is that PAF chose F-16 OVER F-20 and not A-10s and that have proven to be a wise decision i think, specially if i look at current status of F-20 and F-16 in the world air forces!
 
.
Oky i dont know about that, about these being offered together.
Also what would you suggest why is that F20 never made it big and F-16 still, in times of fifth generation fighters, retain its place and is considered to be one hell of a machine. What could have been the reasons?
Oh an by the way, thanks for bringing this back after almost two years, even i have forgotten about this. :)

AND if you check that old post, you will notice that my point is that PAF chose F-16 OVER F-20 and not A-10s and that have proven to be a wise decision i think, specially if i look at current status of F-20 and F-16 in the world air forces!


Well, not due to the qualities of the airplane, obviously.
With the election of Ronald Reagan as president, the FX program gradually fell out of favor as the administration relaxed export restrictions. Then the 1982 signing of the U.S.-PRC Joint Communiqué on arms sales blocked sale of the F-20 to Taiwan. Worse for the F-20’s chance in other markets, the Air Force had an iron in the fire with regard to foreign military sales (FMS), as every F-16 sold to a foreign country meant the overall production cost of the Air Force’s own F-16s would go down.

With Taiwan now starting their own indigenous light fighter project, a grand tour of Korea was planned for the Tigershark. On Oct. 10, 1984, test pilot Darrell Cornell demonstrated the first F-20A in a high-speed, low-altitude flyover at Korea’s Suwon airfield. Cornell threw his F-20A into a climbing roll with flaps and landing gear extended, when the aircraft stalled and crashed. Cornell was thrown clear and killed instantly.

An investigation cleared the F-20A of any design or mechanical flaw. It was found that Cornell had blacked out due to excessive Gs pulled in the acrobatic demonstration routine. The phenomenon of gravity-induced loss of consciousness (G-LOC) was then receiving widespread attention.

Five months later, on May 14, 1985, Tigershark No. 2 crashed at Goose Bay, Labrador. Pilot David Barnes (1934-1985), was killed. The Canadian accident report called G-LOC the cause of the crash.

Just months later, in January 1985 the U. S. Navy picked the F-16N rather than the F-20A for adversary duties. Northrop had placed high hopes on a Navy order and now had nowhere to turn. A fourth F-20A was never completed.

In a last-ditch effort on April 3, 1985, Northrop offered the U. S. Air Force 396 F-20As at an impossibly low $15 million each, against $18 million for an F-16. It was too late. The Air Force had no requirement.

The F-20A Tigershark was fast, maneuverable, lethal, easy to fly and easy to maintain. But Northrop was never truly able to compete with the F-16 on cost and the Tigershark failed, ultimately, because it tried to be too many things. Too heavy to be a lightweight, lacking the stealth properties then being developed in supersecret “black” programs, the F-20A was also too light to be a robust, globe-girdling warplane like the F-15E Strike Eagle.

It was an outstanding fighter, but in the end the Northrop F-20A Tigershark was the right aircraft at the wrong time.
What Might Have Been: F-20 Tigershark | Defense Media Network

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 reliability.
http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-20.htm

Compared with the F-5E, the F-20 was much faster, gained beyond-visual-range air-to-air capability, and had a full suite of air-to-ground modes capable of firing most U.S. weapons. With these improved capabilities, the F-20 became competitive with contemporary fighter designs such as the General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon, but was much less expensive to purchase and operate.
Much of the F-20's development was carried out under a US Department of Defense (DoD) project called "FX". FX sought to develop fighters that would be capable in combat with the latest Soviet aircraft, but excluding sensitive front-line technologies used by the United States Air Force's own aircraft. FX was a product of the Carter administration's military export policies, which aimed to provide foreign nations with high quality equipment without the risk of US front-line technology falling into Soviet hands. Northrop had high hopes for the F-20 in the international market, but policy changes following Ronald Reagan's election meant the F-20 had to compete for sales against aircraft like the F-16, the USAF's latest fighter design.

In the spring of 1977, Jimmy Carter's administration had announced a new military export policy that limited sales of front line designs to countries within NATO, along with Australia and Japan. Carter stated at the time that the U.S. could not be "both the world's champion of peace and the world's leading supplier of the weapons of war." Previously, there was no coherent export policy, fueling concerns that the US's latest technologies might quickly end up in Soviet hands.

South Korea's F-16 order was initially blocked under this policy
Carter personally blocked the sales of the F-5G to Taiwan


The Soviets continued to sell newer aircraft designs to their clients, placing allies of the U.S. at a disadvantage

Denied by the U.S., countries were turning to other vendors for modern fighters, notably France's Dassault Mirage 2000

After a lengthy study, in January 1980, President Carter allowed the development of a new export fighter: FX. General Dynamics (GD) responded to the FX requirement. GD's F-16/79 was a [downgraded] variant of the F-16A. Northrop responded with the F-5G

When Ronald Reagan's administration took power in 1981, the export restrictions put in place by the Carter administration were slowly relaxed.[16] At first, the FX program continued as normal, but a number of events eroded the value of the program and limit the F-5G's potential sales.
The signing of the 1982 US-PRC Joint Communiqué was a major agreement on arms sales, which continued blocking sales of the F-5G to Taiwan. By this point the Taiwanese had started their own light-fighter project, the AIDC F-CK-1 Ching-kuo. In signing the Communiqué, the U.S. was signaling that Taiwan would not receive modern aircraft, therefore the Ching-kuo became Taiwan's primary focus. As a result, the F-5G's sales potential remained unestablished.[17]
In the summer of 1982, Deputy Secretary of Defense Frank Carlucci sent a memorandum to the Air Force and Navy, encouraging them to seek out potential foreign customers to procure FX aircraft.[18] However, four months later Carlucci sent a classified memo to the same services to abandon the FX, and green-lighting the exporting of front-line fighters overseas.[19] In December, after prompting from the White House, Carlucci reversed his position again, and directed the Air Force to fund a small number of F-20s in the fiscal year 1984 budget.[20]
The future of the FX program seemed doubtful. Following an agreement to sell F-16s to Pakistan,[21] Northrop felt that the F-5G needed to match the performance of F-16. This would require not only better performance from the engine, but a new and comparable avionics suite as well. Northrop saw that the F-5G was still being viewed as the "FX fighter", a low-cost option for second-tier air forces. To combat this perception, Northrop requested the designation "F-20"; the USAF approved in late 1982, and of the name Tigershark in March 1983.[9][22]
Northrop F-20 Tigershark - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gold plating the F-5G led to higher development costs and compromises in relation to production cost. Causing the needed minimum production run to break even to go up. Which made foreign orders essential in order to start production. The F-16 never suffered from that problem as it was already ensured of orders: on 13 January 1975, Secretary of the Air Force John L. McLucas had announced the YF-16 as the winner of the ACF competition. The issue of production number and hence unit cost is also evident in e.g. F-35
 
Last edited:
.
Well, not due to the qualities of the airplane, obviously.

What Might Have Been: F-20 Tigershark | Defense Media Network

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 reliability.
http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-20.htm


Northrop F-20 Tigershark - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gold plating the F-5G led to higher development costs and compromises in relation to production cost. The issue of production number and hence unit cost is also evident in e.g. F-35
Yes i got that idea from your last post that you suggest it was not quality then what it could have been? that is why i asked this. I mean you and i are both aware of where F-20 stands compared to F-1 today, IF, it stands anywhere at all.
 
.
A-10 Thunderbolt II Gets New Wings, Ensures the Sound of Freedom into 2035 | Topic A: DefenseTopic A: Defense

The A-10 Thunderbolt II plays a key role in protecting our troops and it’s about to get a makeover.

The U.S. Air Force’s A-10 Warthog, a twin-engine jet designed for close air support of ground forces, is receiving new wings that will improve mission availability and help save the Air Force an estimated $1.3 billion in maintenance costs over the next 30 years.

In recent months, Boeing was awarded three follow-on orders for a total of 56 replacement wings and is on contract to build up to 242 wings at its plant in Macon, Ga.

The A-10 is known for its excellent maneuverability at low air speeds and altitude, and its ability to deliver weapons with great accuracy. A-10s can loiter near battle areas for extended periods of time and operate under 1,000-foot ceilings and 1.5-mile visibility. With its significant range and short takeoff and landing capability, it is uniquely suited to serve in and out of locations near the front lines.

This makeover will allow the A-10 to continue to protect our troops and to operate into 2035.


100316-F-5271W-148-300x200.jpg

A great decision :yahoo:
 
.
Yes i got that idea from your last post that you suggest it was not quality then what it could have been? that is why i asked this. I mean you and i are both aware of where F-20 stands compared to F-1 today, IF, it stands anywhere at all.
Gold plating the F-5G led to higher development costs and compromises in relation to production cost. Causing the needed minimum production run to break even to go up. Which made foreign orders essential in order to start production. The F-16 never suffered from that problem as it was already ensured of orders: on 13 January 1975, Secretary of the Air Force John L. McLucas had announced the YF-16 as the winner of the ACF competition. The issue of production number and hence unit cost is also evident in e.g. F-35

Source: https://defence.pk/threads/a-10-thunderbolt-ii-gets-new-wings-ensures-the-sound-of-freedom-into-2035.300806/page-2#ixzz3rdyr1C6X

Politics and export policy shifts.

As for where F-20 would stand, consider:
  • The F-5 served as a starting point for a series of design studies which resulted in the Northrop YF-17 and the F/A-18 navalized fighter aircraft. (i.e. a solid base)
  • The F-5N/F variants are in service with the United States Navy and United States Marine Corps as an adversary trainer (i.e. a very good basic fighter)
  • Approximately 500 F-5 aircraft are in service as of 2014 (i.e. even the old jet remains 'good enough' for many air forces)
F-5_freedom_fighter.PNG
 
.
Yes, but the offer was a combo of A-10 and F-20 .... versus F-16, not just A-10 or F-16.

"Compared with the F-5E, the F-20 was much faster, gained beyond-visual-range air-to-air capability, and had a full suite of air-to-ground modes capable of firing most U.S. weapons. With these improved capabilities, the F-20 became competitive with contemporary fighter designs such as the General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon, but was much less expensive to purchase and operate."
Northrop F-20 Tigershark - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


f-20-DF-ST-86-12148.jpg


df-st-86-12144.jpg


F-20_Tigershark_launching_AGM-65_Maverick.jpg


f-20_82.jpg


8645214650_592929599c_b.jpg

one of my favorite jets that was not to be :(
 
.
The A-10 is a unique asset in the US arsenal, reminds me of the Soviet Ilyushin Il-2...

plquhszlpzdn7pve2cat.jpg
 
.
The A-10 is a unique asset in the US arsenal, reminds me of the Soviet Ilyushin Il-2...

It should that was the idea

"But the Vietnam War was fought with conventional weaponry. Nuclear bombers weren’t suited to the dirty work of blasting enemy ground forces during close gun battles. “Lacking a tested tactical doctrine to deal with such warfare, the Air Force had to hammer out one in combat,” Lieutenant Colonel Ralph A. Rowley wrote in a 1976 Air Force study.
“The Air Force modified old aircraft and equipment to meet close air support needs,” Rowley explained. “Attrition took its toll of these aged planes, with the communists in Vietnam countering their tactics and shooting quite a few down. The answer seemed to lie in the development of an aircraft expressly for close air support.”
In 1966, the Air Force began developing a new, purpose-built ground-attack plane. Pierre Sprey, then a young aerospace engineer working for the secretary of defense, helped shape the new plane’s design. For inspiration, he looked to the World War II Stuka and Sturmovik."

How an ugly, brutally effective warplane won the battle for its future
Nice to hear they will be arround for plenty of time to come.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom