Different F - 5 G

The F - 5 G program was instigated by a ROCAF request to install a AIM 7 capable radar to their F - 5 E fleet, which over time morphed into the F / X program and then into the F - 20 Tigershark. Ultimately with the relaxation of the export controls by the Reagan administration, the F - 20 Tigershark did not enter into production.

However, I was reading about the Japanese Mitsubishi F - 2 program and the agreement between General Dynamics and Mitsubishi Heavy Industry.

Noting the above, is there any way for Northrop and Aerospace Industrial Development Corporation to enter into an agreement for a modified F - 5 G to be produced under license?

The modifications that I am considering for the F - 5 G are broadly similar to the F - 20 Tigershark with a couple of exceptions.

  • 25 % larger wing area,
  • mid mounted wing, and
  • larger air intakes.
What would the increase in performance be like for a F - 20* with a larger wing area?

BTW this is for my follow on timeline to 12 Minutes to Midnight, which can be read in my signature block.

Example of increase in wing for the Mitsubishi F 2:

F2andF16.png
 
If the F - 5G weights similar - to the earlier Freedom Fighters, the larger wing would improve climb and range, while shortening runway requirements.

Not sure why you want a mid-wing?
 
Mid mounted or slightly elevated wing improves ground clearance, something that was a noted problem with the F - 5E Tiger.
 

SsgtC

Banned
Mid mounted or slightly elevated wing improves ground clearance, something that was a noted problem with the F - 5E Tiger.
But the whole point of the F-20 was it a minimal cost, high performance fighter for use by our allies (or at least friendly nations). Redesigning to a mid mounted wing would raise costs considerably
 
But the whole point of the F-20 was it a minimal cost, high performance fighter for use by our allies (or at least friendly nations). Redesigning to a mid mounted wing would raise costs considerably

Just had this conversation on another board and, let's retain the original low wing mount for the sake of this exercise.
 
Just had this conversation on another board and, let's retain the original low wing mount for the sake of this exercise.
One thing I wondered about was were there any export controls on the F404 engine (that would have been a stumbling block to marketing the air craft to likely customers ?)

Maybe look at an older engine to (possibly ?) broaden the list of potential customers ?

I'm thinking that in sofar as a number of F5's fell into unfriendly hands over the years there may not have been a lot of point to strong export restrictions on the F5 (at least in terms of preventing the underlying technology falling into un friendly hands) but I'm thinking that might not have been the case for the F20 and its F404 engine ?
 
Last edited:
I think that the export controls could have allowed export to western aligned countries, so I don't see that as a stumbling block.

Another change could be the introduction of the F - 20 into the ANG, which would dramatically reduce unit costs as well.
 
Air National Guard typically get ‘last year’s fashion” because those airplanes are to old to lead attacks but their airframes still have thousands of hours.

Many ANG personnel are recently retired from full-time service. They already know how to fly that model of airplane and just want to keep their skills up.
 
Last edited:
Here is a link to a RAND study regarding the F - 20 Tigershark program, which identifies several deficiencies with the entire process.

To summarise the findings:

  • In search of a mission - project started as a reliable high performance fighter for the third world (intermediate fighter with less than top line capabilities), then the scope was broadened to compete against the 'top tier' F - 16.
  • As Northrop self financed this meant that USG didn't have 'skin in the game' to assist with the type securing international orders.
  • Lacked bureaucratic backing.
  • Changed export policies that allowed fully functional F - 16s to be exported to non NATO countries.
  • Exports as a symbol of diplomacy - access to F 16s indicated positive US intentions, whereby restricting access of advanced aircraft was interpreted as a signal of encumbered relations.
 
Here is a link to a RAND study regarding the F - 20 Tigershark program, which identifies several deficiencies with the entire process.

To summarise the findings:

  • In search of a mission - project started as a reliable high performance fighter for the third world (intermediate fighter with less than top line capabilities), then the scope was broadened to compete against the 'top tier' F - 16.
  • As Northrop self financed this meant that USG didn't have 'skin in the game' to assist with the type securing international orders.
  • Lacked bureaucratic backing.
  • Changed export policies that allowed fully functional F - 16s to be exported to non NATO countries.
  • Exports as a symbol of diplomacy - access to F 16s indicated positive US intentions, whereby restricting access of advanced aircraft was interpreted as a signal of encumbered relations.

Though I think these days something like the F20 could prove a pretty hot export. Aiming for the countries that want some form of air defense but cant afford to spend 50-100 million dollars on a fighter. I mean F16s are great and all but they're pretty damned expensive. Right now that market is being dominated by the Gripen and armed variants of Jet Trainers. The only light fighter cheaper then the Gripen are the JF17 and the Indian Tejas. The JF 17 seems to have had little export success and no one sane will be buying Tejas's anytime soon. The T50 fills that gap and seems to be doing pretty darn well in the cheap fighter market.
 
I think there was a niche for the Tigershark to fill and it could have filled it well.

This is the beauty of counter factuals and in writing alternate history.
 
Though I think these days something like the F20 could prove a pretty hot export. Aiming for the countries that want some form of air defense but cant afford to spend 50-100 million dollars on a fighter. I mean F16s are great and all but they're pretty damned expensive. Right now that market is being dominated by the Gripen and armed variants of Jet Trainers. The only light fighter cheaper then the Gripen are the JF17 and the Indian Tejas. The JF 17 seems to have had little export success and no one sane will be buying Tejas's anytime soon. The T50 fills that gap and seems to be doing pretty darn well in the cheap fighter market.
True but used F16's might provide some competition (especially shortly after the Cold War wound down.)
 
In this TL there was a second Carter Administration leading to a Jack Kemp presidency in 1988, but I could be persuaded to have a Walter Mondale presidency.

Just to give some context around the White House authorising the export of military equipment.
 
The problem with the F-5G was there was no support infrastructure for it. Most countries were more comfortable buying aircraft that were being used by a major power because it ensured that spare parts and training would be available for an extended period of time. Also export of the F-404 would have been a stumbling block at this time ESPECIALLY during a Carter administration. This was also the time when there was talk of an F-16/79 using a J-79 engine because there was a desire to restrict export of modern engines even to allies that we were willing to supply with F-16 class aircraft. The U.S. Gov't had just seen one of their most reliable allies who had bought some of our latest weapons get overthrown. The Carter Administration was very much pulling back on all arms sales and especially high tech ones. This threw the American arms sales environment into turmoil. There was little trust that any arms system was safe from cancellation and a system that did not have the volume procurement that a U.S. purchase implied was not considered safe.
 
There is no Iranian revolution ittl, hence Carter gets a second term. In saying that, I expect his caution regarding arms exports to be moderated towards the middle of his second term.

Understand all of your points.
 
One possible way to save the F-5G/F-20 is to have the USAF and USN decide to acquire a few squadron's worth for the Aggressor Squadrons based on the positive experience with the F-5E in that role. Maybe some countries will then view that as enough of a commitment on the part of the US to decide is worth it.
 
If somehow Northrup can convince the Department of the Air Force to buy a few hundred for the Air National Guard's air defense fighter program that would historically go-to the F-16A Block 15 ADF. The ANG recieved 270 airframes beginning in 1989. That may be enough to help generate a foreign market for a lower cost alternative to F-16s.
 
Top