Jump to content

Northrop F-20 Tigershark for DCS


Recommended Posts

Why was the F-5E created for DCS World instead of Northrop F-20 Tigershark.

I would think the Northrop F-20 Tigershark information would have been declassified since it was not put into production for the USA or sold to foreign countries.

It would be a great jet for DCS world.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ditto for 59th_RAVENS - I doubt we'll ever see cancelled aircraft that saw no operational action - just because we end up guestimating a lot of things, plus other aircraft take priority.

 

So I'm afraid we probably won't be seeing any Tigersharks soon - only 3 of them were made, whereas the F-5E had well over 1000 and has multiple users. Even though it has a slight advantage over the F-5E we currently have.


Edited by Northstar98

Modules I own: F-14A/B, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, F-16CM, AJS-37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), UH-1H, Mi-8MTV2, P-47D, P-51D, FC3, MiG-15bis, Yak-52, CA, C-101, Hawk

Terrains I own: Syria, The Channel, SoH

 

System (RIP my old PC): Dell XPS 15 9570 w/ Intel i7-8750H, NVIDIA GTX 1050Ti Max-Q, 16GB DDR4, 500GB Samsung PM871 SSD (upgraded with 1TB Samsung 970 EVO Plus SSD)

 

VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro

 

Dreams: https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/list/mBG4dD

Link to post
Share on other sites

And there's your typical new guy's welcome to the forum. I'm sure there will be another 20 posts taking the piddle or insulting you before the end of the week.

 

You'll get used to it, no doubt.

Kit: i5 9600k;GA Z390D;32GB DDR4 3200;RTX2080Ti;Various SSD;VPC T50 HOTAS;Saitek Cessna Pro pedals;Valve Index;Oculus Quest 2

 

DCS World Guidesite

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes it is sad as when I joined, I was given a lot of help and great advice and now mostly salt and very little help..

 

The DCS community is far less helpful and much nastier than years past..

Sad really

"Pride is a poor substitute for intelligence."

RAMBO

Link to post
Share on other sites

Case in point, though: video gaming communities as a whole nowadays are pretty much just giant puddles of toxic waste.

 

About the F-20, it sure was a nifty concept and I personally think that some of the ideas behind it just might have been too smart for its own good. But as has been said, most people in DCS prefer to get their hands on more prolific types. While there are quite a few modules being released, close to release, in early access or whatever else (lets face it, with most of the 'upcoming' things we pretty much just guess), there definitely isn't the developer capacity to get all of the planes and helicopters we wish for.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a very interesting scenario though. Wasnt like the F-20 was a bad jet, was just the wrong time for it. But it would be very interesting to see what such a jet could have done. One of the strengths of a simulated world. YF-17 Cobra too for that matter.

- Jack of many DCS modules, master of none.

- Personal wishlist: F-15A, F-4S Phantom II, JAS 39A Gripen, SAAB 35 Draken, F-104 Starfighter, Panavia Tornado IDS.

 

| MSI Z87-G45 Gaming | i5-4670K @ 4.3Ghz | 32Gb DDR3 1600 | Asus GTX 1070 Strix OC | Samsung 850 Evo 250 & 500Gb | 40" Sony FullHD | Oculus Rift CV1 | Thrustmaster Warthog Stick (19.5cm extension) & Throttle | MFG Crosswind | Windows 10 |

Link to post
Share on other sites

The OP didn't ask for help on anything. He expressed an opinion so it's not unreasonable to expect counter arguments.

 

I continue to be stunned and amazed at, not only the depth of knowledge on this forum, but the fact that there are people who can, seemingly on demand, point people to the most obscure corners of even the oldest threads. This is a very helpful group on average...

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

http://www.476vfightergroup.com/content.php

High Quality Aviation Photography For Personal Enjoyment And Editorial Use.

www.crosswindimages.com

Link to post
Share on other sites
Why was the F-5E created for DCS World instead of Northrop F-20 Tigershark.

I would think the Northrop F-20 Tigershark information would have been declassified since it was not put into production for the USA or sold to foreign countries.

It would be a great jet for DCS world.

 

F-20 was a Prototype, F-5E-3 Was a Widely produced aircraft.

Windows 10 Pro, Ryzen 2700X @ 4.6Ghz, 32GB DDR4-3200 GSkill,

X470 Taichi Ultimate, 2x R7970 Lightnings Crossfired @ 1.1/6.0GHz,

3x ASUS VS248HP + Hanns·G HZ201HPB + Oculus HMD,

Thrustmaster Warthog HOTAS + MFDs, CH Fighterstick+Pro Throttle+Pro Pedals

Link to post
Share on other sites

I definitely agree with BB on that!!! Aside from the occasional snarky comment (guilty like most everyone ) and some unfair downchevks on a few posts this community is so much more lenient on off the wall comments and timeline requests. I see LOTS of posts that would have earned scathing remarks on the BiStudio forum website.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice thought but ED and coop devs actually make decisions who will work on next module. Prototypes are not valid sources for module developement and there is also many planes that have seen combat but still not developed like F104/105/16/ etc..


Edited by jackmckay
Link to post
Share on other sites
It is a very interesting scenario though. Wasnt like the F-20 was a bad jet, was just the wrong time for it. But it would be very interesting to see what such a jet could have done. One of the strengths of a simulated world. YF-17 Cobra too for that matter.

 

YF-17? You mean the prototype for the F-18? I think we know what that particular jet DID do.

Spoiler

tumblr_inline_mpv4v0zasI1rg41uj.gif

The troll formerly known as Zhukov

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
It is a very interesting scenario though. Wasnt like the F-20 was a bad jet, was just the wrong time for it. But it would be very interesting to see what such a jet could have done. One of the strengths of a simulated world. YF-17 Cobra too for that matter.

 

I agree wholeheartedly. The F-20 would be a great addition to DCS. As OP stated, it's possibly more likely that ED would get every shred of necessary spec documentation and licencing needed to reproduce the aircraft as accurately as possible.

 

The original F/A-18 Hornet is my favourite fighter jet of all time, so I too would like to experience its roots in the YF-17 Cobra. However, this one is extremely unlikely in DCS. As I understand it, the aircraft was never completed to "combat spec." Therefore many critical systems would need to be made up or borrowed from other aircraft. The F-20 is a different story, though.

 

I've read that the F-20 prototypes were completed to point that they were ready for delivery. Northrop made a real effort to get that plane in customer hands as soon as possible. I'm sure there are thousands of pages of detailed reports on this aircrafts performance, filed away in an archive somewhere. It could be the most accurate plane Eagle Dynamics ever made. And I think it's just as relevant as the Hornet or the F-16. It would also make a good alternative to the F-16 module, which may never see the light of day.

 

As another poster said, DCS would be a great environment for the F-20 to live on, and maybe prove itself against other similarly spec'd opponents.

 

To be clear, I UNDERSTAND what some of you are saying. ED want to include aircraft that saw actual combat, etc. And more importantly, completed aircraft, not prototypes. And as I just said, the F-20, whilst a combat virgin, is a complete design which was ready for export.

 

I just think DCS needs more aircraft. I'd love to see the Gripen, and/or the YAK-130 trainer. Modern airframes with gen 5 transitional tech, but that is just as unlikely as the F-16 or any other modern fighter still in prolific use. We got the F/A-18C, because it's in retirement phase. We didn't get the Super Hornet, because it's a new plane which is still being produced in numbers. And many of its systems are not available to the public eye, I'm sure.

 

Anyway. In short: yes, I too would love to see the F-20 in DCS, but I'm sure we never will.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasn't the F-20 a proprietary weapon system?

 

Yea just looked it up. Northrup spent their own nickle on it. So the real big problem would be getting info on it at all, as they have it locked away in their vaults.

 

Also I remember talking to someone that worked on it, and they said it has pretty darn short legs because of the F-404 engine.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Also I remember talking to someone that worked on it, and they said it has pretty darn short legs because of the F-404 engine.

 

The same could be said of the F-16. On paper, the two planes seem very comparable. I also read somewhere that the F-20 could turn inside the F-16, but that could just be marketing fluff. At the end of the day, both aircraft were originally built as light fighters. The F-16 has been lumped with strike duties now, and thus lugs around external tanks that rival it's main fuselage in size. With it's extra thrust and no doubt strengthened airframe, I'm sure the F-20 could happily lug around similar fuel bags if the need arose.

 

Oh and you initially mentioned the info on the fighter being held in a vault somewhere. This is true, but due to the status of the aircraft, and the fact that Northrop Grumman would own everything to do with it, there should be no Government red tape to get through in order to reproduce it. This is precicely why I believe it would be a great plane to pursue development of.

 

We need more modern aircraft in DCS. Even though the F-20 never saw combat, I think it could still have a place in DCS.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The F-16A was never short legged or even considered short legged at the time - but the F-20 would have struggled with that small fuel load and the thrust they wanted to put in it. A-G loadout potential was worse (low set wing) and pretty much no potential for growth.

 

You will find a lot of the comparisons from Northrop in the day related to the F-16/J79 which was a downgraded version for export and that was to be the primary F-20 market.

 

Someone on the program stated that climb and acceleration were similar to the F-16A block 10 but turn performance was worse - in fact technically it only had one thing over the Block 10 and that was the cockpit and avionics.

 

Financially it also made far more sense to build more F-16s due to economies of scale.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Before we get carried away, does anyone know for certain that the required data even exists? Do we know whether there is independent data on the aircraft performance? I mean no respect to Northrop, but surely one can recognize why relying solely on Northrop's records might pose a few problems, and that's assuming that Northrop has all of the information that would be required to build the flight model. There's also the minor problem that very few people have flown the F-20, so how would one know whether the flight model was even correct?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Any flight test data/performance charts would surely be in a Northrop Grumman archive somewhere (FOIA perhaps) - however that would probably only be for the 3 prototypes that were built. In the mid 80s they were working on a fourth enlarged F-20 - but that was never completed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...