From: Adam <""4thwormcastfromthemolehill\"{at}the field.near
the bridge">

Robert Comer wrote:
>> Oh what like the F20 you mean? Yup.....great plane......
>
> Never heard of the F20.
>

http://www.fighter-planes.com/info/f20.htm

"The previous name of this fighter was F-5G, indicating that it was a
single-engined development of the F-5. The F-20 had 80% more engine power,
modern avionics, and an enlarged wing. It was a capable aircraft but found
no customer, because the USAF preferred to stick with the F-16. It was also
offered to the USN in the "aggressor" role, but was again
rejected in favour of the F-16. Without home market there was little hope
for export orders. Three built."

"The F-20 was reliable and easy to maintain. 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://www.californiasciencecenter.org/Exhibits/AirAndSpace/AirAndAircraft/F20/
F20.php

etc.

The ultimate F5

>> But they're all like dinosaurs watching at the new bright light in the
>> sky grow in size.
>>
>> Manned a/c are so 20th century.
>
> Cheaper, yes, maneuverable, yes, but they wont work as a main attacking air
> force for the very same reason the F22 wont work -- the
> electronics/detection side.  I could see it being a good defensive force, at
> least until the attacking forces bring in their jammers.  (and the drones
> are going to be to dumb to "wing" it in a fight)
>

Humm... depends on the mission. If you have a "clear the skys"
mission, then ......no real need for comms with the drone

Adam

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5