False, it was advertised on more then one occasion during its development that it was to be 120 launch capable.
Id much rather they give us the ability to carry 4xaim7s with the dual launchers then the 120s, fox3 gameplay is garbage and deserves its own MM.
1 Like
The dual mount were dummy weapons intended for testing/demonstration.
Especially with the lack of countermeasures of the existing aircraft, you’d have to honestly add BOL pods to the next F-20 to make it even “okay” with AIM-120s.
The F-20 we have is of the completed models, thus falls under the rules of entirely completed XP-38G, F2G1, A2D-1, Su-9, Su-11, Ki-83, VB10C-1, and so forth. Allegedly Mirage 4000 is one of them as well, I can’t fully remember.
AKA, it’s not a Kikka or Ho 229.
@sugarstudd
That is an AIM-7 being launched, not an AIM-120.
1 Like
I know that’s a aim7 which is why I said id rather they give the plane the ability to carry 4 aim7s instead of 120s. FYI the f-20should have the AN/ALE countermeasure dispenser on the wing pylons. If you look at any of the picture of the plane it does not carry the standard F-5 CM mounting on the underside of the plane .
I hope this is easier to read
1 Like
Those are very specifically mockups
By the time the F-20 was intended to enter the export market and actually equip AMRAAM, there was an entirely different production aircraft compared to prototypes 2 and 3 that had been conceptualized, that being prototype 4.
Proto 4 would’ve had a larger 200 square foot wing, larger LERXs, 18,000 lbf rated F404-100A, re-designed nose with an extended range APG-67, and fully digital flight control system (as well as a wide-angle HUD).
This 4th prototype which was likely going to be the one with proper wiring/Integration of AMRAAM was never finished, and was scrapped by the program’s cancellation in 1986. There isn’t even any info on whether or not the proposed “Extended Range” APG-67 nor uprated F404-100A were actually built or even finished, all we have info on is in regards to the general idea.
The F-20 we have in-game represents Prototypes 2 and 3 (due to having not only the original HUD, but also AIM-7F and AGM-65B), primarily what it was actually tested with from 1983 to 1986. The only thing added on by Gaijin was the AIM-9L, due to the fact that the F-20 likely never actually tested it during the program (notice how all pictures of the F-20 with Sidewinders only ever shows it with AIM-9J/N/P).
The F-20 would’ve had the same CM dispenser as the F-5E, which it currently does in-game.
As for what I am assuming you mean to be the ALE-37 CM pods:
There is an image of an F-5E with one of those pods equipped on the centerline, but there’s nothing that can actually benefit a bug report to enable to the F-20 nor F-5E to get them (due to them not being mentioned in any of the flight manuals)
Obviously, so was the ordnance on the Yak-141.
The Yak-141 also has the distinction of being in the TT, as well as not having all of its ordnance either.
Along with that, there’s also BR placement: if the F-20 gets AMRAAMs, it is gonna move up to face F-16Cs and F-15Cs, probably being at least 13.3. That’s putting this thing far above its capabilities, especially if the flight performance finally gets nerfed in the future.
The F-20 should not get AMRAAMs, simple as
Opinions are fun aren’t they… no point in continuing this discourse.
I may need to check some books/files on the f-20 I have but I dont recall in any of the pictures of the 3 prototype any of them sharing the flare/chaff dispenser on the underside like the F-5 does(I might be wrong).
Yeah the flight manual is lacking in info , but various info does list that the flare dispenser was wing mounted on the same pylon the aim7/aim120 would have been.
Id rather hope it would have been similar to the wing pylon mounted AN/ALE 40 which would still allow it to carry weaponry along with the dispenser .
1 Like
Wha’t the point of that disscusion? Gaijin made F-20 the way they wanted to fit specific place on its BR and never will significantly change pack aircraft.
1 Like
Perhaps the variable BRs based on load outs might be a solution to the problems being faced here in terms of not wanting BRs to change and the vehicle supposedly being incapable of handing a BR raise, as that way those who want to have Aim-120As, but at a higher BR can do so (and gaijin would have a ARH capable premium which is privately going to happen some time in the future anyway, same thing with the Bison is my assumption). Idk just a thought :P
Also @MiG_23M his “opinions” aren’t just opinions, you’re talking to one of the biggest F-5G/F-20 Tigershark nerds on the forums. He stated a lot of facts that you’re seemingly neglecting. Although I may agree that the F-20A deserves to be given ARH capability in the future (just because of my personal bias towards the plane, its legacy, and its intended features for production standards) I can’t dispute the fact that the F-20A represented ingame is very definitely incapable of firing the Aim-120A AMRAAMs, at least without some software upgrades. The rails are capable of mounting them yes, and the radar is theoretically capable of guiding them yes, but the systems onboard are most definitely incapable of using and firing the Aim-120A which didn’t yet exist at the time.
1 Like
The in-game Yak-141 is incapable of firing anything because it’s pixels on a screen. Still has R-27. None of the aforementioned points were really points. Every “reason” for not adding AMRAAM’s to the F-20 is negated by the fact that the Yak-141 exists. Premium or not, does not matter. The F-5C is literally in the same family tree and has a-historical flare / chaff pods.
Crying about whether or not you WANT it to come with AMRAAM’s does not dismiss the fact that Gaijin could simply add them at any point and it wouldn’t be an outlandish decision on their part. Not compared to anything else.
It’s possible that it’s refering to a illumination flare dispenser.
1 Like
That would likely be correct
Yeah, the manual lacking definitive info on weapons carriage is disappointing but also understandable, seeing as it was primarily used by Northrop and foreign test pilots who were either demonstrating the aircraft or doing test flights/evaluations.
Weaponry wasn’t as important as takeoff/landing procedures, flight envelopes, etc
I do have this, which is from Air Force Legends #228 F-20A Tigershark (by Paul Metz), which was likely taken directly from either the Northrop archives or the author’s own collection from when he worked on the Tigershark program. This likely comes from earlier, probably 1983 at the latest
TT variant when?
I mean, the only way to get a TT variant using an existing Tigershark would be Prototype 1, which would be laughable at best
:( could get the same plane
Not really how War thunder vehicles and premiums work my friend. Only viable option of getting “the same plane” would be an early and late variation, but there not enough differences in avionics or armament refuting the different time periods this plane existed in, regarding the “F-20A” represented ingame.
Best thing you could possibly get in terms of the Tigershark, would likely be an earlier prototype that would probably be called the F-5G ingame. You would get the standard single engine F-5 type of gameplay, but with no radar missiles, and only Aim-9Js/P4s. Would probably be a total of around 2/4/6 missiles. (Dont know about underwing stations in terms of carrying other sidewinders or the dual rail.) oh and no radar gunsight.
1 Like