This is not a vent board or any other kind of therapy. Before you hit the POST button, ask yourself if your contribution will add to the level of discussion going on.

Important notes on articles:

• Please do not copy entire articles into your post; rather, provide links to them.. We are now links-only for ALL Internet publications. If only a small portion of the article pertains to your post, Fair Use allows you to copy those one or two paragraphs, provided you cite the author's name and the publication for which he writes. Otherwise, put a link in the HTTP Link box.
• Even if you're copying a reference to an article, provide a link to the page from which the article came. We're trying to cut down on duplicate topics, and the posting process will check the link to your article to see if it's already being discussed on this board. At the very least, you'll save yourself some grief on the boards.
• If your first reaction after reading the article you're going to share is the author is uninformed / stupid / a jerk / all of the above, it's not worth sharing with anyone. Not every article needs to be discussed. The more the hair-pulling articles are discussed (e.g. ESPN Page 2), the more the authors will write hair-pulling articles.

Post being replied to

Not accurate. by Bobby OShea

The F-23 had a stack of "non-compliance" issues with their aircraft.
I will only address the 2 largest of them.

1. "Vectored Thrust Nozzles". This was probably the biggest. It was one of THE main requirements in the proposal. Northrop just didn't do it (in their prototype). They had some white papers on it...but nothing more. Lockheed dumped Millions and millions into solving this problem. The YF-22 had it, and is why even at a larger airframe can fly circles around an F16. They demonstrated it during the fly-off competitions.

2. Ordinance Delivery: The prototypes were required to actually launch a missile. The F-22 demostrated that...again, the F-23 did not / could not. The YF-22 had successful launch of an AMRAAM during fly off demonstration.

You can argue all day what aircraft was "better" (subjective), but you cannot argue as to which aircraft was "better built to spec"(measureable facts).

There was talk of issues with the F23 that would be "fixed in production", and the term "buy it broke, fix it latter" was used...maybe this is where your "post-sale" language comes in.

Disclosure: I worked on the YF-22, and was intimately aware/informed on how the competition played out. I would have worked on the project for decades, but they moved it from Burbank/Palmdale to Georgia.