Comments by "Be Kind To Birds" (@BeKindToBirds) on "Ed Nash's Military Matters" channel.

@michaelm8973 It was not better. It had some advantages over the F-22 but had many drawbacks. The F-22 has proven that the decision was an absolutely correct one, the US is still light years ahead of the competition, a marginal increase in stealth and speed simply wasn't necessary for us to maintain dominance. It was absolutely the correct choice to go with the cheaper, easier to maintain, and more robust design. I adore the YF-23 but it is a much better experimental bird than one that serves as the primary interceptor for decades.
1
@Knightfang1 Also the exhaust tiles were an extremely maintenance intensive element, the Air Force was worried about how well it would stand up and what would happen when the platform aged.
1
@hphp31416 Not wouldn't, it would have had even less built and be even more expensive with it's unique maintenance problems. And it carried the exact same armament internally that the Raptor does so I'm not sure what you mean there? Do you think we are starving for raptors to carry a heavier external payload or something? History has proven it the correct decision by far, I adore the 23 but we really didn't need the speed/range and stealth at all, we are so far ahead of our competitors and haven't had any threat to require the raptor at all. And it's superior maneuverability was also a wise gamble. Honestly I have no idea what about our current air to air situation or any air battle in the last 30 years that would lead you to conclude we needed faster and stealthier in trade for netter to maintain and more maneuverable. The time for the YF-23 hasn't come and is very far away on even the worst fears of what our adversary nations are building.
1
@glennridsdale577 It isn't remotely a myth. There are numerous design decisions that increase it's survivability and decades of proof of the same. And we haven't even yet had the greatest test of the aircraft and it's greatest strength: it's logistical dependability. You, like many others, forget that the A-10 is meant to be easy to refurbish from the battlefield and cheap to manufacture. Which is a quality that wins wars. To say nothing of its loiter time, payload, firepower, or morale effect. If the Army has any say whatsoever the A-10 will fly until the exact same things can be done better, probably by an aircraft with almost the exact same features and design decisions.
1
@dashikashi4734 Thank you for your opinion brand new account. How is the weather in st Petersburg?
1