>>512529910
>1) You are giving BS numbers that no one really knows about except experts who have access to secret info
The principles are very well known by now and computer modelling, even civilian, often comes close enough to the real figures that they are usable.
What the civilian models miss in terms of RAM capability can often be estimated (usually less than -10db), and the smoothness in the "hobbyist" models often already compensates for this.
Your nonsensical "argument" could maybe hold water in 1985 when Ufimtsevs formulas were largely unknown.
Not only that, I'm basing this on manufacturer claims by the mutts.
They are the ones saying that it will be as stealthy as the B-2, but it will be much more affordable and maintainable.
They are the ones saying that the B-2 was less stealthy than the F-117.
I'm just summarizing what they say and assuming they aren't hyping their own products.
