>>64412768
>I accept your defeat.
>Ignores the other 99% of my post addressing the topic of stealth designs
I accept your defeat and acknowledge your cope. You are forgiven, my son. Now, address the other 99% you conveniently didn't reply to. Here, I'll even repost it, just so you don't have to do any work:
>>64412547
>Funny how there's more variety and differences within US programs than between US and Chinese stealth platforms. For example, the YF-22 and YF-23 are constrained by the same design and mission parameters under the ATF program, yet look nothing alike. They use different fuselage designs, wing designs, tail designs, intake designs, and exhaust designs. Same for the JSF program: the XF-35 looks nothing like the XF-32, yet, they're competing against each other under the same mission criteria constraints. Even the McDonnell-Douglas/BAE/Northrop JSF design looked individualistic enough as to not be confused with the XF-35 or XF-32. Then you have the Boeing Quite Bird, Boeing Bird of Prey, Boeing X-36, Boeing TAFA, Boeing Model 988, Lockheed Martin ICE, Lockheed Martin ESAVE, Boeing MRF-24X, Northrop MRF-54E all looking different enough as to not be confused with each other, and all of them are stealth designs. Hell, even Project Gusto's (that gave us the A-12/SR-71) competitors looked nothing alike, even though the mission parameters were identical for both - and yes, stealth was part of those constraints. Lockheed's A-12 looked nothing like Convair's King FISH. Physics and mission constraints are the problem: the problem is blatant copying by China, and then the cope that follows when someone points out the obvious copying.
2/2