[throw0101a]

> The talking heads from the military may talk about 'invisibility', but they are full of shit. Just propaganda for the tax payer.

I think a distinction needs to be made between proverbial "invisibility" and stealth, and the technical definition. If general conversations included, say, backscatter coefficients you'd start seeing glazed eyes. Or perhaps area equivalence (square-footage? square-metrage?).

> The problem is the physical size of the jet.

Also: vertical stabilizers.

[ambicapter]

Stabilizers on these fighter jets are heavily canted, aren't they?

[greedo]

Yes, but that merely limits the damage to a small degree. Fighters need vertical stabilizers because they require higher maneuverability than flying wings. And current aerospace design capabilities can't overcome it, though bendable (wing warping technology) wings might eventually.

[throw0101a]

Boeing's vaporware proposal for a 6G fighter has no VSes:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F/A-XX_Program

[greedo]

Yup, thrust vectoring will help add control authority. But vertical stabilizers don't necessarily contribute to the amount of G's an aircraft can pull. It depends on how they're measuring it. With an aircraft lacking VS, you could simply pull/push up down to get high G, or roll and do the same.