This approach comes with hidden cost of adding unnecessary complexity. Think about B2 bomber design: it looks like some "artist" wanted to recreate a Batplane, or other sci-fi spacecraft and then it took a lot of engineering effort to make the thing of such ridiculous shape to actually fly in stable, predictable manner.
Actually the shape of a B2 is very much influenced by it's function and only mildly by the desire to "look cool". (Though that is important too, apparently the F35 contract went to Lockheed Martin instead of to Boeing because the specs of both proposal were nearly identical but the LM one looked much better)
A "stealth" aircraft is not stealthy from all directions (nor does it need to be) but is optimized for bouncing the radar waves away from the direction of its target. The best shape for this would be to build the plane in the shape of an infinitely long flat surface, but since those are too expensive the "infinitely long" part is usually scrapped. Even shorter flat surfaces have terrible aerodynamical properties though, so there's often a compromise to make it more like a triangle. Then of course it needs to carry stuff like pilots, engines and bombs, so it can't be extermely flat but has to be bulbous. The engines need air intakes but radar waves bouncing off the rotating blades of a jet engine compressor have a very distinct signature in the frequency spectrum, so it makes sense to move the air intakes to the top of the plane where ground based radars can't shine into them. A similar thing goes for the outlets, but those need to be extremely heat resistant as well. To prevent the hot gases from flowing over an extended area of the fuselage you move the trailing edge of the triangle a bit forward. Then there are some more requirements like visibility for the pilots during take off and landing that put bounds on where the cockpit can be. Looks were very much a last consideration for the B2 and pretty much all of of its shape is due to its mission requirements :)
> apparently the F35 contract went to Lockheed Martin instead of to Boeing because the specs of both proposal were nearly identical but the LM one looked much better
People love to repeat this, but it's wrong. Yes the Boeing plane was ugly with the large air scoop, but it also was a great plane whereas the Lockheed Martin plane was a terrific plane. At the time of selection, the Boeing plane could not VTOL with all the bodywork in place (landing gear doors for instance) yes the LM plane had just completed a vertical landing after a supersonic flight. Also, not since the age of propellers had Boeing designed a combat aircraft, whereas Lockheed did the SR71, U2, F117, and a host of other innovative aircraft.
The one thing that the Boeing aircraft had going for it was the single-piece wing. The JSF competition was primarily to design an affordable plane, and the Boeing probably would have been much less expensive to build and qualify.
just on that.The B2's design is mostly about decreasing its radar footprint and nothing else. its curvy because they finally had the computers to design it that way. The nighthawk was all angles because they didn't have the computing to build the thing in a more aerodynamic fashion.
