What The F-47’s Canards Say About The Rest Of Its Design

We actually learned quite a bit about the F-47 during the Oval Office presser and statements that came after it. So far, these have included two official renders of it, which are the source of many of the most pressing questions about Boeing’s winning concept, its design goals, and its relevance to future conflicts. Arguably its most prominent and puzzling feature depicted are canard foreplanes. For an aircraft that was thought to be optimized for low observability (stealth), range, payload, and speed, not maneuverability, this is a surprise. Its potential implications are numerous.

To catch up on everything we know about the F-47, as well as our initial analysis, click here.

By most all assumptions, the F-47 remains a tailless design — a stealthy configuration that is challenging to impart stability upon, especially for a tactical jet designed to operate over a very wide performance envelope. This design challenge can be overcome, but, as with any aircraft design, sacrifices must be made. This would likely come in the form of maneuverability, above all else. Thrust vectoring can potentially solve some of this deficiency, but adding that feature increases weight and cost, and makes the aircraft more complex. Considering the presence of canards, it would seem that agility may have remained a primary design driver for Boeing’s F-47. If this is indeed the case, and the renders are not a misdirection, it would explain other interesting aspects of the design while also pointing to broader decisions that have been made in secret for the Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) ecosystem, of which the F-47 acts as a centerpiece.

Canards became very popular on 4th generation European fighters that featured delta wings, such as the Eurofighter EF2000 Typhoon, Dassault Rafale, and Saab JAS-39 Gripen. Certain variants of the Sukhoi Flanker series, as well as the Su-34 Fullback, feature canards, as well. China’s J-10 also leverages them in a similar configuration as the ‘Eurocanard’ fighters. They offer significantly enhanced maneuverability and additional stability, including at high angles of attack, especially for delta-wing aircraft.

The big drawback to adding canards is that they are historically problematic for achieving a very high degree of radar-evading stealth, especially from the frontal hemisphere, which is most critical to a tactical jet’s survival. China’s first stealth fighter, the J-20, has been maligned for its use of canards for this very reason, for instance.

This is even further magnified when it comes to achieving very low observability (VLO), also sometimes referred to as ‘broadband’ stealth. We have talked about this for many years, but this overriding design goal is to make the aircraft hard to detect from all aspects, especially at distance, by numerous radar systems that operate across a larger swath of the radio frequency (RF) spectrum. In other words, the design, unlike other stealthy fighters, is not just optimized to primarily evade fire-control type radars that usually operate in and around the x-band. Infrared signature reduction is also heavily factored, as is RF emissions control, among other elements, to achieve VLO design goals. The B-21 Raider stealth bomber was built with broadband LO as a primary design driver, for instance, that will help it survive even in the presence of increasingly advanced, deeply networked, and diverse integrated air defense systems.

It’s also possible that these canards could be static fixtures that do not maneuver as part of the flight control system, and primarily help with lift during certain parts of the flight envelope. This seems unlikely, but it would provide a fixed variable that may be easier to overcome in regard to dynamic radar signature than maneuvering canards. At the same time, this would be another major tradeoff with even less clear advantages, which would be even more puzzling.

A usable source for the impact of canards on radar signatures versus agility comes from the “Investigation Into The Impact Of Agility In Conceptual Fighter Design” study by NASA from 1995. It pits various advanced fighter design configurations against each other to highlight the tradeoffs and advantages of each for different mission sets. Clearly, canards are good for agility, but not great for radar signature:

It’s also worth noting that Boeing’s canard and lambda wing concept featured in the NASA study has some similar characteristics to the F-47 renders we have seen. Beyond the canards, nose, and presumably tailless design, we really don’t know how deep the similarities go. Still, it’s worth noting that Northrop Grumman’s B-21’s design is based on the company’s original Advanced Technology Bomber (ATB) concept that led to the B-2, so it’s not like partially recycling old stealth combat aircraft concepts isn’t a relevant practice.

One slide, posted by our friend Gripen News over on X, that is from the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program – which Boeing competed for, but Lockheed Martin won with what became the F-35 – gives a bit more qualitative look at the impact of canards on a stealthy fighter design. It shows that it does have an impact on radar signature, but the difference does not appear to be extreme. Keep in mind this is extremely generalized information and there are many elements that go into radar cross-section measurements, including angle, frequency, position of the control surfaces, and more.

It’s also worth noting that there have been plenty of stealthy fighter concepts that have featured canards, although only the J-20 made it into production. Perhaps most notably, some concepts from the U.S. Joint Advanced Strike Technology (JAST) and Advanced Short Take-Off/Vertical Landing (ASTOVL) initiatives, which led to the F-35, had canards. Various configurations that were part of the early Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF) program that gave birth to the F-22 Raptor did as well. So the use of canards on stealthy aircraft hasn’t been historically taboo.

Regardless, canards don’t outright gel with advanced broadband VLO goals for a design, which raises a lot of questions. First off, has Boeing made other breakthroughs that can minimize this design feature’s impact while still retaining its benefits? The use of advanced composites that can include frequency transparent structures with baffles beneath can help defeat certain bands of incoming radar emissions, depending on how the canards are positioned at any given time. As we have noted many times before, stealth treatments are more than just shaping and radar-absorbent material coatings. Even more exotic design tactics could be used to offset the canards’ radar reflectivity. Morphing control surface structures are even a possibility. Still, how much any of these measures can overcome what is obviously a hurdle to achieving a very high degree of broadband stealth is unclear.

There is also the possibility that the F-47 aircraft is modular to a degree. Early on, it was officially stated that the NGAD fighter may have two distinct configurations. One for a shorter-range ‘European’ configuration and one more optimized to the vastness and tactical challenges of the Pacific. Basically, one was better suited for more of a traditional fighter role at the sacrifice of endurance and vice versa. This would be achieved through having different wing configurations. Canards on the ‘European’ variant to go along with the wing change would make sense. Later, the USAF said that this was abandoned, but we don’t know for sure if it could have been revived after the program halt, which happened last summer, and the Trump administration’s subsequent F-47 selection. This is just worth mentioning as a caveat. We have no indication that two configurations of the F-47 will be made available.

While there is a lot we don’t know, it does at least seem that somewhere along the way the decision was made by Boeing that adding canards to the aircraft was worth the tradeoffs. But why? One could assume that Boeing bet the USAF would want a fighter in the traditional sense, not a very heavy tactical platform that prioritizes range, payload, and low observability above almost anything else. China has gone in this direction with one of its two 6th generation fighter designs, the ‘J-36,’ which you can read all about in detail here.

Short field performance, which canards and a lighter airframe would help make possible, may have also become a design goal for the USAF considering what we are seeing with the Agile Combat Employment initiative that is consuming future Air Force war plans in the Pacific. It’s also possible that less of a premium on stealth and more on traditional fighter performance may have been selected, along with larger investments in electronic warfare capabilities, to hedge against the possibility that stealth technology will become less effective against highly advanced integrated air defense networks in the coming decades. This, and the reality that drones and standoff weaponry will be thrust into the heart of the most hotly contested areas, not manned aircraft, at least initially.

If this is indeed the case, while it remains very tough to gauge the size of the aircraft accurately by limited concept art, the F-47’s potentially smaller size (still likely in the heavy fighter class) may also be indicative of this different design motivation. In other words, this aircraft could end up being smaller and lighter than what many may have expected, with a focus on engine efficiency and reduced weapons payload to help enhance its combat radius over gross fuel volume.

This could make sense to some degree considering weapons and some sensor capabilities will be distributed to unmanned Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCAs) and other craft that will be working at the direction of the F-47’s crew. This could substantially lower cost and complexity, potentially allowing for more aircraft to be built for the same amount of money. However, going with a more traditional fighter concept would have some massive tradeoffs and would change the nature of the NGAD ecosystem beyond the manned jet alone.

A smaller and more fighter-optimized aircraft would likely mean less range. Even with an efficient airframe and new Next Generation Adaptive Propulsion (NGAP) engines, you can only pack so much jet fuel in an internal volume and thus can only go so far without tanker support. That tanker support is an increasing vulnerability that can break America’s entire tactical airpower chain during a fight against China’s anti-access fortress in the Pacific. We have been pointing this out for many years, and in 2017, we made the case that a stealthy tanker would be needed just to get American fighter aircraft into a China fight. At the time, that piece was met with a lot of hate and love, but now the Air Force has admitted this exact vulnerability with its notoriously tanker-dependent fighter force and is potentially perusing a stealthy tanker. The decision to do so is very much wrapped up in what the NGAD fighter would look like or if it would be pursued at all.

A very large, long-range NGAD tactical jet would not need tanking support in contested areas. A shorter range and possibly cheaper alternative could in various scenarios. Getting the NGAD mix right, which includes the Next Generation Aerial Refueling System (NGAS), was what the Air Force had to study in order to get to the very high-stakes decision on how to move forward correctly. This is why the NGAD fighter program was put on hold last year. The mix of new NGAD drones, weapons, sensors, communications, manned tactical jets, and yes, tankers, had to be reexamined against the budget realities facing the flying service and the potency of future threats. During this period, a significantly dialed-back NGAD fighter was discussed, one that could come in at a price point comparable to modern fighters being sold today, not three times as much as was originally forecasted. You can read our piece about what this could look here.

In the end, what we do know is that the resulting study from the NGAD pause made it clear that the USAF needed a sixth-generation manned tactical jet. The messaging couldn’t have been clearer on this, and we saw the new Trump administration jump very fast to move forward on the decision. What we don’t know is why the F-47 was chosen over its competition. Clearly, the Boeing aircraft appears different than what many expected, with the canards being a major tell when taken at face value. So the big question becomes, is this aircraft a cheaper NGAD fighter alternative that is more fighter than heavy tactical jet cruiser? We simply don’t know, but there are some additional indications this may be the case.

During the Oval Office presser, it was mentioned that the F-47 will be bought in large numbers. This was never a thing associated with the manned NGAD tactical jet. In fact, former Secretary of Air Force Frank Kendall highlighted how expensive it would be, roughly around three times the cost of an F-35, and that only around 200 would likely be acquired. It was also mentioned in the presser that the F-47 would be sold to allies. This is also a totally new concept, not just on cost grounds but security grounds, as well. The F-22 was banned from export for this reason even though multiple allies wanted it badly. At the same time, it was said the F-47 would fly farther, be stealthier, and be more reliable and maintainable than the USAF’s current 5th generation fighters, but exactly how much in terms of range and stealth is the big question. Are we talking about 50% more combat radius or 300% more? This is a huge deal because if it’s a significant increase, but far below what a very heavy tactical jet could achieve, this would likely require the NGAS stealth tanker, which could have been an agreed upon tradeoff, as well. Less capability, smaller airframe, but you get a stealthy tanker out of the deal that can refuel lots of things.

We just don’t know the nature of these details at this time.

I think it’s fair to say that what we see in the F-47 wasn’t exactly what many expected, which makes the aircraft all the more intriguing. A large, very stealthy, arrowhead-shaped tailless delta-winged aircraft seemed the most plausible to meet NGAD requirements. The aircraft we have seen so far seems quite different, and it appears a bit smaller, with its positive dihedral wings, shovel nose, and canards. It looks more like a cross between the Bird of Prey, the X-36, and even Iran’s massively maligned Qaher 313, than many of the NGAD silhouettes and concept art we have become accustomed to.

Of course, that could change once we see more of it and learn additional information about its design philosophy, as well as the ecosystem that will underpin it.

Contact the author: Tyler@twz.com