China’s state-linked commentators are trying to write the obituary of the F-47 before the jet has even left the factory floor, casting the United States’ flagship sixth generation program as a relic in the making. Their message is blunt: Beijing’s own stealth projects, including tailless demonstrators and the emerging J-36, are already ahead of the American Next Generation Air Dominance effort. The reality is more complicated, and the gap between rhetoric and verifiable data is where the real story sits.
On one side, Chinese analysts insist the F-47 is conceptually dated, too expensive and too slow to arrive. On the other, the U.S. Air Force is betting that a networked “system of systems” built around the F-47, loyal wingman drones and advanced sensors will reset the airpower balance for the 2030s. The contest is less about a single airframe and more about which country can turn design theory into sustainable combat power first.
Beijing’s “already obsolete” narrative
Chinese military commentators have seized on early renderings of the F-47 to argue that the United States is behind the curve in stealth design. Analysts linked to the PLA frame the jet’s planform and control surfaces as conservative, claiming that Chinese engineers are already experimenting with more radical tailless layouts and refined shaping that reduce radar returns from multiple angles. In their telling, the American program is locked into yesterday’s assumptions while Chinese teams iterate faster and accept more risk at the prototype stage.
Those same Analysts have used the label “already obsolete” to describe the NGAD concept, arguing that Chinese projects inspired by the J-20 and newer demonstrators will outclass the F-47 by the time it reaches operational service. Their commentary, amplified through PLA-adjacent outlets, casts the Chinese effort as a nimble challenger and the American one as a lumbering incumbent, even as they acknowledge that the United States still fields large fleets of F-35 and F-22 fighters that any new Chinese design would have to counter in real combat.
J-36 hype versus hard data
The sharpest Chinese criticism leans on the emerging J-36, presented as a tailless stealth fighter that proves Beijing has already moved to a new generation of design. Commentators describe a late 2024 test flight as evidence that China is now experimenting with configurations that promise lower drag and smaller radar signatures than traditional tailed fighters. The message for American audiences is clear: by the time the F-47 is ready, the J-36 will have matured into a frontline platform that has already digested lessons from earlier Chinese stealth programs.
Yet the public record on the J-36 is thin. Chinese sources tout the J-36 and the number 36 as a symbol of a new phase in stealth development, but they have not released verifiable performance metrics, radar cross section data or weapons integration details that would allow a serious comparison with the F-47. By contrast, U.S. officials have at least outlined the broad contours of the NGAD approach, including the plan for the F-47 Fighter from U.S. Air Force inventories to work alongside uncrewed systems, even if they have kept specific range and sensor figures classified. The asymmetry in transparency makes it hard to treat Chinese boasts as more than strategic messaging at this stage.
Inside the F-47 concept: more than a single jet
Where Chinese critics focus on the silhouette of the aircraft, the U.S. Air Force describes the F-47 as the centerpiece of a wider NGAD ecosystem. The design is intended to operate with “loyal wingman” drones that can carry sensors, jammers or weapons, allowing the crewed jet to stay further from the most dangerous threats while still shaping the fight. This concept of operations is meant to turn the F-47 into a quarterback for a distributed formation rather than a lone duelist, a shift that matters more than any single tweak to the airframe’s outline.
Reporting on the NGAD program highlights that the F-47 is part of a planned $20 billion revolution in air dominance, with advanced sensors, networking and electronic warfare capabilities built in from the start. Advocates argue that this architecture will let the jet adapt to new threats through software and modular payloads, rather than relying on major structural redesigns every decade. That approach is central to the claim that the F-47 will remain relevant into the 2030s even as rival air forces field new platforms of their own.
Timelines, budgets and the “math death spiral” fear
Chinese commentators have also zeroed in on the F-47’s schedule and cost, arguing that a jet expected to fly later this decade cannot credibly be called cutting edge. U.S. Air Force leaders have said the first F-47 is already under construction and is expected to make its initial flight in 2028, with the goal of eventually replacing the F-22 Raptor in the air superiority role. That timeline reflects both the complexity of the technology and the political reality of securing long term funding for a program that will not deliver combat squadrons overnight.
On the money side, the 2026 U.S. defense request channels about $3.5 billion into the F-47 and its associated NGAD efforts, a shift that comes partly at the expense of additional F-35 purchases. Analysts have warned that a projected unit cost around $300 million per jet risks creating a “math death spiral” in which rising prices force smaller buys, which in turn push costs even higher. U.S. officials counter that the F-47 is Built to Adapt, with The Air Force emphasizing that a more flexible design and shorter production runs should avoid some of the sustainment traps that plagued earlier programs.
Trump, Boeing and the politics of prestige
President Donald Trump has wrapped the F-47 in the language of national prestige, publicly touting it as the first true sixth generation fighter and a symbol of American industrial strength. His administration selected Boeing to build the jet for the Air Force under The Next Generation Air Dominance banner, handing the company a marquee program that will shape its military portfolio for decades. That decision also signaled a shift away from Lockheed Martin’s dominance of recent fighter contracts, redistributing political and economic stakes across the U.S. defense sector.
Chinese commentators have tried to turn that symbolism against Washington. One prominent Chinese military affairs expert, Zhang Xuefeng, mocked Trump’s F-47 as an outdated old design and described Boeing as unreliable after Examining the USAF concept images, arguing that the jet’s intakes and control surfaces reflected conservative thinking. Those critiques are as much about undermining Trump’s narrative of technological leadership as they are about the aircraft itself, and they play into a broader Chinese effort to portray U.S. defense primes as bloated incumbents that struggle to deliver on time and on budget.
More from Morning Overview
*This article was researched with the help of AI, with human editors creating the final content.
