Russian media: The U.S. sixth-generation fighter might be a copy of the "Chinese version."

No, Chinese experts have a different perspective.

Russian media outlet "Today's China" published an article.

Last weekend, media outlets released information about the discovery of a so-called "ghost aircraft," with experts identifying its silhouette as "similar to the U.S. sixth-generation fighter F-47."

Based on publicly available footage, it is highly certain that this aircraft adopts a "duck configuration" layout featuring a triangular lifting wing.

Some experts believe the aircraft seen hovering above the U.S. "Area 51" is merely a standard replica or upgraded variant of China's Chengdu J-20 all-weather stealth fighter developed by Chengdu Aircraft Industry (Group), with an extremely similar appearance.

However, Chinese industry insiders argue: the U.S. sixth-generation fighter is absolutely not a "copy of Chinese fighter"; the aerodynamic similarity stems from technological convergence rather than plagiarism.

Similar appearances result from convergent air combat technology paths and shared solutions to comparable technical challenges.

Controversial design point: This aircraft features a combination of canards plus a tailless λ-shaped main wing, completely overturning the conventional layout of U.S. fifth-generation fighters (F-22/F-35).

The Chinese J-20 is the world’s first mature duck-configured stealth heavy fighter, visually very similar, thus fueling the narrative of "copying the J-20."

Why does the aerodynamic layout look similar yet is definitely not a copy?

1. Canards: The optimal solution under both nations’ engine limitations.

China’s early J-20 suffered from insufficient thrust from its WS turbofan engines; it used canards to enhance low-speed lift and optimize supersonic trim, balancing stealth and maneuverability.

The U.S. F-47 has a significantly larger fuselage size and empty weight compared to the F-22, also facing insufficient engine thrust-to-weight ratio—necessitating the introduction of canards to compensate for lift deficiencies.

In short: both countries independently tackled the same engineering challenge, following the same design path.

2. Tailless design and dorsal intake: An inevitable choice for sixth-generation aircraft achieving full-spectrum stealth—not unique to China.

Sixth-generation fighters pursue omnidirectional, full-frequency stealth, making tailless configurations a global consensus solution.

This is a universal approach in stealth aircraft design, with no question of "who copied whom."

3. The timeline completely refutes the claim of "copying China."

U.S. NGAD sixth-generation fighter concept development began as early as 2007, and by 2020, the U.S. military had already completed successful first flights of multiple tailless stealth demonstrators—well before China publicly test-flew its sixth-generation fighter, the J-36, at the end of 2024.

First came the U.S. tailless sixth-generation concept, then China’s actual sixth-generation prototype.

In the past, Western media long claimed the J-20 copied the F-22. Now, the U.S. itself has adopted canards and dorsal intakes, while domestic Chinese social media outlets reverse the narrative, claiming "the U.S. copied China"—a fundamentally identical one-sided visual comparison logic that ignores fundamental differences in aerospace engineering.

Previously, U.S. media dismissed canards and dorsal intakes, but now they praise their own identical designs, creating a striking irony—but this does not imply copying.

Reference to technical routes in aviation is a global industry norm: countries naturally study publicly available flight data, papers, and aerodynamic principles from rivals to optimize their own designs—a normal part of technological competition.

Global aviation development trend: When nations pursue identical operational requirements, aerodynamic layouts will naturally converge. One cannot conclude imitation or plagiarism solely based on similar appearance.

Original source: toutiao.com/article/1869198596401290/

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone.