US President Donald Trump set the ball rolling on America’s ambitious Next-Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) program—now branded the F-47—with sweeping claims of unmatched air superiority over rival powers. But while Washington hails the future aircraft as a revolution in aerial warfare, China has responded with thinly veiled skepticism, casting doubt on the fighter’s design, pace of development, and even the credibility of its manufacturer.
Trump formally awarded Boeing the contract for the crewed sixth-generation fighter—the centerpiece of the NGAD program—on March 20, 2025. The decision marked a turning point in US airpower planning, reviving a program that had faced years of internal debate over costs, feasibility, and the relevance of a crewed aircraft in an era increasingly dominated by drones and artificial intelligence.
The aircraft was unveiled under the designation F-47, a name officially described as a tribute to the legendary World War II-era P-47 Thunderbolt and a nod to the founding year of the US Air Force in 1947. However, the symbolism quickly became politically charged. Observers and social media users speculated that the number also reflected Trump’s status as the 47th President of the United States—a claim never officially confirmed but widely circulated.
In an unexpected reversal, Trump later suggested he might abandon the designation altogether. Speaking at the World Economic Forum’s annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland, he remarked that the name was not set in stone.
“They say it’s the most devastating plane, fighter jet ever,” Trump said. “They called it 47. If I don’t like it, I’m going to take the 47 off it.”
The comment stood in sharp contrast to Trump’s earlier enthusiasm. When the aircraft was unveiled in March, he had praised the designation, saying, “Nothing in the world comes even close to it, and it’ll be known as the F-47. The generals picked a title, and it’s a beautiful number.”
While no official reason has been offered for the apparent change of heart, analysts suggest Trump may be reluctant to be permanently associated with the program should it face cost overruns, delays, or technical setbacks—a familiar pattern in advanced US defence acquisitions.
Despite the political theatrics, the US Air Force has remained unequivocal in its claims. According to the USAF, the F-47 is designed to “change air combat forever” and deliver decisive air superiority in future conflicts, particularly against China in the Indo-Pacific.
Although most technical details remain classified, the F-47 is expected to feature a combat radius exceeding 1,000 nautical miles—more than 1,800 kilometres—far surpassing current fifth-generation fighters. By comparison, the F-22 Raptor has a combat radius of about 590 nautical miles, while the F-35 Lightning II reaches roughly 670 nautical miles.
Such extended range is critical in the vast Indo-Pacific theatre, where long distances between bases and contested airspace demand aircraft capable of sustained operations without relying heavily on vulnerable aerial refuelling assets. The USAF believes the F-47’s range will allow it to loiter deep inside contested zones, providing persistent air superiority, intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance (ISR), and strike capabilities.
The aircraft is also expected to operate alongside AI-powered collaborative combat aircraft (CCAs)—autonomous drone wingmen designed to extend sensor coverage, carry weapons, and absorb risk. Two prototypes, General Atomics’ YFQ-42A and Anduril’s YFQ-44A, are already under development, reinforcing the concept of a networked “family of systems” rather than a standalone fighter.
Performance claims have been equally bold. The F-47 is expected to exceed Mach 2 in top speed, matching the F-22 and surpassing the F-35’s Mach 1.6 limit. Trump himself emphasized these attributes when announcing the contract, stating that the aircraft would be unrivalled in “speed, manoeuvrability, payload, and what it can have.”
Stealth is another cornerstone. According to an infographic shared by the USAF’s top leadership in May 2025, the F-47 will feature “stealth++”—a step beyond the F-22’s “stealth+” and the F-35’s baseline stealth. This suggests broad-spectrum, multispectral low observability, potentially incorporating advanced materials and active countermeasures.
Yet even as Washington projects confidence, Beijing has been quick to challenge the narrative.
China has been flying two different sixth-generation fighter prototypes—the J-36 and J-50—since December 2024, giving its state media an opportunity to frame the US program as late and reactive. While little concrete information is publicly available about the Chinese aircraft, both are believed to feature tailless, delta-wing configurations optimized for all-aspect stealth.
Chinese state outlets, including Global Times and CCTV, have devoted extensive coverage to the F-47, often highlighting perceived weaknesses. Shortly after Boeing was awarded the contract, Global Times cited unnamed experts who argued that while the F-47 appeared to meet sixth-generation criteria, it suffered from limited stealth, small size, and the choice of what they described as an “unreliable contractor.”
Zhang Xuefeng, a Chinese military affairs expert, analyzed the USAF’s artist rendering and acknowledged that the F-47 broadly conforms to sixth-generation design trends, such as a lifting-body fuselage, flat nose, and the absence of vertical tails. However, he and other analysts took issue with the apparent presence of canards—small forewings ahead of the main wing—which they argued could compromise stealth.
“Eliminating vertical tails and adopting a supersonic flying-wing structure is a major trend for sixth-generation fighters,” Zhang said, adding that advanced control systems are needed to replace traditional tail surfaces. He described the use of canards as an outdated solution more common in older aircraft designs.
Chinese commentators contrasted this with the J-36 and J-50, which appear to lack both vertical tails and canards, suggesting a purer stealth configuration. Others pointed to the F-47’s relatively modest size. Wang Ya’nan, chief editor of Beijing-based Aerospace Knowledge magazine, argued that the aircraft appears only marginally larger than the F-22, judging by the canopy and landing gear proportions.
In contrast, Wang described the J-36 as a large, multipurpose platform capable of campaign-scale operations rather than purely tactical missions.
Chinese analysts have also questioned US claims that sixth-generation demonstrators have been flying for nearly five years. “Even the pictures depicting the F-47 are artists’ renderings rather than photos,” Global Times noted, casting doubt on Washington’s timeline.
Boeing’s selection has further fuelled criticism. Chinese experts have highlighted the company’s struggles with programs such as the KC-46 tanker and the 737 MAX, arguing that Boeing has not successfully delivered a major new fighter in decades. “Having a company like this to lead a sixth-generation program is actually very risky,” Wang said.
The rivalry has taken on an unmistakably symbolic dimension. Just two days after the F-47 contract was announced, Chinese state television aired grainy footage purportedly showing a test flight of the J-36—timing that analysts interpreted as a deliberate signal in an escalating contest for aerial dominance.
Chinese officials have also struck a confident tone. In December 2025, Yang Shuifeng, a senior engineer at the Chengdu Aircraft Design Institute, claimed China had developed methods for rapidly and reliably producing sixth-generation fighters, surpassing the US by several years. A South China Morning Post article echoed the sentiment, citing China’s experience with the J-20 stealth fighter and improved program management as key advantages.
Western analysts, however, dispute Beijing’s claims of superiority. They argue that the US has maintained a technological lead through highly classified development since at least 2014, with experimental aircraft reportedly flying as early as 2020. According to this view, the secrecy surrounding the F-47 is deliberate, concealing advanced features such as adaptive-cycle engines, metamaterial stealth, and AI-driven mission systems.
Critics of the Chinese narrative also push back against claims that canards inherently undermine stealth, noting that modern materials, shaping, and active measures can mitigate radar signatures. Some even suggest the USAF’s released imagery may be intentionally misleading.
Still, challenges remain. The Next Generation Adaptive Propulsion (NGAP) program, intended to deliver revolutionary engines for the F-47, has faced delays, and the USAF has yet to confirm which powerplant will ultimately be selected.
As Washington and Beijing trade claims and counterclaims, the sixth-generation fighter race is rapidly becoming a defining feature of great-power competition. Whether the F-47 ultimately fulfils Trump’s promise of “the most devastating fighter jet ever” remains uncertain—but what is clear is that air dominance, once again, sits at the heart of global strategic rivalry.
