It is not about “if we could design it” or “if we have already designed it” or “if china or USA would first design it”. I am not an expert on 6th generation air fighters. My comment is simple. Looking at the pace of technology progress should we have it already designed by now? We have self driving Taxi’s all around the planet. Not yet very popular but still we have them as a dominant play in some cities.
Let me jump to the subject with photos. See them and have some comments for yourself 🙂
Flying Falcon Right
Do they look alike?
Come on… You can see the inspiration. No question mark. unfortunately we are still trying to replicate what we see in nature. A B2 or B21 is not designed to be a replica of what mother nature does? What a silly idea. Falcon was never designed to make 5 or 3 MAC speed. Falcon is the only animal that sometimes go faster than the speed of sound. Does this qualify this design to be replicated? Funny question but the truth has bitter taste.
The below video do not have a sound… Just watch the concept… Concentrate on the view.. It just shows parts of F-47 6th Gen Fighter jet. You could see the tail design similarity. Is it inspired by the same bird? I do not know.
Lets come to tail and cockpit design
Interesting point of view… Deep dive for yourself. I would keep it short for your inspiration.
Just Some Take aways from the ChatGPT:
- Tails create radar reflections (bad for stealth)
Traditional tails:
Vertical stabilizer (the fin)
Horizontal stabilizers (rear wings)
These surfaces:
Stick up into the airflow
Create strong radar reflections
Form right angles that radar loves to bounce off
By removing the tail:
Radar cross‑section drops dramatically
The aircraft becomes much harder to detect from all angles
For stealth aircraft, a tail is a liability.
- Computers replaced the tail’s stability role
What tails used to do
Traditionally, tails provided:
Yaw stability (keeping the nose straight)
Pitch stability (preventing nose‑up/down oscillations)
Without a tail, an aircraft is naturally unstable.
Why that’s now okay
Modern fighters use:
Fly‑by‑wire systems
Real‑time flight computers
Control surfaces that adjust hundreds of times per second
The computer:
Constantly corrects instability
Uses tiny control inputs humans couldn’t manage
A human couldn’t fly these planes unaided—but computers can.
- Alternative control methods replace the tail
Tailless aircraft still need control, so designers use:
✅ Split control surfaces
Split ailerons or flaps act like rudders
One side up, one side down → creates yaw
✅ Differential thrust
Engines produce slightly different thrust levels
Helps turn the aircraft without a vertical tail
✅ Advanced wing shaping
Carefully designed wing sweep and twist provide passive stability
Vortex control replaces tail effectiveness
- Better performance at high speed
Removing tails can also:
Reduce drag
Improve fuel efficiency
Allow better supersonic airflow
Enable smoother transonic flight
This matters for:
Long‑range penetration missions
High‑altitude cruise
Sustained supersonic dash
- Trade‑offs (it’s not all upside)
Tailless designs are:
Harder to design
More complex to control
Often less forgiving at low speeds (takeoff/landing)
That’s why:
Older jets needed tails
Only very advanced aircraft can safely fly without them
Simple analogy
Think of it like this:
Old jets → stable bicycle with training wheels (tail)
Modern stealth jets → high‑performance motorcycle with traction control (computer)
Both work—but one needs far more technology.