Boeing F-47 Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD)

[F119Doctor]

Supposedly, the 3-stream engines burn on the order of 30-40% less fuel than F119/F135.

I certainly wasn't expecting that level of improved fuel economy, which is why I was assuming a monster of a plane. I was running off of TF30 fuel economy, and doubling the amount of fuel an F111 carried to get the range.

The 3-stream engines burn some 30-40% less fuel than the F119 or F135. So a lot of the increased range is strictly from better engines. Instead of needing some 30klbs of fuel, the plane only needs 20klbs to go that far.

Remember that the 3 stream engine big SFC advantage will be subsonic cruise only.

Once you go to low bypass mode for supercruise, any SFC advantage is likely to be very small, and all bets are off when the AB is engaged during combat maneuvering.

Changing supercruise flight profile optimization could have a larger impact - flying M1.5 at 50k burns significantly less fuel than M1.8 at 40K, all else being equal.

 

[raptor82]

Vibe：

 

[totoro]

CCan

One of the Chinese artists who made some nice J-36 CGs, was now working of some for the F-47!

View attachment 764203

Can anyone contact that tomcat guy and ask him if he can apply his 3d model to create identical shots as seen in two USAF renders? Not obstructed by clouds or shadows.

 

[FlyGuy369]

Someone here asked for this. Also looks like it has a canard "drooped down".

 

[Rodrigo Avella]

Hello
I'm reposting another of my works. If you'd like, post it to the User Artwork and Models thread later.
Based on the Voodo II patch, last year I made a model of what I assumed might be the red plane seen in said patch. Another thing that caught my attention was the neck of the skull, which clearly showed dihedral wings quite similar to those of the Boeing Bird of Prey.


I've always been fascinated by patches and the information that can be found about them, ever since I saw the Birds of Prey patch and noticed the silhouette of the plane. I think people who work on these top-secret projects have a need, at some point, to express what they're doing. And one way to do it "stealthily" is through these project patches.
That's why I decided to make a model. I had two ideas in mind: configuration A with dihedral wings and configuration B with dihedral tails. Since I liked the look of Option B better, I decided to finish it and leave Option A for later (unfortunately for me, because it resembles the aircraft presented much more closely).


I think they showed us a lot of the prototype in the Voodoo II patch. Also, I always thought the name, beyond being a tribute to the F101 Voodoo, was due to the aircraft's particular shape with its angled wings or tails: seen from the front, it clearly resembles a "V."

Here are some images of Configuration B that I ended up making and publishing last year:
https://rodrigoavella.com/projects/K318dB
https://rodrigoavella.com/projects/1Nw6aG


And the half-finished preliminary images of Configuration A:


I think the images presented go to great lengths to hide the rear of the aircraft from us. And I also think they told us quite a bit about them in the patch.
What I'm not sure about yet is whether it will have canards. Just draw a shadow over the top of the air intake to simulate a canard.
Best regards!

 

[FlyGuy369]

Configuration A has my vote on most likely here, once again, always a huge fan of your work.

 

[publiusr]

I've got the full series on DVD.

I wonder if "HOO-ra!" was a misunderstanding of HUA (Heard Understood Accepted) mixed with Scarecrow's "hroo-ha."

 

[VTOLicious]

Hello
I'm reposting another of my works...

I think the images presented go to great lengths to hide the rear of the aircraft from us. And I also think they told us quite a bit about them in the patch.
What I'm not sure about yet is whether it will have canards. Just draw a shadow over the top of the air intake to simulate a canard.
Best regards!

Also a huge fan of your artwork!

I think the officially released F-47 CGI shows pretty clearly that it has indeed canards.
Furthermore, the patch may show a different aircraft, e.g. one of the two demonstrators. Those laid the foundation for maturation of technology the F-47 is based on, but that does not necessarily mean the planform is the same.

Edit: DARPA X-planes paved the way for the F-47

 

[Hydroman]

MDD/NG JSF candidate on steroids!

 

[Rodrigo Avella]

Also a huge fan of your artwork!

I think the officially released F-47 CGI shows pretty clearly that it has indeed canards.
Furthermore, the patch may show a different aircraft, e.g. one of the two demonstrators. Those laid the foundation for maturation of technology the F-47 is based on, but that does not necessarily mean the planform is the same.

Hello!
Yes, I think it's very likely that the Vodoo II was the demonstrator that flew in 2019. And that the F47 is obviously an evolution of it.
If this is true, and the images presented of the F47 are close to reality, the evolution between the demonstrator and the production aircraft would be quite noticeable. Something similar to what would have happened if Boeing had won the contract for its X32. Clearly, the F32 production aircraft would have been very different from the X32. This wouldn't have happened, for example, with the YF23, nor with the F22, which is very similar to the YF22.
Greetings and thanks for commenting!

 

[CiTrus90]

Hello
I'm reposting another of my works. If you'd like, post it to the User Artwork and Models thread later.
Based on the Voodo II patch, last year I made a model of what I assumed might be the red plane seen in said patch. Another thing that caught my attention was the neck of the skull, which clearly showed dihedral wings quite similar to those of the Boeing Bird of Prey.
[...]
I think the images presented go to great lengths to hide the rear of the aircraft from us. And I also think they told us quite a bit about them in the patch.
What I'm not sure about yet is whether it will have canards. Just draw a shadow over the top of the air intake to simulate a canard.
Best regards!

Ah-ah! I was not the only one that thought about that then!



I modeled mine with some sort of vanes/canards, slightly in front and above the inlets, and vertical tails,.
Nothing has been edge aligned yet, I was just trying to visualize what it could look like if it followed the silhouette seen on the patch.

Big fan of your works Rodrigo, keep it up! It's always great to see what you come up with!

 

[Dreamfighter]

All the design-art posted looks very cool.

But if I had to make a guess now, I still would go for this...
Last pic indicating more or less the viewpoint of the we got to see on the officially released F-47 'artistic hangar render'.
(With not only the smoke but also the nose-wheel, the foreground, possibly the background (hangar) incl. the flag etc., all added to or merged with an already existing render or maybe picture of the jet)

 

[dark sidius]

Hello
I'm reposting another of my works. If you'd like, post it to the User Artwork and Models thread later.
Based on the Voodo II patch, last year I made a model of what I assumed might be the red plane seen in said patch. Another thing that caught my attention was the neck of the skull, which clearly showed dihedral wings quite similar to those of the Boeing Bird of Prey.
View attachment 764395

I've always been fascinated by patches and the information that can be found about them, ever since I saw the Birds of Prey patch and noticed the silhouette of the plane. I think people who work on these top-secret projects have a need, at some point, to express what they're doing. And one way to do it "stealthily" is through these project patches.
That's why I decided to make a model. I had two ideas in mind: configuration A with dihedral wings and configuration B with dihedral tails. Since I liked the look of Option B better, I decided to finish it and leave Option A for later (unfortunately for me, because it resembles the aircraft presented much more closely).

View attachment 764396View attachment 764398
I think they showed us a lot of the prototype in the Voodoo II patch. Also, I always thought the name, beyond being a tribute to the F101 Voodoo, was due to the aircraft's particular shape with its angled wings or tails: seen from the front, it clearly resembles a "V."

Here are some images of Configuration B that I ended up making and publishing last year:
https://rodrigoavella.com/projects/K318dB
https://rodrigoavella.com/projects/1Nw6aG
View attachment 764399

And the half-finished preliminary images of Configuration A:
View attachment 764400View attachment 764401View attachment 764402View attachment 764403View attachment 764404View attachment 764405View attachment 764406View attachment 764407View attachment 764408View attachment 764409View attachment 764410View attachment 764411

I think the images presented go to great lengths to hide the rear of the aircraft from us. And I also think they told us quite a bit about them in the patch.
What I'm not sure about yet is whether it will have canards. Just draw a shadow over the top of the air intake to simulate a canard.
Best regards!

I think you could be right for the canards, your designs are awesome.

 

[quellish]

IIRC Lockheed had some patents like these

I always thought this was a cool one

 

[B2Blain]

ii. While SecDef and CSAF mentioned lower cost on F-22, they did not go into what it was referencing. For all we know it could well end up costing much lower than the F-22A fleet in terms of life cycle cost due to lower O&S cost and faster and cheaper upgrades and technology refreshes. Both Kendall's $300 a pop, and CSAF's, lower cost vs F--22A can thus be true. We know what the F-22 costs adjusted for inflation..stating that this would be lower while also claiming that we don't want to divulge details on cost so as to not give away other secrets seems contradictory to me.

The O&S is likely lower lower. But why all the drama regarding the cost of the NGAD platform by Kendall? Was it just Kendall or was AF leadership thinking he same thing? Kendall seems like a literal person. He doesn't say things for effect or running some kind of a bureaucratic game to get support and funding for NGAD. Why did all of the cost drama disappear for quickly? I just think its weird.

If we go with these 2 pictures/drawing of alleged NGAD prototypes, there's credence to the idea that they planned NGAD to be a smaller aircraft

I think you are right. The planform on the right was the latest image assumed to be NGAD that came from LM. The J-36 like fighter that was depicted refueling from an LM tanker was likely just an artist's impression of what a futuristic combat aircraft would look like. The requirements likely produced similar design in terms of size.

Before the recent pause I thought NGAD was on a fast track. The AF had appointed Dale White, who was in charge of the B-21 program for the Rapid Capabilities Office, to take charge of the group overseeing NGAD. They wanted to adopt a lot of the practices learned through that program to NGAD in order to field the fighter faster. One of the ideas they mentioned was using more mature technologies. Randall Walden, the director of the RCO, mentioned that NGAD would share a lot of systems with the B-21. The Air Force is also using digital tools and a closer collaboration between engineers from the primes and government to streamline engineering and bring their design to an advanced level of maturity before the down select. Remember when Frank Kendall mentioned seeing contractor and government engineers collaborating in the same work place. Kendall also hinted at a different process when he let it slip that NGAD was in EMD in 2022. “We have now started on the EMD program to do the development aircraft that we will take into production.” He had to later walk back those comments as a Milestone B decision was not made. But his comments indicated that the contractors were not doing typical technology maturation and risk reduction.

The statement by Trump that the F-47 would be flying before the end of his administration indicates that the pause did not really negatively impact the program. Boeing will go from contract award to first flight in about three years. Unless it has happened already, a Milestone B decision and Critical Design Review is next. The NGAP funding has been pointing to this fast track all along. NGAP funding peak is in 2024 at $595 million in F2Y4, then in the subsequent years declining to $579.8 in FY25, $456.9 in FY26, $291.1 in FY27, and no funding in FY28. Previous to NGAP, engine development was conducted under the AETP program. Like with the NGAD platform, the AF would like to carry both Pratt and GE to an advanced stage of design and testing before a down select. Not funding NGAP past FY27 indicates that the desire is to have the engine ready for flight by FY28.

 

[upvinc]

View attachment 764401View attachment 764411

I think the images presented go to great lengths to hide the rear of the aircraft from us. And I also think they told us quite a bit about them in the patch.
What I'm not sure about yet is whether it will have canards. Just draw a shadow over the top of the air intake to simulate a canard.
Best regards!

Hi Rodrigo, interesting shape ! I'm just puzzled by the horizontal tail size, did you have the area rule in mind when you made it ? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_rule)

 

[Ingraman]

Vibes from Northrop's hammerhead canard phase. Dihedral wings too.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/early-northrop-grumman-publicity-ucav-concepts.4451/

 

[Josh_TN]

I would not necessarily take statements from F-47 presser as literal. The administration has often made inaccurate statements; the statements regarding cost probably should not be taken at face value at this juncture. If F-47 is superior to F-22 in every measurable way, including cost, then why was the program paused? IMO, it is simply likely that statements on the subject, even from USAF, are simply inaccurate or misleading.

 

[bring_it_on]

The O&S is likely lower lower. But why all the drama regarding the cost of the NGAD platform by Kendall? Was it just Kendall or was AF leadership thinking he same thing? Kendall seems like a literal person. He doesn't say things for effect or running some kind of a bureaucratic game to get support and funding for NGAD. Why did all of the cost drama disappear for quickly? I just think its weird.

The concerns about funding NGAD (production and to some extend the RDT&E cost) haven't disappeared. If the FRA levels remain this will be still be a problem, especially with billions - tens of billions of annual cost to fully see the Golden Dome through. If, on the other hand, FY26 request is unlike the current FY25 arrangement in that we begin seeing an increase in spending levels then this becomes a little easier.

 

[indicisivedivide]

The concerns about funding NGAD (production and to some extend the RDT&E cost) haven't disappeared. If the FRA levels remain this will be still be a problem, especially with billions - tens of billions of annual cost to fully see the Golden Dome through. If, on the other hand, FY26 request is unlike the current FY25 arrangement in that we begin seeing an increase in spending levels then this becomes a little easier.

J-36 and J-50 happened. NGAD has to move forward. Other projects will be cancelled to free up the money for it if need arises. And Golden Dome is probably NGI or GPI

 

[indicisivedivide]

The O&S is likely lower lower. But why all the drama regarding the cost of the NGAD platform by Kendall? Was it just Kendall or was AF leadership thinking he same thing? Kendall seems like a literal person. He doesn't say things for effect or running some kind of a bureaucratic game to get support and funding for NGAD. Why did all of the cost drama disappear for quickly? I just think its weird.

I think you are right. The planform on the right was the latest image assumed to be NGAD that came from LM. The J-36 like fighter that was depicted refueling from an LM tanker was likely just an artist's impression of what a futuristic combat aircraft would look like. The requirements likely produced similar design in terms of size.

Before the recent pause I thought NGAD was on a fast track. The AF had appointed Dale White, who was in charge of the B-21 program for the Rapid Capabilities Office, to take charge of the group overseeing NGAD. They wanted to adopt a lot of the practices learned through that program to NGAD in order to field the fighter faster. One of the ideas they mentioned was using more mature technologies. Randall Walden, the director of the RCO, mentioned that NGAD would share a lot of systems with the B-21. The Air Force is also using digital tools and a closer collaboration between engineers from the primes and government to streamline engineering and bring their design to an advanced level of maturity before the down select. Remember when Frank Kendall mentioned seeing contractor and government engineers collaborating in the same work place. Kendall also hinted at a different process when he let it slip that NGAD was in EMD in 2022. “We have now started on the EMD program to do the development aircraft that we will take into production.” He had to later walk back those comments as a Milestone B decision was not made. But his comments indicated that the contractors were not doing typical technology maturation and risk reduction.

The statement by Trump that the F-47 would be flying before the end of his administration indicates that the pause did not really negatively impact the program. Boeing will go from contract award to first flight in about three years. Unless it has happened already, a Milestone B decision and Critical Design Review is next. The NGAP funding has been pointing to this fast track all along. NGAP funding peak is in 2024 at $595 million in F2Y4, then in the subsequent years declining to $579.8 in FY25, $456.9 in FY26, $291.1 in FY27, and no funding in FY28. Previous to NGAP, engine development was conducted under the AETP program. Like with the NGAD platform, the AF would like to carry both Pratt and GE to an advanced stage of design and testing before a down select. Not funding NGAP past FY27 indicates that the desire is to have the engine ready for flight by FY28.

I think the engines are almost ready. Just a scaled down version of XA100/101.

 

[B2Blain]

I always thought this was a cool one

This kind of reminds me of new F-22 LDTP. If you look at the F-22 IRST pods there almost seems to be a seamless integration between the pod and the pylons - no gaps. The tank might be similar.

 

[bring_it_on]

J-36 and J-50 happened. NGAD has to move forward. Other projects will be cancelled to free up the money for it if need arises. And Golden Dome is probably NGI or GPI

This is easy. If all is as you described, we will see the rise in the requested FY26 defense levels to support all these programs. Really no need to speculate and for the guesswork on what something is or isn't or if we will see prioritization or not..We should see the FY26 request and FYDP from the administration in a few months.

 

[Scott Kenny]

IIRC Lockheed had some patents like these:


View attachment 764309View attachment 764310View attachment 764311View attachment 764312View attachment 764313View attachment 764314View attachment 764315

Oh, those are slick.

And interestingly enough, the shape is very reminiscent of the AARGM-ER... Wonder how stealthy that actually is? After all, a normal JDAM or even HARM has a significantly bigger RCS than a B2...

Payload: there hasn't been much a discussion of payload for the F-47. They discussed speed, range, and stealth but not payload. Magazine depth would be great, specifically carrying more A2A missiles than the F-15/22 especially carrying a missile larger than the AMRAAM form factor, but it doesn't look like that is a possibility based on previous Boeing NGAD concept renders. I would be happy with 8 AMRAAM sized weapons. You could offload the weapons to CCAs, but at this point is it worth the risk? The USAF hasn't even settled on what it wants from its Penetrating Counter Air loyal wingman. Increment 1 seems to straddle between attritable and exquisite. At $30 million it might be the worse of both worlds - not an especially low RCS with a very light payload. What happens when all the non stealthy CCAs get shot down?

The F-47's weapons doesn't need to accommodate 2,000 lbs bomb or SiAW. The AMRAAM form factor is not that large. I am not sure you save a lot by dropping from 8 to 6 weapons.

USAF still needs a replacement for Strike Eagles. It'd be foolish to not demand that the weapons bays be deep enough to hold a 2klb bomb or SiAW. Remember, a 2klb JDAM is only 18" across the flats (25" wingspan).

The only major savings in volume I could see would be dropping the dedicated bays for AIM9X.

Right. A clean F-22A right now has a combat radius of about 450 nautical miles with a 100 nmi supercruise. Assuming 1000 nmi is a requirement (that's a number made up by me so feel free to change it to something else) then you are looking at a slightly more than doubling of combat radius [Of course they could present a different scenario for NGAD requirements like a 200-300 nm supercruise dash given the greater distances involved].

Engine efficiency and a lower drag design could perhaps get them a major boost in endurance but difficult to see how that alone gets them 2x the radius with marginal increase in fuel (like the 10% increase you propose)..A 40% increase in fuel (25K lbs) coupled with 38% more efficient engines and other aero improvements can probably get you there more easily. My question was how much does that extra 7000 lbs fo fuel add to design weight and size (relative to F-22A) and how much of that can you claw back by making other trades (relaxing maneuverability and/or weapon carriage capacity).

IMHO if you made some trades the resultant design does not need to be truly massive (relative to F-22A) to be able to throw those numbers. Something in the +10-15% could probably do it. The only problem with that is that at the White House event, POTUS referenced manueverability and payload as being better so perhaps those weren't relaxed..

Those void spaces that could have been extra fuel tanks in the F-22, how much extra fuel could have been packed in there?

PS: Now it seems that the Navy’s decision to cancel ATA instead of re-selecting a plan was a very wrong decision.

Just now, Kemosabe? Been freaking stupid since A/F-X!

Remember that the 3 stream engine big SFC advantage will be subsonic cruise only.

Once you go to low bypass mode for supercruise, any SFC advantage is likely to be very small, and all bets are off when the AB is engaged during combat maneuvering.

Changing supercruise flight profile optimization could have a larger impact - flying M1.5 at 50k burns significantly less fuel than M1.8 at 40K, all else being equal.

Sure, but if mission profile is 1000nmi radius plus 100nmi supercruise it makes more sense.

Also, I wouldn't be surprised if they pushed the cruise altitude clear up to 60k.

If F-47 is superior to F-22 in every measurable way, including cost, then why was the program paused?

Because the US Military has had its budget held hostage under a CR instead of an actual Budget bill for the last 2 years.

 

[Forest Green]

Navy F/A-XX Stealth Fighter Selection This Week: Report

The Navy is reportedly set to follow the Air Force’s lead and name the company chosen to develop and build its carrier-based sixth-generation fighter. The Navy is reportedly set to follow the Air Force’s lead and name the company chosen to develop and build its carrier-based sixth-generation...

www.twz.com

 

[JAZZ]

Shaking out some potential over emphasized shadows - fun times

 

[bring_it_on]

The administration has often made inaccurate statements; the statements regarding cost probably should not be taken at face value at this juncture. If F-47 is superior to F-22 in every measurable way, including cost, then why was the program paused? IMO, it is simply likely that statements on the subject, even from USAF, are simply inaccurate or misleading.

The lower cost claim was not just made by the administration (SecDef) but also by the CSAF on a second occasion and later included in the press-release. But as I and others have mentioned, it was vague enough and not directly linked to procurement cost or any specific acquisition metric. Open mission systems, rapid upgradability and continuous competition was defined as a key strategy on NGAD so it could well be that the AF wants to highlight better availability and lower operating cost relative to the decades old F-22's. Having said that, if the AF is going to go out of the way to highlight this, I'm sure Congress would want details on what this means so perhaps we will learn more over time as various admin and service officials testify during the FY26 budget process..Unlike the LRS-B award where the acquisition boss fielded questions and publicly released cost estimates, we have not received anything like that from the AF other than the mention of a $20 Billion EMD phase with pre-production aircraft and options for first few low rate lots.

 

[uk 75]

As a layman how do these US projects compare with the UK/Japan/Italy and France/Germany projects?
Apart from Israel I cant see many export contracts for them.

 

[bring_it_on]

Apart from Israel I cant see many export contracts for them.

Their purpose is to replace US aircaft inventories of F-22A , F/A-18 E/F and EA-18G's. Unlike some of the European programs (particularly GCAP) and the JSF, partner collaboration in development / production and export is not really a huge motivator (at least for the Air force variant).

 

[uk 75]

Their purpose is to replace US aircaft inventories of F-22A , F/A-18 E/F and EA-18G's. Unlike some of the European programs (particularly GCAP) and the JSF, partner collaboration in development / production and export is not really a huge motivator.

Fair point. The USAF,USMC and US Navy do have a large inventory that will need replacing.
Hope lessons have been learnt from F35.

 

[RadicalDisconnect]

If Lockheed's NGAD demonstrator is what some of us think it is, it is tailored made for the regional high-speed bomber mission. A USAF F-111 replacement has been talked about and worked on (in fits and starts) since 1976. It was one of the earliest mission applications of the initial Senior High studies. At Lockheed it was categorized as ATA-A (45Klb) and ATA-B (90Klb), the former leading to Senior Trend (F-117). I'm sure Northrop had AP designations for these categories too.

Perhaps Lockheed Martin NGAP proposal is an evolved FB-22? That might line up with some reports in 2023 that their proposal more evolutionary compared to Boeing's.

 

[TomcatViP]

@Scott Kenny : the successor of the F-15E is a combo of F-47 & CCA.
Why would you stick with the hassle of maintaining an heavy airframe when the necessity of a Beast mode can be passed over to an unmanned adjunct. The latter do not have to fly every time the former takes to the air in peace time, crushing the cost increase and large maintenance hours.

 

[Joint Soviet Fighter]

I seen that! You see this?

EOTS lives?

 

[bring_it_on]

@Scott Kenny : the successor of the F-15E is a combo of F-47 & CCA.

That would be TBD IMHO. Adjunct magazines are great to have but the CCA effort is really at its infancy. They have to figure out and test / refine the deployment and logistical footprint of these because by distributing your munitions amongst a greater number of platforms you do create a greater support and logistical footprint.. (while clearly incurring other benefits)..At a minimum they have to design a CCA that can carry the heavier and larger air to ground payloads to see how many are needed, how they'll operate, and what they cost etc. The F-15EX is in production so the AF could always see if it wants to replace some of the older F-15E's with EX's to buy it more time and allow it to perhaps sequence a NGAD adaptation or a different program that can deliver in the 2040s.

 

[RadicalDisconnect]

Also F-47 skin looks similarly pale and off-white like the B-21, maybe the new generation of RAM coatings are that color?

 

[Joint Soviet Fighter]

@Sundog : the He162, instead of being an aspirational project, went into production and was sent into the fight in 1945, even gaining, at least, a victory (Tempest)...

Downward canted wing tips were added to reduce the wing dihedral after earlier flight w/o that section proved unsatisfactory (Dutch roll). This solution prevented from having to make more drastic change to the airframe while it was already in full production.

From wiki:

China's J-36, Northrop's Vanguard, & now, possibly, The F-47 - did everyone suddenly learn about The Volksjager?

Weird.

 

[Joint Soviet Fighter]

I'm surprised they didn't paint it orange then - or gold plate it.

Don't give them any ideas.

 

[Josh_TN]

@Scott Kenny : the successor of the F-15E is a combo of F-47 & CCA.
Why would you stick with the hassle of maintaining an heavy airframe when the necessity of a Beast mode can be passed over to an unmanned adjunct. The latter do not have to fly every time the former takes to the air in peace time, crushing the cost increase and large maintenance hours.

The replacement for F-15E, if there is one, will be F-15EX.

 

[Joint Soviet Fighter]

Think the author knew about the 1995 study before he read about it in this thread?

And yet there is no attribution.

No idea, but the lack of attribution certainly fits their "model". Unfortunately, I'm pretty familiar with having one's work stolen/plagiarized/never cited/referenced, so, umm, welcome to the "club"?

Spoiler alert - you can try to draw attention to this issue by contacting the publication, etc., but, unfortunately, it probably won't come to anything. Trust me - I've tried.

Sigh.

 

[Joint Soviet Fighter]

With regards to canards..
View attachment 764329

Nailed it.