Aircraft Configuration Layout

Report
Configuration Layout Introduction
Aerodesign Team | AIAA-2025

Team Members:
Seaed Samir Mashali
Parsa Maleki
Farid Behboodi
Reihane Mohebi
Mahdi Barghi
Javad Salimi
Alireza Parsa
Paniz Pourghadiri

AIAA Competition

November 12, 2025

1
Aircraft Configuration Layout Report 2

Contents

1 Objective 3

2 Conventional Configuration 4

3 Tailless Configuration 5

4 Flying Wing Configuration 6

5 Propulsion Configuration 7
5.1 Number of Engines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.2 Inlet Placement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

6 Conclusion 10

Figure 1: Concept sketch of the proposed Flying Wing configuration.

Aircraft Configuration Layout Report 3

1 Objective

The Request for Proposal (RFP) defines the need for a next-generation carrier-based
fighter aircraft to succeed the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, currently serving as the back-
bone of carrier air wings. The new platform is expected to bridge the gap between the current
fourth generation designs and emerging sixth-generation technologies by achieving superior
performance in stealth, survivability, adaptability, and mission versatility within the
operational and logistical constraints of carrier operations.
From an engineering and conceptual design perspective, the objective of this study is twofold:
1. To interpret the RFP’s performance and mission goals into clear design requirements and
trade parameters.

2. To explore and down select among feasible aircraft configurations, including conven-
tional, tailless, and flying wing concepts, to identify a layout that optimally balances
performance, maintainability, and risk.
Modern fighter design trends indicate a strong movement toward multi role, low observ-
able, and network centric platforms. While the F/A-18 prioritized agility, reliability, and
deck compatibility, future systems must integrate advanced stealth shaping, sensor fusion, and
extended range while maintaining carrier suitability. Therefore, the design objective extends
beyond pure aerodynamic efficiency to encompass systems integration, sustainability, and
future growth potential.
Analyzing recent combat statistics and operational doctrines reveals that dogfighting
is becoming an element of the past. Modern air combat emphasizes beyond visual range
engagements where victory depends on first detection, first shot, and first kill rather
than close maneuvering. This shift in air warfare strategy highlights that stealth, sensor
performance, and electronic warfare capability are becoming far more decisive factors
than instantaneous turn rate or post stall maneuverability. In essence, avoiding the fight, by
denying the enemy the ability to detect, track, and target, is now the foundation of survivability.
However, in intercept and defensive missions, agility remains a vital characteristic.
Even though modern engagements prioritize beyond visual range combat, close range encoun-
ters can still occur, especially during home defense, carrier protection, or failed missile
engagements. In such scenarios, superior maneuverability can determine survival.
Thus, while stealth and long range lethality dominate design priorities, a complete sacrifice
of agility is not acceptable. The optimal configuration must preserve a balanced com-
promise that ensures both stealth effectiveness and sufficient close combat capability
when required.
Each configuration concept offers distinct advantages and penalties:
• Conventional layouts provide high agility, stable flight control laws, and ease of carrier
operations but impose larger radar signatures and limited internal volume for fuel and
weapons.

• Tailless configurations reduce radar cross section and drag while improving efficiency
but demand advanced flight control and structural solutions.
Aircraft Configuration Layout Report 4

• Flying wing concepts maximize stealth and aerodynamic efficiency yet face major chal-
lenges in carrier recovery, center of gravity management, and mission flexibility.
Ultimately, the team’s objective is to identify the configuration that achieves a balanced
trade between stealth, maneuverability, payload capacity, range, and carrier oper-
ability, aligning with the evolutionary path of next generation naval aviation.

2 Conventional Configuration

The conventional configuration represents the most traditional and operationally proven
layout among all candidate designs. It typically features a main wing, horizontal tailplane,
and twin vertical stabilizers, with engines installed side by side or spaced apart to enhance
yaw stability and survivability. Aircraft such as the F/A-18 Super Hornet and F-35C are
prime examples of this configuration, optimized for agility, robustness, and carrier suitability.
From an aerodynamic and operational standpoint, the conventional layout provides high
controllability, predictable flight behavior, and excellent low speed performance. The
separated control surfaces allow precise trimming and stable pitch control, simplifying flight
control design and offering dependable recovery characteristics during approach and landing.
These features have historically made it the most reliable configuration for naval aviation.
However, in the context of sixth-generation fighter development, this configuration
faces significant limitations. The primary concern lies in stealth performance. Vertical
tails, exposed engine inlets, and surface discontinuities contribute to a larger radar cross
section compared to tailless or blended designs. Moreover, the structural and aerodynamic
drag penalties associated with multiple empennage surfaces restrict supercruise efficiency
and reduce overall range.
While the conventional design delivers outstanding maneuverability and flight safety
margins, the emerging market demand emphasizes stealth, sensor fusion, and cooperative
engagement capability over pure agility. The next generation combat environment is driven
by first look, first shot advantages and information dominance, where low observability
and network integration outweigh the benefits of traditional dogfighting performance. Therefore,
despite its reliability and maturity, the conventional configuration cannot fully satisfy the
strategic and operational requirements outlined in the RFP for a next generation carrier
based fighter.
In conclusion, the conventional configuration remains a valuable baseline reference for
aerodynamic validation and performance benchmarking. However, considering future market
trends and sixth-generation mission profiles, its limitations in stealth integration, internal
volume efficiency, and radar signature management make it unsuitable as the final design
direction for this program.
Aircraft Configuration Layout Report 5

3 Tailless Configuration

Figure 2: Concept sketch of the proposed Tailless configuration.

The tailless configuration, as defined for this study, eliminates the horizontal tailplane while
retaining one or more vertical stabilizers. In this arrangement, the main wing performs both the
lifting and pitch control functions through the use of elevons or blended control surfaces.
This results in a smoother aerodynamic shape with fewer discontinuities, which is an important
step toward achieving low radar observability without fully transitioning to a flying wing
concept.
One of the key advantages of the tailless layout is its reduced radar cross section com-
pared to conventional designs. By removing the horizontal tail, a major reflective surface is
eliminated, and the overall planform can be shaped with better alignment and continuity be-
tween wing and fuselage. This yields not only improved stealth performance but also lower
interference and wave drag, especially in transonic regimes, leading to better supercruise
efficiency and possibly extended range.
At the same time, the tailless configuration maintains a degree of agility and control
authority that fully blended flying wing concepts typically struggle to provide. The presence
of vertical tails preserves effective yaw control, while modern fly by wire systems can actively
compensate for the reduced pitch leverage. As a result, the aircraft can still achieve satisfactory
maneuverability for intercept and defensive engagements, ensuring that the design
remains operationally flexible rather than being optimized only for stealth.
From a design standpoint, this configuration also enables structural and volumetric
advantages. The removal of the tailplane reduces structural weight and allows the aft fuselage
to be shaped for better internal fuel and systems integration. This aligns well with carrier
requirements where internal volume, compactness, and weight management are critical.
Nevertheless, the tailless design introduces several challenges that must be carefully man-
aged. Pitch stability depends heavily on precise aerodynamic shaping and flight control laws,
which makes the aircraft more reliant on advanced control systems. The center of gravity range
Aircraft Configuration Layout Report 6

becomes narrower, and the aircraft’s low speed handling must be thoroughly validated for car-
rier approach and recovery phases. However, these challenges are within the capabilities of
modern flight control architectures and simulation tools.
In summary, the tailless configuration represents a balanced compromise between
the agility of conventional fighters and the stealth characteristics of flying wing designs. It
offers a credible path toward a next generation carrier based aircraft that emphasizes low
observability, aerodynamic efficiency, and mission adaptability while still maintaining
acceptable maneuvering performance for combat flexibility. For these reasons, the tailless
concept remains one of the most promising configurations under consideration for this
program.

4 Flying Wing Configuration

Figure 3: Concept sketch of the proposed flying wing configuration.

The flying wing configuration represents the most advanced and future oriented concept
among the candidate layouts. It eliminates both the horizontal and vertical tail surfaces, merg-
ing all lifting and control functions into a single, continuous aerodynamic body. This philosophy
maximizes stealth and aerodynamic efficiency, pushing the design closer to the ideal of a fully
blended, low observable, and sensor integrated combat aircraft.
By removing external empennage surfaces, the flying wing configuration achieves an excep-
tionally low radar cross section from nearly all viewing angles. The smooth, uninterrupted
planform minimizes edge reflections and scattering sources, while internal placement of weapons,
sensors, and engines further suppresses radar and infrared signatures. The clean aerodynamic
geometry also delivers very high lift to drag ratios, improving supercruise capability,
combat radius, and fuel efficiency, which makes it an outstanding choice for long range
strike and deep penetration missions.
Aircraft Configuration Layout Report 7

While aerodynamically efficient, the flying wing layout requires sophisticated flight control
systems to maintain stability and maneuverability. Without traditional tails, all control relies
on elevons, split drag rudders, and differential thrust. These elements must work in harmony
with a modern fly by wire system capable of active stabilization and precise control across wide
flight envelopes. The maturity of digital flight control technology now makes such configurations
feasible with acceptable risk.
The primary challenge remains carrier suitability. Launch and recovery aboard aircraft
carriers demand exceptional low speed handling, predictable pitch behavior, and high lift at
approach speeds. Designing a flying wing fighter to meet these conditions requires specialized
high lift devices, precise center of gravity control, and finely tuned flight control laws. With the
integration of adaptive control algorithms and advanced aerodynamic features such as leading
edge extensions and distributed flaps, these issues can be mitigated to acceptable operational
margins.
From a structural and systems perspective, the flying wing layout provides opportunities
for internal volume optimization and thermal management. Its broad lifting body
enables distributed fuel storage, embedded sensors, and efficient cooling paths for high power
electronics and directed energy systems. The absence of discrete tail surfaces also reduces part
count, maintenance needs, and potential structural fatigue sources, which improves long term
reliability.
In summary, the flying wing configuration combines the highest stealth potential with
excellent aerodynamic performance and increasing technological feasibility. Although it
demands greater reliance on advanced control systems and careful carrier operation validation,
it remains one of the most promising options for a next generation carrier based fighter.
With ongoing advancements in control algorithms, sensor fusion, and materials, the flying wing
concept stands as a strong candidate capable of defining the next era of naval air superiority.

5 Propulsion Configuration

Propulsion system design plays a decisive role in determining the aircraft’s overall performance,
survivability, and maintainability. For a carrier based sixth-generation fighter, the propulsion
configuration must not only provide high thrust and efficiency but also integrate seamlessly
with the stealth geometry, internal volume constraints, and thermal management requirements
of the airframe. The following subsections evaluate possible engine arrangements and justify
the selected configuration.

5.1 Number of Engines

Selecting the number of engines is a key architectural decision that affects nearly every aspect of
aircraft performance, survivability, and maintenance. For carrier based fighters, this choice must
balance reliability, thrust to weight ratio, fuel efficiency, and integration complexity
within the limited volume constraints of a naval airframe. The design options considered include
single engine, twin engine, and three engine configurations.
Aircraft Configuration Layout Report 8

Single Engine Layout

Single engine designs provide advantages in terms of lower weight, reduced maintenance
cost, and simplified intake and exhaust systems. They also allow a more compact air-
frame with lower drag and possibly higher internal fuel volume. However, they pose significant
survivability and redundancy risks in carrier operations. An engine failure during launch
or recovery could result in catastrophic loss of both aircraft and pilot. Additionally, high thrust
single engine designs tend to require larger inlets and nozzles, which complicates stealth shap-
ing and increases radar and infrared signatures. For a next generation naval fighter expected
to operate deep within contested environments, this risk and signature penalty outweigh the
benefits of simplicity.

Three Engine Layout

Three engine configurations could theoretically offer exceptional thrust and redundancy but
introduce substantial structural, integration, and maintenance penalties. The added
weight, the complexity of intake routing, and the space requirements conflict with internal bay
allocation and stealth shaping. Such configurations are better suited to heavy strike or bomber
platforms rather than tactical fighters, especially those constrained by carrier deck limits. Thus,
a tri engine layout is not a practical choice for this mission.

Twin Engine Layout

The most balanced approach lies in the twin engine configuration, which provides the ideal
combination of thrust, reliability, and survivability. Dual engines allow for mission con-
tinuity in the event of a single engine failure, which is a critical factor for carrier safety. This ar-
rangement also permits smaller individual engine diameters, simplifying inlet shaping and
nozzle integration within a stealth optimized planform. The resulting configuration maintains
symmetry, controllability during asymmetric thrust conditions, and improved yaw authority,
which is particularly valuable for short takeoff and recovery.
Recent advances in adaptive cycle engines have further reinforced the viability of the
twin engine approach. These new powerplants dynamically adjust bypass ratios to optimize
performance across the flight envelope, offering both high thrust for combat and superior
fuel efficiency for cruise. Compared to older turbofan architectures, adaptive cycle engines
can deliver significant reductions in specific fuel consumption while maintaining or even
increasing total thrust output. This advancement effectively offsets the fuel penalties tradi-
tionally associated with having two engines, which makes a twin engine configuration both
operationally efficient and strategically sound.

Conclusion

The twin engine layout provides the best compromise among performance, stealth integration,
redundancy, and efficiency for a next generation carrier based fighter. It ensures carrier safety
margins, supports high power demands of advanced avionics and directed energy systems,
and aligns with the RFP’s emphasis on survivability and mission endurance. With modern
Aircraft Configuration Layout Report 9

adaptive cycle propulsion technology, the twin engine configuration stands out as the most
technically balanced and forward compatible propulsion solution for this program.

5.2 Inlet Placement

Inlet placement is a critical element of the propulsion system architecture that directly influ-
ences stealth characteristics, engine performance, foreign object damage resistance,
and carrier operability. For a low observable, carrier based fighter, the integration of the
inlet system must balance aerodynamic efficiency, maintainability, and radar signature con-
trol. Three major concepts were considered in this study, namely overwing, underwing, and
mid-fuselage inlet configurations.
The overwing inlet configuration positions the intake above the wing or at the wing fuse-
lage junction. This approach offers strong protection against debris and sea spray ingestion,
which are common challenges during carrier launches and recoveries. The elevated location also
simplifies deck operations and minimizes debris risk during low altitude flight. However, over-
wing inlets generally introduce adverse aerodynamic interactions with the upper surface
flow and can disturb lift distribution at high angles of attack. More importantly, the exposed
upper surface geometry increases the radar cross section, as the intake lips and internal
ducting are difficult to fully shield from radar exposure. For a design where stealth is a leading
driver, these penalties outweigh the operational benefits.
The underwing inlet concept provides short and direct airflow paths to the engine face,
resulting in lower total pressure losses and simpler duct geometries. This arrangement can
achieve excellent mass flow performance and is structurally efficient due to its proximity to
the main wing spars. Nevertheless, the location exposes the inlets to significant debris and
sea spray hazards, particularly in carrier environments where ingestion of saltwater and deck
debris poses a major reliability threat. Additionally, the lower position increases the aircraft’s
infrared signature and radar visibility from below, which is undesirable for a stealth oriented
platform.
The mid-fuselage or blended inlet configuration, often realized as side mounted, buried,
or S ducted inlets, offers the most balanced trade off for a next generation carrier based fighter.
By integrating the inlet into the fuselage contour, designers can effectively mask the engine
face from radar exposure and reduce both radar and infrared emissions. This configuration
supports smoother external shaping, cleaner aerodynamic flow, and better alignment of plan-
form edges, all of which are essential for stealth optimization. With modern diverterless or
splitterless supersonic inlet concepts, mid fuselage systems can maintain high inlet efficiency
across a wide Mach range while avoiding the drag and complexity of traditional boundary layer
diverters. Furthermore, locating the inlets along the fuselage sides helps maintain low speed
controllability and allows for robust debris shielding, especially when paired with deflectors
or particle separators.
While the mid fuselage inlet introduces challenges such as slightly longer ducts, higher
weight, and tighter packaging around internal bays, these disadvantages are manageable with
current computational fluid dynamics design methods and advanced materials. Proper bound-
ary layer control, bleed systems, and adaptive control laws can mitigate potential flow distortion
Aircraft Configuration Layout Report 10

at high angles of attack or during carrier approach.

In conclusion, the mid-fuselage blended inlet architecture provides the most suitable
solution for the propulsion integration of a sixth-generation carrier fighter. It achieves an op-
timal balance between stealth, engine performance, and operational reliability, while
maintaining acceptable maintenance accessibility and carrier compatibility. When combined
with modern DSI or S duct technologies and effective debris mitigation strategies, this config-
uration supports the program’s objective of developing a highly survivable, efficient, and
operationally flexible next generation aircraft.

6 Conclusion

This report presented the preliminary assessment of key configuration choices for the next
generation carrier based fighter proposed under the current RFP. The study examined multiple
geometric and propulsion arrangements, namely the conventional, tailless, and flying wing
configurations, as well as propulsion aspects such as engine count and inlet placement. Each
design path offers distinct advantages in terms of stealth, agility, integration, and carrier
suitability, and each introduces its own engineering challenges.
To ensure that the final configuration selection is both technically and strategically justified,
the next phase of the design process will be based on a comprehensive trade study matrix.
This matrix will quantify each configuration’s performance across multiple weighted criteria,
such as aerodynamic efficiency, stealth effectiveness, controllability, manufactura-
bility, risk, and cost. Establishing appropriate weighting factors for each parameter is
essential, as it reflects the operational priorities and mission objectives defined in the RFP.
The scoring of each design option will be supported by analytical modeling, computational
simulations, and expert review to minimize subjective bias.
This structured trade methodology will allow the design team to make transparent, data
driven decisions and identify the configuration that provides the most balanced overall perfor-
mance. Future studies will refine these weights, expand the dataset with detailed aerodynamic
and structural analyses, and integrate propulsion and mission level performance evaluations.
The outcome of this effort will form the basis for selecting the baseline configuration for
detailed design and subsystem development in the following design phase.