Aerospace Science and Technology 133 (2023) 108114

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Aerospace Science and Technology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/aescte

Design exploration and optimization of aerodynamics and radar cross

section for a fighter aircraft
Zia Ud Din Taj a,∗ , Ahmad Bilal a , Muhammad Awais b , Shuaib Salamat a , Messam Abbas a ,
Adnan Maqsood c
a
Air University Aerospace and Aviation Campus, Kamra, Pakistan
b
Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS), Lahore, Pakistan
c
National University of Sciences and Technology (NUST), Islamabad, Pakistan

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The design for the conflicting requirements of low drag and low Radar Cross Section (RCS) causes
Received 7 April 2021 difficulty in achieving an aerodynamically superior stealth aircraft. To cater the issue, a multidisciplinary
Received in revised form 14 November 2022 design exploration and optimization framework is proposed. A shared parameterized aircraft geometry
Accepted 3 January 2023
is used for high fidelity aero-stealth analysis using Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) and Shooting
Available online 9 January 2023
Communicated by Nikolaos Gatsonis
and Bouncing Rays (SBR) techniques. A surrogate model using a machine learning approach involving
Gaussian Process (GP) modelling is generated for efficient and rapid design space exploration. A gradient-
Keywords: free metaheuristic optimization scheme using multi-objective Genetic Algorithm (GA) is employed to
CFD minimize drag and RCS. The results show that the proposed framework provides a reliable environment
RCS for the multidisciplinary design exploration of an aerial vehicle.
Shooting and bouncing rays © 2023 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.
Gaussian process
Multidisciplinary optimization
Multi-objective genetic algorithm

1. Introduction Now-a-days, Artificial Intelligence (AI) solutions are gaining

The key features for a fighter aircraft are high maneuverability
and low detectability. Optimizing the aircraft for low observabil-
ity severely affects the aerodynamic performance of the aircraft.
In the past, many efforts have been made to evaluate the cou-
pled performance using low-fidelity tools and non-parameterized
aircraft geometry [1–3]. Although Cheng, et al. [4] carried out the
coupled analysis using Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) and
self-programmed RCS code, but the evaluation is done on a single
non-parametrized geometry. Similarly, Su, et al. [5] performed sep-
arate high fidelity aerodynamic and stealth analysis of Unmanned
Air Vehicle (UAV) with the lack of shared parametrized geometry.
In addition, aero-structure-stealth coupled exploration and opti-
mization is carried out by Di Wu, et al. [6] on a simple high aspect
ratio wing only. Furthermore, Ming Li, et al. [7] used a gradient-
based structural optimization scheme using aero-stealth analysis
for a simple geometry of a flying wing aircraft. Hence, there is a
lack of high-fidelity multidisciplinary analysis on a complex pa-
rameterized fighter aircraft geometry.
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: tajz@uwindsor.ca (Z.U.D. Taj).
much attention for providing efficient and rapid solutions in de-
termining complex relation of responses. These cheap to evaluate
surrogate models are created to replace the expensive evaluations
of the high-fidelity design problems. Most used surrogate models
are Response Surface Methodology (RSM), Kriging approximations
models, Support Vector Regression (SVR) and Radial Basis Func-
tions (RBF) [8]. However, the uncertainties of these models are
controlled and compensated by generating efficient design of ex-
periments [9]. Generally, space filling sampling plan such as Latin
Hypercube Sampling (LHS) is used to ensure the uniform spread of
points throughout the design space. Much research has been done
on the techniques to improve a surrogate model efficiency such as
infill sampling based on prediction-based exploitation, error-based
exploration, balanced exploitation and exploration, and conditional
likelihood approaches [10]. Recently, supervised machine learning
algorithms like Gaussian Process (GP) regression have been used by
many researchers to save the calculations time and cost [11–15].
Jacobs, et al. [13] performed a multi-frequency analysis to pre-
dict the RCS response of a missile at a single incident angle using
GP regression modelling. In addition, GP regression has been em-
ployed to model the aperture efficiency by using composite kernel
covariance function [14]. A multi-frequency analysis has been done
by Ahmad, et al. [15] using GP modelling to predict the aperiodic

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ast.2023.108114
1270-9638/© 2023 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.
Z.U.D. Taj, A. Bilal, M. Awais et al.
RCS response with five geometric parameters as predictors. Hence,
GP based surrogate modelling using space filling LHS plan can be
employed for efficient and rapid design space exploration.
Much research has been employed to find the optimized geom-
etry in a modelling and simulation environment using numerous
optimization schemes [16,17]. These schemes are generally divided
into two main categories – gradient and non-gradient based opti-
mization algorithms [18]. Gradient-based algorithms have the lim-
itation of getting stuck in local optimum solutions but are fast and
efficient. However, non-gradient based algorithms, like metaheuris-
tic optimization schemes, are used to explore the global optimum
solution of a large design space with discrete variables but re-
quire excessive function calls [19]. Many metaheuristic schemes
have been applied by the researchers like Genetic Algorithm (GA),
simulated annealing optimization and particle swarm algorithms
[20,21]. For example, Jun-xue Leng, et al. [22] used GA to improve
the aerodynamic performance of reusable launch vehicles based
on reverse design approach. Similarly, Tian-tian Zhang, et al. [23]
optimized the aerodynamics of hypersonic-gliding vehicle config-
urations during conceptual design phase using multi-objective GA
and presented the solutions using Pareto optimal front. In addi-
tion, Lyu, et al. [24] in a wing shape optimization study found
that the number of iterations for gradient free schemes increase
in a quadratic and cubic manner with increasing dimensionality as
compared to gradient based schemes, which show linear behavior.
However, Yang Shen, et al. [25] used GA optimization scheme cou-
pled with Kriging surrogate model for rapid function evaluations
of increased number of iterations. Therefore, GA optimization cou-
pled with GP surrogate model can be employed in our proposed
environment.
The present work is focused on proposing a multi-disciplinary
design exploration and optimization framework. The environ-
ment is used for optimizing the fighter aircrafts for high aero-
dynamic performance and low radar signature using high fidelity
aerodynamic-stealth analysis and a single parameterized geometry.
In order reduce the calculations cost, GP based surrogate model
is generated on which gradient free GA optimization algorithm is
employed.
The research is presented in following sections. Section 2 in-
cludes a brief background of the employed high fidelity RCS com-
putation, aerodynamic evaluation, GP regression modelling and
GA optimization techniques. The validation of electromagnetic and
aerodynamic solvers is done in Section 3. Section 4 outlines the
proposed multidisciplinary design exploration and optimization
environment. Section 5 includes the results and discussion of the
obtained optimized aircraft geometries using GA based optimiza-
tion scheme. Section 6 concludes the research.
2. Background
2.1. Stealth analysis
RCS of an aircraft is the measure of its stealth. Lower the radar
signature means better the stealth, smaller the detection range and
lesser the response time. RCS of a target is the projected area of an
object, which would scatter the same power in the same direction
as a metallic sphere [26]. It is measured in m2 or dBsm, and shows
the comparison between the incident wave power density at the
target and the scattered wave power density received at the radar.
The incident wave power density (W i ) is given by Equation (1).
Ei Hi Y 0 | E i |2
Wi = = (1)
2 2
Where, E i = incident electric field strength, H i = incident mag-
netic field strength and Y 0 = admittance of free space.
2
Aerospace Science and Technology 133 (2023) 108114
When the incident wave strikes the target, it behaves like an
antenna and extracts power by using its capture area (σ ). The ex-
tracted power ( P ) is given by:
σ Y 0 | E i |2
P = σ Wi = (2)
2
The scattered wave power density (W s ) at an observed distance
(R) is given by Equation (3).
P σ Y 0 | E i |2
Ws = = (3)
4π R2 8π R 2
However, the scattered wave power density can also be ex-
pressed as:
Es Hs Y 0 | E s |2
Ws = = (4)
2 2
Comparing Equations (3)–(4) yields the capture area or radar
cross section of the target given by Equation (5).
| E s |2
σ = lim 4π R 2 (5)
R →∞ | E i |2
There are numerous Computational Electromagnetic (CEM) al-
gorithms to simulate RCS of target objects, which involve solving
differential or integral forms of Maxwell’s equations [27,28]. Phys-
ical Optics (PO), Method of Moments (MOM) and Shooting and
Bouncing Rays (SBR) are the commonly used CEM algorithms. PO
method is fast but has very low accuracy due to the inability to
capture edge diffraction effects and multiple bounces reflection
effects. Whereas MOM method is a high-fidelity method but re-
quires high computational time. To overcome these limitations,
SBR method is used to compute RCS of electrically large struc-
tures yielding fast and reasonably accurate results [29–31]. The
technique efficiently caters edge diffraction, creeping waves and
multiple bounce effects. Ahmad, et al. [32] benchmarked the ac-
curacy of SBR technique by comparison with MOM and measured
results.
In order to simulate the incident electromagnetic (EM) wave,
SBR algorithm uses a sequence of optical ray tubes. The ray tube
obeys geometric optics principles during propagation. For a homo-
geneous isotropic medium, in geometric optics, Fermat’s principle
states a ray tube propagates on the straight line. Thus, its path of
propagation can be written as [33]:
 
r (x, y , z) = r0 (x0 , y 0 , z0 ) + s sx , s y , s z t (6)
Here r0 represents the starting point, s represents the direction
and t depicts time for point r0 on the path followed by ray. If the
direction of incident ray is (θi , φi ), s can be written as follows:
sx = − sin θi cos φi , s y = − sin θi sin φi , s z = − cos θi (7)
The ray will refract or reflect at the target’s surface when it in-
tersects the target. The direction of refraction and reflection can be
found using Snell’s law. If n̂ represents the normal at the point of
intersection, and î denotes the incident direction, then the reflec-
tion direction ŝ is shown by:
ŝ = î − 2(î · n̂)n̂ (8)
The above steps are repeated for a ray until it departs the tar-
get and then shoot towards infinity to acquire a ray path. Then to
simulate multiple reflections of a ray tube on the surface of a tar-
get, geometrical optics is utilized. During propagation, the phase
and field strength also change in the tube. Upon i + 1th intersec-
tion with target (r i +1 ), the field strength can be calculated from
the last intersection i.e., the i th intersection (ri ):
Z.U.D. Taj, A. Bilal, M. Awais et al. Aerospace Science and Technology 133 (2023) 108114

     
 ri +1 = (DF )i · G
E · ri · e − j (phase) (9) In order to model the turbulence, numerous turbulence mod-
i
  els are used including Direct Numerical Simulation (DNS) model,
Where phase = k r i +1 − ri  represents the change in phase. Large Eddy Simulation (LES) model and Reynolds-Averaged Navier-
 
G denotes the reflection coefficient, (DF )i represents the diver- Stokes (RANS) model. In this research, RANS model is used due
i to its inexpensive nature of obtaining good quality results with
gence factor at ri , and Ei (ri ) indicates the electric field incident at
sufficient accuracy. It solves the entire Navier-Stokes equations by
ri .
performing time averaging to extract mean flow properties from
The scattering of the object in far field is given by accretion of
the instantaneous ones. Among numerous types of RANS models,
the individual scattered fields of the tube, which result from re-
Shear Stress Transport (SST) k − ω turbulence model is used in
flections off the surface of target. Finally, after multiple reflections
this work as shown by Equation (16)–(17) [35]. It uses k − ε in the
the ray tube shoots at infinity and the method utilizes PO princi-
freestream and k − ω in the near wall region to capture the viscous
ples on the ray tube to accomplish the far field integration. Using
effects.
Stratton-Chu integral formula, the generic equation for scattered
 
field of target surface is written as [33]: ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ω
(ρω) + (ρω U i ) = (μ + 0.5μt ) + P ω − Dω
.    ∂t ∂ xi ∂ xi ∂ xi
  jk e −jkr
Es r , ω = r̂ ×  r , ω
Z 0 r̂ × n̂ × H 0.856ρ ∂ k ∂ ω
4π r + 2(1 − F ) (16)
s ω ∂ xi ∂ xi
   
 ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂k
+  r , ω
E × n̂ e jkr̂ ·r (10) (ρ k) + (ρ kU i ) = (μ + μt ) + P k − Dk (17)
∂t ∂ xi ∂ xi ∂ xi
Here r̂ and r denote unit and position vector of point of obser-
Where, P w = rate of production of ω , D w = rate of dissipation
vation, n̂ represents unit normal vector of bin on target surface, r
of ω , P k = and rate of production of k, D k = rate of dissipation of
shows position vector
 of any surface,
 Z0 represents the free space k, F = blending function and μ = molecular viscosity coefficient.
 r , ω
impedance, and H  r , ω
and E represent total magnetic
and electric scattered fields respectively. 2.3. GP regression

2.2. Aerodynamic analysis GP regression models use supervised machine learning tech-
nique to estimate the response based on the training data. How-
An aircraft design is an iterative process. The flight-testing and ever, the generated surrogate trained model acts as a black box
wind tunnel experiments are the industry standards for exact eval- and does not take a functional form hence it is non-parametric in
uation of aerodynamic performance. However, the associated high nature. In addition, the surrogate model is not deterministic but
cost and time makes it unfeasible for their integration in this iter- stochastic in nature i.e., it returns a value with a probability dis-
ative design cycle. As a result, CFD has gained confidence for the tribution instead of a fixed value every time. For a given data set
incorporation in aircraft design processes. In CFD, Navier-Stokes D of xn variables and f n responses, as shown in Equation (18), a
equations are solved which are a coupled system of nonlinear par- Gaussian process is defined as a stochastic process in which each
tial differential equations that represent the unsteady, compress- finite set of random variables in D is normally distributed or has a
ible, three-dimensional viscous flows. Equations (11)–(15) repre- multivariate Gaussian distribution [36], as shown by Equation (19).
sent complete set of Navier-Stokes equations including continuity,
momentum, and energy equations [34]. D = {(x1 , f 1 ) , (x2 , f 2 ) , . . . , (xn , f n )} (18)
Dρ f ∼ N (μ, K ) (19)
+ ρ∇ · V = 0 (11)
Dt
Du ∂P ∂ τxx ∂ τyx ∂ τzx Where, f is the prior and has a Gaussian distribution with
ρ + =− + + + ρ fx (12) mean μ and covariance K . For two variables, it is expressed as:
Dt ∂x ∂x ∂y ∂z
Dv ∂P ∂ τxy ∂ τyy ∂ τzy      
ρ =− + + + + ρ fy (13) f1 μ1 K 11 K 12
Dt ∂y ∂x ∂y ∂z ∼N , (20)
f2 μ2 K 21 K 22
Dw ∂P ∂ τxz ∂ τyz ∂ τzz
ρ =− + + + + ρ fz (14) The covariance defines the resemblance between the values of
Dt ∂z ∂x ∂y ∂z
the data set as shown in Equation (21).
D V2 ∂ ∂T ∂ ∂T ∂ ∂T ⎡ ⎤
e+ = ρ q̇ + k k + + k k (x1 , x1 ) k (x1 , x2 ) k (x1 , xn )
Dt 2 ∂x ∂x ∂y ∂y ∂z ∂z
⎢ k (x2 , x1 ) ···
  ⎢ k (x2 , x2 ) k (x2 , xn ) ⎥
⎥
∂ (u τxx ) ∂ u τyx ∂ (u τzx ) K =⎢ .. .. .. ⎥ (21)
− ∇ · (P V ) + + + ⎣ . . . ⎦
∂x ∂y ∂z
      k (xn , x1 ) k (xn , x2 ) ··· k (xn , xn )
∂ v τxy ∂ v τyy ∂ v τzy ∂ ( w τxz )
+ + + + The covariance is modelled using a kernel function that is cho-
∂x ∂y ∂z ∂x
  sen based on the periodic or aperiodic nature of the model re-
∂ w τyz ∂ ( w τzz ) sponse. RCS response evaluated for varying geometric parameters
+ + +ρ f ·V (15)
∂y ∂z is found to be aperiodic [15] and thus Matérn 5/2 covariance func-
Where, ρ = density of the fluid, V = velocity, P = pressure, tion, given by Equation (22), is used to model the covariance of the
τi j = normal stress for i = j and shear stress for i = j, f = body data.
force, e = internal energy, k = thermal conductivity, q̇ = volumet-   √ √ 5
ric heat addition per unit mass and T = temperature. k x, x∗ = σ f2 e − 5r
(1 + 5r + r2) (22)
3
3
Z.U.D. Taj, A. Bilal, M. Awais et al. Aerospace Science and Technology 133 (2023) 108114

Fig. 1. Flow Chart of Genetic Algorithms [38].

Here σ f2 is the maximum allowable covariance and r is the dis- 2.4. GA metaheuristic optimization scheme
tance given by:
GA metaheuristic optimization scheme is based on the process

 D of natural selection and mimics natural genetics. It uses a popula-
 (xk − x∗ )2
r= k
(23) tion consisting of a set of design points and thus are less prone to
k =1
τk2 be trapped in local solutions. The variables are considered as chro-
mosomes or individuals that are represented by binary string of
Here τk is the kernel length scale for each predictor, which digits where each digit is considered as a gene or bit. Whereas a
is used to gauge the distance between the actual and predicted generation or population is the set of these chromosomes whose
values. In order to predict a function value f ∗ for a data point fitness values are evaluated at the end of each iteration. Fig. 1
x∗ , we assume that this new data has also a Gaussian distribu- shows the flow chart explaining the working and steps of the al-
tion with a mean μ∗ and covariance K ∗ as shown by Equation gorithm.
The algorithm is initiated by generation of μ individuals pop-
(24).
ulation and their fitness values are obtained using the objective
functions. The number of individuals is then selected for reproduc-
f ∗ ∼ N (μ∗ , K ∗ ) (24) tion based on the tournaments to be carried out between them.
The process works on the principle of random selection of μ indi-
In the matrix form, it is expressed as:
viduals, known as tournament size, and competing them for high-
⎡ ⎤ ⎛⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤⎞ est fitness function values.
f1 μ1 K 11 K 12 K 1∗ Next step is the reproduction which is further divided in two
⎣ f 2 ⎦ ∼ N ⎝⎣ μ2 ⎦ , ⎣ K 21 K 22 K 2∗ ⎦⎠ (25) steps – crossover and mutation. In crossover, the genetic shuffling
f∗ μ∗ K 1∗ T K 2∗ T K ∗∗ of μ parent individuals into λ offspring occurs, thus allowing GA
to search for global optimum solution. Every bit of a parent chro-
Where, K ∗ is the similarity between new data point with the mosome is assigned a probability to decide the swap with the cor-
remaining points, given by Equation (26), and K ∗∗ is the similarity responding bit of the other parent chromosome. In mutation, the
of new data point with itself or simply 1. genetic diversity of the process is preserved by randomly swap-
  ping certain bits in λ offspring. The fitness of λ offspring is then
K ∗ = k (x∗ , x1 ) k (x∗ , x2 ) . . . k (x∗ , xn ) (26) evaluated and compared with μ parents. The highest fit μ individ-
uals are finally replaced to pass on to next generation and entire
To check the accuracy of the surrogate models, Root Mean process is repeated in next iterations until the required global op-
Square Relative Error (RMSRE) is calculated using Equation (27) timum solution is not achieved.
[37].
3. Validation

  
 1   f p − f a 2
RMSRE =  
 f

 (27) To validate the electromagnetic solver, SBR results are bench-
N a marked using MOM and experimental measurement of an aircraft
N
geometry [32]. The frequency is taken as 1 GHz and the polariza-
Where, f a = actual function response, f p = predicted function tion mode is vertical polarization. The comparison of SBR, MOM
response and N = number of runs. and experimental RCS shows a good agreement as shown in Fig. 2.

4
Z.U.D. Taj, A. Bilal, M. Awais et al. Aerospace Science and Technology 133 (2023) 108114

Fig. 2. Comparison of RCS between simulated and experimental data [32] at 1 GHz frequency and VV polarization.

Fig. 3. Boxplots of relative error between simulated and experimental data (a) Electromagnetic solver (b) Aerodynamic solver.

Fig. 4. Comparison between CFD and experimental data [39] of generic UCAV configuration SACCON (a) Drag coefficient (b) Lift coefficient.

The boxplots of relative error between them are shown in Fig. 3(a).
Furthermore, the RMSRE between SBR and MOM is 1.47 and SBR
and experimental result is 2.16, thus confirming that SBR technique
can be efficiently employed for RCS simulations.
For validating the aerodynamics solver, simulation results are
benchmarked using experimental data of generic UCAV configura-
tion SACCON [39]. The flow conditions include Mach number of
0.149 and angle of attack from 0◦ to 18◦ at Reynold’s number of
1.6 million with reference to mean aerodynamic chord. The com-
parison of CFD and experimental lift and drag coefficients shows
an excellent correlation as shown in Fig. 4. The boxplots of rela-
tive error between them are shown in Fig. 3(b). Furthermore, the
RMSRE between experimental and CFD data of drag coefficient is
0.27 and lift coefficient is 0.21, thus confirming that CFD can be
efficiently employed for aerodynamic simulations.
4. Methodology
An automated multi-disciplinary design exploration and opti-
mization framework is proposed in this research, which is shown
in Fig. 5. Firstly, a geometry of a fighter aircraft including eight
parametric variables is created as shown in Fig. 6. The geometry
selection is driven by the availability of aircraft model and data
measured in anechoic chamber [30]. However, the same method-
ology can be extended to design and optimize a new and complex
fighter aircraft geometry with more stealth features like twin ver-
tical fins, variable wing sweep, etc. Table 1 shows geometric vari-
ables of the baseline aircraft geometry.
The parameterized geometry is then shared for the coupled
stealth and aerodynamic analysis to be carried out using SBR
technique and CFD respectively. The analysis is performed in
three steps: pre-processing, simulation, and post-processing. In
pre-processing, geometry cleaning along with the formulation of
physical problem, computational domain of interest and automatic
scripted grid generation is done. In simulation, meshed geome-
try is used for the analysis by defining the boundary conditions
for the problem. The simulation parameters are listed in Table 2.
The stealth analysis is performed only on one frequency and polar-
ization to keep the number of simulation variables tractable. The
frequency of 1 GHz is chosen because it is the typical operating
frequency of ground-based radars [15].
The mesh settings for CFD analysis are shown in Table 3. Fig. 7
shows the grid of the employed aircraft model. The drag and lift
were taken as converged to a tolerance of 1e-04 for 10 successive
iterations. In post-processing, the results in the form of RCS, drag
and lift coefficients are extracted and visualized.

5
Z.U.D. Taj, A. Bilal, M. Awais et al. Aerospace Science and Technology 133 (2023) 108114

Fig. 5. Flow chart of proposed framework.

Table 1
Baseline geometric parameters.

Fixed Parameters Value Parametric Variables Baseline Minimum Maximum

Length 14.86 m Wing sweep angle 43.4◦ 39◦ 55◦
Height 3.64 m Horizontal tail sweep angle 42◦ 40◦ 55◦
Wing span 9.42 m Vertical tail sweep angle 41.7◦ 40◦ 55◦
Wing tip chord 0.96 m Wing aspect ratio 3.14 2.51 3.76
Wing root chord 3.89 m Horizontal tail aspect ratio 2.93 2.34 3.51
Wing area 28.3 m2 Vertical tail aspect ratio 2.24 1.79 2.69
– – Wing dihedral angle 0◦ −1◦ 3◦
– – Horizontal tail dihedral angle 0◦ −1◦ 3◦

Table 2
Simulation parameters.

Parameter Value Parameter Value

Frequency 1 GHz Mach 0.8
Polarization VV Static pressure 22729.3 Pa
Scanning angle (azimuth) 0◦ ± 45◦ Temperature 216.8 K
Scanning angle (elevation) 90◦ Density 0.000709 slugs/ft3
Step size 1◦ CFD analysis Pressure based steady state
Angle of attack 4◦ CFD solution method Pressure-velocity coupled
Altitude 36000 ft Turbulence model SST k–ω (RANS)

6
Z.U.D. Taj, A. Bilal, M. Awais et al. Aerospace Science and Technology 133 (2023) 108114

of additional variables such as those related to flight controls siz-

ing and deflection angles, thereby increasing the scope of paper
considerably. Therefore, current study is limited to find the opti-
mized geometry X (Equation (28)) which minimizes the objective
functions f 1 ( R C S ) , f 2 (C D ) subject to lift g (C L ) (Equation (29))
and geometric constraints g (x).
⎧ ⎫
⎪ x1 − Wing sweep ⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ x2 − Horizontal tail sweep ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ x3 − Vertical tail sweep ⎪
⎪
⎨ ⎬
x4 − Wing aspect ratio
X= (28)
⎪
⎪ x5 − Horizontal tail aspect ratio ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ x6 − Vertical tail aspect ratio ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ x7 − Wing dihedral
⎪
⎪
Fig. 6. Baseline aircraft geometry. ⎪
⎩ ⎪
⎭
x8 − Horizontal tail dihedral
Table 3 g 1 (C L ) ≥ 0.339 (29)
CFD mesh settings.

Setting Value 5. Results and discussion

Mesh elements 4.5 million
Surface mesh All triangles patch independent 5.1. GP surrogate model results
Volume mesh Unstructured tetrahedral
Boundary layer height 0.04 m
Inflation layers 12 The generated 10-fold cross-validated GP surrogate models for
RCS, C D and C L responses are plotted with initial simulated data
in Fig. 8. The trained model is also tested on randomly generated
20 design points and the RMSRE for RCS, C D and C L responses are
found to be 0.284, 0.023 and 0.021 respectively, thus confirming
the good accuracy of the trained models. Furthermore, the boxplots
of relative error between actual and predicted values of responses
are shown in Fig. 9. The central mark of boxes represents the me-
dian of the relative error, and the upper and lower marks represent
the 25th and 75th percentiles respectively. Whereas the whiskers
are located at the extreme values and the outlier data points are
shown with symbol “+”.

5.2. GA optimization results

In GA optimization scheme, the population size was set to 200

Fig. 7. Mesh of the employed aircraft model.
A mesh independence study was performed at 4◦ angle of at-
tack using three mesh sizes. The finest mesh level (M 0 ) contained
7.1 million elements and was coarsened twice (M 1 and M 2 ), re-
sulting in mesh levels of 4.5 and 3.6 million elements respectively.
The corresponding lift and drag coefficients of all grids along with
their percentage errors from M 0 are listed in Table 4. Keeping in
mind the computational time and resources for the current study,
M 1 mesh was selected as the final mesh size due to very low per-
centage error from M 0 (0.6%) as compared to M 2 mesh (6.2%).
The simulations were done on Intel E5-2620 workstation with
16 Xeon processors of 2.1 GHz frequency. The time for CFD and
SBR technique was 90 and 15 minutes per simulation respectively.
To reduce the computational cost and time, we employed GP mod-
elling to create the surrogate models using the generated training
data of 336 runs created through space filling Latin Hypercube
Sampling (LHS) technique.
Using these generated GP surrogate models, the geometry is fi-
nally optimized by gradient-free multi-objective GA optimization
scheme. The objective functions are to minimize drag and RCS,
while achieving the desired lift. Although, additional requirements
of aircraft stability and performance parameters such as take-off
distance, endurance, etc. can also be incorporated into the frame-
work, but consideration of these parameters will require inclusion
and maximum generations were set to 2000. The algorithm adopts
a crossover possibility of 0.8 to generate the new populations. The
algorithm took 102 generations and 20401 function evaluations to
find the optimized geometries.
A Pareto optimal solution is a feasible solution X if there ex-
ists no other feasible solution Y such that f i (Y ) ≤ f i ( X ) for
i = 1, 2, . . . , n with f j (Y ) < f i ( X ) for at least one j [18]. The plot
containing these Pareto optimal solutions is a Pareto optimal front.
As our problem involves multi-objective constrained optimization,
hence it is difficult to obtain a single solution that will optimize
the conflicting objective functions of low drag and low RCS simul-
taneously. Therefore, the Pareto optimal solutions are found using
GA to give the designers several feasible choices to choose from. In
Fig. 10, Pareto optimal solutions are plotted along with the base-
line geometry.
As evident from the Pareto optimal front, three types of opti-
mized configurations are found using the employed metaheuris-
tic scheme including stealth, aerodynamics, and aero-stealth op-
timized geometries. The obtained stealth optimized configuration
gives the best possible stealth performance of 50.9% RCS reduction
from the baseline geometry i.e., 1.784 m2 to 0.876 m2 . The cor-
responding geometry is shown in Fig. 11. Similarly, the obtained
aerodynamics optimized configuration gives the best possible aero-
dynamic performance of 6.7% drag reduction from the baseline
geometry i.e., 0.0505 to 0.0471. The corresponding geometry is
shown in Fig. 12. Rest of the aero-stealth optimized configurations
give good combined aerodynamic and stealth performance as seen
in Fig. 10.

7
Z.U.D. Taj, A. Bilal, M. Awais et al. Aerospace Science and Technology 133 (2023) 108114

Table 4
Grid independence study.

Mesh level Mesh size CD Percentage error C D from M 0 CL Percentage error C L from M 0
M0 7,153,002 0.050838 – 0.35685 –
M1 4,502,804 0.050543 0.6% 0.35470 0.6%
M2 3,619,205 0.052635 3.0% 0.37906 6.2%

Fig. 8. GP surrogate trained models.

Fig. 11. Stealth optimized geometry.

Fig. 9. Boxplots of relative error between true and predicted responses using GP
surrogate models.

Fig. 10. Pareto optimal front. Fig. 12. Aerodynamics optimized geometry.

8
Z.U.D. Taj, A. Bilal, M. Awais et al. Aerospace Science and Technology 133 (2023) 108114

Table 5
Geometric parameters of baseline and optimized configurations.

Parameter Baseline Stealth optimized Aerodynamics optimized

Wing sweep angle 43.4◦ 49◦ 48.2◦
Horizontal tail sweep angle 42◦ 44.4◦ 54.9◦
Vertical tail sweep angle 41.7◦ 47.9◦ 45.6◦
Wing aspect ratio 3.14 3.39 3.76
Horizontal tail aspect ratio 2.93 2.85 2.35
Vertical tail aspect ratio 2.24 2.21 2.17
Wing dihedral angle 0◦ 1.1◦ 2.9◦
Horizontal tail dihedral angle 0◦ 0.8◦ 1.2◦

Table 6
Comparison of optimization results between baseline and optimized configurations.

Configuration Surrogate Model (Predicted) Simulation (Optimized)

CD RCS (m2 ) CL CD RCS (m2 ) CL
Baseline 0.049 1.783 0.352 0.0505 1.784 0.355
Stealth optimized 0.0489 0.883 0.369 0.0493 0.876 0.357
Aerodynamics optimized 0.0468 0.948 0.381 0.0471 0.958 0.389

The geometric parameters of aerodynamics optimized, stealth References

optimized, and baseline configurations are listed in Table 5. The
results show that the sweep angles of wing, horizontal and verti-
cal tails of the optimized geometries have been increased from the
baseline configuration. Similarly, the obtained configurations have
increased wing and tail dihedral angles as compared to the orig-
inal aircraft. Whereas the wing aspect ratio is increased but the
horizontal and vertical tail aspect ratios are decreased for the op-
timized configurations.
Furthermore, the predicted optimization results are validated
against high fidelity actual CFD and SBR computations and the val-
ues show a good agreement. Both predicted and actual optimized
C D , RCS, and C L responses along with their comparison with the
baseline geometry are summarized in the Table 6. The results con-
firm that the proposed multidisciplinary design exploration and
optimization environment provides a reliable environment for the
design of an aerial vehicle.
6. Conclusion
The key features for a fighter aircraft are high maneuverabil-
ity and low detectability. While the design for low observability
requires sacrifices in aerodynamic performance and vice versa,
a coupled modelling and simulation environment is needed to
achieve an aerodynamically optimized stealth aircraft. Hence, a
multi-disciplinary design exploration and optimization framework
is proposed in this research. A parameterized aircraft geometry
was shared for the high fidelity aerodynamic and stealth anal-
ysis using CFD and SBR techniques respectively. To improve the
efficiency and reduce the calculations cost, surrogate models of
RCS, C D and C L responses were also developed using GP regres-
sion modelling. A gradient free metaheuristic optimization scheme
involving multi-objective GA was employed to find the optimized
geometry with minimum drag and RCS. The results indicate that
up to 6.7% drag and 50.9% RCS reduction could be realized using
the proposed framework.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
No data was used for the research described in the article.
[1] Lin Zhou, et al., Three-dimensional aerodynamic/stealth optimization based
on adjoint sensitivity analysis for scattering problem, AIAA J. 58 (6) (2020)
2702–2715.
[2] U. Barbosa, et al., Analysis of radar cross section and wave drag reduction of
fighter aircraft, in: Procedings of the Aeros Technology Congress, 2016.
[3] Yalin Pan, et al., Integrated design optimization of aerodynamic and stealthy
performance for flying wing aircraft, in: Proceedings of the International Mul-
tiConference of Engineers and Computer Scientists, vol. 2, 2017.
[4] Cheng Liangliang, et al., Integration analysis of conceptual design and stealth-
aerodynamic characteristics of combat aircraft, J. Aerosp. Technol. Manag. 8
(2016) 40–48.
[5] Su Haoqin, et al., Calculation and analysis on stealth and aerodynamics char-
acteristics of a medium altitude long endurance UAV, Proc. Eng. 99 (2015)
111–115.
[6] Di Wu, et al., Aero-structure-stealth coupled optimization for high aspect ratio
wing using adaptive metamodeling method, in: 15th AIAA/ISSMO Multidisci-
plinary Analysis and Optimization Conference, 2014.
[7] Ming Li, et al., A gradient-based aero-stealth optimization design method for
flying wing aircraft, Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 92 (2019) 156–169.
[8] Xiaoke Li, et al., Development of surrogate models in reliability-based design
optimization: a review, Math. Biosci. Eng. 18 (5) (2021) 6386–6409.
[9] Victor Picheny, Improving Accuracy and Compensating for Uncertainty in Sur-
rogate Modeling, Diss. University of Florida, 2009.
[10] Alexander Forrester, Andras Sobester, Andy Keane, Engineering Design via Sur-
rogate Modelling: A Practical Guide, John Wiley & Sons, 2008.
[11] Loïc Brevault, Mathieu Balesdent, Ali Hebbal, Overview of Gaussian process
based multi-fidelity techniques with variable relationship between fidelities,
application to aerospace systems, Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 107 (2020) 106339.
[12] S. Ashwin Renganathan, Romit Maulik, Jai Ahuja, Enhanced data efficiency us-
ing deep neural networks and Gaussian processes for aerodynamic design op-
timization, Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 111 (2021) 106522.
[13] J.P. Jacobs, W.P. du Plessis, High-accuracy Gaussian process modelling of mis-
sile RCS with cost-based preferential training data selection, in: 12th European
Conference on Antennas and Propagation (EuCAP 2018), IET, 2018.
[14] J. Pieter Jacobs, Dirk IL de Villiers, Gaussian process modeling of aperture effi-
ciency ripple in reflector antennas, in: 2015 Loughborough Antennas & Propa-
gation Conference (LAPC), IEEE, 2015.
[15] Ahmad Bilal, et al., Multi-frequency analysis of Gaussian process modelling for
aperiodic RCS responses of a parameterised aircraft model, IET Radar Sonar
Navig. 14 (7) (2020) 1061–1067.
[16] Zhenguo Wang, Wei Huang, Li Yan, Multidisciplinary design optimization ap-
proach and its application to aerospace engineering, Chin. Sci. Bull. 59 (36)
(2014) 5338–5353.
[17] Yang Shen, et al., Parametric modeling and aerodynamic optimization of EX-
PERT configuration at hypersonic speeds, Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 84 (2019)
641–649.
[18] Singiresu S. Rao, Engineering Optimization: Theory and Practice, John Wiley &
Sons, 2019.
[19] A. Hanif Halim, Idris Ismail, Swagatam Das, Performance assessment of the
metaheuristic optimization algorithms: an exhaustive review, Artif. Intell. Rev.
(2020) 1–87.
[20] Pakin Champasak, et al., Self-adaptive many-objective meta-heuristic based
on decomposition for many-objective conceptual design of a fixed wing un-
manned aerial vehicle, Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 100 (2020) 105783.

9
Z.U.D. Taj, A. Bilal, M. Awais et al.
[21] Yu Hu, et al., Optimization configuration of gas path sensors using a hybrid
method based on tabu search artificial bee colony and improved genetic algo-
rithm in turbofan engine, Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 112 (2021) 106642.
[22] Jun-xue Leng, et al., Parameterized modeling and optimization of reusable
launch vehicles based on reverse design approach, Acta Astronaut. 178 (2021)
36–50.
[23] Tian-tian Zhang, et al., Parameterization and optimization of hypersonic-gliding
vehicle configurations during conceptual design, Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 58 (2016)
225–234.
[24] Yin Yu, et al., On the influence of optimization algorithm and initial de-
sign on wing aerodynamic shape optimization, Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 75 (2018)
183–199.
[25] Yang Shen, et al., Constraint-based parameterization using FFD and multi-
objective design optimization of a hypersonic vehicle, Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 100
(2020) 105788.
[26] Eugene F. Knott, John F. Schaeffer, Michael T. Tulley, Radar Cross Section,
SciTech Publishing, 2004.
[27] Z. Lin, et al., Performance of a massively parallel higher-order method of mo-
ments code using thousands of CPUs, in: 2018 International Conference on
Electromagnetics in Advanced Applications (ICEAA), IEEE, 2018.
[28] Mohammad H. Ahmad, Dayalan Prajith Kasilingam, Spectral domain fast multi-
pole method for solving integral equations of electromagnetic wave scattering,
Prog. Electromagn. Res. M 80 (2019) 121–131.
[29] Guocai Zan, et al., Scattering characteristics of the multi-corner reflector based
on SBR method, in: 2018 12th International Symposium on Antennas, Propa-
gation and EM Theory (ISAPE), IEEE, 2018.
[30] Ahmad Bilal, et al., ISAR imaging using FFT with polar reformatting of mea-
sured RCS, in: 2020 3rd International Conference on Computing, Mathematics
and Engineering Technologies (iCoMET), IEEE, 2020.
10
Aerospace Science and Technology 133 (2023) 108114
[31] Wanli Xu, Lixin Guo, Shuirong Chai, Improved SBR method for backward scat-
tering of ship target under shallow sea background, in: 2018 12th International
Symposium on Antennas, Propagation and EM Theory (ISAPE), IEEE, 2018.
[32] Ahmad Bilal, et al., Comparison of SBR and MLFMM techniques for the com-
putation of RCS of a fighter aircraft, IET Radar Sonar Navig. 13 (10) (2019)
1805–1810.
[33] Junyang Zhou, Yiping Han, Analyzing the electromagnetic scattering character-
istics for plasma targets based on shooting and bouncing ray method, AIP Adv.
9 (6) (2019) 065106.
[34] John David Anderson, et al., Computational Fluid Dynamics: An Introduction,
Springer Science & Business Media, 2013.
[35] López Deibi, Diego Domínguez, Jesús Gonzalo, Impact of turbulence modelling
on external supersonic flow field simulations in rocket aerodynamics, Int. J.
Comput. Fluid Dyn. 27.8–10 (2013) 332–341.
[36] Eric Schulz, Maarten Speekenbrink, Andreas Krause, A tutorial on Gaussian
process regression: modelling, exploring, and exploiting functions, J. Math. Psy-
chol. 85 (2018) 1–16.
[37] Mustafa Göçken, et al., Integrating metaheuristics and artificial neural networks
for improved stock price prediction, Expert Syst. Appl. 44 (2016) 320–331.
[38] Johann Dréo, et al., Metaheuristics for Hard Optimization: Methods and Case
Studies, Springer Science & Business Media, 2006.
[39] Thomas Loeser, Dan Vicroy, Andreas Schuette, SACCON static wind tunnel tests
at DNW-NWB and 14 x22 NASA LaRC, in: 28th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics
Conference, 2010.