With the engine placement and design, that would give off huge RCS spikes, perhaps RCS blockers similar to Su-57? Can't see the outlet from the angle to pass an arm chair air marshall comment on the IR management.
The engines are in separate nacelles similar to SR-71, rather than integrated with the fuselage.
That doesn't mean the engines are facing the airstream directly. If it's a combined cycle engine, then you'll need separate airstreams for a turbine and a ramjet/scramjet, which gives you options to still have appropriate ducting.
e.g.: see this which depicts how a combined cycle turbine/scramjet for the SR-72 concept would be arranged. It's very simplistic but shows it most clearly, and we can see how the intake for both the turbine and scramjet ducts are not direct to the airstream by the nature of the engine type, and also that operating as a scramjet the turbine side would be blocked.
Additionally, an aircraft like this probably will be operating at very high altitudes, so there probably won't be a frontal radar system at a similar altitude looking at it anyway.
As for the separate engine nacelles themselves, I suspect you can still achieve significant LO if not VLO signature reduction even with engine nacelles separately like that.
For a high speed aircraft like this (seems to be at least high supersonic if not hypersonic potentially), one other factor is internal payload volume (whether it's for a sensor bay or for a weapons bay). Integrating the engines into the main fuselage similar to concepts like SR-72 is one way of doing it, but it also can reduce the effective volume and dimensions you have to work with in the main fuselage of the aircraft.
====
Posts moved to the breaking news thread, as these pictures don't really fill any other thread. The two interesting parts of the picture shouldn't be 6th gen and don't fit UAV or breaking news threads perfectly as the discussion as gone.
