The Viggen didn’t have all moving canards, the Cheetah has a greater wing sweep and smaller aspect ratio, and non-moving canards. Can’t really comment on the J-9, but the Lavi was a multirole fighter.

I gave some thought about the Su-34 after I made my comment, but designs optimized for the strike role need to have high payloads, and it would seem strange to me that you would create a stealthy airframe that needed to carry payload externally for a strike role if that’s what the airframe was optimized for. The J-20’s weapons bays aren’t that much bigger than the F-22’s after all. For them to be significantly bigger, the J-20 would have had to be the 23 meter long giant that it is clearly not.

Furthermore, if you look at the wings of the J-20, they don’t seem to be designed for large payloads. The wings are thin, which would indicate optimization for supersonic regimes of flight, but if it was purely an interceptor, again why go with all moving canards with such high degree of motion? I just don’t see the J-20 fitting the role of a bombtruck or being limited to the role of an interceptor. Payload would be too small for a bomb truck, and every interceptor you’ve mentioned with canards don’t have all moving canards or other optimizations for greater maneuverability (all moving stabs, lerxes, chines).

I’m sure that the J-20 could probably perform either role, but I’m not convinced that it is specialized for either of them.

modern 4 gen interceptor(optimized for that role) like Eurofighter and gripen do have thin delta with canard, gripen even got close-coupled ones.
Also a delta wing as on the Gripen/Eurofighter/j-20 offers a light but strong and stiff structure in conjunction with the use of CFC on the outside skins and main spars, even when the relative thickness of the wing is small.
Earlier generation this was not the case for Viggen
The question of stiffness is vital, as the single-spar aluminium winged Viggen had shown years before. Not initially meeting the severe requirements on roll rate at high dynamic pressures, more hydraulic cylinders for the moving of the inner trailing edge elevons had been added. And the wings broke.

guess the operator 😉

for the sukhoi, the jump is done with a few A2A missiles and a light fuel load. To operate with the Marines, the aircraft will have to be able to carry lots of ground ordnance with good persistency over the battlefield -> fly very heavy. there’s no way that a single engine fighter takes off with today’s technology in a couple of hundreds of meters without external help (catapult)…

and if it´s to fly with a bomb or two over a couple of hundreds of km, they can keep the harriers 😉

yes, its all about requirement and cost. STOBAR lighter load or Catobar full load. Both is possible with the “sea-Gripen” according to the feasibility study.
The thing with Stobar gripen is that its probably very good at it, due to its original design requirements.

lol computer games not real

no **** sherlock, a simulation isnt better than the parameters put into it. Is a better way to put it.

in any case, even considering that your ship is used one aircraft at the time, the marines use their aircraft mostly for ground support, meaning heavy loaded… so, you design a ship with the runway on which your gripen will take off and land using the whole length of the deck, which, with minimum safety margins, good headwind and ship advancing would mean a ship that is good 400m long.. which is still 30% bigger than todays biggest carriers USA have…

methinks that if they canned the F-35B (would spare a lot of money to many, USA included) the best thing for the USMC (which they should have decided from the beginning btw), would be to take the CATOBAR version and forget about vertical stuff

why not use arrested landings and STOBAR launch and you got a very short deck?
no 400m are needed…
Just look at the standard requirement for SU-35 for 450m runway, and it can still jump of a ship.

Takeoff in 400m, while loaded with stores?

Gripen A/B/C/D runway requirements are in all possible circumstances to be able to use a 600mx9m runway. In reality this means that it could land and takeoff from 350m to 500m depending on conditions and load.

The forward motion of a carrier, against the wind direction is very beneficial as well for these numbers, due to gripens low approach speed of about 120 kts.

Due to the better charactaristics of the F414 in low speed and low altitude, as well as the new landning gears, this STOL ability will improve on E version.

This doesnt mean a “sea-gripen” wouldn´t need any mods for being operated at sea, just that its a good starting point for such a mod. (cheaper to take it to carrier than most A/C) And in an emergency it could be possible (theoretically) to use a carrier deck.

Lower angle of attack and sustained turn possible because the intake is blocked from the air stream.

Highly maneuverable aircraft must still have its intakes at the bottom or by the side.

couldnt this drawbacks be compensated extra doors (with flat surface) underbody mounted al a MIG 29 style?

Various leakers in Brazil have a difference of opinion

http://www.france24.com/en/20090906-…silva-brasilia

vs

http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2012/12/12/Brazil-fighter-deal-seen-to-favor-Boeing/UPI-34951355310735/

no one dare to mention gripen in this case 😀 not the french or the US