as long as it is straight line, it would probably manage to do fine, with, eventually, a few “reinforcements” around the leading edges etc, to withstand heat.

however, if it tried to manouver at supersonic speeds, that’s another story.. but I guess it would depend on aircrft’s history. some F-15s started to break in recent years, obviously, the structure grew old at some point… the efforts it would have to stand while being hot may be difficult to manage, indeed

The F-22 frontal cross section is a diamond with fuselage-wing blending, the F-15 is a box with wings, with conformal fuel tanks is the same, the F-22 has a wing good for supercruise with RAM covering, the F-15 is not an aircraft designed to supercruise but to dogfight at Mach 0.8.
You also disregard the F-22 airframe, it was designed to give the least drag at Mach 1.7, the F-15 only achieves Mach 2.5 clean, and basicly achieves that speed thanks to raw power and variable geometry inlets add weapons and it will fly at Mach 2 and very few times in many years.

See it in the Su-35BM it has supercruise capable engines but it won`t supercruise as the PAK FA even having the same engines, will it supercruise yes, but the efficiency is lower than the aircraft specifically designed to do that

The F-15 won`t do like the F-22, it has smaller wings and more clutter in the airframe even the F-15SE won`t be comparable, no stealth and no wing designed specifically to supercruise.
the F-22 diamond cross section also has fuselage-wing blending, the F-15 is more in the line of the MiG-25 a box with wings

sorry, but comparing fixed canards with movable ones is apples and oranges comparison: useless

That is a poor excuse, then you admit a tailess delta is in disadvantage and canards are useless in the kfir to increase STR and ITR to beat a regular interceptor like the MiG-23

You wasted your time very much again, the Kfir according to my investigation was a fix-surface canards a/c. If your MIG-23 is fixed tail, that will be fair.

Especially, in modern air combat directing nose to foes a/s in a very moment for launching missile is much common than run circles like a mill donkey.

Otherwise, this data showing quite clear the disadvantage of low swept wing: faster speed, worse maneuver.

That is just an excuse, is like people say this aircraft is better even having not stealth and supercruise who needs supercruise? my aircraft does not have it and its alright

STRs are needed because any other aircraft will turn to avoid being shot, and it is not like you are saying the Mirage 2000 is pointing the nose like a Su-27 in the bell, it is simply banking, it means the aircraft rolls fast but can not turn as fast.

Once it starts turning it loses the initial advantage, by the way the F-16 has other speeds where it will beat the Mirage 2000, however that graph is selective even does not meantion STR simply because it will show the Mirage has a lower STR than the F-16 at any altitude.

Also you have vertical agility or Loops the F-16 must be a better aircraft too in that due to higher TWR.

By the way the MiG-23 was not a dogfighter if you get a F-5 versus Kfir you will see canards are not of much help for the Kfir.

You’ve wasted your time, we are talking about canard and tail:cool:

No i did not, any aerodynamic configuration has pros and cons, canards also induce flutter. reduce lift, increase drag etc etc.

No aircraft can be good in everything even the F-22 has problems with rain and maintainance, it degrades its stealth

See it in this way, the Mirage 2000 and Gripen have excellent ITR but bleed energy so fast that they have a difference of ITR and STR of 10 deg/s, they can bank fast but not turn well.
Usually the LERXed aircraft have only a difference of 5 deg/s between their ITR and STR due to wing specifically design for speeds of Mach 0.7.

The reason the americans still use tailplanes is simply what they want to achieve.

The Russians were very smart by making the T-50 with tailplanes and LEVCONs since it uses the best qualities of LERXes and Canards without the drag a canard involves, the same was done in the Su-35BM deleting the canards

In general aircraft design will be a balance, why canards are not commonly seen in stealth aircraft is simple, they have more compromises.

Even the stealthy Gripen had its canards above the wing affecting in general its LO, tailplanes always are benefited by the downwash of the main wing and can always have a better moment arm.

So it is not they are better or worse they simply are used depending in what type of wing they want to use.

The general performance will be a balance of drag, lift, thrust, weight etc etc.

“Russia is trying to stabilize its population at 145 million.”
“But officials say that the population could decline to 125 million by 2025 unless a host of measures,..”

Both options are still possible.

well let us hope Russia`s population grows, they need it and they have the land