Compare with MIG-23 or F-4, the Kfir was a good fighter and no less advantage in air combat, when you facing advantage canards gained in same generation, you always hide behind the next generation a/c.

Your expression is clearly weak since this point we have debated previously. I had pointed Viggen was a not all-moving canards a/c but Harrier2 was.

So does the conventional tailed layout.

The canards also achieve a good effect to main wing while it is up deflected due to stable design.

“The wing does affect the tailplane but this is good” only when the tail is set lower than main wing or being AoA.

Although with that additional pitch up force the Eurocanards still is overwhelming to both of them

What about the swept angle is same as main wing like F-22?:p

Ok let’s see such situation.
Both tailed layouts and canards layout are unstable designed during transonic or supersonic performance, so the trim surface of both of them are posited at zero which reason I have emphasized repeatedly, then we want each of them obtaining a pitch up force by canards and tail. For tailed layouts they deflect tail downwards which supply a negative lift whereas canards deflect upwards which provide a positive lift additionally.
Now we see which one be in advantage?

Are you a freshman on aerodynamics? Do you know the longer distance between CoG and trim surface the more stranger trim force that trim surface will provide if they are same area and same shape? For tail plane it does, so does the canards.
I have no idea what you what to tell us.

To make out why the LERX is setting towards rear more and more showing F-22 and T-50 and same notice why strake was opted behind the canards which showing on Gripen and Euro-typhoon.

Do you want to say the diamond or wedged wing is not suit to canards?

A canard delta configuration with unstable stability has less lift than an unstable tailed delta when both canard and tailplane are of the same size due to additional lift the canard center of lift is closer to the center of gravity so it is near to static neutral stability, while the tailed design will have a farther distance or more negative static stability for reducing trim drag because of its position aft of the Center of Gravity.

However an unstable configuration reduces greatly the drag for a canard wing configuration and of course if the Canard wing aircraft is unstable compared to a stable wing tail aircraft it will have better drag trim
The Canard down washes the wing killing lift from the main wing and canard deflections will affect it even more.
The Tailplane is downwashed by the wing so it will make a download force on the tailplane helping it to trim the aircraft and reducing the tailplane deflection for trimming; the tailplane`s center of lift is farther from the center of gravity due to the fact it has a higher critical mach number and its leading edge is more swept than its wing this will further reduce its deflection for trimming; most canards have the same of less swept than their wings in example the Rafale and Eurofighter .

On the F-22, F-35 and T-50 effectively the wing and tailplane have the same angle of swept on their leading edges due to planforming but they have a better moment arm because they are not triangular in shape as a stealthy canard usually is.

A stealthy canard also needs to be at the same level of its wing like all the stealthy tailplanes are and not above the wing or below it, for a canard to be the most effective needs to be above the wing so its vortices can re-energize the wing, planforming will affect that too rendering the canard less effective and more like a drag inducing element.

See you admitted canards obtained more advantages.

The speed should be cared more since we are in supersonic period.
Accompany by speed increasing the lift produced by tailplane deflected upwards will decreasing due to CoL moving rearward.

i never said that, i said by making the aircraft with tailplanes unstable they become equals, there is no advantage in having a canard or a tailplane.

Let us start with the Mirage III and MiG-21.

here we have two of the best cold war fighters one had tailess delta and the other a tailed delta.

The Mirage III by being tailess had less drag but also less controlability so the Russians opted for the tailed delta.
The delta offered less drag good internal volume but has troubles of bleeding energy by been highly sweep at low speeds.
A wing has better lift at low speeds if it has less sweep.
The solution was a canard in the Kfir but this aircraft stiil was not a really good doghfighter it was easily surpassed by the F-15 and F-14 and struggled against the F-5, MiG-23 or F-4.
The Viggen took STOL as a very important step but Lerxed Harriers surpassed the agility of the canarded AJ-37
The Solution was relaxed stability why? simply because this made the original basic configuration of the Mirage III have a higher pitch up vertical vector so the Mirage 2000 can turn tighter than ist predecessor the Mirage III.

Now having a tail heavy means you have to trim it at vertical level flight if you add a canard the aerodynamic center needs to be a bit closer to the center of gravity so that pitch up force is not making excessive drag by trimming.

The Tailed aircraft achieve less drag simply because the main wing is the largest lifting surface so the main lift is not affect by any wake like in the case of the Canard delta wing.
The wing does affect the tailplane but this is good because it reduces the relative AoA of the tailplane by doing this you get a down force for trimming.
However in the US they saw they need an additional pitch up force to improve turning so they applied relaxed stability to the F-16.
In Russia was the same with the Su-27.
tailplanes are usually more swept than their wings so they have higher Mach critical numbers than their wings so that also reduces their drag canards are the opposite.
The Canard adds a vortex that improves lift on the wing despite drag at low to medium AoA.
But this was solved by adding LERXes to the main wing on tailed aircraft creating vortices for the main wing.

However Because the canard is a lifting surface ahead of the center of gravity, it creates a pitch up forces ahead of it, if it is managed gives good agility and low drag at supersonic speeds so they are used with near neutral static stability so they do not create excessive pitch up force.
The canard is suppose to stall first adding safety to reduce pitch up forces, however adds drag.
Tailplanes to the contrary are behind the center of gravity so they need a slightly farther distance from the center of gravity in order to achieve the same gains in reduction of drag.
LERXEs also are lifting surfaces ahead of the center of lift and produce vortices without the added wake of a canard, the MiG-29, Su-27 and F-18 have lerxes with apexes well ahead of the forebody near the radome so as you can see the Su-27 and F-16 do not yield nothing to an aircraft with canards .

Conclusion if you use deltas is good to use canards, relaxed stability and TVC like in the MiG 1.44 which is ahead of the Eurocanards, but if you are going to use other types of wings they are not as needed.
And you have the Su-27 and F-22 to prove it

Utter nonsense. European manufacturers had plenty of experience with conventional tail/wing layouts on high speed combat aircraft with the Jaguar, Mirage F1, Tornado, Entendard, and plenty of other aircraft. The Eurocanards were new design aircraft. They were not developed from previous aircraft. A delta-canard design was chosen for the Eurofighter as it was optimized for “shoot-and-scoot” BVR combat where supersonic turning is important.

The Rafale and Eurofighter are already old designs basicly 1970s technology that flew in the mid 1980s, however France and Europe won`t design a new fighter just to replace that technology, they have invested a lot of monies on them.
Modern aircraft like the T-50 and F-35 show you canards with deltas is mostly a design solution of the 1970s.
The F-22 will leave all the Eurofighter solutions as another way of solving the same trouble but not the only one and the best, the F-22 is a 1980s technology that flew in 1991 and developed in the 1990s.

What do you want to say?
Despite approaching sonic flight with unstable design, the canards gains no advantage? Who can see why canards couldn’t be big a/c in your explain?

Aircraft with canards and with tailplanes can be made unstable, in fact the first aircraft of that type was the F-16 followed by the Mirage 2000 and Su-27.
As aerodynamic science faced different problems and solutions new problems appeared.

When the B-70 and F-111 were developed, they were developed with the idea of solving several troubles but much later these aicraft created new ones.

the B-70 configuration was an excellent high speed aircraft but as a delta and any aircraft had supersonic center of lift shift, so they adapted canards besides to allow shorter take offs and landings.
The F-111 was designed with the idea of no compromise, its wing was good for STOL and supersonic speeds.

Here we see two different solutions to the same trouble how to make aircraft fast but with good STOL capability.

The F-111 was a good aircraft but suffered from excessive stability at supersonic speeds, since its center of lift migrated backwards as the wings were swept back.

in the F-14 they tackle that problem by adding wing globes that act like supersonic speed canards, however because the F-14 was already too complex later they were deemed unnecesary as the aircraft evolved.

In Europe the Mirage III was the best selling product, dassault liked the tailess delta because of its simplicity. low drag, high lift and high internal volume.
Saab tackled the same problem with the AJ-37 Viggen, but France went back to the tailed design in the Mirage F1 and flirted with Variable geometry wings and direct lift in the Mirage G and Balzac , however the Mirage III was a sound design, so Israel made into a better fighter by just adding canards in the Kfir.
Dassault went back to design a simple modernized Mirage III with relaxed stability and small strakes, and bigger more complex with canards, these were the Mirage 2000 and 4000.

The americans chose tailed designs with LERXes and relaxed stability in the F-16 and F-18 and the Soviets/Russians followed with the Su-27 and MiG-29 solving exacly the same problems solved by Delta canards.

The Mirage 4000 failed but the simplier 2000 succeded.

But Dassault went back to the Delta and made its experience in the 4000 worthed and developed the Rafale while England the EAP.
all of this is to say you that using a canard or a tail has more to do with the way each design solved the same trouble and the accumulated experience of each bureax from previous designs.

Now it is possible to make an aircraft with canards and relaxed stability with some stealth treatment, but since the tailed designs have basicly solved their high AoA handling and drag troubles with Relaxed stability and wing design all the current stealth LO fighters have tails why? simply because the main solution was done by making the F-16 unstable and a convetional design present a smoother solution to planforming and performance so you have the tailed F-22, F-35 and T-50.

Now you might think Dassualt, Saab and Eurofighter prefer deltas with Canards. but the answer is not exactly, what happens is redesign a new aircraft takes a lot of money and time so they have developed them to milk the design the most.

I’ll ask you again, Kiwinopal, why was the F-16XL such a big improvement over the F-16? According to you, LERX+wing+tailplane is superior in terms of lift/drag than canard+delta, so it should be way superior to an unstable compound delta. Yet the F-16XL carried a larger load for a greater distance and supercruised.
And canards are not a 70s fad to improve deltas. The Wright flier 0f 1905 was a canard !!!

Here is the answer, no, the LERX and tail design are not the best, the tailess delta is the best in terms of drag, the F-16XL and LCA are two good examples but here the problems lies in controlability, that is why most aircraft have either a tail or a canard.

The F-16XL has several modifications in its wing to increase stability and range.

First it has a notch at the apex of its wing to reduce sweep and flow separation also it has a compound wing double delta wing or cranked arrow with a lower swept outer panel wing, wing fences and extended trailing edge to increase stability.

Although valid points, the conclusion you got all wrong…
The K-36DM ejectors in Su-34 are mounted on rotary platforms, AFAIK. It’s more than obvious that the REAL reason for tandem cocnpit arangement is the possibility to play poker… or chess 🙂

Last time I heard about the KUB, it was a testbed for Zhuk-MS. After MiG-29K/KUB have been selected as upcoming carrier-based aircraft of Russian Navy, I don’t give the 27KUB a bright future.

it might survive as a strike/AEW and trainer aircraft do not you think? well at least i wish because that was a really odd good looking aircraft

Do you have any idea concerning aerodynamics ?
The affect of reducing wing lift by canards is limited. A designer who is not expert to design an aircraft with canards will bring bigger drag and smaller lift just like a designer who is not good at design a tail-plan layout is designing a tail plane.

Yes, during stable period, although canards bring an additional lift compare with tail plane in subsonic flight, but accompany with speed approaching transonic and penetrate in supersonic, the CoL moving rearward cause both canards and tail-plan has to deflect downward more, so most designers think there is no benefit would be taken from canards, but now in period of unstable, not only less drag the canards bring to, but also more drag the tail-plan bring to the a/c due to tail drag is 1/3 about total drag of a/c.
Simply, the smaller anything being tail or bottom, the less drag to entire a/c. No tail vertical or horizontal will be perfect if it is possible.

It is real funny, when such extreme swept occur on Viggen’s canards, I still remember somebody taught us it leading to less lift, here the some position replaced by a word called vortex becoming some advantage against canards， This is not tech discussion but glib.
By the way, the Viggen is considerable big fighter during the period it belong to.

Which proves nothing but F-22 is a more conservative layout.

Delta canards get less trim drag with near neutral static configurations while tailed aircraft need to be more negatively unstable to get similar trim drag gains.

Make any aircraft excessively tail heavy and you paid the price with trim drag, same is if you do it excessively nose heavy. There is no advantage of Canards once both configurations are unstable.

But if you want a small fighter a delta is useful it carries lots of fuel and is good for low drag, then canards and relaxed stability are a must, European fighters then settled for Delta canards but Russians and americans have taken the tailed configuration most of the time. the eurocards are high performance small fighters, the Su-27, F-22, T-50 and F-15 are big even the MiG-29 is bigger than the Gripen.