What has this clutter answer to do with your ASPECT RATIO CLAIMS?!:rolleyes:
Was has this to do with stealth?

Mod Edit: Personal insult removed. No more, please!

The Eurocarnards (Rafale, Typhoon) are designed to counter a hypothetical Super Flanker but this Super Flanker never appeared.
You act like a smoke projector.
For lateral stability need you first vertical stabilizers placed in the airstream behind the COG.
(A moveable Canard can aligned to direct the airstream at hig AoA to the vertical stabilizer. A LERX prevent only the vortex seperation on the main Wing and has a marginal effect on the lateral stability.)
At the F-22 canted outwards to prevent the need of tail fins (a RCS nightmare) like the Su-27 and derivates. But outwards canted is a bad choice for a low RCS therefore stacked between horizontal stabilzer and wing. But this reduce the lateral stability and caused bigger vertical stabilizers and make headaches through long leading and trailing edges. Forget SU-27 and derivates there are long before a dogfight happens dead through theirs vintage RCS, big like a barn door.Straight long inlets ducts acting as wave guide, big 90° tail and 90° tail fin alligment. Constructed at at a time where as in the western hemisphere s-curved inlet ducts are state-of-the-art and used to shild the compressor and trap the Radar-waves.

Then should you we not forget the main designer of the X-31 was Dr. Wolfgang Herbst (EADS) and we should no forget all the other German input to the the other X-Planes. Then again the Canard on the X-31 is only a backup when the TVC failed too recover then secure out high AoA and is only free floating! :diablo:

Both canards and LERXes create flutter of the vertical tails as their vortices burst near it, flutter is not good; both canards and LERXes vortices interact with forebody vortices inducing wing rock at high AoA, add to that asymetric forebody vortices at high AoA, stall of the outboad wing panels and fuselage wake on the vertical tail at high AoA and the aircraft will lose lateral stability either by nose slice or wing rock.

So there is no such as canard vortices not affecting adversely lateral stability at high AoA.
The F-22 has chines that very likely act like in the boundary layer strips on the F-18HARV lateral strips on its radome to control the nose slice tendency, these were also applied to the X-31, in fact aircraft like the F-16 had its AoA handling limited due to large yaw moments caused by asymmetric forebody vortices we can not say canards are better than tailplanes and after knowing the known disadvanatage of canards we can more or less know why they F-22, F-35 and T-50 have tailplanes and no canards

I agree a lot with you, the bell and hook are more practical for air to air combat, but still the Cobra was useful under the conditions in the late 1980s when most western fighters were armed with AIM-9Ls and today still is useful for an air combat with fixed weapons AKA guns.

Wrong more swept higher critcal Mach number!
Momentum arm is a odd thing.
At a Delta-Wing is the COG more forward shifted as at a ordinary tail aeroplane.
With a moveable Carnard have we too moment arms 😉
Canard and Ailerons can act as elevator and two is better as one.
In curves acts the tail plane and the Canard + Ailerons both as sideruder (the axis are now changed, a comon failure that an armchair pilot makes). A 8g curve fly I always with 85° lateral inclination (and a 90° theoreticall impossible without the sideruder acting as elevator).
In this position bleed the conventional tailplane yet more energy as a doubleperforming Canard-Aeilron (2 elevators) The tailplane force point now in the wrong direction outside the curve (Wing force MINUS tailpalne force), were as the Canard force points inwards the curve (Wing force PLUS Canard force). Both fly now in the pitch axis stabil the instabil axis is now the sideruder axis!;)

You can’t **** an old Traper in his Colt.:dev2:

I made a mistake effectivelly is higher mach number however i was not wrong in the aspect of Drag, the tailplane is usually more swept than its wing, thus it has less drag than most canards which are less swep than their wings.
my mistake is purely a typo but not as a mistake as an aerodynamic concept i used the wrong word but my meaning is the same .
Also it will have a good moment arm, why? because the effectiveness of any tailplane or canard is the relation of its aerodynamic center with respect the aircraft center of Gravity, when you sweep the tailplane also you move further back its center of lift therefore increasing its effectivenes as a lever and by giving to the aircraft with tailplanes negative static stability you are making it less nose heavy so you need less force to trim it and you get less triming drag and more total lift.
Canards are usually closer to the wing and contrary to popular belief need to have nearly neutral static stability to have lower drag trim and higher total lift since higher pitch up forces at the nose require higher canard deflextions to trim it and then more drag and less lift.

Most people imaging aircraft with canards having negative static stability like an aircraft with tailplanes but that is not the case since it will make for more trim and drag and less total lift so they are nearly to neutral static stability.

In few words aircraft can not be niether too much nose heavy or tail heavy because that will increase drag trim and reduce lift.

another trouble of canards is they are more sensitive to aspect ratio, high aspect ratio canards are used for less drag while low aspect canards for lift, this makes constraigns in the mission profile, since some are better for lift but worse for drag and viceversa tailplanes are less sensitive due to the fact they achieve higher lift and lower drag since they do not affect the wing independently of their aspect ratio.
as a general rule the canard wing configurations achieves less lift than the tail wing configuration.

That is not true, the Cobra requieres total lateral stability, the Drakken is banking, it does not show control of lateral stability, why is important lateral stability? because as a result of high AoA in excess of 80 degrees most aircraft will experiment yaw instability which can lead to flat spins departure, wing rock or heavy wing.
A true supermaneouvrable aircraft has to have total lateral stability doing the Cobra it really shows it can go 120 degrees safely, you are trying to say something which is just a myth, an inaccuracy, the Drakken at no moment is showing total lateral stability, therefore it is not a Cobra.

Here many dismiss the F-22 as a flying brick without considering it has excellent lateral stability in order to do the Cobra, without it its TVC means nothing.

That´s not true. The canard on the Gripen is more swept than the main wing, as is the canard on the MiG 1.44. The Viggen, Rafale, J-10 and Lavi have the same sweep angle on their canards in comparison to thier main wing. Only the Eurofighter, Kfir and Mirages retrofitted with canards have less sweep.

The gripen has 45 wing and 45 canard

see http://www.vectorsite.net/avgripen.html

Most tailplanes are highly swept, a canard highly swept has to be big in order to be affective, the Viggen canard was optimized for lift it is highy sweept but since it is big has a lot of drag as a wing canard configuration but offers the best compromise for lift since a highly swept canard creates stronger vortices

How should a smaller surface have a greater drag as a big surface?

A biger surface has a greater influcence through the harmful areas accumulation and this produce more wavedrag and more retroactivity!
Since we can optimise a fixed wing (wing including LEX) only for one optimal Mach number (Jones).

A biger surface and a LERX has a drawback for the RCS.
The leading edge is a line and this is a reflector.
Another problem is the stagnation point accumulation (Machcone) is greater and this make a big IR footprint at trans- and supersonic.

Read well what i said, by making a aircraft with tailplanes unstable, you achieve a pitch up force, yeah the unstable aircraft with back tails won`t be limited by supersonic trim this is the case of the Su-27 and F-22.

the tailplane is usually more swept than the wing so it has a lower critical mach number then reducing drag and have a good moment arm force, this will limit a small stealthy triangular canard as one in the X-36, in the F-22 it has large non triangular tailplanes.
The canard usually is less swept than the wing, this limits its lift drag ratio further since it will limit its critical mach number.
However the best L/D ratio canard wing configuration is the is the one with a high aspect ratio small canard trapezoidal in shape, like the one seen on the Eurocanards, J-10 and Lavi

Oh dear, don’t change the point here, so caould you tell me even both of them without TVC, and both of them get similar wing load and T/W ratio, which one will be minimal its drag and maximal lift? Canards or LERX? And in what condition & situation?

I am not planning to rebut some of your claim here, I’d rather agree the F-22 doing anything independent with TVC, but I didn’t see you posted anything explain what advantage would be given by LERX in combat flight except AoA >40° or you are flying over M3.

canards do have more drag than any tailplane at the same size and they reduce wing lift so they have a worse D/L ratio, the advantage is since they do generate a positive lift ahead of the wing and CG they can be make relatively smaller than a tailplane , the only advantage of an aircraft with canards if both are stable is less supersonic trim drag.
This is offset by the tailplanes only if the configuration is unstable.

Now LERXes produce stronger vortices, why? simple because they are more swept, however canards have the advantage of distributing their impact on slightly more areas of the wing.
Tailplanes impact in the overall size of the aircraft, so a smaller delta canard aircraft can be make by using canards, for example the Gripen.

In the F-22 the use of a tailplane is obvious because tailplanes make less drag and can be relatively speaking being adapted easier to planforming without constraigning so much performance .

That is the reason the Russians opted too for a conventionl back tail in the T-50 and not a configuration like the X-36.

Everything is mission driven like before was stated.

actually, a simple way to compare the two would be to give them the same amount of thrust and see what it gives (talking airframes as such).

if the F-22 is more efficient aerodynamically (less draggy), it should be ahead..

the f-15, with PW F100-220 turbofans, in full Ab has about 22t of thrust overall

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-15_Eagle

the f-22 has about 21t of thrust dry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22_Raptor

from there on, it’s quite simple: the F-22 at max military power and the F-15 at max AB thrust generate the more or less the same thrust (less than 5% difference).

The F-22 goes up to something like M1.8 in such conditions. The F-15 reaches around M2.5.

from these numbers it seems quite obvious that the f-15 aircrame generates less drag at supersonic speeds

The F-15 does not generate less drag for the following reason, at sea level, the F-15 won`t reach Mach one at military power alone, to reach its max speed of 1.2 will need afterburner, for crusing speed using the Max military power the F-15 will fly in a range of 800km/h, to fly at around 1300km/h will already use afterburner; the F-22 will pass mach 1 without the use of afterburner and the F-22 will lit the afterburner just when is very close to its max speed at sea level.

Who do you think is more efficient at 1200km/h?
F-15 using almost the max setting of its afterburner or F-22 still at not of its max of military power?

Now apply that to dogfights, the F-15 will need to use afterburner to be in the range of its most agile envelopes of Mach Mach 0.8 where most of doghfights will take place the F-22 won`t and still won`t be in its max of military power now you can undertand why the F-22 has almost 70% better STR.
Now put it in the context of the thread with relaxed stability any advantage a canard aircraft has in supersonic trim vanishes and the use of a tail plane generates less drag and a better lift to drag ratio than a canard configuration without forgeting the easiness that you could use to adapt a tailplane to planforming