hard to get that kind of information.

The Euro Starfighter’s (F-104G) radar should have some kind of air to ground modes to support all weather bombing operations.

The Italian F-104S is said to be using radar from Grifo. These planes are probably the ones with the best radar for this fighter.

I think one need to differentiate between different canard philosophies. The Eurofighter for example has canards clearly ahead of the wing, while some design use something like coupled canards, which are (seen from above) partly above the wing.

The farther the control surface is from the fulcrum of the aircraft (imagine the aircraft like a lever) the lower the force needed to exert the same torque. In other words, the control surface can trim less to get the same control authority. It works in both directions. In a tailed aircraft, you want the elevators as far away from the plane’s fulcrum by moving it backwards, and with a canard, you want to move it as forward as possible. Note because of the control authority inherent of this configuration, the canards itself can be made smaller the canards used in closed configuration designs, hence even lower drag.

Close coupled canards look to another issue, which is vortice generation. Thus close coupled canards can also work like a variable LERX. The issue between the two configuration is between lever movement (open canards) vs. vortice generation (close canards).

these are all wrong figures.
14 ton Maximum take off is of JAS-39C. Not JAS-39A which has only 3.6ton weopon capacity as oposed to 5.5tons of JAS-39C.
21 tons Maximum takeoff is not of MIG-29A rather MIG-29SMT without out different wing of M.
EF is too dubious to comment on. try to find its maximum take off.

You are a confirmed idiot once more if you are trying to gauge minimum and normal takeoff weight by maximum takeoff weight alone, which is almost never used in fighter aircraft except being in a complete bombing mission with iron bombs, which is something fighters are not meant to be used in the first place.

Prove to the people around here that the JAS-39C has the same TWR as the Typhoon.

Crobato

As you can see the MiG-23 and F-14 have their best turns at the mid sweep position of 45deg and 55 deg respectively, the mid sweep position is where both fighters have their best center of lift and center of gravity equilibrium with respect the lift drag ratio.

Its really a matter of finding the most appropriate turning circle vs. roll rate performance as I mentioned to you.

The LERXed wings in the MiG-29, F-18, F-16 and Su-27 are very similar,

The F-16 and the Su-27 are similar, but the MiG-29, F-18 and even the JF-17 belongs to another group. There are two distinct LERX designs, one has an inward curve like the F-16, and the other has an outward cobra like curve, like the F-18.

Up to what i have read the Rafale has a sustained turn rate of 22 deg/sec and same is for the Eurofighter, yes both fighters have an instantaneous turn rate of 30 deg/s or maybe slightly more, however like all deltas they bleed energy fast and loose agility.

What I heard is that they have an instant turn rate of 31 degs and over (Gripen, Rafale, Typhoon and even the J-10).

The previous reason why deltas bleed energy fast is because they need greater trim to achieve the same turning circle. This trim creates greater drag. However, this is only true of tailless deltas, but not tailed or canarded. They will not produce a small turn circle however, due to the small wingspan, but they can produce a higher velocity against a circle with a larger turn radius.

Crobato

The center of gravity and the center of lift are two aspects that determine agility, at airshows it has been proven by the Russians since they started bringing their fighters to the West regularly, how agile their fighters are, the center of lift and the center of gravity move in a swing wing, the wing platform and swept also determine agility, the delta wing is not exactly the best wing for low speed due to the limitation it has at high AoAs, a double delta wing with a foreplane canard fixes that up to a degree, the Gripen is a good example.

Yes, yes, but AoA and turn rates are two very different matters. You can achieve a very fast turn rate even with a shallow AoA by the speed of your outer circle.

The JAS-39 Gripen has a instantaneous turn rate of 30 deg/s and a sustained of 20 deg/s, compared to the MiG-29 is not overwhelmingly better since the MiG-29 has an instantaneous turn rate of 28 deg/s and a sustained turn rate of 23 deg/s, same is the Kfir against the MiG-23, the Kfir has an instantaneous turn rate of 18.9 deg/s and an sustained turn rate of 9.6 deg/s; the MiG-23 has an instantaneous turn rate of 16.7 deg/s and a sustained turn rate of 14.1 deg/s

But where is the proof that the MiG-29 has better sustained rates than the Typhoon? The JAS-39 isn’t a plane with exactly a very good TWR you know.

The Delta wings even with canard does not mean a sustained turn rate better than fighters with less swept leading edges, the MiG-23 and F-14 for example achieve their bests turn rates not in the delta or 72 deg swept in the MiG-23 case and 68 deg for the F-14, but in the 33 deg or 45 deg sweep wing position for the MiG-23, and 55 deg for the F-14 which are good because offer the best drag/lift ratio and the best center of lift and center of gravity distance.

No. The degrees are chosen because they offer the best balance between longitudinal stability (stability along the plane’s length), which produces the turning circle, and lateral stability (stability along the plane’s width), which produces the roll rate. If the wings are swept forward, the turn is at the tightest, but the roll rates are the lowest. If the wings are swept backward, the turn radius is much bigger but the roll rates are fastest.

If you look at the MiG-29s, F-15, Su-27, F-18 and F-16 their wings are not deltas, the F-22 has not a delta wing too, delta wings are not good for everything, and the numbers say it.

In actuality, the F-15 and the F-16 are considered “clipped” deltas. The F-22 is actually a diamond, which strongly resembles the delta concept except that the wing root extends further backward of the wing tip. Su-27 and MiG-29 are considered semi deltoid due to the length of their wing root.

I think the F-18 is considered trapezoidal, something that is only shared with the Starfighter.

When did the YF-23 became a canard?

The artwork is not valid, but the concept is. A chance accidental showing by CCTV, China’s national TV network, inside CAC’s offices showed a computer screen that had a concept work of a twin engined canard delta with V canted twin rudders similar to the MiG 1.44.

The double delta canarded aircraft like the Eurofighter Typhoon or Rafale are not known to be as agile as the F-22, MiG-29OVT or Su-30MKI.

Not at low speeds no, but at very high speeds, only the F-22 can match the Typhoon and Rafale.

Putting TVC with delta canard, and you have a result that pushes the envelope farther than anything before, like the X-31 project. They don’t call it super maneuverbility for nothing.

The advantage of canard + TVC is that you have two forces, each acting seperately at opposite ends of the craft. Compared to LERX, canards are variable and can be trimmed to regulate the vortice form, such as preventing it from turning into pure turbulence which can occur at extreme angles of attack.

Disadvantage of adding canards into an existing plane design like F-15 or Flanker is the additional weight and drag they ensue, not to mention the possibility of cutting into the stress lines of the plane and the space they consume. Thus they have to be carefully considered and find a balance between the pros and the cons.

At some point maneuverbility becomes redundant because the human body cannot take it anymore. Thus we begin to pursure other considerations; structural integrity, layout, space for stores, etc,. Every fighter design is more than a compromise than we think, resolving a balance between aerodynamics, structural strength and storage space.

If you really like to see super maneuverbility taken to the highest possible levels, this will not be achieved by current manned fighters, but a future generation of unmanned fighter drones.

The LERX has some advantages too, one is it generates lift and vortices without the canard wake downwash, the idea that the MiG-29 for example is inferior to a Canarded aircraft is not exactlty true, for example the JAS-39 Gripen has a lower sustained turn rate, and the Eurofighter and Rafale barely are equal of the MiG-29A which is not the best MiG-29 variant interms of sustained turn rate.
It is true that the Eurofighters Rafale Typhoon and Gripen offer better instantaneous turn rate that is not in all the expectrum of speeds and heights

What you are saying is also subject to altitude. Given enough height, a U-2, a B-52 or even B747 will out turn a MiG-21. At some altitude the Typhoon and Rafale would outturn the MiG-29 because of the enormous lifting areas of the two, added with the lifting area of the canards.

Where canard deltas truly excel is in supersonic maneuverbility, the faster they go, the better they are. Canards do not face the downwash from the main wing, and achieve more control authority for the same size. When it comes to supersonic maneuverbility you need every inch of your control surface. Have you figured out the reason why planes moved to all moving tailplanes (Super Sabre, Super Mystere, MiG-19) once you achieved level supersonic flight?