L
I bet you also didn’t know that Mig31 pilots wore radiation meters in their flying suits, due the immense power of N007 radar and so each crew was limited to monthly/yearly radiation allowance and therefore limited in flight hours by radar.

More a X-ray problem and not a power problem. The hv-switch tubes emit x-rays.

EXCLUSIVE: Countdown to the AESA radar of Eurofighter

http://translate.google.de/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hellenicdefense.gr%2Feidiseis%2Fe2009%2Fe091218b.html&sl=el&tl=en&hl=&ie=UTF-8
EXCLUSIVE: Countdown to the AESA radar of Eurofighter

In March 2010 will complete the study for the installation of radar active devices scanned (AESA) in the Eurofighter Typhoon, a mechanism for repositioning (repositioner) antenna for greater coverage…

and you you have all the details in gripen aerodynamics probably…
its stated.
a RM12 gripen with 1 DT and with AirtoAir will do 1.1M supercruise and a f414 one do >1.2M with the same ordinance.

And shown this only in PR claims!:diablo:

I suppose “free floating” canards on Mirage 2000 (because of no such devices, the effect is the same) makes it statically stable too, isn’t it ?
The problem is that this aircraft is known to be statically instable from day one. Is everybody lying or is it only you ?

I suggest
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19620006296_1962006296.pdf
The difference between a non existent, fixed and floating Canard is a total different Cp. Whit a freefloatend canard move the Cp forwards.

http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-3509733/Gripen-lion-of-the-sky.html

If the entire digital FCS crashes, the Gripen can fly home with free-floating canards and an analog back-up system.

.
There’s one problem here, though. You can’t trim free floating canard, because it’s self trimmed by definition, so I guess in free floating mode, the canard would offset itself to generally (negative?-KKM here says positive?) range, in which it will “float”.

A freefloating Canard disappears aerodynamical for the static margin isn’t existent.

The use of percentage of MAC to express both neutral point location and static margin.

Hm, true.
However, this may be after touchdown or something, because by seeing canard’s chord, I’d say it’s stalled at this alpha…dunno, though.
But, if this is true, then the airflow from canard would actually reduce wing’s lift, instead of increasing it.
Is it possible that Dassault engineers oversaw that?

No, the Dassault engineers know that. But a short coupled canard has the advantage of the possibylity of a free floatend canard. That mean you can fly a Rafale without FCS direct over a analog direct link, with a free floatend canard .

To which aircrfaft?

It is also well known that integrated canards also provides with increased airflow dynamic over the wing (and fuselage/fin)at lower speeds and higher AoA, responding to STOL requierements.

This is only right for 0° deflection for a short coupled canard.
With pitch up the short coupeld canard degrade your main wing lift and direction stabilty through the redirection of the airstream under the main wing.
High canard CLmax leads to low efficiency, e, and high e leads to low CLmax. Generally have a small moment arm to VT, requiring larger area.

Then for what has the Typhoon between wing and canard strakes? 😉