This reminds me of interceptor back to last centery 60’s

Super cruise basically means that an airplane can go beyond Mach 1.? without using an afterburner.

A first question to ask is: why is this important?

The reply seems to be simple; an afterburner consumes (wastes) a huge amount of fuel. If speeds higher than Mach 1 can be achieved without using an afterburner, on normal engine functioning, then this is generally “fuel friendly”, postive for the combat range and so on…

Achieving supercruise depends on two things:

– the thrust an engine can deliver without afterburner
– the air resistance (drag?) of the plane

A fighter can accelerate on normal engine regime until drag equals max thrust, for anything faster the afterburner must be applied.

Comparing two planes one should not only look at which speed the planes need the afterburer to further accelerate but also look at the fuel consumption throughout the speed range.

Doing so, yuo could find a situation where a plane with one engine needs to start its afterburners at mach 1.1 where a plane carrying two of the same engines does not need to do so at that speed.

The devils question is however: do the 2 engines of the second fighter together consume at that speed less fuel than the single engined one.

Or said differently, we should compare the fuel consumption of two planes throughout the speed range and not decide only on the supercruise ability alone which one is best.

IMO, most of your explanation are redundant:diablo:
If the red line of Supercruise merely is over M1 and without AB, then most of jetfighters since 70’s last century has already over this crucial line, 4 essential characters of ATF should be reduced to three.:p

simply

……the aircraft with canard will be near neutral stability while the tailed will have higher levels of unstability to achieve the same results..

Prove it, if you have no idea that length of chord for canards a/c actually is much longer than tailed a/c

1st, the more lift offered by delta wing which area is larger than conventional design would totally offset the downforce generated by canard and gravity even much more.
2nd, the graph were showing a subsonic situation, those green arrow would moving rearward leading downforce canard produced trend to zero even to be a positive lift.

Now this does not mean using a canard will always guarantee better ITRs, the aircraft with tailplanes might have higher lift coefficents and relaxed stability to surpass the ITR of any canard delta configuration and this is what happens between the F-15 and Kfir, MiG-29 and Viggen, and F-22 and Rafale

Although there was some data showing that ITR of Raptor could be over 40°/s, but according to demonstration, F-22’s ITR was never better than Rafale, meanwhile, we are not absolutely sure that ITR done by Raptor did not using TVC.

On the other hands, Kfir’s canard is fixed surface and Viggen’s is with elevator, ergo there is no comparable thing between F-15 and Kfir, MiG-29 and Viggen.

The JH-7 was not full loaded.