During the speed blow hypersonic, LERX gives a really small lift also small drag except the AoA becoming high to 45°, for example SR-71.
During the hypersonic, canards provids a big lift with also bigger drag so main wing shall be swept larger, XB-70 for example.
Both of them above won’t take a high AoA.

With Hi AoA, the LERX leading to the lift which also is higher and although drag will be big but Cl still is going up.
With Hi AoA, the Canards gives a lift tends to be smaller accompany with AoA tends to be high, which also causing a small drag within that.

Consider most maneuver is being in AoA which won’t be higher than 45°, so the lift LERX given would be smaller than canards, that’s why all of jet with LERX was designed as a smaller swept wing compare to all of canards fighters. Because they need a comparable small swept wing to compenate the lift LERX lost, whereas, CANARDS, is suits a little bit higher swept wing for promoting accelleration, dereasing total drag of airframe and raising turn rate.

Remember a swept angle big like LERX, won’t supply lift how much unless its situation is unusual like Hi AoA.
Canards, is not proper to a very Hi AoA, but whith most flight envelope, it shares a great Cl whcih means,as long as you don’t fall in stall, it will gives a comparably larger lift than LERX although its drag also raising simultaneously because its swept angle is not as big as LERX.

In terms of your theory, Rafale with that rooting extension of forebody and LERX of wing will win more powerful lift than F-16, and EF also has its own air strake aside the fuselage, so does Gripen as well.
If there is no canards, their performance will just same as F-16, thanks by canards they get the advantage.

I will explain you why a triangular canard is less effective with these two tail planes. see these two tailplanes
If you see the MiG-29 tailplanes they are not triangular but trapezoidal with its center of lift the farthest from the gravity center

if you make them like the X-36 canards triangular they will get closer to the center of Gravity
same is with the F-18 tailplanes they are the farthest from the center of gravity by if you make them triangular its center of lift will change and will get closer to the center of gravity.

The F-22 has no triangular tailplanes
see

It is easier to make the tailplane stealthy than a canard
From the frontal view the F-22 has its tailplanes hiden by the wing and from the lateral view it plansform with the engine nacelles so it is at the same level of its wing to keep planforming and stealthiness

Let’s see the line-drawing below,
the distance between red line is about 4 and 2/3 units
the distance between blue line is about 4 and 1/3 units
the distance between orange line is about 7 units

Now we can see the conclusion is that moment arm of long-coupled canards certainly be greater than F-16 very much, whereas the moment arm of F-16 only longer than Rafale which is close-coupled canards 2.4% approximately.
You also can move the GoL which belong to the own aircraft forward or rearward in a reasonable interval, but this won’t change the primary fact here.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

So does the conventional tailed layout.

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 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 because it reduces the relative AoA of the tailplane by doing this you get a down force for trimming.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

A canard works better with neutral stability? why because excessive pitch up force in a way will affects the trim it needed,
the taiplanes works better at negative static stability since this improve trim.

See you admitted canards obtained more advantages.

A canard works better with neutral stability? why because excessive pitch up force in a way will affects the trim it needed,
the taiplanes works better at negative static stability since this improve trim.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Oh yes do you admit T/W rate of F-15 at least equal to F-22？do you admit wing load of F-22 at least similar with F-15?
Could you tell us why F-22 has so much greater turn rate?
Certainly, then tell me could you show me F-22 change its nose 180° in 5 seconds without using TVC?
But Rafale can do it even without TVC.

What you are doing is an over simplification of thrust vectoring, aircraft even with thrust vectoring need to obey the rules of aerodynamics, the thrust vectoring inputs are brief, for most of the time the aerodynamic controls are acting in the aircraft.
The F-22 is no F-15, first its drag is minimal, this multiplies its thrust and lift. and even at the same TWR and wing loading the F-15 will be drag burdened while the F-22 won`t, the F-22 in that fact has more lift and thrust available.
Second in order to do the Cobra the F-22 needs relaxed stability, you might think it is just a matter of installing 2D TVC and that is it, however it is not, any aircraft trying to do the cobra needs to be longitudinally relaxed or unstable.
The tailplanes are very important to do the Cobra since they become nose down pitchers as the aircraft switches from tail heavy to nose heavy.

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.