IMO, the F-22 is also a complement to the F-35.

You are misunderstanding facts, first the Kfir has a turn rate like this, ITS of 18deg/s, STR of 9.6 deg/s, both the F-16 and F-15 have better sustained and Instantaneous turn rates even the Harrier AV-8B has better ITR and STR
The same will happen with the Viggen it is less capable than even the F-15 and Harrier and much less capable than even the MiG-29.
It is not that delta canards have high ITRs but that they do not have good STR because they bleed energy fast, that is the reason they use canards and relaxed stability to increase sustained turn rates.

The F-15 is not an unstable aircraft niether the Harrier, only the F-16, Gripen, Eurofighter, MiG-29M, Su-27 and J-10 to put some examples The first truely unstable fighter aircraft in the world was the F-16 by the way, the F-15 it was not.
But still the F-15 will beat the Viggen in dogfights and the Tomcat very likely was either as good or better

In these two posts, you made same mistake:
1)Viggen and F-15 are not same generation fighter according to common opinion. Notice the canards on Viggen is not all-moving surface but tail-plane on F-15 is completely all moving, ergo this is unfair firstly
2)When you make a comparison, you must put all objects under same condition. Here F-15 got much much powerful engine so that it is almost double T/W rate than Viggen. This is your double standard secondly.
Remember you also said:

If you read aircraft history you will know that each generation has increased thrust and thrust to weight ratio.

However deltas with canards have less supersonic trim and this allows for more compact designs since you can pack more lift in a given design because the control surface is ahead of the center of gravity and with relaxed agility well that will make for good fighters

You be force to admit this seemingly!

What the americans did in the F-22 is pack two very powerful engines and give it a huge wing in a very aerodynamicaly clean airframe.
This has given them the ability to give it really high ITR and STR, now TVC is important but its agility is not 100% product of TVC.

Really? So what do agility do? What is different between agility and maneuverability?

The F-22 and Su-30MKI once they use TVC they slow down, they do Cobras or Kulbits or BElls but the name for the Cobra is in reality dynamic disaceleration what the Cobra is doing to a Su-27 is slow it down, an F-15 can even shot down an unexperienced Su-30MKI pilot just by the way it sinks in the air once its uses supermaneouvrabity.

Yoohoo, in this same page we saw exactly contradictory post here:

The Cobra has good value in a fighter like the Su-27 or MiG-29, it does allow it to fight a fighter with higher instantaneous turn rate like a Eurofighter, but since modern Eurofighters have IRIS-T or ASRAAM missiles any superiority will be counterbalance.

However the F-22 has a turn rate of 28 deg/s and it is not because of TVC it is because it has excess power it can even supercruise at military power, consider then if it won`t have an excellent turn rate just without TVC,
you take like a bible that canards are the only element to make a fighter agile but it is not it is simple lift and thrust.
If the F-22 uses TVC it will do bells, cobras, kulbits, etc etc but its turn rate is the result of pure thrust and lift

What makes you so incoherent?
1st step: same wing area, same wing shape and same fuselage, but only difference is canards and tail-plan.
you pick two teams of aircraft with completely far away T/W rate even neglect other differences.
2nd step: close T/W rate and both all-moving trim surface.
you avoid behind Cobra.
3rd step: Cobra ≠ combat ability.
you run turn rate comparison. That’s fine, I tell you UNDER SAME CONDITION INCLUDING PROFILE, Eurocanards run significant higher turn rate than F-16 or Su-27 no matter instantaneous or sustained. Then you go to agility.
4th step: agility ≠ maneuverability
Before you write, you’d better know agility means capability of nose direction changing, you turn or climb also changing your nose direction but if you want to changing faster, you have to use two methods, one is correct layout normal to canards, and you want faster much more higher, you must get TVC.
5th step: put the TVC away
If not being AoA bigger than 45°, canard run absolute advantage including trim drag, Cl coefficient and speed flexion within any maneuver/flight situation, simply because it is a moving deflective surface rather than LERX merely is a high swept wing.

All of Eurocanards own a better instantaneous turn rate than nornmal layout such as Su-27 and F-15.

LERxes are not delta wings are compound wings, one section is highly sweep, you can call it delta if you want but the main wing has a moderate sweep.

The Leading Edge of LERX is highly sharp, with this leading edge highly swept, it becomes side edge alike, but this does not change basic point.
Some LERX could be called compound wing just like F-18C/D’s, but this also does not change F-5A/B also fitted with Leading Edge Rooting Extension.

Now if you want to understand canards you have to understand foreplanes do move and this will affect the wing, remember the wing is behind the canard and any flextion of the canard will affect it.

That is what wing needed.:cool:

However, the surfaces produce upwash and downwash on each other so that the effective lift curve slope is changed. Unless the canard and wing are very close together, the major effect is that of the canard on the wing. The canard produces downwash on the inner part of the wing and upwash outboard of the canard tip vortices. The net effect, though, is a reduction in wing lift which can be estimated roughly by the following formula which is based on the Hayes Reverse Flow Theorem (see Ref. 3):
source
http://174.120.241.105/appliedaero/configuration/canardstability.html

No point.
The canards also produce upwash and downwash flow to the wing.

Now see why canards are more difficult to adapt to stealth
The situation is less favorable for canard designs. Although small canards of high aspect ratio produce least drag, large canards of small aspect ratio achieve the highest CLmax. Moreover, the sensitivity of CLmax and drag to canard aspect ratio leads to greater compromises in each of these areas than would be required for an aft-tail design.

http://aero.stanford.edu/Reports/MultOp/multop.html

The Black words didn’t match what you want to directed: “why canards are more difficult to adapt to stealth“.

Triangular canards such as the ones on the X-36 is a design compromise; the Rafale, J-10, Lavi, Su-33, Su-35, Su-37, Eurofighter, Gripen, Su-34 all have high aspect canards, the Viggen is the exception with a large canard of low aspect ratio, guess what effect a triangular canard will have since a canard to be effective needs to have a relation between its center of lift and the center of gravity of the aircraft.

Both canards and Horizontal tailplan trimming the CL not only canards, what we research here is what is better.

All of above you posted didn’t get any further meaningful point, sorry.
I have posted some advantage of Canards before but nobody were able to rebut them.
Please think before write.

The Su-35 has also tailplanes like the Su-33 and the Su-47 has too

Let me feed you back,
for promoting maneuver, we could see tail plane or tailless plane added with canards, but when did you see a realistic tailless plane added with horizontal tail if it original is a tailless?

the MiG-1.44 has a very innovative control surface between the tailbooms and the fuselage that basicly work like tailplanes, their configurations are more complex than the Eurofighter, Rafale or Gripen even the ventral fins in the MiG-1.44 were hinged, what i can tell you is if you look at the F-15 and F-22 their aerodynamics are quit similar with trapezoidal tailplanes

For F-22 and F-15, some one has told you before, for maneuver most to do with F-22 is TVC compare with F-15.
As for 1.44, only one question: how do you define a canards layout?

remember the only pure canard-wing tailess aircraft are fighters with delta wings.

What if not delta wing?

The fact the canard designs are more different than the tailed designs between the stealthy aircraft and the conventional proof the F-22 retains an aerodynamic configuration more suited for air combat than the designs with canards

Please prove it with argumentation.

The movable LERX’s effect is rather a canards than LERX we usually said.
Please summarize what characters LERX should has.

The difference is not as great, both are third generation aircraft, the difference in turn rate is substantial of around 2.6deg/s at Mach 0.6, the MiG-23 will be similar with 14.1deg/s sustained turn at 780km/h and 16.7 deg/s instantaneous, however see the early Harrier variants could not pull more than 15 deg/s instantaneous but once LERXes were added it pulled 20deg/s instantaneosu and 17-18 deg/s sustained much superior to the Viggen which shows you using tailplanes is as good as Canards and in stealth tailplanes are easier to adapt to planforming.
See that the Kfir wont go beyond 10deg/s sustained and 18 deg/s instantaneous turn rates so canards are not the inherently superior to tailplanes

All of tail plane inferior more than canards in terms of your list, but Harrier is something different, which set engine coincided with CoG making LERX more lift during turn and tail surface more trim free.