beautiful! did you do that? Can I use it?

Yeah, I made it. And, sure, you can use it. 🙂

If you claim that data you have give the source of that. The clean JA-37 empty equipped is 12,2 tons. Empty equipped is a flight ready fighter with pilot/crew minus payload. The payload is is the sum of JP*, ordenance and the related pylons.

According to the book “System 37 Viggen” by Ulf Edlund & Hans Kampf, the empty weight of a JA 37 is 11,790kg. To this figure the weight of the electronics, ammunition and pilot is added, which is roughly 200 kg.
However, looking at the weight plates in real JA 37’s(fitted behind the ejection seat) the true empty weight is 1000kg lower than this figure. The weight also differs alot between different aircraft “individuals”. Some JA 37’s had parts, like for example their vertical tails made out of composite material.
Fuel weight for the JA 37 is 4500kg, plus 800-1000kg for the external fuel tank.

A Cheetah C drawing. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v486/robban75/Cheetahmulti.jpg

robban and scorpion, the canard delta config was well known and a drawing of it was even provided to the press. what I said comes from the statements of program designers and leaders, they didn’t have any reason to lie that I know of. moreover now that the FBW has definitely matured they could have gone for canards in Mk2 if they needed, that they didn’t speaks of their conviction in the original configuration.
the sukhoi flanker dropped canards from MKI to su-35, kindly remember that too. 😉
at the end of the day you are free to form your personal opinions.
I know which I would rather believe.

It’s not as simple as “adding” a pair of canards to increase performance. The Flanker wasn’t designed to optimise the use of canards. While they improve landing performance slightly their position imediately ahead of the main wing decreases the total lift on the wing as well. The weren’t used used for pitch either. That job was still done by the huge tailerons.

Deleting the canards on the LCA certainly lessened the risks and costs. Allowing the program to progress faster. The way the LCA is configured there is no place for a canard. The wing is probably mounted too high on the fuselage for that.

Su-35S official data:

Acceleration time at H=1,000 m and fuel bingo 50% of the standard capacity, sec:
from 600 km/h to 1,100 km/h 13.8
from 1,100 km/h to 1,300 km/h 8.0

So, the Su-35S gains 700km/h in 22 seconds.

An improvement over the Su-27SMK, which needs 27 seconds to do the same. 600 km/h to 1,100 km/h 15.0 sec,
from 1,100 km/h to 1,300 km/h 12.0 sec. Strange though that the biggest improvement is in the transonic region. The Su-35S certainly isn´t improved aerodynamically over the SMK. Could the TVC be the magic behind this?

It is interesting to note that a RM12 powered Gripen gains 700km/h in 30 seconds. Just 3 seconds slower than the Su-27SMK. If we compare their respective TWR´s it´s quite spectacular.
The F414 powered Gripen should be much better. I think this speakes volumes about the superior low drag aerodynamics of the Gripen vs the Flanker.

Yes any day, and Gripen may well be the most aerodynamic fighter ever built.
The fact that it supercruise M1.2+ with a single F-414 only reinforce that assumption.

Even an RM12 powered Gripen can supercruise, even when fully loaded with A2A missiles. See link 🙂

http://img243.imageshack.us/i/gripensupercruisetempja8.jpg

Just a quick note. The wing loading for a Gripen C, loaded weight, is actually 303 kg/m^2, not 336 kg/m^2.

If it was on pure performance/capability the rafale would be the winner:D

Depends on what performance/capabilities you want/prefer. Or are you saying the Rafale is better at everything? If so, then your lying to yourself.