I think enough has been said in this tread to show why that is not true.

In fact, a well designed unstable wing-tail is likely to be more efficient (less draggy and lighter) than an unstable canard at cruise speeds with better lift creation at high AoA and superior control authority at high altitudes. Canards tend to offer better efficiency with stable designs (think Vari/LongEZ) and improve Delta wing handling making them more usable. This allows for the use of Delta wings without too much handling penalties, but does not change the inefficiencies of the Delta wing across most of a fighter's flight envelope. If you are shooting for Mach 2~3 drag performance, a strong case can be made for Deltas, but at Mach 0.5~2 there is no significant advantages.

Let me put it to you this way... the F-35A is not 1.7 tons heavier (12.7 vs 11 tons) than the Typhoon because it is a wing tail. It is heavier because of its tremendous enveloped volume; it houses 8.4 tons of fuel vs 4.7 tons, it houses two 2,500 pound and two 350 lb weapon stations internally, packs more installed thrust, and that is in addition to making provisions for a STOVL variant with its lift fan and roll posts. If a similar aircraft is designed with a canard layout, it is likely to be even heavier. If you want to talk about light, the F-16 Block 60 is a mere 8.9 tons, it packs almost as much fuell than the EF Typhoon (4.5 tons vs 4.7 tons), almost as good a thrust-to-weight ratio (1.63 vs 1.67), lugs an AESA, carries internal IRST, has EW/jammers, and it is a "low tech" aluminum aircraft without all the carbon fiber composites. It is just as fast maxed out with slightly worse cruise performance due mainly to the lower dry thrust fraction of the F110-GE-132 engine.

end
Such arrogance, to actually believe you have changed anyone's mind. Oh, wait, Lockheed Martin is redesigning the F-35 based only on your arguments! They are also tearing all the tails off the F-22 and sticking them on the forward fuselage, all because of your convincing arguments. What a guy!! What an @ss!

But I like you very much since you point me arrogance. If you can point out my mistake from my post, not only favor you can gain from me but also respect.
You are not habitual me, not because my arrogance socalled by you, but I strike back heavily on someone's arrogance which take from the aircraft designed by USA.
I think I break somebody's fetish will be good for USAF to win next large-scale air-war.

The main problem with you is the language barrier. The stuff you see the F-22 do at airshows has NEVER been done before by any aircraft. Time for you to study up.

Yeah, the F-35 has some impressive internal capacity when you combine the fuel and weapons load, a total of 11.25 tons. Thats impressive even when compared to the much larger F-22s approx 13.5 tons

If you want to talk about light, the F-16 Block 60 is a mere 8.9 tons, it packs almost as much fuell than the EF Typhoon (4.5 tons vs 4.7 tons), almost as good a thrust-to-weight ratio (1.63 vs 1.67), lugs an AESA, carries internal IRST, has EW/jammers, and it is a "low tech" aluminum aircraft without all the carbon fiber composites.

It is just as fast maxed out with slightly worse cruise performance due mainly to the lower dry thrust fraction of the F110-GE-132 engine.

What a rubbish post, when you say empty weight, where is the internal fuel come from??? remember the 12.7ton is empty weight! please be care of what you said, don't just post what the result you wanted to.
The start of this thread, people also think conventonal layout is superior, but finally, they changed thier mind.

I was comparing the structural thrust to weight ratio of the two aircrafts -- max static thrust /empty weight. This is a better comparison of airframe performance vs say a fully fueled T/W ratio because you DO NOT have to carry the maximum load on either aircraft.

Just because an F-35 CAN carry 8.4 tons of fuel doesn't mean it has to. If it does it also means that it has more AB time available to the pilot. In any case a structual T/W comparison allows you the ability to compare airframe numbers as airframe numbers. I you add the same load to both the comparison holds true.

Factually, I do know what you mean.What you want to expressed is that internal fuel F-35 loaded is much more than other aircaft, almost double than others, therefore the empty weight of F-35 is reasonable, because more structure is designed to be internal tank. Is this your opnion?
Indeed, I also appreciate the structure of F-35, 8-9 ton internal fuel really is impressive. But as you said, this doesn't mean it has to always load fully, so the overweight problem still is excistence. This is what I worried about.

How can you even suggest these things? Several people here who have been educated in aeronautics to a level which is obviously far greater than your own have repeatedly pointed both pros and cons of canard vs. tail designs whereas all you have done is avoided response due to your 'inability to understand' (no, it wasn't him, because everybody else got it but you) or responded with fuzzy logic, insults and now even nationalism, which has little to do with the physics and dynamics of aerospace engineering, which you so persistently fail to understand. The only ignorant person is you.

As far as T/W ratios are concerned the difference actually narrows the higher the equivalent load to put on both aircrafts. At empty it is 1.54 vs 1.67. With 4.7 tons of fuel it is 1.12 vs 1.17. At the F-35's full internal load (8.4 tons fuel + 2.8 tons weapons), it is 0.82 vs 0.83. Of course, in the last case the Typhoon is additionally hampered by the fact that it is carrying a whopping 6.5 tons (14,300 lbs) worth of weapons and fuel externally whereas the F-35 is completely clean aerodynamically.

I think this comparison is not really suitable. 6.5 t payload for Typhoon and 2.8 t payload for F-35 to make a point there is no huge difference in TWR isn't valid. Take compareable loads.

okok

I declare F-22 is unvincible, unbeatable, unconquerable and unrivalled, forever! you are great, you r strong, you r powerful, I am so scared, bye bye.