The double delta wing if are able to do the same job then why does euro jets sports canards specially since french are mastering using delta wings since decades.
You
You are a big black hole of contradictions and i can not stop my feeling while i smile on each comment you make...
If as you say double delta wing are able to do the job of canards then why do not eurojets drop their canards?
Do you even know then study of canards for tejas was also done but since it was not able to help much due to the small size and design of tejas the idea was dropped.
you need to read before blabbering use of canards help in increasing the lift or provide stability depending on the position (canards placed in typhoon and rafale gives a perfect example how canard can be used) and thus the same work can be done by the engines providing low thrust.
Levcons are also used to do the same. Naval variant will sport fixed levcons (moving levcons is major engineering challenge)
Have you ever seen the plane delta wing of tejas that is due to the simple fact we are not in a stage to produce some technical marvel and tried and tested simple was used to design this.
Su 35 sports a higher thrust engine as well as refined aerodynamics performance compared to sukhoi - 30.
Even mig 29/35 don't sport canards and are an absolute treat to watch when it comes to dogfighting or aeroshow.
do you even understand why?? or happy with half baked knowledge as rightly said "thotha chana baaje ghana"
Tejas need more thrust and thinking that kaveri 80 kn would be enough is a big crap only a few can bring out of their mouth and it does need GE 414 engine for decent performance.
when iaf chief says he has full faith in fighting abilities of tejas you are happy.
when same IAF says that tejas mk1 is not the one we want you start questioning him.
when the same iaf chief ask for more potent platform like rafale you raise doubts and bring long articles hoe tejas is enough and we do not need rafale.
First decide who you think is a reliable source and who is not?
From 1989 to 1993?
The design was freezed in 1990 so obviously the fund wll be released when the design is freezed and their is something to work on. the payments were released in 1993 as you say then 91 and 92 and two make you happy one more year added .
but does this take away the fact that the tejas project started in 1987?
or if you think design stage should not be included in the aircraft prpject duration when counting for tejas but when for international platform we should do that?
By your logic can you please care to explain the time for gripen project?
I understand you may be one DRDO or HAL planted source to their dirty job or a fan boy gone mad. dont mind but keep it up!
Su 35 sports a higher thrust engine as well as refined aerodynamics performance compared to sukhoi - 30.
having canards will further improve the performance, So why did they drop it in Su-35 was my question , which you are evading by hiding behind the above statement!!!
Refined aerodynamic performance can also be had with double delta.
SInce you have confirmed your inability about learning anything useful even after being shown a CFD on the efficiency of vortex generation by tejas double delta,
I also assume that you will similarly be "unable " to grasp the basic fact that the primary job of canards are vortex generation , whether they are employed by french masters or sweedish masters,
All programs from Europe i.e gripen, typhoon, and rafale were the successors of of the cancelled BAE fighter project which also had canard lay out , so they were all similar,
https://defenseissues.wordpress.com/2013/02/16/saab-gripen-analysis/
Formal proposals were requested in 1981, and JAS IG submitted their proposal on 1 June 1981. After evaluation of proposals, it was decided to go forward with JAS proposal. On 30 June 1982, a fixed-price proposal was signed between the FMV and IG JAS for 5 prototypes and 30 JAS-39A aircraft. Following month, name Gripen was selected for the aircraft.
On 4 March 1993, first production Gripen (JAS-39-101) made its flight, with second production aircraft delivered for service testing on 8 June 1993. It soon crashed during air display over Stockholm due to the pilot loosing control and having to eject. Following the accident, further flight testing was suspended until FCS was revised. Revisions included changes to canard deflection angles in combat mode. Testing continued on 29 December 1993.
The above underlined passage will teach you something about the limitations of canard design which is well concealed by the advocates of "canards are the next best thing in aeronautics after wright brothers"!!!!
One JAS-39A was converted from production line to serve as prototype for twin-seated trainer, JAS-39B. It features 65,5 cm fuselage stretch, and rear cockpit that is, except for lack of HUD, identical to the front one.
On 12 June 1995, SAAB and British Aerospace announced joint development of export variant. In 2001, joint venture was registered in Sweden as Gripen International.
Primary purpose of close-coupled canards is not to act as control surface, but to increase lift at high angles of attack, where aircraft relies mostly on vortices to provide lift, by strengthening vortices generated by the wing and preventing their breakdown. Size and angle of Gripen’s canards are used to achieve as good as possible separation – vertical and horizontal – between canard’s tip and wing’s lifting surface, thus allowing for maximum vortex lift during high-alpha maneuvers – improvement of lift due to the close coupled configuration could be up to 50%, when compared to lift produced by surfaces in isolation.
The underlined passage once again shows that the "primary aim of canards is vortex generation and not to act as control surface."
In the same way the primary job of double delta is also vortex generation leading to ,"
increased lift at high angles of attack, where aircraft relies mostly on vortices to provide lift, by strengthening vortices generated by the wing and preventing their breakdown."
But as I have seen from my previous interactions with you, you will pretend to understand nothing I posted here.
And some thing about time lines,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen
"In 1979, the government began a study calling for a versatile platform capable of "JAS", standing for
Jakt (
air-to-air),
Attack (
air-to-surface), and
Spaning (reconnaissance), indicating a
multirole, or swingrole, fighter aircraft that can fulfill multiple roles during the same mission.
[12] Several Saab designs were reviewed, the most promising being "Project 2105" (redesignated "Project 2108" and, later,
"Project 2110"), recommended to the government by the Defence Materiel Administration (Försvarets Materielverk, or FMV).[12] In 1980, Industrigruppen JAS (
IG JAS, "JAS Industry Group") was established as a joint venture by
Saab-Scania,
LM Ericsson,
Svenska Radioaktiebolaget,
Volvo Flygmotor and
Försvarets Fabriksverk, the industrial arm of the Swedish armed forces.
[14]
The first Gripen was rolled out on 26 April 1987, marking Saab's 50th anniversary.
[23] Originally planned to fly in 1987,
[16] the first flight was delayed by 18 months due to issues with the flight control system. On 9 December 1988, the first prototype (serial number 39-1) took its 51-minute maiden flight with pilot Stig Holmström at the controls.
[15][24] During the test programme, concern surfaced about the aircraft's avionics, specifically the fly-by-wire
flight control system (FCS), and the relaxed stability design.
On 2 February 1989, this issue led to the crash of the prototype during an attempted landing at Linköping; the test pilot Lars Rådeström walked away with a broken elbow. The cause of the crash was identified as
pilot-induced oscillation, caused by problems with the FCS's pitch-control routine.
[15][25][26]
In response to the crash Saab and US firm Calspan introduced software modifications to the aircraft. A modified
Lockheed NT-33A was used to test these improvements, which allowed flight testing to resume 15 months after the accident.
On 8 August 1993, production aircraft 39102 was destroyed in an accident during an aerial display in Stockholm. Test pilot Rådeström lost control of the aircraft during a roll at low altitude when the aircraft stalled, forcing him to eject. Saab later found the problem to be high amplification of the pilot's quick and significant stick command inputs. The ensuing investigation and flaw correction delayed test flying by several months,
resuming in December 1993.[15]
The first order included an option for another 110, which was exercised in June 1992. Batch II consisted of 96 one-seat JAS 39As and 14 two-seat JAS 39Bs.
[27][28] The JAS 39B variant is 66 cm (26 in) longer than the JAS 39A to accommodate a second seat, which also necessitated the deletion of the cannon and a reduced internal fuel capacity.
[29] By April 1994, five prototypes and two series-production Gripens had been completed; but a beyond-visual-range missile (BVR) had not yet been selected.[30] A third batch was ordered in June 1997, composed of 50 upgraded single-seat JAS 39Cs and 14 JAS 39D two-seaters,
[29] known as 'Turbo Gripen', with NATO compatibility for exports.
[31] Batch III aircraft, delivered between 2002 and 2008, possess more powerful and updated avionics,
in-flight refuelling capability via retractable probes on the aircraft's
starboard side, and an on-board oxygen-generating system for longer missions.
[32] In-flight refueling was tested via a specially equipped prototype (39‐4) used in successful trials with a Royal Air Force VC10 in 1998.[29]
"
WHile the testing after a couple of crippling craskes resumed only in 1993, simultaneously the order for 100 gripens were given!!! No IOC,1,2 ,3,,,,n and FOC BS that is being perpetuated on tejas!!!!
Did the sweedish airforce chief say, No we dont need this ever crashing gripen As, we only need the NATO compatible Gripen C( which was developed in 2007 )? No, Why/ because he is no fool like some of the we dont want mk1 and mk2 is what we want chanters here, he knows perfectly well that all aircrafts mature with induction and promptly an order for 100 gripens were placed in 1993 itself when testing resumes in december 1993 after resolving crash issues.
The Gripen Program was initiated in 1980.
orders fro 100 gripens given even while testing was resumed after couple of crashes,
Till 1994 no BVR was selected, that means when the order was given 15 years after program started they did not even select a BVR.
In flight refuelling capacity tested only in 1998.
SO from 1980 to 1998 it is 18 years even with 100 percent dedicated international co operation with no gaps in funding in between.
For tejas 1983 program starts, 1989 project definition over, till 1993 no funding , four year gap, By 2013 IOC 2 is achieved and it is about to complete FOC in 2016. may look like 33 years, but delete 4 years for funding gap it becomes 29 years, delete four years for sanction impact and FSED phase-2 it becomes 25 years,
SO what is the fuss on time lines, Gripen took 19 years tejas took 25 years, But for nNATO compatiablity gripen with full EW suit it took time till 2008. i.e close to the same 25 years taken by tejas, which has an external EW pod, refuelling probe and about to fire Derby BVR. and even had a successful demo of DRFM based fully internal EW suit on PV-1 recently, with naval, trainer version also up and running.
SAAB is already an established major with full international co operation, while ADA-HAL were designing their first 4.5th gen fighter.
SO dont post stuff about which you dont even have the faintest idea about.
... Tejas the project itself dragged by buercrats, import lobbist and IAF to dump the project ... still it survive the tough times. 
