You don't have to argue so much with our Indian bhais. Just look at the evolution of some modern gen 4 aircrafts,
DASSAULT
...............
Mirage 2K = delta
Rafale = Canards
EADS
.........
Eurofighter = Canards
SAAB
.........
Draken = Delta
Viggen = Canard
Gripen = Canard
Can we see a pattern here?
f16 xl a more advanced wing design yet concieved with a higher payload, a cranked areo delta wing platform
f-22 conventional
f-35 conventional
t-50 conventional,
see the pattern.
your argument is mute
you have no scientific basis.
The lca projects consultant was dassualt, that time dassualt was working on the rafale and tampering with new delta designs. India concieved a cranked delta design, as seen in this thread, even did wind tunnel tests.
but the future for the lca tejas changed when in the early 90's the cranked delta design was tried on the f-16xl, one of the designers was indian.
the cranked delta was used in the US space shuttle as well.
it provided with key advantages,
lift greater than the conviental delta on mirage 2000 series.
unstable design, hence the tejas is "statically" unstable.
which means, even with out tails or canards, the lca is unstable and unable to fly with out fbw and computers. the entire wing design is creating drage upward.
as i have mentioned this is used in the space shuttle and f-16xl. this design allows for a delta design to achieve a higher aoa and greater lift as if it had a canards but still not the same because it will never and therefor it can not achieve the higher angle of attacks true canards provide but comes close with its own advantages in other areas.
this design allows for a greater wing area, thereby increasing lift and reducing wing loading. the lca is marketed as the lightest combat aircraft in the world.
Wing loading is a useful measure of the general maneuvering performance of an aircraft. Wings generate lift owing to the motion of air over the wing surface. Larger wings move more air, so an aircraft with a large wing area relative to its mass (i.e., low wing loading) will have more lift at any given speed. Therefore, an aircraft with lower wing loading will be able to take-off and land at a lower speed (or be able to take off with a greater load). It will also be able to turn faster.
its about effiecency, in short summary if you understand all this.
j-10 wing loading 335 kg/m^2
mig -29 = 442
gripen 283
typhoon 312
tejas=221
now the tejas has the lowest wing loading because it is small and has very large wing area relative to its size which is a plus and helps with lift, payload and most importantly takeoff and landing fuel consumpation.
it does not mean the tejas is the most agile in the air, that was not the goal, the goal was to make the aircraft atleast close in agility.
when the project was initiated, india already had access to bvr capable mirages and falcrums.
it was speculated that bvr would kill the dogfighter.
that to some extent is true.
but the real killer to high g turns was the arrival of helmet mounted sights with targeting. the tejas uses HMDS. its good enough.
there is a mantiance advantage to avoiding the canard or extra control surfraces as well, there would be less stress on the air frame etc... and less moving parts.
the other advantage is the reduced weight.
you might want to know that despite the nearly same capability the gripen a provides, its empty wieght is greater. the gripen has yet to recieve an onboard oxygen generator. the tejas already has these small bells and whistles.
its not to say the tejas is manuavrable or the best dog fighter. it stands out in other areas as well.
RCS is reduced on the aircraft and one of the reasons being the lack of extra control surfaces.
If you want an arguement you may as well use the one i have enjoyed and is the least refutable.
because of the size of this aircraft, it has limited growth oppurtunities.
meaning, more will be added to the outside rather than in.
the gripen suffers from the same short fall.