[caldrail]

The use of canard (foreplane) in combination with tailplane on the aircraft of the second video is an extremely agile combination. Experiments in the 1960s by USA manufacturers lead to the conclusion that such combination of both foreplanes and tailplanes is not needed for combat, adds to the vulnerability of the fighter, and increases drag over using only foreplanes or only tailplanes.

Well, maybe the "supermaneuverability" given by extra canards and thrust vectoring is useless in combat, but I guess that the near-stall controllability it brings is a valuable perk in carrier operations, when you have to land a 20-25 tons bird on a deck!

Useless? That would depend on circumstance surely?

I recall as a young lad me and a mate of mine fantasised about a Gerry Anderson-esque organisation with all sorts of invented vehicles. I came up with a thrust vectored interceptor (not bad for a child of eight). My friend insisted I was talking rubbish because it would only cause the plane to be stationary in a following enemies sights. As it happens, the tactics used by Harriers in the Falklands not only vindicated my childhood concept (which sadly will never be built ) but proves that creative use of assets can always fin d a use. There is elsewhere on these forums a video of a Me109 pilot using his flaps as an airbrake. I know of at least one business jet pilot who performed short field landings by engaging reverse thrust while still airborne.

The problem with jet fighters is the accelerated loads caused by manoevering at speed. At top speed, agility is very limited, whereas beneath 400mph a jet can exploit agility much more freely, both for structural and human factors. In some circumstances, the potential agility displayed by these jets would be hard to compete with and might even save their lives when pursued by missiles that cannot turn with them.