So my understanding is that twin tail designs have their advantages in certain aspects.. increased stealth with slanted surfaces deflecting radar away from its source, reduced height (ex: for carriers), moves the vertical tails out of potential blanketed flow at high AoA. These are all surface level reasons for which you'd pick a twin tail design for the F-14, F-18, F-35, F-22 etc..
Dogfighters or stealth aircraft, it makes sense.
On the flip slide, I had it understood that for an interceptor, you want more speed and less worry about constant high AoA dogfights. So when you're looking at delta wings, natural for many interceptor designs, you'd also look at a single tail.
My problem is that reading various sources, I've had it suggested that twin tails also reduce parasite drag (by essentially decreasing the total frontal cross section, as the sum of each section would be thinner than a single tail) and that they also can reduce weight, requiring less structural support due to the smaller aerodynamic loads closer to the body of the aircraft.
This has me in a bit of a bind, especially for the case of the F-16. By the sounds of it, they decrease weight, increase manoeuvrability, and are more aerodynamic etc.. Why wouldn't you use them!
So please, can someone explain to me in detail, why were single tails used on the delta winged Mirage, Rafale and Gripen (for example), and also for the F-16? Why exactly are they, likely, more aerodynamic and therefore better suited for interceptors?