Alright, my bad ..little bit of googling showed Russia’s population increased in 2009 (first time since 1995).

Population grew 25.000 in 2009

Reuters:Russia says population up for first year since 1995

Straitstimes:Russian population increases

that is good for russia

i also think its the difference in the avionics and systems they operate in, as 4.5 platforms are similar enough to be worked in the chosen system effectively with the appropriate avionics etc

one point, the sh lerx had the benefit of decent computer modeling available for its design of vortex management and i would argue that if not the best is as good as the best, i havent seen sources or claims of better than it for 4.5 gen

we seem to be happy about the 24 sh we ordered, 12 being wired as growlers

Perhaps they have cured the wing drop properly, and the F-18E is a fine aircraft, but most US critics point the fact still it is a basic F-18 with higher payload and reduced RCS, in my opinion it is a cool design, better than the F-14 and competitive with the Rafale, Su-27BM and Eurofighter, but if i was going to elect a fighter i would take the Su-27BM on terms of agility but true with HMS and AIM-9Xs i would not fear the Rafale or J-10 niether a Su-27BM.

but in the context of stealth and canards i guess the F-22 with tailplanes is the best and from my point of view canards are not superior to taiplanes and a well designed aircraft
see it

early concept of the F-22

real aircraft

No canards and yes stealth most of its detractors say canards are better than tailplanes and TVC is to explain its excelent agility

I do not agree with you for the following reasons:

A-The Rafale and Eurofighter have high TWR
This contradicts your claim of these aircraft not needing high thrust.

B-STR are not needed
This is even more illogic, if you point you nose a second is not worthed because the other aircraft is already avoiding you limiting the chances of getting it on your crosshairs sight.
the best aircraft is the one with a high ITR and little difference between its ITR and STR so it points its nose quickly and keeps its nose at the same angular speed or in few words close to its ITR, example MiG-29 it will point its nose at 28deg/s and will sustain it at 23.5 deg/s, same is the F-22
The only reason the Mirage 2000 and Gripen are competitive with the F-16 is because their STR are not so different to the F-16`s STR so they are more or less even with a higher ITR than the F-16`s ITR and a lower STR than the F-16`s STR

Now a swing wing aircraft sweeps its wing according to the speed, basicly it means each wing is optimized for a flight envelope.

The U-2 has a wing for high altitude and high lift at low speed
The XB-70 has a wing for high speed.
The F-18 has a wing for near transonic speeds

Same in an F-14, it sweeps its wing low at landing like a U-2, it uses a medium sweep at Mach 0.8 like a F-18 and sweeps back its wing at Mach 1 and Beyond like a delta of a XB-70.

At Mach 0.8 where most aircraft fight happens, the best lift you will get is with a wing like the F-18 and MiG-29.
The Rafale and Mirage 2000`s delta wings at Mach 0.8 therefore won`t have good STR due to drag that is the reason they use Canards and relaxed stability. Here drag is not a result of AoA but because of wintip vortex formation and downwash.
however with the advent of the F-22, supercruise speed. forces the use of wings optimised for higher speeds and you can see it in the F-22 rhomboid-type of wing

If you have read the report i gave you about the MiG-23, it says the MiG-23 at high speeds it has better turning ability than the F-16 this is because at high speed its wing at 72 deg of sweep gets less drag than the F-16`s wing.

why then a Delta wing? deltas allows you for good acceleration and low drag in level flight, so yo add a canard and relaxed stability and you get mitigated most of the cons this type of wing has at low speeds.

In turn performance both aircraft are similar, the higher ITR of the Mirage 2000 will mean a first chance to attack and disengage, but once the furball starts the Mirage 2000 has to avoid getting in a dogfight, however the F-16 won`t have the advantage the MiG-29 will have, a well flown Mirage 2000 has good odds of beating the F-16C but has to avoid a bit the long combat maneouvres.
Same will be a Gripen versus F-16 or Gripen versus MiG-29.
If it is true the F-16A has a 21.5 deg/s STR then it can force the Mirage 2000 into a turn fight and the Mirage 2000 will be in disadvantage.

Rafale is different if it has at least 23 deg/s STR then it will beat the F-16 easily and the F-15, F-14 will be too easy.

That is not true, the F-16 is one of the best fighters ever built, from 1976 to 1999 it was the best fighter available in the west, 4000 built show why it has beaten all its rivals it has won more exports than the Mirage 2000 for sure, in fact Israel blooded the F-16 and after the F-15 it has the best combat record of any modern jet; and has better sustained turn rate than the Mirage 2000 even with a multirole version like the F-16C is, the F-16A most be a much better proposition.
The Mirage 2000 only can start and poit its nose very briefly once it started turning without HMS the F-16 would had beaten it, it only has a very brief chance of beating the F-16 but basicly has to avoid the F-16 in dogfights due to an inferior STR.

The MiG-29 was invincible in the 1980s and 1990s at less than 10 miles basicly no other fighter would had beaten it and remember the Germans had downgraded MiG-29s

maybe because they don’t only consider one factor to decide? some other things can be taken into consideration too, like: other missions, price, international relationships, etc…

Well up to what i have read, the Mirage 2000 and F-16C are even in turn performance, the Mirage 2000 has a better ITR in most altitudes but lower STR in all altitudes.
see page 43 of this PDF document
http://csis.org/files/media/csis/pubs/081125_is_syria_air_sam.pdf
see that they are saying F-16C with a STR of 20 deg/s and since there are so many F-16 blocks well let us say it might change with different version

Now this document shows the Kfir was not a real threat to at least the MiG-23 and F-4

The manual’s authors claim that in comparison with the F-4E (though whether they mean the slatted or non-slatted sub-version of the Phantom is not clear), the MiG-23MLD has superior sustained turn performance throughout the entire envelope, excluding the range between 377 and 540kts (700 and 1,000km/h) below 21,000ft (6,400m). It also has the edge over the Phantom II in zoom climb performance at all altitudes and speeds, excluding the true airspeed range between 485 and 647kts (900 and 1,200km/h) above 18,000ft (6,000m). Compared with the F-15A, the MiG-23MLD’s only notable advantage is in zoom climb performance at speeds above 620kts (1,150km/h). However, the manual asserts that compared with the F-16A, the Soviet swing-wing fighter produces a somewhat better sustained turn performance above 15,000ft (5,000m), at speeds close to the maximum, as well as better zoom climb performance at true airspeeds exceeding 590kts (1,100km/h). However, as comparative tests have shown, using the Syrian MiG-23MLD(Export) which defected to Israel in October 1989, the swing-wing fighter demonstrated, somewhat surprisingly, that it had better acceleration than the escorting F-16s. This would seem to indicate that in ‘real world’ conditions the MiG-23MLD would have a slight edge over the early F-16s in acceleration and energy manoeuvrability at true airspeeds above 485kts (900km/h). The IAI Kfir C.2, as assessed in the manual, is said to be inferior to the MiG-23MLD in sustained turn performance at airspeeds above 540kts (1,000km/h), and in zoom climb performance at true airspeeds below 540kts (1,000km/h). However, at altitudes below 12,000ft (4,000m) the MiG-23MLD has the edge in energy manoeuvrability throughout the entire speed range.

http://www.xairforces.com/analyses/mig-23.html

The Greek experience is that with an experienced pilot, the fighter with the higher ITR will end the game right at the first pass, making STR obsolete in missile engagements.

The LUFTWAFFE experience showed the STR and HMS of the MiG-29 were the decisive factor by the way why are the greeks still buying F-16s if they are not as good?

I don’t expect anything… I simply read what’s posted and then think about it.. and when someone presents a publication as “source” while the very author of that publication says in the publication that the hypothesis for his work are “known as not realistic” I have trouble accepting that as “fact” 😉

No it is not that, any fourth generation fighter carries its weapons externally this means drag, the Gripen is not a super machine just because it has canards, the real published known numbers are 30 deg/s for the Gripen`s ITR and 20 deg/s for its STR.

You expect something irreal with the exception of the F-22, F-35 and T-50 all fighters at 50% of fuel carrying weapons are heavely burden by drag, the Gripen is a good aircraft but is not something of a magical thing, its STR goes with the type of wing it has.

You expect things based upon desires not facts, no Rafale or MiG-29 can beat the numbers of the F-22 simply because the fifth generation carries its weapons internally and has more military power setting available.

The Rafale having a 23 deg/s STR is a believeable number even a high number but you expect more because you think canards and deltas do not follow aerodynamics.