Very well. Facts speak louder than words.
Here are real, even not full load.
Now we can see that MiG-29 are able to load 4×1500L ETs and one 1650L under centerline, totally 7650L for external fuel. How many could your F-16 carry?
Does your F-16 will be able to load 4 heavy air to ground missile plus 4 M-R-AAM? If it does, show me……

your MiG-29 image on the left is the old MiG-29M produced in the 80s and tested in the early 90s. That picture is of a test model with dummy missiles. That particular MiG never got further in its development and fully integrated its air to ground. You can show all the a2g weapons hanging off its pylons but plastic bombs don’t win wars. Secondly even if fully integrated with weapons, the MiG-29 has poor range and needs fuel tanks. The MiG-29M fixes some of the range issues but will still need fuel tanks to be useful in A2G just like the F-16 and F-18. So that MiG in your picture will lose 2 of its a2g weapons and also add in a center fuel tank to make 3.

The current MiG-29M or MiG-33 whatever you call it is different than the other MiG you posted if you didn’t know.

the F-16 can carry as much fuel as that MiG if needed.

2 wing fuel tanks, 1 center tank, and 2 conformal tanks makes five and there’s still room for a2a and a2g weapons. That picture is just an F-16 in testing but production models can do the same and the F-16 has already integrated this weapons.

lol. What does Korea bring to the table? They have even less experience than India. At least India has the LCA to learn from. South Korea can’t even develop a trainer without Taiwanese help. 😉

Honestly, India would be better off cooperating with France. Aside from extensive experience in aircraft design, they also have ENGINES. The only things the French lack is the willingness to pour money into a stealth fighter. This is something India can help resolve. Furthermore the fruits of such a partnership can be exported, unlike a partnership with Korea which would crumple like toilet paper against US objections. I’ve been anticipating a Franco-Indian stealth fighter ever since Rafale won the MMRCA. France has the expertise. India has deep pockets. It all fits nicely. South Korea has neither, except overweening ambition beyond their native capabilities.

it would be hillarious if all AMCA ends up to be is a stealthy airframe with Rafale guts, and KFX is a stealthy airframe with Eurofighter guts.

What is amusing is that the AMCA has a more “typical” stealth scheme- Side mounted s-ducts, flat bottom, engines in body.
If the PAK-FA had the RCS of the SH (as some claim)

TR1, you are a good guy, some one the Mayans should spare should apocalypto should occur. But somethings need to be clarified.
DJcross, the guy who said PAK-FA had the RCS of a clean SH (probably), could be right. Pak-fa is just a demo, there’s lots of areas they can improve later. I would not be surprised if X-35 also had poorer RCS with its traditional panelling and unserrated edges.

why would the Indians be buying so many and investing so much into an expensive foreign product, with supposedly deficient RCS compared to what themselves are going to make?

There could be lots of possibilities
1. FGFA will enter service much earlier. Who knows how long AMCA will take, especially if its like the LCA
2. China is already testing two stealth fighters and since they have a habit of rushing things into service, India needs something before 2020 and PAK-FA looks like it’ll be on schedule.
3. We don’t know how many AMCA Indians will order.. what if they end up ordering more? AMCA is still a plastic plane for now. There exists a possibility it may not even leave the showroom display

They will have actual RCS testing data from both after all.

They don’t have the RCS of a full size AMCA

Answer is clear IMO. Sukhoi knows what they are doing.

appeal to authority is fallacious. Most likely Sukhoi knows what they are doing, but do you know what they are doing or just assuming? One could argue that they chose the current design because they wanted to compromise between full stealth and performance? Perhaps they don’t have access to certain technologies? who knows.
Secondly it also assumes Sukhoi always makes it right. The T-10 showed that Sukhoi can make mistakes that require significant re-development. No aircraft manufacturer is perfect. X-32 would’ve been the same had it been selected.

AMCA model is out and it looks like Indians are finalizing the design.
with the aircraft designed to combat threats from China, good opportunity for Koreans to join in. India has the ability to pump lots of money into the program with reduced US influence over the design.

Actually North Korea acquired a license…

Countries like India and China got licenses for Flanker because of it’s longer range and extra firepower. Iran could not afford to buy a large batch of MiG-29 to get license production. Other countries have the same problem, there is no point in getting one if you are only buying 24 aircraft.

its not because its longer range, its because it HAS range. the basic MiG-29 was a point defense interceptor and had limited range.
thats why a few MiG-29 buyers switched over to the Flanker, also due to Sukhois better support and financial stability
ex: India, Malaysia, Eritrea, etc.