Obviously, you missed the “small” part of history where Post Soviet Russia had no chance in hell to pick or prioritize. They had to opt for one over the other. It was the heavy Interceptor Flanker.
What a shocker! Everyone with a brain would have done the same.
It would not have made any difference what kind of Light design jet it would be. Even if NATO would offer Russia to buy your F-16 during the 90’s they could only afford one type, again the Flanker would be the wise choice.

Would you rather scrap the Flanker over an F-16!?

It is as clear as daylight that you are showing your true colors here. You are not interesting in debating if the Mig-29 design was/is a good and effective one.

The Mig-35 is a more capable design over the F-16 if we look at radar size, fuel fraction, ordinance, hell the Mig-29 is even a Carrier bird at this stage! What an awful bad concept and design!!!1! SAD..

What you try to push here is that Soviet/Russia opted for the Light fighter with twin podded engines and blended wing body with large LERX as if it is a flawed design just as the Heavy Flanker also was a twin engine podded wing/body LERX jet
Like your underline message is that the Flanker concept and design also is flawed..
And the the only effective and correct judge of things is which side produced and exported the most.

If you can’t see the fallacy of this mindset..

Honestly i have never liked the Mig-29, but that is just part of my Biased and prefered taste of things.. like i like the F-15C a whole lot better over the F-16.
But it doesn’t change anything of what the guys at MIKOYAN did when they set about to develop the next and new Generation of jet fighter, Namely the Mig-29.

What. The. Hell??

The point is that the Su-27, or Su-30, at only a little more in cost, can outperform the MiG-29. In other words, the MiG-29 is not cheap enough compared to the Su-27 to justify an aircraft with less overall performance. What does their aerodynamic configuration even have anything to do with that argument? What’s with you repeatedly harping about all this podded engines and blended wing body and LERX when it literally has no relevance to the argument of cost efficiency?

A claim about g-load from speculative source interviewed by a nationalistic media group. Are you even trying at this point?

Regarding criticisms of the MiG-29, I have to say I agree for the most part. In terms of capabilities, the MiG-29 really doesn’t offer anything the Flanker can’t do. Yet it doesn’t seem to be much cheaper to operate, which makes its existence even more questionable in today’s environment.

Cannot see how the payload would affect the range that much if carried internally.. The effect of additional drag due to weight must be much smaller than adding/taking one third of the overall range. One of the numbers is apparenty BS, can’t say which one..

There’s no way it’s 3,700 km. Consider that the A2A combat radius is some 750 nmi, or 1,390 km, which unlike a strike mission uses a fairly efficient flight profile. The range wouldn’t be much more than double that, and LM themselves state just north of 2,800 km.

PAK-FA Myth Busting

One does not counter bullcrap with more bullcrap like the video is doing. This is like the third time I’ve seen this garbage posted.

Lol nonsense 384 m/s climb rate was repeated. Sources from a Facebook post. Seems legit. :rolleyes:

I was about to say, that thread suddenly disappeared.

I’m confused. When an old SAR estimated that the F-35A range may only be 584 nm, people stuck to that like glue, but when the latest figure from flight tests is 669 nm, now the SAR is suddenly not reliable? :confused:

I was expecting more from the roll rate of the F-35. We’ve seen it roll faster during test flights. I’m wondering if there are control law limitations in place to limit the roll rate. Also, it seems like the current 3i g-limit is mostly affecting initial pitch rate.

The demo was decent and it shows the F-35 has formidable maneuvering abilities, but seriously let’s stop throwing out hyperboles. In terms of energy maneuvering it’s not particularly different from a Typhoon or Rafale demo that I’ve seen. The best way I can describe it is a Hornet demo with more energy and much more yaw authority.