Why I have to explain the things that so obvious

Because they are not actually obvious but rather your baseless assumptions

It is understood that MIG35 carries 50℅ more fuel than MIG29A but it is much larger airframe and reinforced for 5 wet points with 10℅ more powerful engines and despite that it has identical top speed and much higher altitude and 50℅ more operational distance.

Yes Mig-35 carry more fuel than MIG29A, that why it has more range, no one arguing about that.
Similar top speed really nothing to talk about because at that speed it likely to be intake or placard limit rather than drag limit (which coincidentally same for F-35Aand F-35C, C version has much bigger wing, alot draggier, and heavier too.And F-35C even use the same engine. Yet despite all that, they have the same top speed).

Now on to altitude, you haven’t post any chart to show that Mig-35 can reach the same altitude as Mig-29 let alone higher altitude. Given that Mig-35 is heavier but has the same wing area of 38m2, i dont see why it should be able to fly higher.

All the change from Mig29 to Mig-35 is not that much different from change between F-18C to F-18E

I am referring to long range standoff air to surface weopons. not the small ones.

SPEAR can reach about 100 km, that is plenty of range for a stealth aircraft

The key word is operational range of 1.5 times of MIG-29. It means more powerful engines , bigger area and more electronics have no impact on weight and aerodynamics. this called. technology improvement.

http://www.janes.com/article/58889/mig-35-pre-production-batch-to-start-flight-tests-soon

Not really, more range either mean more fuel or more efficient engine with smaller TSFC. It doesn’t mean bigger area or more powerful engine. And more fuel would mean more weight, if wing area remains the same that would lead to higher lift loading with the same CLmax. So that will reduce ITR.

I have no doubt MIG35 will outperform F16 in all flight parameters with loaded weopons.

It doesn’t matter what you believe , it matters what you can prove

Where are Andraxxus and Starfish when we need them eh?

I have no Rafale obsession.. In fact, I haven’t even studied this aircraft much, I am much more versed in various Russian stuff..

TBH, both you are very nationalistic (even though not to JSR or blackadam level yet) .Personally i prefer reading Mig posts , not because they are similar to what i think, but because they often more technical or numerical base. Some what similar to stealthflanker or Andraxxus posts. Interesting even if i disagree with them.

Russian missiles generally outperform US made in range. just look at cruise missile ranges

JSOW-ER, JSM has about 560 km range
JASSM-ER has 1000 km range
MALD has 920 km range
Range wise US cruise missiles tend to have better range

you don’t have any data what speeds F-16 operate with loaded with 4Ashm

Iam sure he does, those data are available in flight manual. Even me have them

.MIG-35 can launch Kh-31PMD/AD at Mach 1.5 and over 15km altitude.

Did you just took the max launch altitude and speed of KH-31 then assuming that mig-35 can do that??? what if missiles was launch from su-27?

what kind of missiles F-16s can launch at Mach 1.5 and at high altitude?

All available in manual

peculiar of the F-22 is not more possible due to advance in radar technologies and you take it as a complete rebuttal of stealth as a technology..

There nothing peculiar about operation of F-22 as opposed to F-35 or B-2. They all do the same thing.

About noozle, all new stealth planes, that will enter service years after the F-22 production is ceased feature round nozless, not the square one of the F-22A i.e. something less efficient..

Each design is a question of cost vs capabilities. Either you choose cheaper aircraft and have more of them. Or aircraft with better characteristics but have less of them.About the nozzle, the spike design of round nozzle such as the F-35 LOAN nozzle is said to be able to reduce both IR and RCS ( may be slightly lesser in capability compared to square nozzle )signature while thrust doesn’t seem to be affected. Since F-35 doesn’t have T/W that high compared to F-22 , that possibly the reason why they choosed LOAN design instead of square one. T-50 is emphasize more on kinematics so that probably why it have round nozzle. BothJ-20 and J-31 suffered from having weak engine , so every percentage of thrust matter, hence round nozzle

Again is not about having RCS (and IR) reduction features, is about having how much in relation to cost, performance degradation, ease of maintenance

Which is the economic problem rather than about the aircraft itself .

About the bomber same, I though there are still US fighters in both UK and Germany, just not F-22A.
So back to the N°1 question, why an air superiority plane designed to penetrate into enemy aereospace is not positioned near there but in Hawai and Alaska? It so important to estabilish air superiority over Chukotka (or Cuba, for Florida’s ones)? Or are they actually performing the opposite mission instead i.e. waiting for bomber to come?

Alright, look at this.Here is F-35 combat radius ( which is already bigger than F-22 combat radius). And there are various factor that can decrease those number too such as longer loiter time , longer combat afterburning time and so on.

Here is the world map

So you can see that there are many place that F-35 , F-22 still cannot reach even if you put them in German or UK.Spreading them around would mean your fighters force is very thin , very small number in each area. That why they want PCA which can follow the bomber any where.

In every case there is a discrepancy when you say that stealth fighter would adress the issue of enhanced AD radar capability by using stand-off weapon while bombers, that can carry way greater payloads would instead try to phisically penetrate enemy airspace.

You need to look at how big some country is. Even with standoff weapon , you cannot cover the whole country .Nor that it would mean you will be able to locate any targets at any point inside the country territory without flying inside.Ground surface to missiles sites take measure to make themselves harder to detect too. And by standoff weapon on stealth fighter , i dont mean they need weapon that have 1000-2000 km range , i meant weapon that can out range enemy detection range when jamming has been taken into account. Take for example : if your new radar can track stealth aircraft from 200 km. With its jammer , it can reduced that range by 1/2. That mean a weapons with range of only 100 km would be considered as good weapon for stealth aircraft while that would been insufficient for conventional aircraft.

Ah, and we were talking about C (metric) band radar anyway.

Which is less effective in address stealth problem

It means being able to stay there without being identified and located by enemy radars systems so to even avoid enemy interceptor planes to even take off without being immediately targeted instead of just enter into enemy airspace (i.e. deep beneath of the battle front) as an escort to attack planes and leave immediately after.
Now situation is such that no matter how stealth a plane is, it would be at least spotted by enemy EW radars so the initial tactics wouldn’t be possible anymore and for second one there is not the necessity of having the all aspect stealth level of F-22.

I dont quite understand what exactly do you want to say with ” EW radar ” ???? Do you mean ELINT system ? In that case most F-22 can always stay silent ( because you only 1 aircraft transmit and information can be shared ) , If by EW radar you mean low frequency early warning radar, those things have existed ways before F-22 even exist, their limitation still exactly the same ( poor accuracy , big size ).And stealth aircraft dont need to be completely invisible , it only need to be deny enemy ability to attack it.

Because it’s true that any of actual fighters , 4 of 5 gen try to increment RCS in every direction, it is not that someone leave a side purpose intact, so to help enemy, it’s that in the frontal part you invest one and get ten, in the rear part just the contrary.
So, while the other 5 gen fighter somewhat accepted to have a part in which their stealth lvl is somewhat inferior, for phisycal limits, not for carelessness, F-22 is more similar to F-117 and B-2 on that regard trying to achieve the maximum possible level of RCS reduction in any direction, no matter the price to pay, both in terms of money that of performances.
Problem is that while the other two are subsonic bombers, F-22 is to retain over-the-edge flying performance anyway, so explosion of cost, serviceability problems, cut in not essential ecquipment that make in the end thing just worse and so on.

I really struggle to get your point here, so you think all aspect stealth is what make F-22 costly ?

Now, we can argue until the end of world about how much the F-22 has matched the aspectatives but the same fact that they first planned to keep F-15C still in service for almost 12-15 years and after have launched something called PENETRATION COUNTER AIR made almost clear that:
-There is a problem, a big one I would dare to say if they are planning to extend the operative life of 30+ year old frames.
– Where the problem lied and what they want to get back (unless they put random names to their programs).

The problem is they dont have enough F-22, the fleet is too small. And the penetrating counter air has completely different role from F-22. They are to escort things like B-2 , B-3 a role that neither F-35 or F-22 can do. Not because they dont have enough ” stealth ” but because they dont have enough range.

perform offensive air superiority missions i.e.enter and stay deep into heavily defended enemy territory for what the F-22 was designed forth but faided
.

what do you mean by it failed ?