Admit it JSR you have to be Star49! Only he came up with as much utter tosh!

There is no chance whatsoever that Argentina would go for a Mig-29 variant.

As for your reasoning and asumptions about other types:

a) China doesn’t need the J-10 to have a standoff missile capability they have other types that perform the role. But there is no reason why the capability couldn’t be introduced in the future, the J-10 a multirole type has an open architecture weapons bus.

b) Argentina is not interested in second had M2K anymore so that is a non issue.

c) Mig-35 is more viable then the various Sukhoi variants out there…how many Su27/30 have been exported in the last decade vs Mig-29 and how many Mig-35 been sold so far…QED.

d) What the Russian company Mikran produces has no connection whatsoever with this debate.

Actually ur worse than J-20burn dog. Argentina bought Mi-17. they simply dont have choice other than MIG-35 if they are going for newer plane.
how do you know China dont need Strike J-10?. They dont have other types unless you consider even shorter range JH-7.
MIG-35 is certainly more viable than Flanker as it is 50% more fuel efficient.
It is not 1990s anymore. The size of avionics is more compact and sensor reached has increased many fold. so smaller planes can do long standoff strikes. Adance materials even allow smaller planes to carry heavier weopons on weopons stations without increasing weight. Engines got more powerful, All these advances favor smaller plane. and that was the reason of developing MIG-29K.
Tier-1 supplier is the most critiical thing. as you dont want depend on vendor that is have no other commerical revenue, cannot invest in upgrades or go out of business by outsourcing to China.

Argentina bought some Mi-17 for start. They can always buy my favorite fighter.
They need fighter that can do Sead/Antiship/air to air combat in Single mission. This maximize the threat parameter as the oponent will not know what kind of strike is going to happen.
MIG-35 has 5 wet stations and 5 weopon stations per wing. and with uprated engines/ TVC is more than match for EF.
Rafale/Superhornet are too underpowered compared to EF.
J-10/M2K/F-16 are pure garbage. They dont have the engine power for effective use of AESA and multitude of weopons with sufficient agility.

Problem is EF never demonstrated AESA in actual fighter trials.
Argentina needs better fighter sooner before UK gets hands on JSF. and only MIG can provide that capability as MIG-29K production is running.
$1.5b will give them 36 MIG-35 with independent Glonass, wide variety of standoff weopons.

http://english.ruvr.ru/2011/09/27/56818072.html
“Our so-called Western colleagues alleged that Russians have no active phased array radar, but we deeply disappointed our competitors, Barkovsky says. I can tell you that in India, everyone was surprised to see MiG-35 equipped with such a radar. In the course of the tender, the MiG-35 made three demonstration flights, during which the plane hit a target using the active phased array radar – something that once again confirmed our possessing high technologies,” Barkovsky wraps up.

You do realize that JH-7 probably has the better combination of payload and range in PLAAF right? It has a range of over 1000 km in certain flight profiles even while carrying 4 YJ-83 AShMs. There is a reason PLA keeps ordering this thing. It has better range while carrying anti-ship missiles or land attack missiles than even the flankers. Also, J-10 has a range of 1100 km with 3 fuel tanks and 2 PL-12 + 2 PL-8. It obviously has less range than flankers, but still pretty good for something its size.

1000km range with 4 YJ-83. so combat radius will be 500km? right. The drag and weight of 4 antiship wont allow it.
There is no aircraft in world that can double its range with ETs. just the weight and drag wont allow it. so how come JH-7 can double it range with ET? All these figures related to JH-7 are complete BS. It cannot even carry 2000L fuel tanks let alone something big in 2500L/3000L class.

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/xianjh7fighterbomber/
The aircraft can fly at a maximum speed of 1,808km/h. Its cruise speed is 903km/h. The normal and ferry ranges of the JH-7 are 1,759km and 3,700km respectively. The service ceiling of the aircraft is 16,000m. The aircraft weighs around 14,500kg while its maximum take-off weight is 28,475kg

PLA simply dont have choice. New Su-30MK from Russia will cost closer to $100m just like MKI to India. and China aviation industry cant produce Su-30MK . so all you get is JH-7 at the end.

Because its too big an engine for the airframe.

So engine is big that means JH-7 is big aircraft due to engines. there is no internal volume for fuel.
there is no wing area, twin fins or enlarged spine to make up for it.

In a dedicated strike aircraft two seats have repeatedly been shown to be a better solution when it comes to the mission management…or are you really advocating the F15E or the Tornado GR4 are bad at strike due to having two seats…?!

These belong to 1980s. and F-15 do carry alot of weopons.
Newer aircrafts like Su-35/JSF/Rafale dont need two seats. unless you want bigger theatre bombers for even longer range missions.
since JH-7 neither has the range or payload so second seat is entirely unnecessary. Pilot is the most expensive cost of airforce. more than fuel per year.
Even JH-7 by itself is uncessary since standoff missiles get the best range from platforms that give it the best altitude and acceleration. here MIG-29SMT is better platform.

Evidence please! If not you are plucking these ideas out of a particular orifice on your backside…

these ideas came from same place where there is 250 JH-7.

Wrong. The JH-7A fuselage has a lot of volume with its aerofoil shape. The lower half of the Mig-29 is where the engines and its inlets are, so no storage here. The tornado even have a smaller wing than JH-7A. The JH-7A wings are not small and having too big a wing area will only increase drag. By saying that, you’ve just proved that you know nothing of aircraft design.
Totally wrong. Have you even seen a video of the JH-7A?

Looks like there’s no point in discussing further.

Tornada is much smaller aircraft. there is almost 15 feet difference in length.
There is big disadvantage of carrying such heavy and big engines.

You need strong wings on much smaller fighter. and this reinforcing the older MIG-29. Anything latest from factory will blow apart JH-7 strike load.
http://www.sirviper.com/fighters/mig-29/mig29_6.jpg

The following are disadvanages of JH-7

Extremely low production volume with important thing like Engine not shared by any other aircraft. IF engine is so good why not use on FC-1.
Countries like Burma can afford MIG-29SMT but not FBC-1.

Two seater. whats the point of having two as this aircraft cannot do simulatneous air to air and air to ground fight. and it does not have range and payload for long range missions.

biggest flaw is it is too slow, not maneavourable. and will not keep with fighters on escort missions.

The number of wing stations is irrelevant to MTOW.

What’s the deal with the Spey engines being heavier? The additional 1.5k is just a small percentage of the 28.5k kg MTOW.

Btw, I’ve just censored a part of this reply debunking your wrong assumption that a more powerful engine and having more wing stations (thereby increasing the fuel load? – where the hell did you get the idea?) would necessary increase an aircraft’s payload X range. I figured it would be a futile attempt.

JH-7 has B747 size turn radius . so alot of fuel will be lost wasted just going from point A to Point B.
there is no wing area to speak off. there is no place of carrying any stores.
You dont built bomber with such small wing. 1.7 ton extra weight due to engines further decrease its operational range. There is no spine to carry fuel. no large tails.
There is BVR missile on third weopon stations. So MIG-29SMT can carry
2X R77, 4X Standoff missiles, Center line tank and with full spine fuel with much better turn radius, acceleration, climb rate. Every thing that counts of going in and out of battlfield.

Why are you so eager to claim that the JH-7A is overweight? The Wikipedia JH-7A empty weight figure is actually quoted from a CATIC brochure (Zhuhai 1998). It’s comparable to the Tornado besides their range and payload are also similar and significantly outperform those of the Mig-29K and F-4. Does that mean the 2 striker aircrafts are better than the 2 jetfighters. No. The thing is you’re just wasting people’s time, with your zero objectivity, by comparing apples and oranges.

1998 is too old figures. and it does not carry more than MIG-29SMT. there is no spine for fuel tanks or tall tails or larger wing area for it. this 9ton is paper specification taken from Tornado. It is composed of inefficient heavy engine with obsolete aerodynamic design & materials.
There is no chance of it being better than MIG-29SMT in Strike role.
Just look at lenght of fuel tank under MIG wings.