> I mean, the migs are very much real and capable planes, in many ways better than their US counterparts (especially so with how the F-35 has turned out).
The last truly new Russian jets ( MiG or Sukhoi, doesn't matter) to enter mass production are the Su-27 and MiG-29 from the 1980s. Everything since has been new versions of those designs, or failures ( Su-57). They aren't bad planes, and might have some specific advantages (e.g. IIRC a MiG-29 is a better interceptor than an F-16), but they're old. They're certainly cheaper, easier to maintain and with good training and systems can do plenty of damage in good circumstances and with some luck, but saying they're "in many ways better than their US counterparts" is a stretch.
> IIRC a MiG-29 is a better interceptor than an F-16
Not really, it might be more manoeuvrable than the F-16 (questionable in itself) but as an effective weapon system the F16 wins in every way.
This isn't me been nationalist, I'm British and we don't operate the F-16 - its simply that the F-16 in service now isn't the F-16 from the 70's where the Mig-29's in service now largely are and not even well maintained 70's.
The Block 50/52 F-16's are essentially a significant technological leap over any Mig-29 in service.
I mean the Russian Airfoce is using hiking GPS to navigate their fighters - I'd almost feel sad for them if they weren't butchering innocent civilians with their obsolete crap.
It's a tricky one, lots of people (obviously not saying yourself) equate effectiveness of a fighter/interceptor with manoeuvrability alone but that is only a tiny part of what makes a modern fighter effective and a relatively negligible one at that.
Missiles, Radar, Datalinks and Avionics are what matters on the F16 with stealth added on the F22/F35.
If the F16 can see the Mig29 first (either via it's on-board radar or a datalink to a loitering AWACS) and has weapons that can reach further then the Mig29 is at a catastrophic disadvantage before the fight is even joined properly.
The reports I've seen where F-16's have gone against Mig-29's all seem to reach the same conclusion, Mig-29 is more manoeuvrable below 200kn where F-16 is more at +200kn.
Thing is actual gun range dogfights are rare outside of exercises and if you are doing 200kn in one then you are at a severe disadvantage against an opponent who isn't since preservation of energy is the key criteria in a gun fight.
All that said though if an F-16 finds itself in that kind of a fight with a Mig-29 outside of an exercise then something has gone very wrong.
The last truly new Russian jets ( MiG or Sukhoi, doesn't matter) to enter mass production are the Su-27 and MiG-29 from the 1980s. Everything since has been new versions of those designs, or failures ( Su-57). They aren't bad planes, and might have some specific advantages (e.g. IIRC a MiG-29 is a better interceptor than an F-16), but they're old. They're certainly cheaper, easier to maintain and with good training and systems can do plenty of damage in good circumstances and with some luck, but saying they're "in many ways better than their US counterparts" is a stretch.