I pretty much agree with you, and what most of the artical said. The mig-29 can take an F-16 and vis versa, but there are just too many factors. The F-16 and Mig-29 both have edvantages over one another. For instance, the F-16 does have fantastic visibility and an insane turn rate as well as sustained turn rate, but the mig-29 has its up sides too...
BTW i think the German Mig-29's used hydraulics 
sad considering Sukhois used fly by wire since the 1970's.
Hydraulics are standard. What we call 'fly-by-wire' is the elimination of mechanical linkages f.rom the cockpit to the hydraulics that motivate the flight control surfaces. The higher the speed, the greater the aerodynamic forces upon these surfaces to the point where human strength can no longer overcome. We have always know this. Thrust vectoring uses hydraulics to motivate the nozzles. The fluid can be f.rom the aircraft's own hydraulic fluid or taken f.rom engine oil. If aircraft's own hydraulic fluid is used, then the entire system must be upgraded in terms of capacity and flow rate as the engines, as a whole, is now an additional burden. If engine oil is used as hydraulic fluid, then the burden is shifted to each engine itself, also requiring a higher capacity and flow rate. The advantage to this is modularity, isolation and protection of each system f.rom the other's degradation.
I understand what you are saying, and i will admit that the F-22 is the most sofisticated fighter in the world but its thrust vectoring is very simple. Both the F-22 and Sukhoi respond automatical to the pilots commands because both use fly by wire.
Simplicity does not equate to inferiority. The reason why is complex so here we go just scratching the surface of
ONE area of avionics...
Pugachev's Cobra - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Initially the pilot has to disengage the angle of attack limiter of the plane. This action also disengages the g limiter. After that the pilot must pull the stick hard. The aircraft reaches 90°120° angle of attack with a slight gain of altitude and a significant loss of speed. When the elevator is centered, the drag at the rear of the plane causes torque, thus making the aircraft pitch forward. At that time the pilot must add power to compensate the speed loss. In a properly performed Pugachev's Cobra, the plane maintains an almost straight flight throughout the maneuver; the plane does not roll or yaw on either direction. Proper entry speed is significant because if entering too slow, the pilot might not be able to accomplish the maneuver; entering too fast might exceed the g-force limit of the plane and the pilot may suffer loss of consciousness.
The flying community know it is bullshit when Pugachev claimed to be the first to perform this maneuver.
John Boyd - USAF, The Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of Air Warfare
Boyd was famous for a maneuver he called "flat-plating the bird." He would be in the defensive position with a challenger tight on his tail, both pulling heavy Gs, when he would suddenly pull the stick full aft, brace his elbows on either side of the cockpit, so the stick would not move laterally, and stomp the rudder. It was as if a manhole cover were sailing through the air and then suddenly flipped 90 degrees. The underside of the fuselage, wings, and horizontal stabilizer became a speed brake that slowed the Hun f.rom 400 knots to 150 knots in seconds. The pursuing pilot was thrown forward and now Boyd was on his tail radioing "Guns. Guns. Guns."
Boyd may not have performed the similar maneuver as elegantly and in a much sexier aircraft like Pugachev did, but the result is the same, which is to present the greatest possible aerodynamic drag to slow the aircraft in the shortest possible time.
Now we move to the F-18...
Flying the F/A-18F Super Hornet
2.2 The Virtual Speedbrake
The first demonstration involved the virtual speedbrake effectiveness and handling in this configuration. The F/A-18A-D, like the F-15 series, employs an upper fuselage hydraulically deployed speedbrake. The Super Hornet has no such device, yet achieves the same effect through what can only be described as digital magic. The speedbrake function is produced by a balanced deployment of opposing flight control surfaces, generating drag without loss of flight control authority or change in aircraft pitch attitude.
Dave demonstrated the speedbrake function, and I was asked to observe over the shoulder and in the mirrors the raised ailerons, lowered trailing flaps, raised spoilers and splayed out rudders. Deceleration is smooth and there is no observable pitch change.
At Mach 0.63 Dave invited me to fly another 360 aileron roll, to observe that the aircraft retains considerable control authority despite the fact that the rudders are splayed out, and the ailerons, spoilers and flaps are generating balanced opposing pitching moments. I applied roughly 1/2 stick input and the aircraft very cleanly rolled through 360 degrees at about 90 degrees/sec roll rate. I commented on the lower roll rate and Dave observed that we were significantly slower, he then proceeded to demonstrate the roll again with a full stick input, producing around 180 degrees/sec with a slight overshoot on recovery. The aircraft feels very stable throughout the manoeuvre and there is no observable change in control forces or control input response by the FCS.
The intention here is the same -- to have a radical reduction in forward movement by presenting the greatest possible aerodynamic drag. But the new F-18 does it in a way that neither Pugachev nor Boyd could. What happen here is that instead of turning the entire aircraft vertical in forward flight path, the F-18 splits its flight control surfaces to present
THEM at their greatest aerodynamic drag. The right rear stab would have its leading edge down, normally to induce a right roll, but the left rear stab would have its leading edge up, inducing a left roll, thereby cancelling out its companion.
So the whole thing look like this:
Right rear stab - Right roll.
Left rear stab - Left roll.
Right aileron - Left roll.
Left aileron - Right roll.
Rudders - Split.
That is what is meant by
...balanced deployment of opposing flight control surfaces... where each surface cancelled out the action of its companion. The forward speed drop may not be as dramatic as when the entire aircraft is used, but as shown, the aircraft's pitch attitude is unchanged, the pilot retain controllability and can even perform maneuvers as forward airspeed is rapidly dropped. This is clearly superior to what both Boyd and Pugachev did with their ships where each man lost forward vision and quite at the mercy of chance.
The F-18's example is not intended to cast any slights on Boyd's and Pugachev's airmanship, clearly superior to most pilots, but all three examples are presented to illustrate a very important point...
Flight Control Laws....
Airbus Flight Control Laws
NORMAL LAW
Normal operating configuration of the system. Failure of any single computer does not affect normal law.
Covers 3-axis control, flight envelope protection, and load alleviation. Has 3 modes according to phase of flight.
Boyd and Pugachev created and executed their own Flight Control Laws in performing their maneuvers, so did the F-18's flight control computer. Each action, f.rom disengaging AoA limiters, to pulling back on the control stick, to bracing elbows, to kicking the rudders, to splaying out the rudders, etc...etc...constitute an 'operation point', or a 'scheduling variable'....
Gain scheduling - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In control theory, gain scheduling is an approach to control of non-linear systems that uses a family of linear controllers, each of which provides satisfactory control for a different operating point of the system.
One or more observable variables, called the scheduling variables, are used to determine what operating region the system is currently in and to enable the appropriate linear controller. For example in an aircraft flight control system, the altitude and Mach number might be the scheduling variables, with different linear controller parameters available (and automatically plugged into the controller) for various combinations of these two variables.
Throttle positions are scheduling variables. So are AoA probes' angles. So are pilot stick inputs. So are the responses f.rom the aircraft. The list is long. Every input came f.rom a desire and is translated into an objective then measured against current aircraft state prior to the execution of a Flight Control Law (FCL) and as the airbus source shown, there are many FCLs applicable to many situations. The more FCLs are created, the less burden the task of flying for the pilot(s), but also the more complex the Flight Control System Computer (FLCSC). Stability and Control Augmentation Systems (SCAS) algorithms increases in complexity inside this computer because SCAS is designed to remove much of the pilot's workload in flying, tasks like trim are relegated to SCAS algorithms. Modern combat aircrafts have 'relaxed stability' so the SCAS algorithms are already complex to have effective FCLs in violent maneuvers not seen in airliners.
Stability augmentation: Information from Answers.com
As a third example, stability augmentation systems are used on aircraft. This is usually achieved by a system which controls one or more flight-control surfaces (or engines) automatically without inputs f.rom the pilot.
All FCLs are designed at the base aircraft level and increases in complexity to take into considerations unknown factors like passenger loads, which varies day to day. External stores such as fuel tanks and munitions are also unknown variables. All FCLs are designed for
AUTOMATIC flight envelope protection. When Boyd and Pugachev did their maneuvers, only their exceptional airmanships provided this protection, which is the question 'What the hell do I do if this does not work?'. Unfortunately, their exceptional airmanships are not transferable skills. When exceptional airmen die, the exceptional Flight Control Laws (FCL) they created dies with them. Modern avionics are the answers to this loss.
We can see the preservation and transferance of FCLs in the above airbus source under the 'Alternate Law' section...
* In pitch alternate law the flight mode is a load factor demand law similar to the Normal Law flight mode, with reduced protections.
* Pitch alternate law degrades to pitch direct law when the landing gear is extended to provide feel for flare and landing, since there is no flare mode when pitch normal law is lost.
* Automatic pitch trim and yaw damping (with limited authority) is available.
* Turn coordination is lost.
* When pitch law degrades f.rom normal law, roll degrades to Direct Law - roll rate depends on airspeed.
Turn coordination is one set of Flight Control Laws and is taught in basic airmanship. All pilots must know how to perform a 'coordinated turn' in an aircraft so simple that it has no provisions for any automatic assist of any kind. In other words, the human is forced to create in his own mind a set of FCL for a particular situation. Take-off and Landing are other sets of FCLs. Rolling to position oneself in an advantageous position for a missile shoot is another set of FCL. So in the 'Alternate Law' section, is 'Turn coordination' really lost? No...The situation is saying the aircraft can no longer execute this FCL and the task is transferred back to the human. Now the pilots must fall back on their basic airmanship skills to maintain stable flight. Unbelievably enough, all the Flight Control Laws that we created and preserved so far, in books and in computers, to be executed by humans and machines, were created through trial and errors. Lives and limbs have been lost for non-flyers' benefits.
New features that will allow pilots to either ease their flying or to have new maneuvers will require the same trial-and-error process of establishing new FCLs and Thrust Vector Control (TVC) is no different. All FCLs must have fall back measures, as the airbus source indicate with its many levels, f.rom 'Normal' to 'Direct'. Each descending level require more human interactions to maintain stable flight. So for TVC, each axis constitute an 'operation point' or 'scheduling variable' that must be observed and recorded by humans, aka 'test pilots',
BEFORE the axis can be incorporated into existing FCLs. No FCL is discarded, only enhanced. So just because the Sukhois's engines have one more TVC axis than the F-22's, it does not stand to reason that all axes are under automatic control.
An exhaustively researched and tested simple feature that is finely balanced with other features inside an FCL is superior to one that is done haphazardly and the US have no less data than the Russians regarding TVC, the Rockwell X-31 and the MD X-36 are examples. What the US want to do is to eliminate all the things a pilot has to do to execute such and such maneuver via automated Flight Control Laws and leave the pilot free to focus on killing. Is it possible that some day with a flick of a switch a pilot could perform the 'cobra' maneuver? Absolutely. But is it necessary? Hardly when we can do something far better like the virtual speedbrake on the F-18. Not as airshow spectacular but still effective in making the enemy overshoot.
The more advanced the avionics mean the greater the complexity of the FCLs and the result is that we would have another 'Boyd' or 'Pugachev' sooner than before. Remember...We do not want to isolate exceptional flying, we want to spread those skills out to as many pilots as possible but then having multiple switches to flip, buttons to push and handles to turn is like going back to the days when Boyd and Pugachev had to perform contortions to produce those spectacular maneuvers. Why bother to have avionics in the first place? The selection of operation points, be it stabilator rate or throttle positions or TVC axis, into an FLC is quite arbitrary. How they are balanced with each other inside an FCL depends on the research and testing regime. If either is poorly done the results are wasted lives and resources.
The FCL process works this way...
1) Select a set of operation points.
2) Attempt to balance existing FCL parameters with new operation points.
3) Re-design the scheduler.
4) Evaluate.
Item 4 is where people can die. Legend had it that the F-16's first flight came f.rom a high speed runway run but the aircraft was sufficiently aerodynamic enough to take off on its own. The unprepared pilot had to carefully fly the aircraft around and land. That was f.rom items 2 and 3 and the pilot was very fortunate. The arbitrariness of item 1 is the result of why we have gradations in the testing and evaluation regime, such as taxi or high speed runs or flight time to X altitude and many others.
I could have easily say something like 'We do not know if the TVC are automated' and leave the rebuttal at that. But then I would do interested readers a gross disservice by leaving them wondering as to why 'We do not know', so hopefully the long explanation will give the readers the necessary
BASIC information to ask critical questions, at least for their own benefits, instead of being gullible to glossy sales brochure blurps. It would be unwise to assume that just because the F-22's engines have one less axis than the Sukhois that the F-22's TVC feature is less effective a contributor to the aircraft's Flight Control Laws -- item 2.
Clear as mud?
Correct the wings on the Mig-23 had to be retracted manually, were as the F-14's wings retracted automatically. Good observation. However, today Russian aircraft are fully digital, hence everything is incorporated in the digital fly by wire system. No more manual work.
What's the US verdict on the Mig-23? The Israelis has some good things to say about it.
Here you go...
Constant Peg
Today, Brig. Gen. Herbert J. Carlisle is commander of the 3rd Wing at Elmendorf AFB, Alaska, but f.rom 1986 to 1988 he was chief of weapons and tactics for the 4477th. One day he put a MiG-23 Flogger into a flat spin and had to eject. The Soviet-designed seats were equipped with barometers that deployed parachutes once they fell to a certain altitude. When the squadron commander arrived to retrieve him, Carlisle said they were going to have to turn the barometers up. Hed hurtled well below the ridges of the surrounding mountains before his chute opened.
Carlisle was lucky he was over the valley, said the squadron commander in question, retired Col. John T. Manclark, who is now USAFs director of test and evaluation.
Constant Peg pilots would typically fly MiG-23s only after they had acquired extensive experience on the other Soviet models. The guys really didnt like flying the 23, said Manclark. They were scared of them.
The Constant Peg pilots would show how quickly they could pull a MiG-17 nose around, or roll a MiG-21, or how a MiG-23 could out-accelerate anything.
And the MiG-23? Well, the Flogger pilot was going to make one pass and run. If he tried to turn, officials said, you owned him.
It was the MiG-23 that was the maintainers nightmare. The Flogger was a compromised design, in the US view. Made light for speed, the airframe didnt have sufficient strength. The wing box which carried the weight of the swing wings was particularly prone to cracks.
Overall...The MIG-23, like most Soviet-era aircrafts, were designed to be disposable. In my personal experience, when I had to train the Saudis or the Egyptians or the Turks who came off maintaining Soviet aircrafts, they were surprised at the depth of basic systems knowledge USAF maintainers possess. They thought that US aircrafts were designed with the same disposable mentality. Aircrafts that are designed to be disposable will be treated that way.
