Okay another personal attack. I won't spare much effort in replying this time then.
Using your examples to emphasise the validity of my core arguments - F18 is a USN (navy only) fighter. Just like J-31 ought to be a PLAN only fighter... in my humble worthless opinion (if that wasn't clear enough on an internet forum filled with armchair generals incl Markoz).
Mig-29 was a massive blunder in how the VKS split its available resources. This too is actually surprisingly well discussed in military circles both in east and west. It offered no real capability advantage over Su-27, did not save the VKS any more in operational costs (gotta walk on eggshells so with the caveat of correct me if I'm wrong and by this I mean a significant enough margin comparable to F-16 vs F-15 costs), did not have superior readiness (same caveats etc etc), did not perform critical tasks the Su-27 was incapable of (wasn't designed to either). Basically a "low cost" Su-27 that didn't have the performance of the Flanker and after decades of operating it, also did not save them much money over just having more flankers. In fact having more flankers at the expense of the fulcrums may have even served them better. There is a reason why Flanker continued receiving domestic and export success through to the 21st century and why even the Russian more or abandoned the Fulcrum in the modern era (beyond Sukhoi throwing political weight around... after all Mig-29 was nearly as much an export success until the 21st century). This is not to say the Fulcrum still isn't one of the most impressive fighters to ever fly.