Yeah, but the moment you say "Hey - we don't need this!" and stop the project . . . . . sod's law guarantees that a new threat will pop out of the woodwork ;)
It takes close to twenty years to bring a modern fighter into service from the design phase - a threat in international politics can develop in five years or less. It's a lot better to have a suitable aircraft waiting, than be caught napping and just not be able to respond.
What would happen if (just for example) China in ten years time gets belligerent and the Raptor was cancelled in the 90's?
At best, you'd have aircraft on a level spec with the enemy - that's no way to fight a way you want to win. If you can predict world politics twenty years ahead . . . . THEN you cancel weapons systems like that, but not before ;)
Can't argue with the "Flanker got there first" argument - it did. To some extent the Raptor still isn't as maneuvrable as some of the supermaneuvrable Flanker prototypes . . . . . but it has a long, long list of other attributes which mean it doesn't need to be ;)
You can only upgrade a Flanker so far - in the end, the Raptor will always, always be able to see the Flanker before the Flanker sees the Raptor. First look DOES mean first shot, almost always means first kill.
I'm seriously impressed with the Raptor as a fighting aeroplane - you don't need to be a test pilot to do the maneuvres in a Raptor that you see Flankers doing at airshows.
What else . . . . oh yes:
Yes, but I felt that comment was rather unqualified. I got the distinct impression from that article that the F-16 pilot tried to fly a maneuvre in a MiG in the same way that he flew it in the F-16.
You can be a bit more ham-fisted in a Viper than a Fulcrum . . . . . without knowing the story in it's entirety it's hard to draw a solid conclusion from that.