Against US and NATO, even if you give the opponent the F-15SE they will keep loosing against US and NATO, they have a huge advantage in surveillance and offensive capability over everybody else, due to the fact that they have more money than rest of the bloody world.
You see, that's the key here: NATO
AND USA. It is never USA alone against even tiny countries like Iraq and Afghanistan. USSR on the other hand struck Afghanistan single handed all while fighting the same USA and NATO team. Also, you overrate them too much, US suffered badly in Vietnam, a country that was being torn from three sides then. It is the quality of training and not the fine equipment alone.
If the Indian navy operating a carrier with MiG-29K was to face US and NATO alliance, i think MiG-29K will not even be able to take off from the doomed carrier....
But the point is, we aren't going to be facing either NATO and USA or either of them even alone because they cannot even afford a war on Pakistan or North Korea now, let alone us or any other country of our size. Try learning about Luftwaffe MiG-29s vs F-16s and you will know what I am talking about.
You could change that to China, Russia, or any other nation you like....
You overrate China way too much because of one 1962 (in which 4 battles they won and India won 3 JFYI) but don't see what happened in 1 dozen smaller conflicts after that. Chinese don't even know the experience of operating an aircraft carrier yet compared to us. You really think they'd stand a chance in IOR against Indian Navy? Seriously?
NATO is busy with Afghanistan and Pakistan right now dude. We and they are on the same side in terms of strategic understanding of our region.
As for air combat exercises, from what is available online in plenty amounts, they are generally tilted towards one-side to practice winning and the other side to make sure that the other side gets good practice in shooting them down (red vs. blue)
Ahan? Gripens from Swedish AF swatted down USAF F-16s and F-15s like flies during Red Flag. Czech Gripens repeated the same this time, prompting USAF to ask for possible use of Raptors in air exercises next time. IAF MiG-21 Bis gave a tough time to USAF (not impossible but a healthy competition) despite being vintage; F-117, the "raptor of 90s" got shot down by vintage Soviet weapons;
Anything else?
If you really want to analyse the MiG-29s role, consider this.
Mig-29 as a part of a worlds strongest air defence network with overlapping radar coverage and long range SAMs, built to have no pound for air to ground, specialist in air defence over a short range (max200-300 kms from air base), under very clear guidance of ground and air based control, a T/W ratio higher than one, worlds first operational heat seeking air to air missile with off-boresight capability, cued by the pilots helmet.
In the soviet structure it was deadly against any US or NATO attack.
Dude, why are you taking US and NATO into this? The most likely opponent that MiG-29K will be facing will be PN or PLAN, both of which have no experience in sea-air warfare compared to us. One has a coastal naval aviation (PN) and the other will have to really stretch its supply lines to their limit, forgetting any scope of a decent war with us (PLAN) in IOR.
The K variant that we ordered and Russian Navy ordered, is modified to carry air to ship ordinances apart from usual air to air arsenal.
If India was to attack Bangladesh, even with a squadron or two of F-15s, we will finish the air war in 2 days.
Why do we even need to attack Bangladesh? When BNP was ruling them, we didn't attack them. Then why with AL would we attack them?