In 1970 Hugh Merewether said the Harrier was an example of how an inherently good idea was capable of development (P1127 – Kestrel – Harrier) and for me the Su27’s journey to Su35 is another such example.
I never did see what went on at airshows with the 29 and 27 as other than a demonstration of reliable aerodynamics that could handle enormous angle of attack, later sideslip and even later the rolling moment due to sideslip that comes with a combination of the two. Plus of course an engine intake combination that provided astonishing surge margins under the circumstances. The TVC discussed in this thread is just another step on this journey.
BTW I loved the manoeuvres at idle RPM. Every sound tells a story.
I wonder if those who write off the whole significance of this manoeuvring so far as combat is concerned (thanks to radar/stealth/BVR issues etc) ever stop to think that perhaps an organisation that can engineer what went on at Paris actually understands these other issues as well. In which case stand by for puzzlement when your target at the last moment unbelievably nips out of the lethal range of the missile you just used.
There is no doubt that providing stealth is expensive in design compromises, maintenance and money. Some people might think it better to avoid such issues and look at alternative strategies to cope with an enemy that chooses that route. Think reduced cost, more availability and the simple numbers game.