Yeah, the harrier in flight is fugly (especially the sea harrier)
Fat cockpit, tiny tail, ridiculous wing landing gear… even the refueling probe is weird

Anyway, it pretty much get the same score in flight as the Su-25 (the score is about look, not about performance)
But the Harrier GR4/9 get a much a higher score in “originality” and “coolness” because it is not a boring design like the su-25

IMO, the original Sea Harrier FRS 1 and FRS 51 were actually extremely unique and good looking in their own way..I recall building one as a kid and really loving its short anhedral wings, the curved vertical fin, the huge intakes, the unique landing gear and those nozzles, but especially the front fuselage with its sharp radome. Found it extremely cute, like a sparrow.

But the FA2 upgrade that the Royal Navy went in for, completely ruined the Sea Harrier’s looks with that bulbous radome..like a nose job gone horribly wrong. Without that original radome, the Harrier variants just didn’t look “right” to me. So I somehow just don’t like the GR4/9 variants of the Harrier, and for some reason I seem to prefer the AV-8B over the Sea Harrier FA2..

Harrier AV-8B

Reading what’s been written confirms the adage that beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder..

an admission that the Tejas, as a program to provide single engined fighters to replace older ones, was a failed program

Just like the FC-1 is a failed program since it never was accepted by the PLAAF, even though its cheap and the PLAAF has hundreds of J-7s it needs to replace.

Finally we see the MiG-35 prototypes! What radar is it going to have, the Zhuk AESA? The radome is clearly as big as the MiG-29K and not like the earlier MiG-35 prototype that was being showcased in India. So that would imply more T/R modules than the one shown earlier that had ~680 T/R modules or so.

assume the Saudis chose the M4k instead of the Tornado (something which probably would’ve been better to begin with).

what other air forces would’ve potentially wanted such an aircraft/capability?

i would argue that eventually it would’ve been adopted at home (and the 2000D and N wouldn’t have been developed in response, and instead of the Rafale, Dassault may have made a different aircraft to follow)
Singapore
and India (and as a response, they may not have went with the Su-30, and instead with the su-34 and 35)

India would not have been able to afford the Mirage-4000 in any meaningful numbers, even if had been interested or if Dassault had developed it and offered it. One of the major reasons for the selection of the Su-30 over the Mirage-2000-5 was the high price being quoted for the Mirage-2000-5. So imagine how much more expensive the bigger Mirage-4000 would’ve been and how competitive that would’ve made it.

From the link on the Bulgarians changing the tender to favor second hand fighters..

Reportedly, the changes to the criteria would favour the acquisition of US-made second-hand aircraft.

The main contenders to supply the replacement aircraft to the Bulgarian Air Force are the United States, Portugal and Israel, with second-hand F-16s, Italy, with second-hand Eurofighters, and Sweden, with new Gripens.

The Institute of Defence at the Defence Ministry, headed by Todor Tagarev, has drafted changes to the criteria for the acquisition, which would involve getting 16 fighters in two tranches. For the first eight of the fighters, with related infrastructure and equipment, a sum of 1.5 billion leva is envisaged.

The changes to the criteria reportedly de-emphasise expected lifespan of the aircraft as a factor, from 25 per cent to only five per cent.

Further, a new criterion is introduced, “military co-operation”. This would be an advantage for the US, given that Bulgaria co-operates mainly with the US military, and would be a disadvantage for Sweden, which is not a member of Nato. The institute is said to have put this factor forward as a major factor in making the decision.

This is to be expected – Bulgaria simply won’t be able to afford new build fighters from any source, other than China and I really doubt they would be looking at the FC-1 solution. Buying second hand but upgraded F-16s from Israel, Portugal or wherever at least gives them a decent capability for 15-20 years.

Why isn’t Saab pushing for the sale of some of the older Gripen C/Ds in SwAF service as well? Don’t they also have a large number of Gripen A/Bs in storage as strategic reserve? Those could conceivably be upgraded to the latest C/D standard and would be a very viable solution for the next 20 years.

And a cash strapped air force like Bulgaria’s would be one that would most welcome a fighter that promises lowest operating costs. Will allow for a decent level of hours for its pilots.

The Italian Eurofighter Tranche 1 solution seems like the least fit for the Bulgarians. A costly solution for second hand jets which aren’t truly multi-role and would cost a lot more to maintain and operate.

And yes, politics does play a part in weapons deals, especially when one is paying so much. When the US does exercise the most with the Bulgarians and does happen to be a member of NATO, which is mostly paid for by the US, then the US will naturally expect something in return. That is the price to pay for being part of an alliance and paying such a small share for the alliance’s overall costs.

Bulgaria revises fighter tender criteria in favour of second hand aircraft