The fatal flaw with the M2K’s exports was the literal ball and chain around the customers ankle. Today they are marketing the Rafale to use far less french labor in its support chain. I think you misinterpreted what I was sayng is all.

The only reason you would probably stick to a turbojet these days is because you chose a design with limited roles that are optimized around it. Otherwise the majority of a multirole aircraft’s service life is better suited for the more flexible design. Turbofans have largely displaced turbojets because they save money over the life of the program.

Not necessarily. You could conceivably set the radar mode to be limited in its function, but in normal modes your statement isn’t a limitation because of its design. What you said was true of older technology. Its over simplicity of the problem and not respecting the solutions chosen.

M88 in an F1 would increase the overall cost of the aircraft, increase maintenance cost, lower hours of running time on the engine which is the advantage of a turbojet. If you are going to spend that much on the engine, why not just get a Mirage2000? I think the French overpriced the M2K and so knocked themselves out of the market, as an M2K shouldnt cost more than a F-16.

That’s not really the case, now is it? The turbofan is far more efficient than the turbojet and that pays dividends over the life of the project. Dassault designed the M2K around french support and its high labor costs. The current Rafale trends is to separate the two. The Novi Avon project is the closest we ever came to a single M88-engine fighter and that was for a relatively small custmer base. The M88 is not what makes the idea untenable.

And the M88 is less work to maintain. A similar size turbojet is not going to offer simplicity over the M88 when you consider how the current version has majorly shrunk in its number of parts and increased inversely in its service intervals.

They land when loaded with five regular tanks, why would CFTs be any different?

Not really relevant. We’re talking about CFTs and weapons pods. You can dump fuel, but do you dare stealth weapons pods? I think not. And those weapons pods alone are not a big improvement unless you go with the CFTs.

Imagine if those F1’s were using M88’s rather than 9K’s. You would probably enjoy better performance using a lot less fuel to get to that same launch point. A middleweight fighter from the French would probably sell unlike the export results of Gripen or JF-17. Rafale is a bit too much airplane for 90% of the market. But an F1 was largely affordable to half the market out there.

The other aircraft to consider in this thread is the Mirage 50 by Dassault, the up-engined Mirage III. It is more comparable to the F1. The limited editions of Cheetah are perhaps the only good representations of what the Atar 9K provided in potential for the fighter version. The Mirage 50 was a little more numerous, but nowhere near the capability.

edit: replaced Milan with Mirage 50.

People normally label aircraft carriers using the abbreviation CV rather than AC. It’s pretty universal anymore that people are talking aircraft carrier when CV is used while the other term can stand for many things.

CV = aircraft carrier, usually understood as non-nuclear
CVN = aircraft carrier, nuclear powered
CVA = aircraft carrier, auxiliary; for toting Planes
CVE = aircraft carrier, escort

There are more abbreviations for aircraft carrier, but this should give you an idea of what CV can mean.

If Mikoyan wanted to sell fighters they’d be sporting a modernized MiG-21 rather than pushing big tin like the MiG-29. They don’t need small sales to survive, they need gross expansion. Sukhoi owns the high end, there isn’t much room for MiG-35 in the future. They need their own niche. The reason IMHO that few want the F-7 is because China has little track record in those airframes.