That according to Wikipedia
However, you cannot get more structure strength, more avionics (and cooling too in case of AESA radar) , 1.5 time more fuel, strengthen pylons, extra missiles warning system. And still have the same weight.

There are many conflicting information about this, from what i understand Mig-35 get bigger slightly

If i was wrong and Mig-35 does not get bigger, it only get heavier then the changes in aerodynamic would be similar to the change from F-16A to F-16E or F-15C to F-15E. More lift loading and same CL, so again i dont see how it should be able to fly higher or perform ITR better than Mig-29A

that’s the old mig-35.i’m sure they wanted to build that but had no money for further research and just settled on using the mig-29m2 for the basis.

I also don’t think the French needed a carrier capable aircraft, they could have and almost did buy F/A-18s (see above link). They already operate a multi fighter fleet, it would have mattered little to introduce the F/A-18 into the mix, especially given the capability the Hornet would have provided from day one.

good point. Me and many of the other non-French posters agreed that France could’ve skipped over the Rafale (unlike RAF, Germany, Italy.. the French already made a 4th gen aircraft in the M2K), continue producing the M2K which is far more popular for export, and focus on a light-medium 5th gen follow up.. but of course some guys were like “non non non c’est terrible, we can’t do the 5th gen! 5th gen is useless anyways”

Does anybody have any details on the ACF project that the French Air Force originally wanted instead of the eventual Mirage 2000? Like the Mirage F1 the Mirage 2000 seem to have come into existence through the failure of the French Air Force’s original plans.

I think France made a mistake in passing over the Mirage 4000 but I don’t see the Rafale as a mistake. As for a French 5th generation fighter I don’t think the money exists for it unless their government were to invest a lot more in defense.

if capability was the focus, then out of the two options, I think skipping over the M2000 for the Rafale would be the best. the F1s were capable enough to last until the late 90s when the Rafales were being delivered. the F-8s were still flying when the Rafales were delivered so no real changes in schedule. Actually with out the M2000, the development of the Rafale would probably be much more expedited. Perhaps by a 3-4 years. Meaning CdG, Foch, whatever had their full Rafales by 20000

but for export, it is clear. the close entry date of F.1, M2K, and Rafale, and overlapping capabilities is why French exports were never as great as Mirage 3 days. I don’t expect them to reach that much even had they removed one generation, but M2K was more in demand for export and suited more foreign air forces needs, and especially budget, than Rafale. continued production and upgrades of the M2K all the way to today (doesnt exist since it shifted to Rafale), would likely mean more exports for M2K.
its rival would be Gripen. Do you think a late model, still produced, M2K is more interesting than the Gripen for customers?