Regarding your TWR calculations, you have different figures of internal fuel for single and twin engine fighters. While it is full internal fuel for some, it is only 75% for others, so equal basic specs are important!
A normal A2A config for MMRCA (Mig 29K because it was fielded in the trials and no reliable specs of Mig 35 are available), would be 4 x AAMs (= 600Kg) and the a 1250l (1000Kg) centerline fuel tank, while MKI carries same weapon load, but only 5000Kg internal fuel and all fighters with dry thrust.
Dry thrust / gravitational field strength (9.807 m/s²) / emptyweight + internal fuel + payload = TWR
That translates into this ranking (corrected):
1. EF - 0.70
2. Rafale - 0.65
3. MKI - 0.64 (forgot to add the weaponload)
4. F16IN /Mig 29K - 0.58
6. F18SH - 0.55
7. Gripen NG - 0.53
As we can see the EF is clearly the number one with Rafale 2nd and MKI close 3rd.
That actually is the point, EF was designed for air superiority, just like the Flankers are and therefore are designed with high TWR, low wingloading, high climb rates in mind. In most of these fields it is superior to MKI, because the latter suffers from the weight that was added through twin seat layout, canards, TVC, BARS PESA radar...
The TVC of course will be a benefit in terms of maneuverability, but at basic maneuverability the EF is superior, which makes it more than a match in dogfights.
Even for Rafale it is similar, because although it's not developed mainly for air superiority, it was developed with high maneuverability in mind as well. In most specs in this field it is very equal to MKI, be it TWR as shown above, or climb rates and has even clearly lower wingloadings. Rafale is designed to be good in low speed maneuverability, which makes it good for dogfights and this was shown during ATLC and the combats with F22s (with TVC!)
In BVR the Rafale will rely on the passive detection features mainly, while the radar is clearly inferior to MKI. EF instead offers a very capable Captor M with ranges around 160Km for a 5m² target, BARS is given with up to 200Km for the same target, but the important factor will be the RCS less than 1 vs around 15m²!
Even with the addition of an external fuel tank, the EF will not reach a size that MKI could detected at such maximum ranges. The EF on the other side, will detect MKI way beyond the 160Km, will avoid detection, get closer to the target and shoots first.
That's why I said earlier, that we are not talking about just a smaller fighter like the F16, but a smaller fighter designed for same air superiority role and geared with the same features as well. Even when you compare A2A weapon loads or maximum range, the EF is more than comparable to MKI, 12 x AAMs maximum (10 + fuel tanks) vs 12 x AAMs for the MKI. Ferry range 3700Km vs 3000Km, both offers HMS, capable self protection suits.
One also have to think about the differences that the Su 35BM has compared to Su 30 MKI and that it's more geared for air superiority. Changes like:
- higher thrust engine (SC and 3D TVC capable)
- lower weight and RCS (canards that the early Su 35 had was deleted, just like the vertical stabiliser, or airbrakes, not to forget the advantage of the single seat layout + integration of composites and RAM materials)
- more capable IRBIS-E PESA radar
These features makes it way more comparable (if not superior) to the EF in the air superiority role than the MKI and once again shows where the downsides of MKI lies, compared to such highly capable fighters.
...
