No it can't, because A, neither Flankers, nor Fulcrums have multi pylons for missiles and B, it's still the weight limit of the hardpoint that you ignore!
A hardpoint that can carry only up to 300Kg, can't carry 2 AAMs and the weight of the multi pylon, or a heavy anti ship missile, or a heavy bomb. That's the reason why even official weapon loadouts of the Flankers show none of these weapons on the outer wing, or wingtip station.
More over, in your hypothetical scenario what makes you think that EF couldn't do the same? It has a payload of 7500Kg, has even more wingstations than the MKI, that can carry heavier loads (3 of 4 stations can carry bombs) and one of it's future weapon capability is to carry 3 x Brimstone ATGMs on a multi pylon, totalling in up to 18 missiles:
So by the same hypothetical logic that you use for the MKI, the EF must be able to do the same, or even more!
But all these speculations here are pointless, because the payload is limited by the weight limit of the hardpoints and can't increased beyond that, only by useing less fuel like you think. Not on the MKI and also not on the EF, because this logic would be the same for MKI again.
Oh btw, you mentioned the Elta jamming pods of MKI. Adding them to a normal A2A config means, it looses 2 stations, while EF has these techs integrated in the fighter and the ECM wingtip pods. That means MKI carries the same maximum load of 10 missiles, that EF would carry as well!
Again, the only field where MKI has an advantage is radar range, which in return will be countered by the big RCS. Against lighter fighters with less capable radars that won't be a big issue, but against a modern and capable fighter like EF, it's simply a different issue. In all other performance specs, the EF is at least comparable, if not superior!
That has nothing to do with the weight class, but with the capabilities of both fighters and the EF is undeniably one of the best at least in air superiority!
