Well the MKIs the IAF would get if they chose to fulfil the Rafale requirement through an additional MKI purchase would be the upgraded "Super" Su-30 MKIs so would cost a LOT more than $60 Million so this is a bit of a moot point anyway.
Not necessarily.
Super Su30 upgrade to my understanding is upgraded Wing spar, Wing root strengthening, and axial flexural extensions to the wing skin. Apart from that i am not sure what changes to the smc would need to fire the brahmos. I am not yet aware of the radar upgrades, which most likely won't happen itll FGFA comes in, most likely both will feature the same radar.
And, like you've pointed out sir, this doesn't take into account life cycle costs which is a key consideration. I've never disputed the MKI's unit price is likely to be cheaper than the Rafale's (Russian products have always been this way) BUT that counts for nought if its if cycle costs are 4-5 times this and the Rafales are 2-3 times its unit cost.
I don't have figures on life cycle costs on MKI or Mig 29, I do not have the life cycle costs on Rafale either. 4-5, 2-3 all are just speculative numbers based on conjecture. A mil spec rivet cutter costs $29 in the US, same costs $125 in India. Labor costs of mechanic in US is around $30/hr same costs about $8/hr in India. So will rafale's life cycle cost be same in India as claimed by DB? I am not sure.
You can't just ignore the life cycle cost, relying on unit cost alone is far too simplistic and disingenuous.
Let's not forget, we STILL, don't know the unit price and the Rafale deal will be coming with a lot more than just the airframes (training, weapons, spares, infrastructure, ToT etc etc) so of course the price/airframes will be high (as are all initial purchases because you have to incur these setting up costs). The MKI's unit price is just that- it's unit price, it is not taking into account any of the above so really we are just comparing apples and oranges.
I am absolutely sure this will not include weapons package. Next important thing to realize is MKI's unit price is 57.65 million dollars with (training, Manufacturing design, Engine, spares, infrastructure, ToT etc etc) not just the list price.
Lastly let's not forget 50% of the total deal price (around $8 Billion USD) is going to be invested back into the Indian aerospace industry and the MMRCA was about transforming the Indian aerospace industry to a large degree, an additional purchase of MKIs won't add anything to the Indian aerospace industry.
Do remember that HAL is manufacturing almost the entire unit now, along with servicing the engines, upgrading the avionics, integrating indigenous Weapon systems (Astra1/2 BVR, PGM, etc) on the MKI. Now what will happen if the MKI numbers are raised from say 272 to 400? the lifecycle cost,(spares, service tech training, 1500 hr overhaul, 6000 retrofit) prices will actually come down. Also the list price of the MKI will improve for the better.
Whilst I agree with the fact that "omnirole" is just marketing hype created by Dassualt, the IAF is in a situation where it DOES need a fighter to bridge the gap in capability between the LCA and MKI. A further purchase of MKIs would not only make the IAF incredibly top heavy but, as I have said before, would be a HUGE drain on the IAF's budget. Put aside life cycle costs for a moment but the undeniable fact is that for every hour in the air the MKI requires a lot more maintenance than the Rafale or most other Western fighters do. This has always been a major issue for Russian-origin products. Additionally the Rafale can go longer between overhauls, the M88 engines have a longer life span than the AL-31, the FrAF have proven they can drop out a M88 and replace it with a new one within a matter of hours, a similar job on a MKI can take a day. Western machines are designed with the user in mind and are easy to maintain,
Some of the above, I absolutely agree with. but i would differ to the generic statement on the Russian origin aircraft, Mig21, Mi 17, are prime examples of low maintenance exceptionally rugged platforms that no western fighters of it's era could match in terms of ease of service and ruggedness
Russian products are an absolute nightmare, I've read some true horror stories of IAF ground crews trying to keep the IL-76's fly worthy and the uphill task they faced because the Il-76 just wasn't designed to be easy to maintain, contrast this with the C-17 and the difference is STARK. AOG rates of Russian products always have been far greater than their Western counterparts.
More than what meets the eye, spares for IL76 are/were primarily brought from Uzbekistan and not from Russia, due to MoD's rationale which I won't ever understand. That in my opinion has been the biggest challenge in upkeep of the Gajraj.
One has to contextualise it, the IAF has thrown its hat in with the MKI and yes the MKI is an awesome and deadly machine but it needs to be complimented by a reliable, (relatively) affordable and capable medium class fighter (Rafale). Now had the IAF been operating 200+ F-15SE/K's instead of the MKIs then I would be finding difficult to defend a Rafale purchase over and above more F-15s but that's not the situation the IAF faces- context is key.
I believe I have a different opinion here. If serviceability of the MKI is an issue, then we should be focusing on addressing the serviceability off MKI. 15 years ago, IAF wanted the Mirage 2000 or Mig 29MKI as the original MRCA stop gap,the threat protfolio has not changed drastically from last 15 years that this new need for a medium class aircraft that costs about twice the MKI and even before the selection the manufacturer is getting all uppity on integration and technology transfer. MKI for damn sure is as capable as the m2k and the m29. and rafale is absolutely capable but the not affordable. I am all for rafale as long as the price is right. We need machines to fight the threat portfolio we have, not the threat portfolio we want.
A FGFA, MKI and LCA airforce is a pretty daunting prospect, on paper it would be lethal but the top end would be incredibly expensive to fly and their maintenance schedules would majorly hamper the IAF's availability rate and the lower end would hardly be a match to the growing fleet (in numbers and capabilities) of the PLAAF.
A Rafale-MKI combination is simply checkmate.
As far as availability is concerned the entire LCA is geared to wards addressing the same, GE engine, composite airframe, MMR radar, all are geared towards reduced maintenance.
