Su30 MKI price

[sancho]

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.

Brahmos will be fitted only at the centerline station and only that station will get changes / strengthenings. The radar of the MKIs that will be upgraded first, most likely will be upgraded to a similar level as the IRBIS-E PESA (he Russian Su 30SMs already use the upgraded BARS PESA), while newly produced MKIs (most likely from 2017 onwards), could have a version of the Pak Fa / FGFA AESA, at least that's what Tikhomirov has proposed us. More important than Brahmos and the AESA however, are the changes at EW and RCS reductions, because that will actually increase the performance of the MKI. We already know that the upgrade include wingtip ECM pods, that integrates newly developed jammers and sensors, we know that the MKI gets a new set of passive MAWS, possibly even an escort jammer fo EA roles and just as the Su 35 a high focus will surely be aimed on reduction of the RCS by using RAM or coatings. Then there will be the upgrade of the cockpit with new large AMFDs from HAL/SAMTEL, the integration of Astra missiles, Sudarshan and Griffin LGBs...all this doesn't come for free, nor will it be cheap.

the lifecycle cost,(spares, service tech training, 1500 hr overhaul, 6000 retrofit) prices will actually come down.

But not the operational cost, since a heavy class fighter consumes more fuel, since Russian engines requires more maintenance, since a the MKI has far more mechanical parts (refueling probe, air brake, TVC, twin tail..., radar repositioner), which all requires more maintenance than a Rafale and most likely even EF will need.
F16s were sold in the 1000s and the spares are cheap, while the Gripen was sold only a few 100s times, but the operational cost per hour of the Gripen is by far lower than of the F16 (Gripen E will be closer though).

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

Actually it did! Back than our focus was on Pakistan, today it is China! MRCA was meant to be a stop gap, that is fast to induct, M-MRCA is operationally a counter to PLAAF, while adding industrial capabilities we need.

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.

Which is good, but none of them will ever be as capable as an M-MRCA or MKI, therefore LCA doesn't matter.

 

[MilSpec]

Brahmos will be fitted only at the centerline station and only that station will get changes / strengthenings. The radar of the MKIs that will be upgraded first, most likely will be upgraded to a similar level as the IRBIS-E PESA (he Russian Su 30SMs already use the upgraded BARS PESA), while newly produced MKIs (most likely from 2017 onwards), could have a version of the Pak Fa / FGFA AESA, at least that's what Tikhomirov has proposed us. More important than Brahmos and the AESA however, are the changes at EW and RCS reductions, because that will actually increase the performance of the MKI. We already know that the upgrade include wingtip ECM pods, that integrates newly developed jammers and sensors, we know that the MKI gets a new set of passive MAWS, possibly even an escort jammer fo EA roles and just as the Su 35 a high focus will surely be aimed on reduction of the RCS by using RAM or coatings. Then there will be the upgrade of the cockpit with new large AMFDs from HAL/SAMTEL, the integration of Astra missiles, Sudarshan and Griffin LGBs...all this doesn't come for free, nor will it be cheap.

Still wont cost 110 million USD. as claimed by MoD.If rafale's around 75-82 mil as you said, then it might be ok.

But not the operational cost, since a heavy class fighter consumes more fuel, since Russian engines requires more maintenance, since a the MKI has far more mechanical parts (refueling probe, air brake, TVC, twin tail..., radar repositioner), which all requires more maintenance than a Rafale and most likely even EF will need.

And what is that figure? is it higher than price point difference i.e 43 million USD?

Actually it did! Back than our focus was on Pakistan, today it is China! MRCA was meant to be a stop gap, that is fast to induct, M-MRCA is operationally a counter to PLAAF, while adding industrial capabilities we need.

hehe

Which is good, but none of them will ever be as capable as an M-MRCA or MKI, therefore LCA doesn't matter.

But that is not what IAF/ADA wanted out of LCA to begin with. So it will do exactly what the ASHQ demands of it...

 

[sancho]

Still wont cost 110 million USD. as claimed by MoD.If rafale's around 75-82 mil as you said, then it might be ok.

Surely not, but it also won't have AESA, nor an upgraded engine, nor will have the MMRCA level of ToT and offsets. Lets assume $83 million similar to Su 35, then we only get around $25 millions back in offsets, while an MMRCA around $140 million (system-cost), gets us $70 million back and more ToT as well.

And what is that figure? is it higher than price point difference i.e 43 million USD?

Well only IAF can tell you that, because only they have the data on all MMRCA contenders on equal basis and the data of the current IAF fleet to compare. We only have publically available date, from different sources however, which can calculate the operational cost differently. Gripen E is often given with $5000 Dollar per hour, Rafale depending on source and version around $14000, F15Es in the USAF above $30000 (for the years 2008 to 2012):

But that is not what IAF/ADA wanted out of LCA to begin with. So it will do exactly what the ASHQ demands of it...

Again, only in the operational roles it was meant to do! An LCA can't replace an MKI in air superiority or deep strike role, therefor can't reduce the operational hours of MKI => can't reduce the overall costs of IAF. MMRCA's can do that and poses a more capable alternative for the lower end operations next to LCA (air policing, CAS, recon), while being a equally capable alternative to MKI in high end roles too, but at lower operational costs.
That will be even more important in future, when we have FGFA, since it's not only heavy class, but also a stealth fighter and the operational costs of maintaining the coatings for example are very high, which is why the IAF won'tbe able to keep MKI flying in high operational hours next to FGFA and why it will need MMRCAs to take over.
I am curious to see how the US wants to operate 2000+ F35s, that each cost $30000+ Dollar per hour to operate.


P.S. Cost per flight hour of Mirage 2000 and Rafale in French forces (exchange rates would be lower today):
Dassault Rafale, tender | News & Discussions | Page 636

 

[Indo-guy]

Wrt to Rafales fly-away cost, check this:
'Empowered' French team likely to visit India for Rafale deal | Page 3

To the figures of the MKI, keep in mind that that's the price for the current MKI version, which is technically inferior to Rafale, while the Su 35 is estimated around $83 million for China, surely without similar ToT and offsets like the MMRCA offers..

Don't you think so that with current state of Russian economy ..we can actually get good deal from Russia for a massive deal like this .
agree that we will still have to pay in Russia in USD but then Russia will be greatly relieved to get much needed foreign exchange . and in exchange we can have better leverage with Russia ...in terms of some crucial tech that we have not had access so far ...?

won't it make sense to invest the money that we will save in FGFA and / or AMCA ?

 

[sancho]

Don't you think so that with current state of Russian economy ..we can actually get good deal from Russia for a massive deal like this .

If we want low unit costs for their products, sure this is a good time, but that does't reduce the operational costs, the likely cost increases in later upgrade stages if we make ourselfs too dependent on them, nor does it solve the problems we want to counter with MMRCA. It's good to have that option in a mix with LCA as a worst case scenario, but it's not a good alternative to MMRCA.

won't it make sense to invest the money that we will save in FGFA and / or AMCA ?

We have to invest in them, but that are seperate projects and have no relation to MMRCA.