Over Rs 834 crore spent on Sukhoi maintenance

[The Great One]

That's why I mentioned the budget reports, I have seen those figures in them, but would have to search for them again. And the costs are estimates anyway, since every force include different figures into the calculations, which is why competitive evaluations often get the most reliable figures. Neither India nor Brazil for example got to the $3500 Saab advertised at the begining for Gripen NG and even the $4700 that Jane's quoted seems to be too low, as recent reports from Brazilian officals puts the cost above $5000 and it might be even higher when the final prototype can be evaluated. So all you can do, is to get to such official figures, either from the governments or from competition evaluations.

Blah
So now you claim that it is impossible to correctly approximate the operational costs when you have been repeatedly making the claim for so long that a medium fighter is needed because MKI is too costly to operate, which was obviously a ridiculous and baseless argument to start with.
Still waiting on for any credible argument (backed with source) to prove the high maintenance cost of MKI.

That's only your opionion and doesn't even support your point on the MKI, but more importantly, when the MRCA tender was issued, the Mig 29 had the same chance of winning as the M2K, since that tender was about a fast induction of fighters and not aimed on the industrial advantages as M-MRCA. Not to mention that the Mig 29 did a good job in Kargil too, but since it was limited to A2A it couldn't do much more, the Mig 29SMT on the otherside, was multi role capable and simular to the UPGs that we now induct. So neither was the tender against MKIs nor was there any political limitations to the Mig back then.
And excluding the Mig without offending the Russians was even very easy if IAF had insisted on single engine fighters only (M2K, Gripen and F16), that would had ruled out the Russians for technical reasons, but that wasn't the case.

What point on MKI. Don't put words in my mouth.
As for Russian participation there have been repeated assertions made on BRF by VS that Russian platforms weren't in favour because IAF didn't want to become too dependent on them with a future IAF fleet consisting of Mig-29, Mig 35/29 OVT if selected and Su 30MKI with the low numbers of M2K and a not that relevant LCA fleet. The bulk of our aerial firepower would be of Russian origin which had garnered a very poor reputation by then because of spare issues post-Soviet breakup. While you may dismiss this as merely an opinion, unlike yours, it does actually make sense.

No, it was the reason for MRCA, which is why a fighter alternative was searched that was fast to induct, M-MRCA moved away from that requirement.
.

Wrong again. When MRCA was first envisioned, LCA was supposed to be ready for induction around 2009 (it had just made its first flight). As each date kept getting nearer LCA's dates kept getting pushed back -> 2009-2012-2013-2014 and now 2015. MRCA was to boost IAF's strike ability and fill squadron numbers after Mig 23 was retired. The talk of replacing Mig 21 squadrons is a recent phenomenon(4-5 years).

Exactly, just as they did in several follow orders, that's why MKI has no relation to the MRCA / M-MRCA tenders.

When did I ever say that it did.

 

[kaku1]

Engines are too bad with 1500 hours life and no fadec.
We need newer engines.

Engine is really a sucker. With its low operational life against western standards.

 

[sancho]

Blah
So now you claim that it is impossible to correctly approximate the operational costs when you have been repeatedly making the claim for so long that a medium fighter is needed because MKI is too costly to operate, which was obviously a ridiculous and baseless argument to start with.
Still waiting on for any credible argument (backed with source) to prove the high maintenance cost of MKI.

Not really, I said that it depends on the way the per hour costs are calculated for different fighters what the end result is, that's why evaluations in competitions are generally more comparable, since it's a single vendor that compares different fighters with a single calculation base. For F15 costs I already told you were to look, it's not that hard to search a bit is it?

First line shows the Costs Per Flight Hour, from the years 2008, 09, 10, 11, 12

What point on MKI.

That the MMRCA was made to keep the MKI / Russians out, as you stated earlier:

Nope. We are going for it because the IAF had a requirement for a non-russian MRCA in the early 2000's after the Kargil excursion. Delays-Obsoletion-Re-tendering-New Suppliers-New jets-Technical evals-Delays-Falling sqaudrons due to more delays (in MMRCA and LCA) and voila, Rafale is selected and is now a neccesity regardless of its capability with respect to MKI.

As for Russian participation there have been repeated assertions made on BRF by VS that Russian platforms weren't in favour because IAF didn't want to become too dependent on them with a future IAF fleet consisting of Mig-29, Mig 35/29 OVT if selected

Not for the initial MRCA, since back then as said, the aim was different and we didn't had as many Su 30s on order. By 2007 on the other side, when M-MRCA was started, we already had 230 MKIs on order and the tender aims went from fast and cost-effective replacement of Migs, to advanced capabilities for the next 30 to 40 years and high industrial advantages. Here the Mig was a poor choice once because of the overdependance on Russia, but also because it couldn't offer us the technical or industrial advantages we wanted.

Wrong again. When MRCA was first envisioned, LCA was supposed to be ready for induction around 2009 (it had just made its first flight).

That's the point, the first flight was "only" in 2001, later than expected and partially caused by the war and the sanctions around it, which forced IAF to go for alternative fighters. The MRCA tender was then issued in 2005 and not with the aims that you expect. BR itself has a report from the former Air Marshal BK Pandey on the tender, which states:

Selection of MRCA for the IAF

The IAF has the infrastructure and is well trained to absorb higher levels of Russian and French technology, having operated third generation aircraft from both sources. The Indian aerospace industry has also accumulated considerable experience in Russian and French technology. On the other hand, there is complete lack of experience of Swedish technology and the exposure to American equipment is limited. Induction of aircraft from Swedish or American sources would involve further diversification and enlargement of the IAF inventory, necessitating the development of fresh production and maintenance infrastructure and reorientation of training of technical personnel. There are other imponderables with American policy, such as transfer of technology and co-production, which would be a prerequisite from the Indian point of view.

Does this sound like they wanted something else than Russian, or like they wanted something that they can induct fast?