The earlier Mig-29As and their RD-33s are maintenance nightmares, everyone knows that, but the Mig-29M greatly reduces these maintenance costs and introduces much better RD-33 engine variant. The main point of the Mig-29SMT was to greatly reduce the maintenance costs.
I would assume that now, a Mig-29M is not that much more expensive to maintain than an F-16blk50, probably more but not much more.
It’s still cheaper in the longer run, just because of it’s purchasing costs for example.
Let’s compare a Mig-29M vs F-16blk50
-Mig-29M: on average it is offered to countries for about 30mn with all the goodies.
-F-16blk50: 54mn>75mn(based on what Poland paid for+goodies) + 38.4mn(based on what Israel paid for) + 26mn(based on what Singapore paid for) + 60mn approx(based on what Chile paid for+goodies) + 44mn(based on what Israel paid for) + 42mn(based on what Greece paid for) + 93mn(based on what Oman paid for+goodies)
(54mn is just the average price, which includes all the F-16s sold without spares and etc)
Let’s say a F-16 is 5000/h to operate, and a Mig-29M some 25% more to operate, at 6250/h to operate. Let’s say you ru nthem 300h/year for 25years.
Mig-29M: 46.875mn life cycle costs
F-16blk50: 37.5mn life cycle costs
F-16blk50’s engine life is past 8000hs, so you do not have to replace it even once.
Let’s say hypothetically you have to relace Mig-29M’s engines twice durng it’s lifetime, and each engine costs 2mn. 4*2=8mn.
Mig-29M: 8+30+46.875=84.875mn
F-16blk50: 54+37.5=91.5
F-16blk50 might be more capable in A2G, but Mig-29M comes with no political strings attached and you can get any weapon with it.
Sign In
