Does the block 60 cost not around $80 mil? (which IMO is overpriced for what your getting)

For the Rafale your looking at $90/100 mil? (+ maintenance difference)

So 4/5ths the aircraft?

You have to consider product rate not just the time line.
F-16E built at rate of 11 aircraft per year is not going to be cheaper than Rafale/EF.
MIG-29K built at 12 aircraft per year is $40m flyaway.
MIG-35 built at 24 aircraft per year is going to be cheap. and even cheaper at 36 aircraft per year.

MIG-35 is very competitive with lowest price Gripen NG/J-10 life cycle cost.
single engine fighters are very expensive to built if impart the same capabilities of twin engine.

About $110m in 2002 dollars are required to maintain 150 M2K French fleet. with increasing age of aircraft and no new engines in production. Simply multiply these figures.
As i said Dassult is one trick pony. either it concentrate on Rafale or Mirage but not on both.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/france-increases-defence-budget-to-sustain-fleet-153859/
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2010/03/22/2003468632

Those were not 10 ton F-16E with big engine power that will drink fuel.
and certainly not the newer MIG-29M with increase fuel capacity. so it is invalid comparision. I mean if big investment is made in improving MIG-35. It will turn out much better fighter and certainly more verstalie. It already has 5 wet stations.

What are you talkin about:confused:
There are no new engine development for the Mig-29 series.
I have not heard of any VVS requirements for the Mig-29 to supercruise eighter, the drag induced by the airframe makes it very hard to achieve. And by developing even stronger engine will only increase the fuel consumtion yet again:rolleyes:

The latest engine developed for Mig-29K are the RD-33MKM, a spinn-off from the RD-33MK engine. It has a slight thrust increase. I’m not sure if TBO and fuel consumption has improved any.
If not, then it is not a step up in performance anyway.. Cause those Klimov engines are baaaaad in economy and baaad in TBO.

I mean if choice is between new fighter or investing in improving current fighter. RD-33MK can easily be scaled up to 11 to 1 TWR with suitable investment. RD-33 is not bad in economy.
You can see MIG-29K range on internal fuel. and FC-1 has 1800km range on internal fuel. Pretty similar to Gripen.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/mig-29-fulcrum-variant-may-get-bigger-engine-148674/
12:00 28 May 2002
Klimov is also developing a 22,000lb-thrust RD-33 and the VK-10M derivative with an enlarged compressor to boost thrust to more than 24,200lb.

How can RuAF maintain a all twin engine fighter fleet and mostly top heavy fighter which will have significant impact on operational cost over period of 2-3 decades. A single engine fighter will lighten the burden

Does the non-commitment to Mig-35 indicate that LMFS or similar single engine fighter projects is under works ?

If you assume 1000 fighters *200hr per year*30 year life*$20k per hr. it comes to around $120Billion for 30 years. so at most $4b a year.

A single engine fighter will increase the burden not lighten the burden.
Single engine fighters have shorter range, less operational flexible payload, less sensor power, less TWR hence shortens the engine life . and it takes alot engineering resources to successfully developed it. I am not even going into more pilot training just because more fighters. Whether aircraft is single engine or twin engine. Pilot is the same.
.

Turbo props have longer range because of better fuel consumption efficiency. They are also cheaper to operate. They also have more space for more consoles, which means more capabilities. Their radar’s range is way more efficient than in any fighter’s sized radar. Their electric generation system are way more efficient and reliable than the one for jet engines, while been cheaper as well.
Do you even read what you write or what ? Fighter radar bigger in one direction ? Do you even know what AWACs are for ?
Do you know that one of the advantage of 360 degree coverage is to counter new anti-ship missiles (among other things) that no longer fly straight but can attack from the side or even from behind depending on their range and speed ?

And since you seem to base your expertise only on funny picture here is one for you !:dev2:

Fact of matter is Carrier AWACS take space that can be utilized by fighters. for cruise missile over the horizions. either fighter AESA radar or helicopter AEW is sufficient.
consoles does not add capabilities. it is the Radar and engine power that is capability. when you have more fighters on deck there is more distributed firepower available.
If ur looking at E-2 class turboprop. it does not have range on internal fuel greater than J-15/Su-33 class fighter. . Fighters such as Rafale/MIG-29K can carry ETs. so they can get good range for air defence missions.
The point is if you have turbo prop awacs away from ship area SAMs it will need fighter escorts as those attacking with cruise missiles can see the AWACS first before they can see the ships. with arrival of high flying 5G fighters with long range AAMs. the days of turboprop awacs are coming to an end.

New E2-D are equiped with the AN/APY-9, an AESA Radar.
Like the EL/M-2075 Phalcon for the A-50EI Mainstay.

A-50EI has 140,000 lbs thrust & largest, thickest Antenna on Top.
You cannot compare it with Erieye/E-2D type radar with it.
AWACS radar & engines has to be much larger and powerfull than Fighter radar in one direction to compensate for slow, low altitude and higher RCS platform.

They have planned catapult testing for the NLCA which means they plan to use CATOBAR for their next generation of carrier which is where the additional command of aircraft for the navy will become relevant, right now 45 Mig for 1 carrier is more than enough.

Again incorrect assumption. 45 Migs are for two carriers.
how many Rafale France can operationally used from a Carrier?. Again not theory question. You need experiance to handles so many aircraft from a single carrier. NLCA will come after LCA-MK2. Naval aircraft takes far more time to develop and trim weights. Ur looking at post 2025 period.

The current M88 is more than enough, but of course more power is always nice but not at the price of survivability, fuel efficiency and cost of ownership.

Current M88 is not enough. thats why deal with UAE become unworkable and India will not even consider it for LCA.

Now explain to me please how a more powerful radar is a must have for carrier operation. More powerful usually mean heavier, more maintenance etc. for little added value on carrier operation. Air coverage will be done by AWACs (and after the P-8i I don’t see why the US would not sell some Hawkeyes), air defence frigates etc.

Again Hawkeyes can provide 360 coverage but it does not mean it will be able to beat modern high powered AESA ranges. Hawkeye has weak engine power. In India context when J-15 got AESA on carrier than all bets are off as twin engine of that fighter will produce about equal thrust to B737 MESMA.
Turbo prop AWACS have large RCS, slower speed, lower altitude, short range, weaker thrust. Next generation AAMs with long range will become big threat to such slow AWACS. so better invest money in high powered fighter AESA, that has higher speed, altitude and can attack and defend.

If the Indian Navy decide for an evaluation to choose their next aircraft, the choice will be even smaller than for the MMCA. SH, F-35 and Rafale. We already know what they think about the SH, and I doubt they will accept for the US to inspect their F-35. And guess which aircraft would be already in production in the country with a naval version 90% common in part, and 100% commonality in mission systems ?

I think your going ahead of time. Next evaluation is not going to happen in 10 years. and by that time PAK-FA Naval also will be in line with TVC/AESA/Surpluspower and with next generation weopons.