Sukhoi Su-30MKI

Milspec

सर्वदा शक्तिशाली; सर्वत्र विजय
Moderator
Dec 2, 2017
2,176
2,799
United States
It would work out in a lot of ways, but what about the new issue brought to light by Parikrama, which necessitated the SE MMRCA tender in the first place? Wouldn't that become an even bigger issue as the percentage of fleet composed by Sukhois increases?
I am assuming SE refers to Single engine. To me it is irrelevant, If you want to avoid sam network in the west you have to fly over arabian sea, Twin engine is the best choice of ops over water. Also given that we do not have adequate sqdn strength, platforms need to cover larger area so units with longer endurance, and twin propulsion increases mission reliability.
 

smestarz

Well-Known member
Nov 30, 2017
538
323
Actung Panzers
I might break your post in points and reply them point by point.

Agreed but the operational costs aspect rather excludes any Russian product and the MKI especially, the ammount of downtime and spares the MKIs SQNs go through is truly horrendous and the sad reality is that latest block MKIs (especially with Brahmos-A capability) aren't even that much cheaper than a current spec Rafale to buy off the shelf but with 2-3x higher operational costs.
Lets say Pre 2000, we did not have much issue with Russian planes, even though we had used French planes in past. so it might be safe to assume that during the Soviet time, the spares and supplies were not an issue, Even if there were issues maybe those were ignored.

There are pros and cons and lets go point by point and see who are the people to blame

We did buy Su-30 MKI and got them as per our modifications, thanks to IAF, but they did not incorporate the need for MAWS.
IAF never believed in good spare management and hence even the French Mirage was grounded due to lack of spares that shows the mentality of IAF top brass. IAF fleet requires spares worth RS 3700 crores a year, and IAF allots just Rs 50 crores a year, so how exactly is the fleet to be kept battle ready?

The AL-31 engine is not very efficient and that is one of the problems with the plane, the Russian development of alternate engine is slow and even India did not push them for a better engine. The Russians have AL-41 which is having better life, and we should get that engine.

Till few years back IAF used MiG-29 and Su-30 MKI as air superiority and air dominance planes, where as its possible and there are weapons to make these MRCA. Even during the Kargil war, during the dire situation MiG-29 were only deployed as air superiority plane, the IAF did not have the vision to make these planes modern by incorporating LITENING pod and A2G weapons.

How many blast pens are made for Su-30 MKI of IAF? I have seen MiG-29K standing in day light in the open in Goa Air field. that is how we treat the planes, where as on other hand, for Rafale they are building blast pens etc.

FGFA is mostly going to be twin sea Su-57 MKI, and we would go for these, but ordering more Su-30 MKI is not a solution because somehow these are still not the best birds with our neighbours having 5th gen planes. One of the solution for IAF would be to speed up the process of FOC for Tejas 1A if they still do not see the urgency of it then its unfortunate. The russians are giving trials and also moving towards FOC for their Su-57., they tested the weapons etc on AL-41 which is not the final engine for this plane.


That said, IAF will have no choice but to go for more MKIs in the near future for 2 reasons; FGFA isn't coming ANY time soon so the Nasik MKI line will have to be kept open hence more MKIs will be ordered and the fighter mess the IAF is in isn't going to be adressed anytime soon and the IAF really cannot afford to drop to <30 SQNs (which they will at the current stand down rate by 2025).

MKI requires 2 pilots because it was the need of IAF even for MRCA, IAF did want two seaters, even for Su-57 which is modern avionics still IAF wants FGFA to be two seater. Even AMCA is supposed to be both single and twin engine. Guess IAF is not sure about the quality of data fusion that would be possible from India/Russian planes, but are confident of the French planes. But on other hand if you note, that Su-30 MKI has both the range and capability to fly more 8000 miles, and thus for such mission a single pilot would be over stressed, thus with two pilots the work load would be shared and hence mission success will have better chances
The flight cost per hour is debatable, with Rafale some sources say is about 16000$ per hour other sources vary,
Here is a link for you 28000 for Rafale vs 23000 for Su-30MKI.
Rafale vs SU-30MKI – Comparison – BVR – Dogfight
Thus the figures speically when you say 2-3X is debatable and shall depend on source to source.

Remember the MKI requires 2x the pilots and costs 2-3x per flight hour to a Rafale or LCA, all fears that were articulated previously about the IAF becoming a "top heavy" AF were entirely founded and will become a reality soon.
 

Seiko

Active member
Dec 1, 2017
240
168
Gods Own Country
Su-30 MKI is a potent aircraft, but I dont agree with purchasing more of it. I mean, whats the benefit of using it for regular petrol duties which a SE aircraft can do with less cost? We are depleting the air frame hours of a vital air craft..

BTW are we still sending these air crafts engines Russia for overhauling?
 

smestarz

Well-Known member
Nov 30, 2017
538
323
Actung Panzers
Single engined planes are cheap to buy and use, but unfortunately since they are single engined, an engine failure during flight most probaly will lead to losing the aircraft completely. Where as in twin engine scenario this is much lesser. At least if one engine fails the plane can still fly to safety
If there can be some changes, then I would like Tejas MK2 to have two smaller engine instead of one bigger engine thus helping its reliability.

Su-30 MKI is a potent aircraft, but I dont agree with purchasing more of it. I mean, whats the benefit of using it for regular petrol duties which a SE aircraft can do with less cost? We are depleting the air frame hours of a vital air craft..

BTW are we still sending these air crafts engines Russia for overhauling?
 

Seiko

Active member
Dec 1, 2017
240
168
Gods Own Country
Single engined planes are cheap to buy and use, but unfortunately since they are single engined, an engine failure during flight most probaly will lead to losing the aircraft completely. Where as in twin engine scenario this is much lesser. At least if one engine fails the plane can still fly to safety
If there can be some changes, then I would like Tejas MK2 to have two smaller engine instead of one bigger engine thus helping its reliability.

But double engine air crafts have its own disadvantages.. longer service time, higher service cost, even the time taking for a quick response from a base will be higher than that of a single engine due to the complexity of synchronizing the propellers, complex fuel system than of single engine and many more. We cannot fully rely on double engine air crafts friend!!
 

Milspec

सर्वदा शक्तिशाली; सर्वत्र विजय
Moderator
Dec 2, 2017
2,176
2,799
United States
Su-30 MKI is a potent aircraft, but I dont agree with purchasing more of it. I mean, whats the benefit of using it for regular petrol duties which a SE aircraft can do with less cost? We are depleting the air frame hours of a vital air craft..

BTW are we still sending these air crafts engines Russia for overhauling?
Every Aircraft built by HAL Nasik, is overhauled by HAL Nasik.
 

Milspec

सर्वदा शक्तिशाली; सर्वत्र विजय
Moderator
Dec 2, 2017
2,176
2,799
United States
Agreed but the operational costs aspect rather excludes any Russian product and the MKI especially, the ammount of downtime and spares the MKIs SQNs go through is truly horrendous and the sad reality is that latest block MKIs (especially with Brahmos-A capability) aren't even that much cheaper than a current spec Rafale to buy off the shelf but with 2-3x higher operational costs.
I am not very sure about that. The cost of ownership for a MKI seems to be lower to me. I have not seen service costs for MKI vs other comparable platforms. Also comparison needs to be apples to apples. If you are comparing a platform like MKI the only platform that comes close to it's capability is the F15SE. And if we do compare a smaller platform the comparison needs to be weighted on battlefield parameters.
This operational cost theory is a bit dodgy, the way i see it is operational cost of MKI in india is higher than that of the same platform in russia because of lack of supplier chain, and for the exact same reason you cannot take the operational costs of France and interpolate them to India. A rivet squeezer that can be bought in France for 100 euros is going to end up costing 300 euros in India. If you do want to compare the french operation costs of Rafale, you need to compare it with Moscows service cost on the Su30. If you want to compare India's MKI service cost, they need to be compared to India's Rafale's service costs which do not exist as of now.


That said, IAF will have no choice but to go for more MKIs in the near future for 2 reasons; FGFA isn't coming ANY time soon so the Nasik MKI line will have to be kept open hence more MKIs will be ordered and the fighter mess the IAF is in isn't going to be adressed anytime soon and the IAF really cannot afford to drop to <30 SQNs (which they will at the current stand down rate by 2025).

Remember the MKI requires 2x the pilots and costs 2-3x per flight hour to a Rafale or LCA, all fears that were articulated previously about the IAF becoming a "top heavy" AF were entirely founded and will become a reality soon.

Sorry, I haven't had my coffee this morning, so I am in busting chops mode. What is this top heavy thing, IAF squadron is not trying to emulate a athlete that needs core and leg strength. This top heavy is a relative term, irrespective of weight and size, MKI is an extremely agile platform, the "heavy" fighter puts the light fighters to shame with it's agility both at sub and super sonic speed. With the struggle with squadron strength, I would much rather have a Platform that can take off from central command and still conduct CAP for Western and northen command than having light platforms with short legs.

And irrespective of much hype around the fancy new platform, MKI as it stands in 2017 is the fiercest beast in south asia, and IAF should not hesitate getting thier hands on as many as they can with this government at the helm of affairs.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: _Anonymous_
Dec 4, 2017
238
411
France
@Milspec @Abingdonboy This should help :-

CPFH for a French fighters during 'active' operation in Mali, 2017

- Mirage2000-D : 7,000 à 8,000 euros/heure = 8,253 to 9,432 USD

- Rafale : 14,000 euros/heure = 16,506 USD

Source - Le coût de l’heure de vol des hélicoptères et avions de chasse français
Rafale: 15.000 euros d'entretien pour une heure de vol

CPFH for IAF fighter during peacetime (which is lower than war-time CPFH)

- Mirage 2000-H = 3,000 USD

- Su-30MKI = 12,000 USD

Source -
IAF CPFH.png


You can see how the IAF CPFH is close to 1/3rd that of those used by the French armed forces. The same cost reduction will be translated to the Rafale-H operated by the IAF.
You can expect further reductions as more spares will be produced in India compared to the M2K-H
 
Last edited:

Milspec

सर्वदा शक्तिशाली; सर्वत्र विजय
Moderator
Dec 2, 2017
2,176
2,799
United States
@Milspec @Abingdonboy

You can see how the IAF CPFH is close to 1/3rd that of those used by the French armed forces. The same cost reduction will be translated to the Rafale-H operated by the IAF.
You can expect further reductions as more spares will be produced in India compared to the M2K-H

As I said, we cannot interpolate costs directly from the host country with the entire aeronautical ecosystem to India especially for complex systems like MKI and rafales. Mirage and Rafale are not even close to being similar in design approach. Given that rafale's service rates by the french are nothing to boast of, those speculated service costs are not going be to as pleasing as we think.
Rafale Fighter Jet Serviceability Rate With French Air Force Is 48.5 Percent

When the brazilians evaluated there magic number for Rafales was $14000/hr in 2011.
Affordable air power
 
Dec 4, 2017
238
411
France
As I said, we cannot interpolate costs directly from the host country with the entire aeronautical ecosystem to India especially for complex systems like MKI and rafales

So by your logic, the IAF Mirage-2000s should be more costlier to operate than the French Mirages-2000s as they still have the entire ecosystem still in place to support their jets, while we do not!

Mirage and Rafale are not even close to being similar in design approach.

What does design approach has to do with operational costs? If anything, the Rafales are designed in such a way that the maintenance is much more simplistic and requires less down-time and turn-around times, while necessitating only minimum ground staff for re-configuring/refueling/rearming, compared to a Mirage-2000.

Any airforce, be it AdlA or IAF, has a set of rules for calculating the operational costs of their fleet, and they follow the same standardized approach for all types of fighters. It's just that different airforces follow different set of rules. That's where comparing the CPFH for the same type of aircraft in both the forces gives you a better picture. In your words :
comparison needs to be apples to apples.

Whereas,
If you do want to compare the french operation costs of Rafale, you need to compare it with Moscows service cost on the Su30. If you want to compare India's MKI service cost, they need to be compared to India's Rafale's service costs which do not exist as of now.

is completely wrong and doesn't make any sense at all.


Given that rafale's service rates by the french are nothing to boast of, those speculated service costs are not going be to as pleasing as we think.
Rafale Fighter Jet Serviceability Rate With French Air Force Is 48.5 Percent

The above figure has been debunked many time over by many defence analysts. All airforces maintain an active and a passive fleet of aircrafts to reduce the operating costs of the type. This is what is meant by "availability" of an aircraft. This is especially true during peace-time. The typical availability rate is around 70-75% depending on the role of the fighter type (the ones used for interceptions and QRT are kept at a much higher readiness level). During wartime, the availability rate is ramped up to >90%.

In the case of Rafales, the above rates were that of their home fleet i.e. the fleet kept in reserve. Meanwhile, the fleet operating in active zones in OPEX like OP Chamal, Mali Chad etc have been operating with an availability rate of 95% (2017 figures) as the spares are diverted to the aircrafts in the frontlines. Same is the case for M2K-D in the operations.

Translated - "With an average availability rate of around 95% and less than 1% mission cancellation, the Rafales stationed at the proposed air base (BAP) in Jordan and engaged in the Chammal mission are "good students"."
Priorité au MCO pour les Rafale en Jordanie

When the brazilians evaluated there magic number for Rafales was $14000/hr in 2011.
Affordable air power

The Brazilian competition was termed as entirely biased and heavily favored towards the Gripen from the beginning. This is evident especially in the cost calculation as different sources gave different values after the trials.

"The Super Hornet’s cost was in the middle, at $5.4 billion rather than the Gripen’s $4.3 billion, or Rafale’s $8.2 billion. So, too, were estimated operating costs, at about $10,000 per flight hour vs. $7,000 for Gripen, or $20,000 for the Rafale."
Source - F-X2: Brazils Saab Contract for Gripens a Done Deal

I can provide you more sources for this skewed comparison if you want.

Also, The USD 4,500 operating costs calculated for Gripen was a sham as was exposed during the canadian evaluations. They excluded many stuff to obtain such a low value!!!!
Source - Evidence - NDDN (40-3) - No. 38 - House of Commons of Canada
 
Last edited:

Milspec

सर्वदा शक्तिशाली; सर्वत्र विजय
Moderator
Dec 2, 2017
2,176
2,799
United States
So by your logic, the IAF Mirage-2000s should be more costlier to operate than the French Mirages-2000s as they still have the entire ecosystem still in place to support their jets, while we do not!

Actually NO, that is not at all the case, it depends on how the fixed costs for the CPFH were used in both the calculation. Remember France has bigger fleet, remember the $10,000 CPFH for the South african Gripens?

At current exchange rates, that translates into JAS-39C/D flying-hour costs of about $10,465 dry and $13,350 wet; Gen. Bayne’s CPFH figures for the sub-sonic Hawk Mk.120 trainer & light attack jets translate to $6,755 dry and $8,295 wet.

It’s worth noting that CPFH is a tricky area, for 3 reasons. The 1st is that there’s no standard formula, so different militaries can include different costs. The 2nd twist is that the SAAF fleet’s small size increases “dry” costs per flying hour, as fixed costs are amortized over fewer planes. The 3rd twist is unique to low-readiness countries like South Africa, who spend more per flight hour because they allocate few flight hours, but still have to maintain all of the jets.

South Africas Sad Military: Why Maintenance Matters

So if anything, with a super small Rafale fleet, IAF amortization will be worse compared to French for the fixed costs.


What does design approach has to do with operational costs? If anything, the Rafales are designed in such a way that the maintenance is much more simplistic and requires less down-time and turn-around times, while necessitating only minimum ground staff for re-configuring/refueling/rearming, compared to a Mirage-2000.

Please provide a reference to the same, I would love to see the turn around times for a Rafale compared to Mirage.

Any airforce, be it AdlA or IAF, has a set of rules for calculating the operational costs of their fleet, and they follow the same standardized approach for all types of fighters. It's just that different airforces follow different set of rules. That's where comparing the CPFH for the same type of aircraft in both the forces gives you a better picture. In your words :
Cost per flying hour is dependent on multiple factors, is there any other reference for IAF other than a HAL slide?



The above figure has been debunked many time over by many defence analysts. All airforces maintain an active and a passive fleet of aircrafts to reduce the operating costs of the type. This is what is meant by "availability" of an aircraft. This is especially true during peace-time. The typical availability rate is around 70-75% depending on the role of the fighter type (the ones used for interceptions and QRT are kept at a much higher readiness level). During wartime, the availability rate is ramped up to >90%.

In the case of Rafales, the above rates were that of their home fleet i.e. the fleet kept in reserve. Meanwhile, the fleet operating in active zones in OPEX like OP Chamal, Mali Chad etc have been operating with an availability rate of 95% (2017 figures) as the spares are diverted to the aircrafts in the frontlines. Same is the case for M2K-D in the operations.

Translated - "With an average availability rate of around 95% and less than 1% mission cancellation, the Rafales stationed at the proposed air base (BAP) in Jordan and engaged in the Chammal mission are "good students"."
Priorité au MCO pour les Rafale en Jordanie


The Brazilian competition was termed as entirely biased and heavily favored towards the Gripen from the beginning. This is evident especially in the cost calculation as different sources gave different values after the trials.

"The Super Hornet’s cost was in the middle, at $5.4 billion rather than the Gripen’s $4.3 billion, or Rafale’s $8.2 billion. So, too, were estimated operating costs, at about $10,000 per flight hour vs. $7,000 for Gripen, or $20,000 for the Rafale."
Source - F-X2: Brazils Saab Contract for Gripens a Done Deal

I can provide you more sources for this skewed comparison if you want.

Also, The USD 4,500 operating costs calculated for Gripen was a sham as was exposed during the canadian evaluations. They excluded many stuff to obtain such a low value!!!!
Source - Evidence - NDDN (40-3) - No. 38 - House of Commons of Canada

What was exactly a sham? from your link all I could see was
" The figure we gave of $4,000 to $4,500 Canadian per hour covers the direct operating costs, which are basically the fuel, oil, all consumables, all spares, all first- and second-line servicing, everything you would need to operate the aircraft on and off base. The only thing we don't include there is the labour charge for off-base operation. There are too many variables there. This figure is one you can use as a comparison. It's going to be the same metric applied to any aircraft. If you simply take an apples to apples, that gives you the comparison you need. How much does it cost to run this aircraft over 40 years? We say it's $4,000 to $4,500 per hour. Sustainment engineering is a parallel activity, which would be done in this country, so we don't look at that. That's not a cost to you; that's part of your program, which comes with the Gripen aircraft. You will sustain and engineer your own aircraft. That's part of our commitment to you to enable you to do that."

Which the hawn disputed without rhyme or reason.

Interestingly IHS Jane came back with a similar figure of 4700 for Griped and 16k for the rafale on their white paper.


https://www.ftm.nl/upload/content/files/IHS Jane's Jet Operating Costs White Paper FINAL 13th March 2012(1).pdf
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sathya

Golden_Rule

Boundless Seeker
Dec 6, 2017
1,026
854
USA
I meant the engines @Milspec !! There were reports during the first Red Flag exercise that, the engines were sent to Russia for overhauling.

I recollect reading it a while back that HAL has masterd the overhauling of Russian engines at their Koraput plant
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
11,670
8,918
India
I am not very sure about that. The cost of ownership for a MKI seems to be lower to me. I have not seen service costs for MKI vs other comparable platforms. Also comparison needs to be apples to apples. If you are comparing a platform like MKI the only platform that comes close to it's capability is the F15SE. And if we do compare a smaller platform the comparison needs to be weighted on battlefield parameters.
This operational cost theory is a bit dodgy, the way i see it is operational cost of MKI in india is higher than that of the same platform in russia because of lack of supplier chain, and for the exact same reason you cannot take the operational costs of France and interpolate them to India. A rivet squeezer that can be bought in France for 100 euros is going to end up costing 300 euros in India. If you do want to compare the french operation costs of Rafale, you need to compare it with Moscows service cost on the Su30. If you want to compare India's MKI service cost, they need to be compared to India's Rafale's service costs which do not exist as of now.

We can make an educated guess.

The M-2000's CPFH is $8000 and Rafale's is $10000 in France.
The M-2000's CPFH is $3000 and MKI's is $12000 in India.

Sources are French Senate and HAL.

An advantage for Rafale is neither its engine nor airframe require overhaul throughout its life. That drastically decreases maintenance costs. MKI costs $15M per overhaul and requires three overhauls throughout its life, it's independent from the CPFH cost. So there's a huge difference in LCC costs right there. Rafale should actually be cheaper than the F-16.

With Rafale turning out to be an export success, upgrade costs will also be cheaper in the long run. MKI's first phase upgrades alone are expected to cost $6B for 80 airframes.
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
11,670
8,918
India
As I said, we cannot interpolate costs directly from the host country with the entire aeronautical ecosystem to India especially for complex systems like MKI and rafales. Mirage and Rafale are not even close to being similar in design approach. Given that rafale's service rates by the french are nothing to boast of, those speculated service costs are not going be to as pleasing as we think.
Rafale Fighter Jet Serviceability Rate With French Air Force Is 48.5 Percent

When the brazilians evaluated there magic number for Rafales was $14000/hr in 2011.
Affordable air power

That's not correct. Rafale's serviceability is fine even in French service. They simply rotate their aircraft out of storage and operation, that's why it's low, nothing else. The aircraft themselves are doing 240 hours a year.

We purchased 5 years's spares for euro 353M, which comes up to $10000 per hour.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Milspec

A Person

Well-Known member
Dec 1, 2017
807
789
A Place
As I said, we cannot interpolate costs directly from the host country with the entire aeronautical ecosystem to India especially for complex systems like MKI and rafales. Mirage and Rafale are not even close to being similar in design approach. Given that rafale's service rates by the french are nothing to boast of, those speculated service costs are not going be to as pleasing as we think.
Rafale Fighter Jet Serviceability Rate With French Air Force Is 48.5 Percent
There's something you need to know about these numbers.

The plan is to fly each aircraft for 250 hours per year. This is why there's the contractual requirement for airframes lasting at least 7500 flight hours: that corresponds to 30 years at 250 hours per year.
The French Air Force is currently engaged in several OPEXs that go far beyond its operational contract, which is what determines how much resources they have. In other words, they are undersized for the missions that are given to them. What this means is that the aircraft that are detached for OPEX are burning through their allocated annual flight hours faster than scheduled. Once they rotate back home, they are put in hangar and they stay there to "regenerate their potential" which is really just a fancy way to say "wait until the next service year start". It's not that they can't be used; it's just that, barring an emergency requiring to ready as many planes as possible regardless of other considerations, the Air Force will prefer not to use them, so that the airframes do not age prematurely.

So that's why you see that the operational availability rate for aircraft detached in OPEX is in the high 90s%, while availability across the entire fleet is slightly below 50% The aircraft that aren't available could be available if required, but they'd burn through their potential faster than planned and would therefore require replacement earlier.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nick
Dec 4, 2017
238
411
France
Dude, you're pissing over your own arguments! Earlier you said IAF MKI are costlier due to lack of supplier chain
the way i see it is operational cost of MKI in india is higher than that of the same platform in russia because of lack of supplier chain

When i pointed out that despite not having a supplier chain in the country, IAF Mirages cost less than AdlA Mirages to operate, now you're saying that it is because of the fleet size???
Actually NO, that is not at all the case, it depends on how the fixed costs for the CPFH were used in both the calculation. Remember France has bigger fleet

So if anything, with a super small Rafale fleet, IAF amortization will be worse compared to French for the fixed costs.

So that means IAF, which has a smaller fleet of Mirages, should still be more expensive to operate than the AdlA Mirages!!

I have stated in my previous reply that the CPFH is calculated differently by different airforce. Hence calculating the CPFH for the same type of jet operated by different airforces should give you an accurate reference to calculate the CPFH for another jet which is being proposed and used by the same forces.

Please provide a reference to the same, I would love to see the turn around times for a Rafale compared to Mirage.

Combat turnaround time for air-to-air mission is 30 minutes for Rafale
In air-to-ground mission, it is 90 minutes
Dassault Rafale vs Saab Gripen
Aircraft turn-around, even with live weapons on board, requires only 90 minutes and an engine change requires one hour
Rafale in Combat: “War for Dummies”

Turn Around Time (Refuelling and 6 Air to Air reloading) 15 min for Mirage (less for the M2K because refueling takes more time on the Rafale)
Engine change requires 2 hours
news de la section - Le blog de lesmecanosduciel-lgm

Cost per flying hour is dependent on multiple factors, is there any other reference for IAF other than a HAL slide?
You think IAF will run around advertising something like that? HAL, which deals with IAF, is in the perfect position to have access to accurate data and this values are from an official presentation.

What was exactly a sham? from your link all I could see was

Which the hawn disputed without rhyme or reason.

Interestingly IHS Jane came back with a similar figure of 4700 for Griped and 16k for the rafale on their white paper.

https://www.ftm.nl/upload/content/files/IHS Jane's Jet Operating Costs White Paper FINAL 13th March 2012(1).pdf

And labor cost are an important factor in the calculation of operational costs! And also there are criticisms that the fuel costs was calculated based on flight by clean-configured Gripens. IHS Janes report was commissioned by SAAB. That should tell you how authentic the figures are. They have one helluva PR team, i give you that!