Találtam ilyen adatot üzemeltetésre repszimes fórumon.
Correct, CPFH (cost per flying hour) for the F-16 (direct costs comprising fuel, consumables, maintenance & personnel) is roughly as quoted (although dependent on a number of factors which even vary from operator to operator, including aircraft age, etc.), but the MiG29 is far more expensive to operate. Maybe some Polish friends can correct me, but I can recall Lt Gen Ryszard Olszewsk (SPRP Chief of the General Staff at the time) quoting the MiG29's CPFH at PL 63,000 in 2002 (PL 80,000 in 2004, according to other sources), when 1 USD ≈ 3 PL (roughly USD 20k). And that was back in the day when Polish-Russian relations were still stable and the SPRP received follow-on support for its fleet under a contract with RSK MiG.
We have both the MiG29 and the Mirage 2000 in our air force. Based on publicly available information, the MiG29 is reported to cost about 30 to 40% more to sustain and operate than the Mirage 2000. And the Mirage 2000 is often quoted to be more expensive to operate than the F-16 (although the difference is not as dramatic as with the MiG29).
Most of it is due to short engine and accessory gearbox mean time between overhauls (MTBOs) and service life (besides, the MiG29 is fitted with two engines, which means twice the cost of overhaul and replacement). But overall, dealing with the Russians for follow-on support is a pain in the rear.
And it's really not worth it, anyway. The aircraft has some plus points and is often praised for its agility and handling qualities; however, it falls short in many other regards, such as service life, maintainability, availability, combat performance (payload, range), interoperability, etc. when compared to Western equivalents.
