I'm not aware of comparable inflight-simulation capabilities offered for Kfir.
The math thus far (corrected with your help and r3mus') suggests:
1. Going with SF-260 --> M-311 --> Kfir --> Kfir offers no cost advantage
over SF-260 --> M-311 --> Geagle --> Geagle. What we DO get with the
Kfir route is a superior interim fighter capability over Geagle.
2. If we assume a superior (non-Kfir) MRF is in the pipeline, we definitely
save money in the form of shortened OCT hours in said MRF, if we go the
Geagle route. (If we were to go with Master, the savings would IMO be
much more substantial, but the Master can't even show up for the dance:
despite its clear potential for it, it hasn't been aggressively marketed nor
apparently developed as a combat aircraft.)
I finally traced down the reason why I earlier quoted a US$29,575,000
financed acquisition cost for the Geagle. The LIFT cost in KoreaTimes
seems to be US$16.9 Million (2009):
flyaway cost is set at 20 billion won to 25 billion won ($13.5 - $16.9 million),
while the M-346 costs 18 billion won to 20 billion won.
If we want to be REALLY conservative, we can't use the alleged Indonesian
buy (which can seem to suggest a US$25 Million price, belatedly dovetailing
with what was earlier guesstimated in VOX I) because nothing is signed yet,
and also because the alleged contract price includes items other than the
. We did accept KAI's claim on delivery times if Indonesians were to
push ahead with the deal.
Anyway, with either the VOX I or the KoreaTimes cost assumptions, Geagle
comes out cheaper per year ("to buy and to fly") than Kfir, as an AJT.