Are there any national audit office reports from Sweden, Brazil or other Gripen operators detailing actual Gripen E operating costs?
Executive summary
There is no clear evidence in the provided reporting of formal national audit office (NAO) reports from Sweden, Brazil or other Gripen E operators that publish audited, ex‑post figures for the actual operating cost per flight hour of the Gripen E; reporting instead relies on manufacturer estimates, ministry analyses, press stories about procurement costs and independent commentary that calls for audit cross‑checks [1] [2] [3] [4]. Several pieces in the dataset point to official acquisition costs, program delays, and manufacturer claims about low operating costs, but none are explicit NAO audit reports disclosing realized Gripen E operating‑cost data [3] [5] [1].
1. What the sources actually document about costs and claims
Saab and public summaries repeatedly frame the Gripen family as designed for low flight‑hour cost and cost‑effectiveness, and Saab materials state historic low cost‑per‑hour aims for the type [1]. Acquisition figures — for example Brazil’s 2014 purchase price of roughly $5.44 billion for 36 aircraft and offset packages — are widely reported in the dataset, with follow‑on stories about delivery delays and cost increases to Brazil [6] [3]. Independent outlets and analysts compare manufacturer estimates and ministry decisions — one article cites Saab’s published per‑flight‑hour figures (Gripen C/D ≈ $20,600; Gripen E/F ≈ $22,100) and references a Czech Ministry of Defence report used to justify Prague’s F‑35 choice [2].
2. Where “audit” or official scrutiny is suggested but not delivered
Several items urge cross‑referencing audit reports, operational feedback and budget data when assessing availability and real costs, yet the pieces themselves stop at analysis rather than pointing to a named NAO report that publishes actual Gripen E operating‑hour results [4]. A fly‑jet analysis encourages triangulation among audits and budget documents to reach robust availability and cost conclusions, but does not itself supply a national audit office document for the Gripen E [4]. Press reporting on Sweden’s domestic procurement choices and parliamentary decisions (such as paying for unused C/D airframes to keep a production line viable) are publicized, but the cited stories are newspaper or trade reporting rather than formal NAO findings of actual operating costs [7].
3. Brazil: acquisition detail and program performance, not an NAO operating‑cost audit
Coverage of Brazil focuses on contract price, localization via Embraer, delays and cost growth rather than an audit that breaks down real-world operating cost per flight hour for the F‑39 Gripen E in Brazilian service [3] [6]. The dataset documents that the Brazilian program included offsets and local assembly, and that delivery delays and revised schedules have been publicly acknowledged by Brazilian military leadership, yet no document from Brazil’s Tribunal de Contas or similar national audit body quantifying realized Gripen E operating costs is provided in these sources [3] [6].
4. Sweden and other operators: claims, procurement numbers, and the audit gap
Sweden’s procurement plans (orders for 60 Gripen E) and Saab product literature highlight expected operational concepts and claimed efficiencies, but the available material stops short of citing a Swedish NAO (Riksrevisionen) report that publishes measured operating costs per flight hour for the Gripen E in Swedish service [5] [1]. Other operator reporting — including references to Colombia, Thailand and candidate markets — list orders or proposals but do not surface national audit office audits of in‑service operating costs in the provided dataset [5] [8].
5. Bottom line: what can be concluded from the provided reporting
Within the provided reporting there are manufacturer estimates, ministry comparisons and investigative pieces urging audit cross‑checks, but no explicit national audit office reports from Sweden, Brazil or other Gripen operators that publish audited, ex‑post Gripen E operating‑cost figures; the closest items are ministry analyses cited in media (e.g., Czech Ministry of Defence documents referenced by Defense Express) and Saab’s own operating‑cost claims [2] [1]. To answer definitively whether any NAO reports exist, direct searches of the national audit institutions (Riksrevisionen in Sweden, Tribunal de Contas in Brazil, and audit offices of other operators) would be required because the current dataset contains no such identified NAO audit documents [4] [3].