Cost per flight hour Gripen E vs F-16 Block 70

1. Reported headline numbers — what the sources say

Several contemporary defense outlets and comparative pieces state the Gripen E/F’s operating cost at roughly $6,000–$7,000 per flight hour while placing the F‑16 Block 70/72 in the $10,000–$12,000/hour range ^[2], a pattern echoed in earlier benchmarking that put the Gripen at ~$4,700/hr versus F‑16 Block 40/50 at ~$7,000/hr ^[1]. By contrast, a later Aviation Week study cited on Wikipedia reports much higher CPFH for the Gripen E/F — about $22,174/hr — and similarly elevated CPHFs for other types, underscoring that some modern analyses produce substantially larger absolute numbers ^[3]. Some less rigorous outlets repeat still higher F‑16 figures (e.g., claims of $18–22k/hr), but those appear inconsistent with the mainstream comparative estimates ^[4].

2. Why published figures diverge so dramatically

Differences arise because CPFH is calculated with varied inclusions: fuel and routine maintenance only, or full life‑cycle logistics, spares pools, depot maintenance, personnel, training, and allocated program overheads; studies do not standardize sortie profiles, mission length, or national support structures ^{[1] [3]}. Older Jane’s modeling used a one‑hour maximal‑thrust sortie proxy to normalize fuel use and maintenance assumptions, producing lower numbers for lightweight designs like Gripen ^[1], while vendor or commissioned studies — including those with manufacturer involvement — may incorporate broader cost categories or local program idiosyncrasies that drive CPFH upward ^[3].

3. Technical and program drivers behind the gap

Gripen’s reputation for lower operating expense rests on design choices: a single‑engine layout, a compact airframe optimized for austere operations and fast turnarounds, and Saab’s emphasis on low maintenance man‑hours — all factors that reduce fuel, personnel and airfield support costs relative to larger or twin‑engine types ^{[5] [1]}. The F‑16 Block 70 carries a heavier logistics tail in many fleets and may incur higher sustainment costs depending on engine choice, local maintenance arrangements, and weapons/avionics fits, which helps explain why several sources show an F‑16 CPFH noticeably higher than the Gripen’s ^{[2] [5]}.

4. Read the footnotes: source incentives and hidden agendas

Some comparative numbers trace back to defense‑industry or government‑commissioned work that can reflect procurement bargaining positions; for example, Aviation Week’s study was conducted on behalf of Saab according to secondary summaries, which requires caution when interpreting its findings ^[3]. Conversely, independent consultancies like Jane’s produced lower historical CPFH for the Gripen but used modeling assumptions from 2012 that may not capture modern avionics/weapon fits or inflation ^[1]. Commercial defense media and national procurement narratives (e.g., coverage around Thailand and Colombia purchases) often emphasize cost advantages as part of political and diplomatic positioning ^{[6] [7]}.

5. Practical verdict — which is cheaper per flight hour?

Across multiple reputable comparisons the Gripen E is consistently presented as the lower‑cost platform on a per‑flight‑hour basis — typical contemporary mid‑range estimates place Gripen around $5k–$7k/hr and F‑16 Block 70 around $10k–$12k/hr — but large studies with different accounting can place both aircraft far higher, even reversing the gap ^{[2] [1] [3]}. Therefore the defensible short answer is: most open analyses show the Gripen E being materially cheaper per flight hour than an F‑16 Block 70, but precise dollar figures depend on which study, which cost categories, and which national operating context are used ^{[2] [1] [3]}.