What are the published maintenance man-hours per flight hour (MMH/FH) for F-35 vs Gripen in operational deployments?
Executive summary
Published, operational maintenance man‑hours per flight hour (MMH/FH) figures for the F‑35 and the Saab Gripen are not available in the supplied reporting; existing sources in this set make qualitative claims (Gripen is cheaper/easier to maintain; F‑35 has higher maintenance requirements) but do not provide specific MMH/FH numbers or deployment‑based logged man‑hour metrics [1] [2] [3]. Reporting and commentary instead compare overall operating cost, sortie preparation time and logistical footprint without stating standardized MMH/FH metrics [4] [1] [3].
1. What the sources explicitly say about maintenance burden
None of the provided items publish numerical MMH/FH figures. CZDEFENCE reports that “maintenance requirements of the F‑35 are still very high” and that the Gripen is “highly regarded… for its unparalleled ease of maintenance,” but stops short of giving man‑hour‑per‑flight‑hour metrics [1]. Advocacy and trade‑press pieces echo that Gripen proponents emphasise lower maintenance needs, faster re‑arm/turnaround times and suitability for dispersed operations, again without MMH/FH data [3] [2]. A forum thread cites third‑party cost‑per‑flight‑hour estimates from Janes and other outlets for CPFH (cost, not man‑hours) but these are user comments and not formal MMH/FH figures in the provided set [4].
2. Where reporting focuses instead: cost, readiness, and sortie turnaround
Available material concentrates on operating cost, readiness and sortie tempo rather than man‑hours per flight hour. The MilitaryFactory comparison is a general spec sheet and does not supply MMH/FH [5]. Commentaries for Canada’s procurement debate stress Gripen’s lower operating/maintenance costs and quicker re‑arm and sortie prep versus the F‑35’s superior sensor fusion and capabilities, which shape acquisition choices but do not quantify man‑hours [3] [2]. In short, the conversation in these sources is about relative maintenance burden and logistical footprint, not a specific MMH/FH metric [1] [3].
3. Conflicting perspectives and implicit agendas in the coverage
Pieces favouring Gripen emphasize operational simplicity and austere‑field suitability — arguments that advance Saab’s export case and national procurement alternatives to the F‑35 [3] [2]. Conversely, broader comparisons and government competition results highlight the F‑35’s technical and combat advantages despite acknowledged maintenance challenges; CBC reporting of a Canadian Defence competition stresses F‑35 superiority on capabilities, reflecting defence‑assessment priorities rather than lifecycle man‑hours [6]. The forum post that references Janes’ CPFH figures illustrates how community discussion blends cost estimates, vendor advocacy and secondary sources without delivering authoritative MMH/FH measurements [4].
4. Why MMH/FH is rarely published and what that means for comparisons
None of the supplied sources state why MMH/FH is missing, but available reporting suggests comparable metrics are often proprietary, vary by operator (country‑specific depot arrangements), and are conflated with cost‑per‑flight‑hour or readiness stats in public debate [4] [1]. That variability means a single published MMH/FH applicable to all operational deployments likely does not exist in open sources; instead, operators publish CPFH, sortie rates and availability figures, which are influenced by maintenance practices, local supply chains and mission profiles [4] [2].
5. How to get the numbers you’re asking about
The current set of articles and commentary does not provide MMH/FH. To obtain operational MMH/FH you would need operator‑level logistics reports, formal contractor logistics support contracts, or government audit documents that explicitly tabulate maintenance man‑hours per flight hour for deployed units — documents not present in this search result set (not found in current reporting). Alternatively, look for defence‑audit reports, service logistics studies, or NATO/partner published sustainment metrics that might enumerate man‑hours by aircraft model.
6. Bottom line for readers weighing F‑35 vs Gripen on maintenance
Public reporting here consistently presents Gripen as lower‑maintenance and lower‑operating‑cost in concept, and the F‑35 as more maintenance‑intensive but higher‑capability — however, these are qualitative summaries, not published MMH/FH figures [1] [3] [2]. For procurement or operational planning debates, cite operator‑specific sustainment data or independent audits rather than general commentary; such precise MMH/FH metrics are not contained in the supplied sources [4] [5].