How do software sustainment and F‑35 Block upgrades affect long‑term per‑flight‑hour costs compared with Gripen E maintenance models?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Software sustainment and recurring Block upgrades materially drive the F‑35’s long‑term per‑flight‑hour costs because they carry schedule risk, budget overruns and add lifecycle work that is often folded into operating‑cost tallies (Radio‑Canada/Aerotime reporting on Block 4 delays and cost growth) [1]. By contrast, the Gripen E’s operating model and design-for‑austere‑operation posture are consistently cited as producing substantially lower per‑flight‑hour figures in many public sources, though independent accounting methods can shrink or even reverse that gap when additional sustainment line items are included (Aviacionline, Sandboxx, Canadian Defence Review) [2] [3] [4].
1. Why software sustainment and Block upgrades matter: the F‑35’s maintenance tail
Modern fifth‑generation fighters are software first, airframe second, and the F‑35 exemplifies that reality: major capability improvements are delivered through Block upgrades and ongoing software sustainment, and delays/cost overruns in those programs raise the effective cost of keeping aircraft mission‑relevant over decades (audits and program critiques cited by Canadian evaluators point to Block 4 being years late and billions over budget) [1]. Those software efforts are not just one‑time buys but recurring investments—testing, certification, depot changes and operator retraining all add to long‑run per‑flight‑hour burdens, which is reflected in official and journalistic estimates that place current F‑35 fleet cost per flight hour broadly in the high five‑figures range depending on accounting (Aviacionline cites USAF fleet CPFH near $33,300; Canadian Defence Review quotes roughly $36,000 maintenance portion) [2] [4].
2. Gripen E’s maintenance model and why it often looks cheaper
Saab designed the Gripen E to operate from dispersed, austere bases with modest ground infrastructure and smaller support crews—an idea that translates into lower direct maintenance demands and has driven public figures that frequently put Gripen hourly costs under $10,000 (Aviacionline and Canadian Defence Review cite ~ $8,000–$10,000 or “under $10,000”) [2] [4]. Those attributes also reduce the software sustainment footprint relative to the F‑35: while the Gripen receives avionics and software updates, its acquisition and sustainment model emphasizes simpler logistics and national industrial participation, which supporters argue lowers lifecycle per‑hour costs in practice (Canadian Defence Review emphasizes Arctic‑optimized, low‑overhead operations) [4].
3. The accounting caveat: apples, oranges, and omitted line items
Comparisons are highly sensitive to what each side includes: some Gripen proponents report single‑line CPFH estimates of $8k–$10k, but more comprehensive studies (Aviation Week cited in Sandboxx) reallocate omitted maintenance and support costs to raise the Gripen E estimate toward $22,175 per hour—breaking that into roughly $9,975 operations and an added ~$12,200 maintenance component—showing that assumptions about who pays for sustainment, simulators, manpower and depot work can dramatically change the result [3]. Similarly, some F‑35 figures include broader lifecycle overhead and workforce pay that inflate CPFH relative to narrower maintenance‑only tallies, meaning headline gaps can be overstated or understated depending on methodology (Sandboxx summarizes those methodological differences) [3].
4. Putting it together: practical implications for long‑term CPFH
When software sustainment and major Block upgrades are folded into long‑term budgeting, the F‑35 carries a demonstrably heavier sustainment tail—delays, cost growth and the need for continuous software refreshes push fleet CPFH into the tens of thousands of dollars per hour in many public estimates [1] [2] [4]. The Gripen E’s simpler support model and austere‑operation design typically yield lower CPFH in many sources, but independent accounting that captures broader maintenance, spare‑parts provisioning and contractor/industrial commitments can narrow that advantage substantially [3]. In short: software sustainment and Block upgrades make the F‑35 more expensive per flight hour over time in most available public estimates, but precise comparative gaps depend on what costs (operations, maintenance, sustainment, industrial participation) each analyst includes [2] [3] [4].