How have other countries’ long‑term sustainment costs for F‑35 and Gripen compared to their procurement time estimates (e.g., Switzerland, Brazil)?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Long-term sustainment for the F-35 has repeatedly overshadowed its headline procurement price, with U.S. watchdog and program figures projecting roughly $2.1 trillion in lifecycle costs through the 2080s and export packages that bundle sustainment often adding tens of millions per jet to initial deals [1]. By contrast, reporting on the Gripen emphasizes lower sustainment burdens in procurement evaluations — Saab’s Gripen scored strongly on sustainment in Canada’s internal testing — but available sources do not provide a comparable multi-decade total-cost projection like the F-35’s [2].
1. Large program math: the F-35’s sustainment bill dwarfs flyaway costs
The F-35 narrative is dominated by lifecycle arithmetic: watchdogs and program documents cited in reporting estimate about $2.1 trillion in total F-35 spending through the program’s planned life, meaning sustainment, upgrades and global operations drive a very large share of the system’s lifetime budget well beyond the per‑aircraft flyaway price [1]. Export sales routinely embed initial sustainment, spares, training and weapons in packages that can raise the effective per‑aircraft contract value into the $150–220 million range — for example, Switzerland’s F-35 deal reportedly included such bundled items, illustrating how procurement invoices already anticipate early sustainment needs [1]. Those figures signal that for the F‑35, procurement timing and headline unit price are only the opening act; long-term sustainment commitments are substantial and planned into export contracts [1].
2. Gripen’s sustainment advantage in evaluations — but limited public lifetime tallies
In contrast, Saab’s Gripen often sells itself on lower operating and sustainment burdens, a claim that shows up in procurement evaluations: internal Canadian testing had the Gripen scoring strongly on sustainment — 81% versus the F-35’s 85% in that metric — and commentators emphasize Saab’s industrial-offer narrative as part of its pitch [2]. That evaluation suggests buyers may see lower cradle-to-operational sustainment friction with the Gripen, but the available reporting does not include a comparable long‑horizon, trillion‑dollar style lifecycle estimate for Gripen fleets the way F‑35 reporting does, so direct like‑for‑like comparisons over decades cannot be fully made from these sources [2].
3. Procurement timing vs sustainment reality: what the evidence shows
Procurement time estimates — the schedules and budgets governments announce to buy aircraft — frequently underprice what operating and sustainment will consume later, and the F‑35 reporting makes this explicit by showing how initial procurement outlays are eclipsed by programwide sustainment and upgrades across decades [1]. For Gripen, procurement analyses highlighted sustainment as a comparative strength during selection processes [2], implying buyers may face fewer unexpected sustainment escalations, but without long-term, program-level cost projections in the reporting, it is not possible to confirm that Gripen fleets will definitively cost less than F‑35s across a 50–90 year horizon based solely on these sources [2].
4. Political and institutional agendas shading the debate
Procurement competitions are inherently political and transactional — Radio‑Canada’s coverage of Canada’s fighter review notes both the DND’s internal scoring and pushback from bidders, with Saab emphasizing industrial benefits while critics question test credibility and potential biases in government procurement [2]. Similarly, the prominence of the F-35’s $2.1 trillion lifecycle figure is often invoked by watchdogs and opponents to argue for cost restraint, while proponents point to capability and alliance benefits; the reporting shows both numbers and narratives are being wielded to influence procurement timing and public opinion [1] [2].
5. Bottom line and limits of the record
The record in these sources is clear that F‑35 sustainment is a life‑cycle budget driver and that procurement packages often incorporate significant sustainment costs up front [1], while Gripen evaluations highlight sustainment advantages in competition settings [2]; however, the sources lack comprehensive, comparable long‑term sustainment totals for Gripen or country‑specific post‑procurement cost trajectories (e.g., Brazil) to conclude definitively how country‑level long‑term sustainment costs versus procurement time estimates match up across both platforms. Any final comparison beyond what these sources cover would require country‑by‑country lifecycle accounting not present in the provided reporting.