What independent analyses compare per‑flight‑hour operating costs of F‑35A vs Gripen E over a 30‑year service life?

1. What the question actually seeks and why it’s hard to answer

The user is asking for independent comparative analyses that compute per‑flight‑hour operating costs of the F‑35A and Gripen E across a full 30‑year service life, which requires transparent inputs (fuel burn, maintenance man‑hours, parts/repair costs, depot-level repair rates, software sustainment, manpower, spares provisioning, attrition/usage profiles and discounting assumptions) and an independent audit or peer review to avoid vendor or procuring‑party bias; none of the supplied pieces provide that comprehensive, auditable lifecycle model or explicitly list those inputs ^{[2] [5] [3] [1]}.

2. What the supplied reporting actually contains on per‑flight‑hour figures

The sampled reporting and commentary offer a patchwork: one article paraphrases a low per‑flight‑hour number for the Gripen (~$8,000) and cites a much higher USAF figure for the F‑35A (around $33,300), creating an impression of a large gap ^[2], while Aviation Week and Czech government reporting document political claims that the F‑35 will be “cheaper” to acquire and operate than the Gripen E in that procurement context without publishing an independent lifecycle cost breakdown ^[1]. Other sources are general comparisons of capability and lifecycle intent (Gripen designed for lower life‑cycle costs) or opinion threads asserting one jet is cheaper to run without methodology or independent verification ^{[5] [3] [4]}.

3. Why these sources aren’t the independent 30‑year analyses sought

The cited pieces are either media reports of government positions (Czech Republic statements) or comparative articles that repeat high‑level numbers and claims without disclosing models, assumptions or raw data; they don’t present reproducible cost models spanning 30 years, sensitivity analyses, or third‑party audit findings — the hallmarks of an independent comparative life‑cycle analysis ^{[1] [2] [3]}. The presence of widely divergent per‑hour figures in public reporting underscores the need for methodologically transparent studies rather than journalistic summaries or procurement advocacy ^{[2] [1]}.

4. Competing narratives, incentives and how to read the numbers

Procurement bodies and vendors have incentives to present favorable cost estimates: governments may emphasize strategic alignment and affordability while vendors and advocates stress either capability or operating‑economy narratives; for example, Czech government briefings and Aviation Week coverage reflect a political procurement stance rather than an independent cost audit ^[1], and enthusiast or blog posts repeat legacy claims about Gripen’s low life‑cycle costs without raw data ^{[3] [5]}. The discrepant $8,000 vs $33,300 per‑hour figures reported in the media should therefore be treated as starting points for scrutiny, not definitive answers, until an auditable 30‑year model is published.

5. Practical next steps and where to look for genuine independent analysis

A rigorous answer requires locating or commissioning a transparent life‑cycle cost study: look for defense‑industry‑agnostic government audit offices (GAO‑style reports), independent defense think tanks that publish methodology and datasets, or academic studies that model 30‑year sustainment with sensitivity testing; none of the current supplied sources meets that bar, so rely on future GAO/National Audit Office reports, peer‑reviewed studies, or redacted procurement evaluations that publish their cost models for verification ^{[1] [2]}.