Fuel consumption Gripen E vs F-35?
Executive summary
Gripen E is widely reported as the more fuel‑efficient, lower‑cost platform on a per‑flight‑hour basis, while the F‑35 typically burns more fuel and costs more to operate—though the F‑35 carries more internal fuel and can achieve longer stealthy range without external tanks (sources disagree on details and direct fuel‑burn figures are scarce) [1] [2] [3]. Both aircraft’s real-world fuel consumption depends heavily on mission profile (cruise vs. afterburner), external tanks, and aerial refuelling, and open sources do not provide a single definitive gallons‑per‑hour comparison [1].
1. Gripen E’s efficiency and design tradeoffs
Saab and multiple analysts argue the Gripen E was engineered for lower life‑cycle cost and better specific fuel consumption in many regimes: Saab points to the new F414‑GE‑39E engine reducing afterburner use and improving efficiency, and the Gripen E carries significantly more internal fuel than earlier Gripens—Saab says this increases range while keeping operational costs down [4]. Independent cost studies cited by Jane’s modelled the Gripen as having the lowest cost‑per‑flight‑hour of western fighters in their sample, attributing part of that to lower fuel burn and a simpler single‑engine layout versus twin‑engine types [1].
2. The F‑35’s fuel picture: more volume, more burn
Public reporting consistently notes the F‑35 is more expensive to operate and generally consumes more fuel per mission profile than light single‑engine fighters, even as its F‑135 powerplant is described as “relatively fuel efficient for its power” in Jane’s modelling—meaning it produces large thrust but still burns more fuel because the aircraft is heavier and carries more systems [1]. Popular comparisons also emphasize the F‑35’s advantage: it carries substantial internal fuel that preserves stealth and gives longer uninterrupted range without external tanks, a critical operational distinction versus fighters that rely on jettisonable tanks [3] [5].
3. Range, tanks and mission context matter more than raw burn rates
Numbers in forums and manufacturer materials show different ways to think about endurance: community estimates put Gripen E internal fuel around ~7,300 lb (≈3,300 kg) in some imagines/discussions, and Saab describes a ~40% internal fuel increase over older Gripens, plus larger external tanks that can be jettisoned for combat [6] [4] [7]. By contrast, the F‑35’s internal fuel allows sustained stealthy sortie profiles without external tanks, affecting mission radius and fuel use in practice [3]. Jane’s cautions that modeled cost patterns were based on theoretical one‑hour sorties at maximum dry thrust and that “accurate CPFH for in‑service aircraft does not exist,” underlining that mission mix (intercept, CAP, strike) and pilot technique dominate fuel consumption [1].
4. Conflicting claims and where reporting diverges
Open reporting and enthusiast analyses sometimes contradict: some sources and blogs claim the Gripen’s combat radius with tanks can exceed the F‑35’s by specific margins, while other analyses point to the F‑35’s internal fuel and stealth as giving it comparable or superior mission endurance in contested airspace [7] [3]. Manufacturer claims (Saab) emphasize engine efficiency gains; independent studies (Jane’s via reporting) still put the F‑35 at higher operational fuel cost overall even while acknowledging the F‑135’s efficiency for its power class [4] [1]. Public forums and spec sheets provide fuel‑weight figures and tank options but not standardized, verified gallons‑per‑hour cruise or combat burn charts [6] [8].
5. Bottom line and reporting limits
On balance of the available reporting, the Gripen E is presented as the lower fuel‑consuming, lower cost‑per‑flight‑hour option for many typical missions, while the F‑35 burns more fuel overall but carries more internal fuel and sustains stealthier, longer-range missions without external tanks—yet no single open source offers a definitive, mission‑normalized fuel‑burn comparison, and Jane’s explicitly warns accurate CPFH for in‑service aircraft is not publicly available [1] [2] [3]. Readers should treat specific range or endurance claims with caution and consult manufacturer performance tables or classified/operational data for mission‑level fuel metrics, which are not in the cited public sources.