What is the lifecycle cost per flight hour for the Saab Gripen E versus the Lockheed Martin F-35A?
Executive summary
Available sources present competing claims about lifecycle cost per flight hour for the Saab Gripen E versus the Lockheed Martin F‑35A but do not provide a single, definitive per‑hour figure. A leaked Canadian assessment emphasizes the F‑35’s superior capability score over the Gripen E (95% vs. 33% per the leak) while industry/advocate material stresses Gripen’s lower lifecycle costs and shorter pilot training hours (200 vs. 400+) as drivers of lower long‑term expense [1] [2].
1. What the sources actually say about cost per flight hour
Neither source quotes a firm, comparable lifecycle cost‑per‑flight‑hour for Gripen E or F‑35A; the NDA Study article frames lifecycle savings as the rationale for Colombia’s Gripen‑E purchase and cites training‑hour differences (Gripen pilots 200 hours vs. F‑35 pilots 400+ hours) to argue higher F‑35 lifecycle costs without giving a precise $/flight‑hour figure [2]. The leaked Canadian report highlights capability comparisons and program scoring rather than explicit cost‑per‑hour accounting [1].
2. Colombia’s deal: headline prices, not per‑hour maths
The NDA Study reports Colombia agreed to buy 17 Gripen E/Fs for €3.1 billion (about $3.6 billion), or roughly $212.9 million per aircraft, and presents that deal as chosen to prioritize 30‑year lifecycle savings over lower acquisition price [2]. That headline unit price is concrete in the report, but the article uses it to argue long‑term savings without translating acquisition plus sustainment into a lifecycle $/flight‑hour number [2].
3. Training and logistics cited as lifecycle drivers
The NDA Study places weight on pilot training and logistical ecosystems as drivers of lifecycle cost: it claims F‑35 pilots need 400+ flight hours of training compared with about 200 for Gripen E pilots, and it characterizes the F‑35 as requiring “enormous logistical ecosystems,” implying higher sustainment costs [2]. The leaked Canadian material likewise credits proponents of Gripen for arguing lower lifecycle costs, but its main thrust was performance scoring rather than sustained‑ops cost analysis [1].
4. Performance vs. cost: the Canadian leak reframes the debate
The leaked Canadian report—reported by Aeronews Journal—asserts the F‑35 scored far higher overall in Canada’s internal evaluation (95% or 57.1/60 for F‑35 vs. 33% or 19.7/60 for Gripen E) and criticized Gripen on mission performance, upgradability and capability delivery [1]. That document underlines a central tension: a platform with higher acquisition and sustainment overheads (F‑35) can still be attractive if decision makers prioritize capability and networked performance over lower lifecycle bills [1].
5. Where reporting is explicit and where it is silent
The NDA Study is explicit about Colombia’s unit price and about claimed training‑hour and lifecycle advantages of Gripen E; it does not produce a $/flight‑hour lifecycle calculation [2]. The leaked Canadian report is explicit about capability scores and program evaluation outcomes; it does not provide lifecycle cost‑per‑flight‑hour figures [1]. Available sources do not mention an authoritative, side‑by‑side lifecycle $/flight‑hour comparison for Gripen E versus F‑35A.
6. How policymakers interpret these claims
The NDA Study frames procurement as a political and industrial choice—Colombia sought offsets and industrial sovereignty and accepted a higher per‑aircraft price to secure perceived 30‑year savings [2]. The Canadian leak illustrates the counterargument: capability dominance and integration (F‑35’s alleged 95% score) can outweigh claims of lower operating cost when national defence buyers prioritize mission performance and alliance interoperability [1].
7. Caveats, agendas and what to watch next
Both pieces carry agendas: the NDA Study advocates reading Colombia’s Gripen purchase as a lifecycle‑savings success and encourages negotiating offsets [2]; the Aeronews Journal story spotlights a leaked government evaluation that strongly favors the F‑35 and undercuts Gripen marketing claims [1]. Readers should treat lifecycle‑cost claims skeptically until independent sustainment studies publish transparent $/flight‑hour methodologies and comparable assumptions (available sources do not mention such independent, directly comparable studies).
In sum: sources point to plausible reasons why Gripen E proponents claim lower lifecycle cost (training hours, smaller logistics footprint; p1_s1) and why F‑35 proponents claim decisive capability advantages (Canadian leak scores; p1_s2), but neither source supplies a definitive lifecycle cost‑per‑flight‑hour comparison.