How do per‑flight‑hour operating costs of Gripen E and F‑35A compare in independent air force logistics reports?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Independent reporting and industry-published figures converge on a clear headline: per‑flight‑hour operating costs for the single‑engine Saab Gripen E are reported substantially lower than for the Lockheed Martin F‑35A, with commonly cited numbers placing Gripen E around $22,000 per flight hour versus F‑35A figures quoted above $46,000 per hour — but those headline numbers come from manufacturer data and media analyses rather than uniformly comparable, fully independent air‑force logistics audits, and several national procurement reports have pushed back on simple comparisons [1] [2] [3].
1. What the most‑quoted numbers say and where they come from
A frequently cited comparison, repeated in Defense Express and aggregated reporting, uses Saab’s own operating‑cost estimates to put the Gripen C/D at roughly $20,600 and the newer Gripen E/F at about $22,100 per flight hour while listing the F‑16V at $25,600 and the F‑35A “over $46,000” per flight hour — figures that include maintenance, fuel, crew and logistics components and are presented by outlets that draw on manufacturer or open‑source summaries [1].
2. Independent operational evidence: availability, maintenance burden and hidden cost drivers
Independent analyses of operational availability and logistics architecture suggest that lower per‑flight‑hour figures for the Gripen reflect design choices and doctrine: Saab engineered the Gripen to minimize logistical constraints, allowing dispersed basing and simpler maintenance, which raises sortie generation and reduces manpower and depot costs, whereas the F‑35’s more complex systems and centralized digital logistics (ODIN) have been associated with higher maintenance demands and lower availability rates in published reporting — for example, the F‑35A has struggled with availability figures (around 55% reported for the USAF in some accounts), a factor that inflates effective cost per mission even where per‑hour bookkeeping differs [4] [3].
3. Why “per‑flight‑hour” is a slippery metric across platforms
Per‑flight‑hour estimates hide big methodological choices: whether amortized platform acquisition costs, software and sustainment contracts, depot level maintenance, sortie‑generation overhead, spare‑parts provisioning and availability penalties are folded in; whether manufacturer maintenance‑contract assumptions are optimistic; and whether national force structure (base infrastructure, mission mix) changes per‑hour math — critics have noted that some Saab‑based estimates may be “optimistic,” and Czech Ministry of Defense reporting during their 2023 F‑35 decision explicitly challenged direct cost comparisons with Gripen offers [1] [2].
4. National procurement reports and contrasting viewpoints
Several nation‑level procurement processes show the debate is contested: while Swedish and pro‑Gripen analysis emphasize low flight‑hour costs and ease of maintenance (often citing Saab data), countries choosing the F‑35 have justified that choice with assessments valuing stealth, sensor fusion and alliance logistics despite higher sustainment spend; the Czech MoD’s report is cited as an example where a government rejected Gripen‑style cost claims in favor of the F‑35, illustrating that independent national logistics reviews can produce results that contradict manufacturer‑led figures [1] [2].
5. Operational implications beyond the hourly price tag
Lower nominal flight‑hour costs for Gripen translate in practice into potentially higher sortie availability per unit of expenditure because of simpler logistics and higher mission‑ready rates, while the F‑35’s advanced capabilities and lifecycle sustainment model — though costlier per hour — aim to deliver mission effect through stealth and integrated systems; thus, decisions often trade raw operating cost against force‑multiplier effects and alliance considerations [4] [3].
Conclusion: the best statement that can be made from available reporting
Independent and journalistic logistics reporting consistently shows Gripen E claiming materially lower per‑flight‑hour operating costs than the F‑35A (Saab‑based figures around $22,100 vs. F‑35A figures reported above $46,000), but those numbers are sensitive to methodology and contested by national procurement reports; the balance of published analysis indicates Gripen is cheaper to operate hour‑for‑hour, while the F‑35 carries higher sustainment costs offset, in buyers’ assessments, by different mission capabilities and alliance logistics considerations [1] [2] [4] [3].