What are the lifecycle (procurement + sustainment) costs per flight hour for the Gripen E vs the F-35?

1. What the two sources actually say about total lifetime or unit costs

The National frames the comparative lifetime cost as roughly $200 million per F‑35 and "just over half" that amount for a Gripen E, implying a Gripen lifetime cost in the neighborhood of ~$100–$120 million ^[1]. NDA Study highlights Colombia’s Gripen‑E purchase price per aircraft (~$212.9 million each for the Colombia deal) while arguing lifecycle sustainment and training burdens are heavier for the F‑35 because of its complex logistics and higher pilot training hours ^[2]. These two sources therefore offer conflicting impressions: one emphasizes lower Gripen lifetime cost versus F‑35, the other notes a high acquisition price for one Gripen deal while stressing broader sustainment burdens for the F‑35 ^{[1] [2]}.

2. Training and sustainment are key drivers — what the sources report

NDA Study reports F‑35 pilots may require 400+ flight hours of training versus roughly 200 for Gripen‑E pilots, directly tying pilot training burden to lifecycle costs ^[2]. That same piece argues the F‑35’s "enormous logistical ecosystems" and integrated sensor/network maintenance increase sustainment costs relative to simpler designs ^[2]. The National echoes the argument that the Gripen was "designed from the outset to be super affordable operationally," implying lower operating/sustainment cost per flying hour compared with the F‑35 ^[1].

3. Acquisition price versus lifetime cost — watch the definitions

NDA Study highlights a concrete acquisition figure from a Colombian contract — €3.1 billion (~$3.6 billion) for 17 Gripen‑E/F — producing a headline per‑aircraft price of about $212.9 million ^[2]. The National’s "lifetime cost" labels likely bundle procurement and sustainment across service life into a single per‑aircraft figure ^[1]. The two sources therefore use different anchors: one reports a specific procurement contract price ^[2], the other reports an estimated lifecycle cost per aircraft ^[1]. Readers should not conflate a single-contract unit price with an all-up lifetime cost unless the source explicitly states both elements (not found in current reporting).

4. Missing crucial data: per‑flight‑hour math is not in these reports

Neither source provides a per‑flight‑hour number or the underlying inputs (annual flight hours, attrition rates, sustainment cost breakdowns, depot-level support, spares, fuel, contractor logistics support, or assumptions about service life) that would allow calculation of procurement + sustainment cost per flight hour (not found in current reporting). Because per‑flight‑hour metrics require explicit operational-tempo and cost assumptions, the current reporting cannot support the precise comparison you asked for (not found in current reporting).

5. Plausible alternative viewpoints and why figures diverge

The National emphasizes operational affordability of Gripen and gives a blunt comparative lifetime-cost estimate favoring Gripen ^[1]. NDA Study stresses that real-world procurement deals can produce high per-unit procurement prices for Gripen (the Colombia example) and that F‑35 sustainment is expensive because of its complex ecosystem and higher pilot-training hours ^[2]. These perspectives are both plausible: Gripen’s design intent and lower sustainment profile argue for lower operating costs, while specific procurement deals, export offsets, and national requirements can push Gripen acquisition prices upward ^{[1] [2]}.

6. What you’d need to compute cost per flight hour confidently

To convert procurement + sustainment to cost per flight hour you must have: (a) a credible procurement price or amortized fleet acquisition cost; (b) multi‑year sustainment/operating budgets (spares, depot maintenance, contractor support, fuel, infrastructure); (c) expected service life and planned flight hours per aircraft per year; and (d) pilot training costs and sortie-hour conversion assumptions. Those inputs are not present in the two supplied pieces, so any per‑flight‑hour number would be an unsupported extrapolation (not found in current reporting).

7. Bottom line and recommended next steps

Available materials show consistent claims that F‑35 sustainment and training burdens are larger while also showing at least one recent Gripen procurement with a high unit purchase price ^{[2] [1]}. Neither article gives a per‑flight‑hour lifecycle cost, so you should seek official sustainment budgets, service flight-hour rates, or independent analyses that publish per‑flight‑hour assumptions before treating any single headline figure as definitive (not found in current reporting). If you want, I can draft the exact calculation template and list the specific data points to collect to generate comparable cost‑per‑flight‑hour estimates for both aircraft.