What are recent real-world CPLH figures reported by air forces operating Gripen and Typhoon (2020–2025)?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Public reporting shows wide, inconsistent figures for cost‑per‑flight‑hour (CPFH/CPLH) for Gripen and Typhoon rather than firm, agreed “real‑world” numbers: multiple industry summaries and forums cite Gripen CPFH as low — commonly in the $3,000–$7,500 per hour band — while Typhoon figures reported in public sources cluster much higher (often cited around $8,000–$18,000/hr) [1] [2] [3]. Independent, recent official air‑force real‑world CPFH disclosures for 2020–2025 are not found in the supplied results; available reporting mixes third‑party studies, vendor claims and forum estimates [4] [5] [1].
1. What the public figures say — wide ranges, different methodologies
Published and publicly circulated numbers for CPFH vary widely: community compilations list Gripen at about $3,000–$4,500/hr and Eurofighter Typhoon around $14,000/hr [1], while a 2024–25 round of online summaries put Gripen at roughly €7,000 (~$7,500) per hour [2]. Other industry‑level summaries and analyst writeups referenced Jane’s‑type work that pushed Typhoon CPFH into the mid‑five‑digits when full sustainment and supplies are included (cited as up to about $18,000/hr) [3]. These discrepancies show different authors counting different cost buckets (fuel only, variable maintenance, or full O&S), not a single “real‑world” metric [3].
2. Why the numbers diverge — methodology and hidden agendas
Sources reflect differing agendas and methods. Vendor and promotional materials argue Gripen’s design purposefully lowers CPLH through modular systems and low manpower maintenance procedures (Saab commentary on cost‑effectiveness) [5]. Independent consultancies such as Jane’s (reported via forums) and third‑party lists often include broader sustainment and supply costs that push Typhoon estimates higher [3]. Forum aggregations and crowd‑sourced lists present bottom‑line figures without standardized accounting, explaining much of the spread [1].
3. What credible older studies say and their limits for 2020–2025
The longstanding industry view — exemplified by Jane’s and IHS studies referenced in multiple pieces — has historically ranked Gripen among the lowest CPFH among Western fighters [4] [3]. But those studies predate or only partially cover recent upgrades (Gripen E, Typhoon software/engine upgrades) and do not capture country‑specific operational tempos or wartime usage between 2020–2025; therefore they cannot be treated as definitive for the period in question [4].
4. Availability and readiness data don’t translate directly to CPLH
Some recent analyses emphasize Gripen high availability in Swedish service (availability rates >90% claimed for Gripen C/D and similar doctrine for Gripen E) [6]. High availability can lower per‑mission fixed costs, but availability figures are not direct CPLH metrics; they reflect sortie generation and maintenance effectiveness rather than unit‑cost accounting, and the supplied reporting does not convert those availability numbers into verified CPFH for 2020–2025 [6].
5. What’s missing from available reporting — the crucial gaps
The supplied sources do not include audited, country‑by‑country CPLH tables or official Ministry of Defence cost‑per‑flight‑hour disclosures for Gripen and Typhoon covering 2020–2025. There are industry reports, vendor pieces and forum aggregations, but no single authoritative dataset in the results that reconciles fuel, consumables, scheduled maintenance, unscheduled maintenance, manpower, depot support and amortised acquisition costs into comparable CPLH for both types (not found in current reporting) [5] [1] [3].
6. How to interpret reported ranges — a cautious approach
Treat low‑end Gripen numbers (circa $3k–$7.5k) as indicative of design intent and vendor messaging, not as universally verifiable across all operators [1] [2] [5]. Treat higher Typhoon figures (several thousand to mid‑teens thousands per hour) as plausible when comprehensive sustainment costs are included, as noted in Jane’s‑style analyses, but understand they reflect a different accounting scope [3]. Direct comparisons require identical cost scopes — which the current sources do not provide [3].
7. Practical takeaway and next steps for a definitive number
If you need verified, real‑world CPLH for 2020–2025, request audited O&S (operating & support) or flight‑hour accounting from the specific air forces that operate each type (these are not present in the supplied reporting) — national MoD budget Annexes or parliamentary defence committee papers are the likeliest sources. Current public reporting indicates Gripen is consistently presented as lower cost per hour than Typhoon, but exact, comparable 2020–2025 CPLH figures are not available in the provided sources [5] [1] [3].