Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
How do the procurement costs of the Gripen compare to the Eurofighter Typhoon?
Executive summary
Across available reporting, the Gripen is consistently presented as the lower-cost option versus the twin‑engine Eurofighter Typhoon on a simple procurement-unit basis and in many lifecycle-cost comparisons, but recent deals and package pricing show large variation that narrows or reverses that gap for fully equipped, supported buys (e.g., Colombia’s Gripen‑E deal reported at roughly $213–$228M per aircraft) [1] [2] [3]. Independent estimates and industry figures put typical unit procurement or list prices in a wide range: Gripen E/F around $60–$100M (or ~$85M in some lists), Eurofighter commonly quoted higher (example: ~$117M) — but program development costs and export package content shift effective prices substantially [4] [5] [6].
1. Price headlines: “Gripen cheaper, Eurofighter costlier”
Multiple outlets summarize the basic comparison as the Gripen being “simply less expensive to procure” because it is a single‑engine, lighter design compared with the twin‑engine, heavier Eurofighter Typhoon; Breaking Defense explicitly frames cost as a factor for Gripen’s attractiveness [1]. Popular rankings and cost lists typically place Gripen below Eurofighter on raw unit price — Aerotime’s 2024 list shows Gripen E/F at about $85M and Eurofighter at $117M [5]. These serve as headline numbers but reflect simplified comparisons that may omit weapons, training, sustainment and offset packages [5].
2. Why “unit price” is misleading: packages, training and offsets change everything
Recent procurement contracts demonstrate that headline per‑aircraft figures can balloon once weapons, sensors, logistics, infrastructure and industrial offsets are included. Reporting on Colombia’s 2025 Gripen deal quotes comprehensive package totals implying roughly $212.9–$228M per aircraft when the full support and systems are counted — figures far above the low “unit price” estimates that industry lists circulate [2] [3]. Eurofighter program figures cited in program‑cost studies likewise show that program unit costs and procurement unit costs differ depending on which budgets and subsystems are allocated [6].
3. Development and program costs: one‑off spending skews comparisons
Longer, multinational development programs create large nonrecurring costs that inflate program‑level figures for aircraft like the Eurofighter. Some historical estimates place Eurofighter program research/development and acquisition costs substantially higher than Gripen’s, making per‑unit program costs for Typhoon notably larger when amortised over production runs [6] [7]. Those program totals matter when a buyer is comparing lifetime national investment rather than a single aircraft purchase [6] [7].
4. Operating cost narrative: Gripen’s recurring advantage — but contested
Manufacturers and some analyses stress Gripen’s lower operating cost per flight hour and simpler logistics as a major economic advantage; Saab and Jane’s studies have promoted Gripen as cheapest in its class and Saab highlights quick turnarounds and low maintenance as cost drivers [8] [9]. Independent summaries and cost‑per‑hour lists echo substantially lower figures for Gripen versus Eurofighter and Rafale, though methodologies, national baselines and what is included in “operating cost” vary across sources [4] [10].
5. Recent empirical examples complicate the “cheap Gripen” story
The Colombia procurement filings and other budgetary records used by journalists show that real procurement prices can exceed expectations for Gripen — undermining the simplistic “Gripen = budget fighter” narrative for every buyer [3] [2]. Such cases highlight political choices (industrial offsets, local production, training packages) and strategic preferences that drive prices above comparative list figures [2] [3].
6. Takeaway for readers comparing procurement costs
If you compare base aircraft list or catalogue prices, the Gripen generally appears less expensive than the Eurofighter [5] [4]. If you compare total procurement packages, lifecycle support and national industrial arrangements, the gap can close or flip — recent contract reporting shows Gripen package prices that approach modern multirole competitors’ totals [2] [3]. Available sources do not provide a single authoritative, apples‑to‑apples table that reconciles list price, procurement package, and full program amortised cost for every buyer; readers should treat headline per‑aircraft numbers as starting points, not final answers [6] [2].
Limitations and competing perspectives: Saab and some studies emphasize Gripen’s low operating costs and affordability [8] [9]; independent lists and program studies place Eurofighter higher on unit or program cost [5] [6]. Recent contract reporting shows real deals can depart from prior expectations and include elements that materially change unit‑equivalent pricing [2] [3].