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 availability and sortie rates for Gripen compare to F-35 in air forces that operate Gripen?
Executive summary
Countries operating Gripen generally report higher availability and lower operating costs in public comparisons, with Gripen advocates claiming availability around “85% or better” [1] and lower flight-hour costs than the F‑35 [2]. By contrast, reporting and official reviews cite persistent availability shortfalls for the F‑35 relative to benchmarks and older fighters [1] [3]; however, independent competitions (e.g., Finland) and defense officials note tradeoffs — capability, stealth and sensor fusion versus simpler logistics and lower life‑cycle cost — and some governments concluded the F‑35 was more cost‑effective overall [4] [2].
1. What politicians and manufacturers are saying: availability and cost claims
Saab and Gripen proponents repeatedly emphasize high availability and low operating cost: public pieces and commentary assert Gripen availability rates of “85% or better” and argue its design minimizes logistics and maintenance burdens [1] [3] [5]. Coverage of the Canada debate features Saab promises to produce Gripen in Canada and touts quick delivery and industrial benefits [6] [7]. Countering that, critics and some analysts say cost and availability claims can be overstated; one media critique calls specific low operating‑cost figures for Gripen “egregious lies” and notes that when manufacturers must provide verifiable, binding data in competitions, those claims don’t always hold up — pointing to Finland’s decision process where F‑35 was judged most cost‑effective within the funding frame [4] [2].
2. What the reporting shows about F‑35 availability problems
Multiple news items and summaries cite studies and reviews noting the F‑35’s availability has lagged expectations — one widely‑reported line says a 7‑year‑old F‑35 had similar availability to much older platforms, a finding used to argue the F‑35’s readiness is below benchmarks [3] [1]. That narrative fuels political debate (Canada’s review) and is a central criticism in pieces comparing it with simpler, more easily maintained fighters like Gripen [3] [5].
3. Operational context: sortie rates and types of missions matter
Availability and sortie rates are operational metrics shaped by mission type, maintenance doctrine, supply chains and how governments measure “mission capable” status; authoritative figures are often withheld or unevenly published [8]. Analyses warn comparing raw availability numbers across different air forces and generations of aircraft can be misleading because the F‑35’s sensor fusion, stealthy operations, and software‑heavy sustainment model place different demands on supply and depot support than a 4.5‑generation fighter engineered for austere basing like the Gripen [8] [3].
4. What procurement competitions reveal about real tradeoffs
Where states ran open competitions, outcomes show nuanced tradeoffs. The public record includes cases where Saab’s pitch of lower operating costs and ease of basing was persuasive, and other cases (e.g., Finland cited by critics) where evaluators found the F‑35’s overall package — including capability and lifecycle estimates within the available budget — to be preferable [4] [2]. Reporting on Canada’s deliberations highlights that industrial benefits, Arctic suitability, and cost arguments are central to Gripen advocacy, while defence officials stress the necessity of fifth‑generation capabilities [6] [4].
5. Data gaps and how to read the claims
Independent, consistent, transparent datasets comparing sortie rates and operational availability across operators are not present in the provided sources; several pieces warn national figures can be political or incomplete [8] [4]. Some sources present specific hourly cost estimates (Gripen E ~ $22,100/hr; older Gripen C/D ~$20,600/hr; F‑35A “over $46,000/hr”) but note those figures were contested in procurement contexts [2] [4]. Therefore, absolute comparisons of sortie rates or availability percentages should be treated cautiously: available reporting shows patterns and arguments, not uncontested, fully comparable performance data [8] [4].
6. Bottom line for readers weighing Gripen vs F‑35 availability/ sortie performance
Public reporting and vendor claims indicate Gripen operators prioritize higher availability, easier sustainment in austere settings, and lower flying‑hour costs [1] [3] [2]. Conversely, critiques and procurement outcomes highlight the F‑35’s readiness challenges but also its unmatched sensor/stealth capabilities and, in some competitions, better overall value when evaluated against the government’s requirements and funding envelope [3] [4]. Where they disagree, officials and independent evaluators matter more than marketing claims; the open competitions and government reviews cited in the reporting are the most reliable signposts for real comparative performance [4] [2].
Limitations: available sources do not provide a single standardized dataset of sortie rates or mission‑capable percentages across Gripen and F‑35 operators; many numerical claims are contested in procurement contexts and differ by country [8] [4].