How do hourly operating and maintenance costs of Gripen and F-35 compare?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Published figures for per‑hour operating and maintenance costs vary widely: Saab’s public data cited by outlets puts Gripen C/D at about $20,600 and Gripen E/F at about $22,100 per flight hour while an F‑35A figure cited by Defense Express exceeds $46,000 (Saab/Fighter Aircraft Through Life Costs as reported) [1]. Other outlets report very different numbers—estimates range from Gripen under $10,000 vs F‑35 roughly $36,000 per flight hour [2]—and national procurement reviews have reached opposing conclusions on which jet is cheaper to run [3] [1].
1. Conflicting headline numbers: Why published hourly costs disagree
There is no single authoritative per‑hour figure universally accepted in reporting: Defense Express relays Saab’s numbers placing Gripen hour costs near $20,600–$22,100 and F‑35A over $46,000 [1], while Canadian Defence Review cites a contrast with Gripen under $10,000 and F‑35 around $36,000 [2]. The Czech government, conversely, has argued the F‑35 will be cheaper to acquire and operate than Gripen E in its selection paperwork [3]. These contradictions show that reported “cost per flight hour” depends heavily on what’s included and who is doing the accounting [1] [2] [3].
2. What gets counted — the taxonomy behind the numbers
Public reporting highlights that different studies bundle different cost categories. Some industry figures (as presented by Saab via Defense Express) say their numbers “include maintenance, fuel, crew, and logistics expenses” [1]. Other commentators explicitly note the F‑35’s reported operating costs “include practically everything, including pay for maintainers and techs,” implying broader inclusions can raise an aircraft’s reported per‑hour cost [4]. Reporting therefore reflects divergent scopes: direct flight‑line maintenance and fuel versus full lifecycle, personnel and infrastructure costs [1] [4].
3. National reviews reach opposite conclusions
Governments draw different inferences from similar data. The Czech Republic publicly asserted the F‑35 would be cheaper to acquire and operate than Saab’s Gripen E when explaining its procurement choice [3]. By contrast, some analysts and national advocates—especially in Canada—contend Gripen delivers far lower operating costs and higher availability, arguing it may suit large, austere territories better [5] [2]. These opposing positions reflect policy priorities (e.g., industrial links, alliance interoperability, stealth) as well as which cost assumptions each side emphasizes [3] [5] [2].
4. Availability, mission profile and hidden operational drivers
Beyond straight dollars per hour, sources flag operational availability and mission needs as decisive. Commentary claiming Gripen E “demonstrates almost twice the average operational availability” and can be rapidly turn‑around operated from austere surfaces frames lower downtime and simpler basing as cost multipliers in real operations [5]. Conversely, proponents of the F‑35 lean on capability delivery and alliance interoperability — elements not fully captured in per‑hour maintenance tallies [5] [3].
5. Takeaway for decision‑makers and the public
Available reporting shows no single, uncontested per‑flight‑hour number; published estimates for Gripen and F‑35 vary by tens of thousands of dollars depending on source and accounting scope [1] [2]. Procurement documents from governments can favor one jet or the other by choosing different assumptions [3]. Any meaningful comparison requires transparent, line‑item arithmetic: define whether figures include sustainment, personnel, training, infrastructure and industrial offsets, and test those assumptions against expected mission profiles [1] [4] [2].
Limitations and unanswered items: available sources do not mention a unified, independent audit that reconciles these differing hourly figures across all assumed cost categories.