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.
What are the lifecycle costs of the Gripen and F-35 aircraft?
Executive summary
Reported lifetime or “per-aircraft life-cycle” cost estimates for the F‑35 typically center around roughly $200 million per aircraft (reported as a lifetime cost) while multiple outlets describe Gripen’s lifecycle costs as roughly half of that or “just over half” the F‑35’s figure; competing claims exist about hourly operating costs (from Saab studies and critical rebuttals). Key recent reporting: The National quotes a ~$200 million lifetime F‑35 cost and Gripen at just over half that [1]; other outlets emphasize disputed per‑hour figures and political/industrial offsets in Canada’s procurement debate [2] [3] [4].
1. Lifecycle headline numbers — what reporters are citing
Several news stories summarize lifecycle comparisons by giving a single “lifetime” price for the F‑35 of about $200 million per aircraft and saying the Gripen is “just over half” that amount [1]. An independent analysis piece about Colombia’s Gripen‑E deal frames per‑aircraft acquisition cost for that sale at about €3.1 billion for 17 jets (~$212.9 million per aircraft) but uses that to discuss total program and geopolitical costs rather than a universal lifecycle metric [4]. These numbers are being used in public debates as shorthand for “lifecycle costs,” but the exact components included vary across reports [1] [4].
2. What “lifecycle cost” can mean — different slices, different stories
Journalists and advocates often conflate acquisition price, operating (per‑flight‑hour) costs, maintenance/ sustainment, training, infrastructure and program overhead when talking lifecycle costs. For example, coverage notes the F‑35’s high logistics and training ecosystem (longer pilot training hours cited in one analysis) as drivers of higher lifecycle expenses [4]. Canadian reporting and commentary explicitly tie lifecycle claims to procurement tradeoffs — jobs, tanker compatibility and industrial offsets — showing that lifecycle figures can be used politically [3] [1].
3. The per‑hour controversy — big disagreements
A recurring point is a claim that Gripen operates at very low hourly costs (figures as low as ~$5,000 per flight hour have been circulated in Saab‑linked material) and that F‑35 costs tens of thousands per hour; that claim is disputed. TheHub calls the “$5,000 per hour for Gripen vs tens of thousands for F‑35” an “egregious lie” rooted in a 2012 Saab‑funded study and says it does not hold up under scrutiny [2]. That illustrates how single‑number hourly claims are contested in public reporting [2].
4. Training, logistics and interoperability as lifecycle drivers
One analysis argues F‑35 pilots require significantly more training hours (claimed 400+ versus 200 for Gripen‑E), which would compound lifecycle costs through simulator hours, fuel, instructor time and fleet readiness burdens [4]. Other reporting highlights that the F‑35’s stealth and sensor network bring an “enormous logistical ecosystem” that increases sustainment cost compared with the “designed to be super affordable operationally” Gripen argument used by Saab supporters [4] [1].
5. Political and industrial offsets change real costs on the ground
Canadian coverage shows procurement debates are not purely about raw lifecycle math: Saab promises jobs and domestic industrial participation for Gripen, while the F‑35 contract (reported at C$27 billion or similar program totals in other reporting) has been criticized for not delivering as many local jobs as expected — these industrial packages shift the effective lifecycle and program cost in national political calculations [3] [1]. The Colombia deal discussion also emphasizes geopolitical choices and offsets as part of the overall cost picture [4].
6. Limitations in available reporting — what’s not settled
Provided sources do not publish an apples‑to‑apples, audited lifecycle cost breakdown that includes acquisition, training, sustainment, fuel, upgrades and program overhead for both aircraft in the same currency and time frame; therefore precise comparative lifecycle totals cannot be stated from these articles alone (available sources do not mention a single, comparable lifecycle spreadsheet) [4] [1] [2] [3]. Where single figures are cited (e.g., $200 million per F‑35 lifetime), sources differ on what’s included and opponents dispute some underlying studies [1] [2].
7. How to interpret these claims as a reader
Treat headline numbers as indicative rather than definitive: multiple outlets report the F‑35 as materially more expensive over a lifetime and the Gripen as lower‑cost, but critics say some low Gripen cost claims rely on vendor studies and disputed per‑hour math [1] [2]. Procurement choices in Canada and Colombia show lifecycle cost estimates are embedded in broader political, industrial and operational tradeoffs [3] [4]. For rigorous procurement comparison you would need an independent, itemized lifecycle cost model that both sides accept — not found in the current reporting (available sources do not mention such a mutually accepted audit) [4] [2].
Sources: The National on lifetime estimates [1]; NDA Study analysis and Colombia deal context [4]; TheHub rebuttal on per‑hour claims [2]; CBC coverage of Canada’s procurement and industrial offset debate [3].