How do operating costs per flight hour compare between the Gripen variants and F-35 block/configurations?
Executive summary
Public reporting and industry statements give conflicting pictures: Saab and some secondary outlets report Gripen C/D at about $20,600–$22,100 per flight hour and F-35A over $46,000 per hour (Saab-sourced figures reported by Defense Express) [1]. Governmental and independent analyses dispute those low Gripen figures and some national procurement reviews say total lifetime or operating costs can favor the F‑35 once acquisition, logistics and national-implementation costs are included (Czech government / Aviation Week reporting) [2].
1. What the manufacturers and pro‑Gripen sources say: low hourly costs
Saab-provided numbers circulated in industry comparisons and quoted by outlets claim older Gripen C/D costs roughly $20,600 per flight hour and the newer Gripen E/F about $22,100 per hour (covering fuel, maintenance, crew and logistics) while citing an F‑35A figure “over $46,000” per hour for contrast [1]. Advocates cite the Gripen’s design philosophy — small logistics footprint, lower fuel burn and simpler support chain — to argue materially lower operating costs per hour versus the F‑35 [3].
2. Pushback from procurement reviews and critics: figures disputed
Independent observers and procurement authorities have pushed back. Reporting on past competitions shows critics calling earlier ultra‑low Gripen hourly claims (e.g., a widely circulated $5,000/hr figure) misleading or based on vendor‑funded studies that do not stand under scrutiny; Finnish and other procurement processes rejected those low estimates when demanding verifiable, binding data [4]. The Czech government explicitly reported that when comparing acquisition plus operating implications for national implementation the F‑35 could be cheaper than Gripen E in their selection [2].
3. Why numbers diverge: different scopes and assumptions
Available reporting makes clear the divergence stems from different definitions and assumptions. Saab/Gripen figures cited include direct hourly costs for fuel, maintenance and immediate logistics [1]. Critics and government analyses factor in broader programmatic costs — national sustainment, infrastructure changes (for example tanker doctrine), spare parts supply chains, training, and lifecycle modernization — which can tilt lifetime or per‑hour fully burdened costs in favor of one platform or the other [2] [4].
4. Examples from national procurements: context matters
National procurement outcomes underline that context matters. The Czech Republic published analysis concluding F‑35 acquisition plus operation could be cheaper for its specific requirements and industrial setup, a position reported by Aviation Week [2]. Conversely, advocacy pieces around Canada’s fighter debate emphasize Gripen readiness rates and low operating costs as central selling points, arguing Gripen’s shorter turnaround and lower hourly expense suit large, remote territories [5] [6]. Both positions use selective metrics that reflect country‑specific needs.
5. What the public numbers do — and do not — tell you
Public hourly figures (e.g., $20–22k for Gripen, $46k+ for F‑35A as reported) are useful headline comparators but do not, by themselves, determine the most economical choice for a particular air force [1]. Available sources do not provide a single, independently audited dataset reconciling these numbers across identical scopes for both aircraft. Procurement decisions cited in the sources show governments weigh acquisition price, national logistics, interoperability, industrial offsets and infrastructure changes as heavily as raw flight‑hour costs [2] [4].
6. How to interpret competing claims — and what to demand from vendors
Given the conflicting public claims, buyers and analysts should demand: (a) clearly defined flight‑hour scopes (what’s included: fuel, direct maintenance, indirect support, overheads, infrastructure amortization), (b) country‑specific lifecycle models over realistic fleet sizes and mission profiles, and (c) verifiable, binding contractual cost data where possible. Sources show vendor‑provided hourly claims can be optimistic if not tied to binding supply and sustainment commitments [4] [1].
Limitations and final note: available sources are limited to industry reports, advocacy pieces and a few government statements; they conflict on methodology and outcome. They do not contain a single, neutral, audited comparison that applies identical assumptions to both the Gripen variants and F‑35 blocks across multiple user nations, so definitive cross‑platform hourly rankings cannot be stated from these sources alone [1] [2] [4].