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 maintenance costs of the Gripen compare to the F-35?
Executive Summary
The available analyses show a consistent pattern: multiple reports and Saab claims place the Gripen’s lifecycle and per-flight-hour costs substantially below those of the F-35, while U.S. oversight reports document rising F-35 sustainment costs and readiness challenges. Estimates vary widely—Saab-backed and independent items put Gripen costs as low as one-third to less than half of F-35 lifecycle costs, while U.S. government reports show the F-35’s sustainment burden rising into the billions annually and per-aircraft annual sustainment in the mid-single millions [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. The Core Claim: Gripen is Cheaper to Maintain — What the Numbers Say
Multiple analyses assert the Gripen’s maintenance and lifecycle costs are materially lower than the F-35’s, with specific figures ranging from about $8,000 per flight hour for the Gripen versus $33,300 for the F-35A and Saab’s claim that Gripen lifecycle costs are “less than half and as low as one-third” of F-35 costs [2] [1]. Independent government reporting on the F-35 corroborates high and rising sustainment expenditures: the F-35 program’s operating and support costs exceeded $5 billion in 2023, and sustainment estimates grew from $1.1 trillion in 2018 to $1.58 trillion in 2023, with an estimated $6.6 million per-aircraft annual sustainment figure cited by the U.S. Air Force and GAO reviews [4] [3]. These numbers create a clear headline contrast in ongoing cost burden.
2. Where the Gripen Claims Come From and Potential Motivations
The most aggressive claims that Gripen lifecycle costs can be one-third to one-half of F-35 costs trace back to Saab and industry-affiliated studies reported in Aviation Week Network; these are framed as lifecycle cost comparisons across multiple fighter systems [1]. Industry and vendor analyses commonly emphasize operating-cost advantages to support exports and procurement bids; the Gripen’s lower logistical footprint and single-engine design are presented as structural drivers of those savings [1] [2]. Readers should treat manufacturer-linked summaries as factual claims to be weighed against independent audits; the presence of commercial incentives to highlight cost advantages is an evident possible agenda when industry figures are cited.
3. U.S. Government Oversight: F-35 Costs and Readiness Trends
Congressional and GAO reporting provides independent confirmation of high F-35 sustainment costs and readiness issues, documenting increased sustainment estimates and operational shortfalls. The F-35’s overall O&S costs exceeded $5 billion in 2023 and projected lifecycle sustainment climbed sharply to $1.58 trillion by 2023, with GAO highlighting mission-capable shortfalls, slow repair times, and sustainment strategy concerns [4] [3] [5]. These reports do not include Gripen in their comparative tables, but they validate that F-35 sustainment represents a major, rising fiscal commitment for operators—context that makes lower-cost alternatives economically attractive for some states.
4. Conflicting or Nuanced Findings: Purchase Price vs. Lifecycle Costs
Some analyses point out a narrowing of the purchase-price gap: F-35 unit costs have fallen (reported near $82 million per unit in one analysis), while the Gripen’s lower operating costs are often emphasized as offsetting acquisition price differences [2]. This creates a nuanced comparison: upfront procurement cost trends and per-unit capabilities versus long-term sustainment burden. Sources note that certain authorities argue F-35’s advanced capabilities and sensor fusion provide a better long-term cost-benefit despite higher sustainment costs, while others highlight that for many air forces constrained by budget or specific mission sets, Gripen’s substantially lower hourly and lifecycle costs can be decisive [2] [6].
5. Missing, Conflicting, and Contextual Data to Watch For
The dataset available does not provide standardized, independently audited lifecycle comparisons that account for differing mission profiles, fleet size, or national sustainment infrastructures. Key omissions include consistent, recent per-flight-hour data across both platforms from neutral auditors and direct operational availability comparisons under equivalent conditions. Some articles compare availability and hourly costs for other fighters (Rafale, F-22) but leave Gripen figures less systematically documented in non-industry sources; independent GAO-style sustainment audits exist for the F-35 but not an equivalent public cross-platform lifecycle audit including Gripen [7] [8].
6. Bottom Line: What Policymakers and Analysts Should Take Away
Factually, the preponderance of cited material indicates the Gripen’s operating and maintenance costs are lower than the F-35’s, with varying magnitudes reported—industry and some independent articles place Gripen per-flight-hour and lifecycle costs substantially below those of the F-35, while U.S. GAO and service reports confirm the F-35’s high and rising sustainment burden [1] [2] [4] [3]. Decision-makers should weigh capability differences, mission needs, fleet size effects, and independent sustainment audits rather than relying solely on vendor claims—and note that the most robust, government-origin data in this set documents the F-35’s significant sustainment costs but does not provide a directly comparable neutral lifecycle study that includes Gripen [4] [3].