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 operational costs of the Gripen compared to the F-35?
Executive summary
Available reporting presents conflicting and sometimes exaggerated claims about operating costs: some outlets quote lifetime-per-aircraft figures of about $200 million for the F-35 and roughly half that for a Gripen E [1], while other coverage calls claims that the Gripen costs only about $5,000 per flight hour and that the F-35 costs “tens of thousands” per hour “egregious lies” [2]. A separate analysis cited here claims Gripen‑E engine costs of about $4,000 per flight hour versus an F‑35A figure of $21,000 [3]. Reporting also records stakeholders arguing both that Gripen supporters stress lower operational costs and F‑35 advocates stress other mission advantages [4].
1. Cost soundbites vs. procurement reality
Media accounts often reduce lifecycle and operating costs to single headline numbers: The National reported a lifetime cost per aircraft of roughly $200 million for the F‑35 and “just over half” that for the Gripen E [1]. Those high‑level comparisons are appealing in public debate but mask what defence economists call differences in scope — procurement price, sustainment, training, infrastructure changes (for example, aerial refuelling systems), and platform mission‑set — all of which some pieces mention as extra costs beyond per‑aircraft tallies [1].
2. Hourly operating‑cost claims — widely quoted, widely disputed
A recurring talking point is that Gripen operating costs are tiny — figures like “$5,000 per flight hour” for the Gripen versus “tens of thousands” for the F‑35 have circulated. The Hub explicitly labels that $5,000 vs. tens‑of‑thousands framing as “one of the most egregious lies being peddled,” arguing verified procurement competition data removed such disinformation and that Finland’s evaluation found the F‑35 the more cost‑effective fit within its budget [2]. At the same time, an independent‑style breakdown cited here claims the Gripen‑E’s single GE F414 engine costs about $4,000 per flight hour versus an F‑35A figure of $21,000 [3]. The two narratives cannot be reconciled from these sources alone; one source calls the low Gripen‑hour claim misinformation [2] while another presents a very low per‑hour engine cost for the Gripen [3].
3. What the comparisons actually leave out
Reporting highlights several omitted elements that change the arithmetic: interoperability with allied forces, stealth and sensor capabilities (5th‑gen vs. 4.5‑gen), availability rates, and ancillary infrastructure — for example, a shift from hose‑and‑drogue to flying‑boom refuelling to support F‑35s could add substantial program costs (one outlet estimated $1.5 billion for four tankers in the Canadian context) [1]. Gripen advocates point to high availability and lower operational burden; F‑35 advocates emphasise interoperability and advanced capabilities — both points appear in coverage and affect value judgments beyond a simple dollars‑per‑hour metric [4].
4. The Finnish competition and Colombia deal — selective evidence
The Hub cites Finland’s competition outcome as evidence that when binding data are provided, “disinformation falls away” and the F‑35 was judged the most cost‑effective [2]. Conversely, a cost breakdown around Colombia’s 2025 Gripen‑E purchase frames the Gripen as having “lowest‑cost operations across 30 years” with engine‑hour claims cited at $4,000 vs. $21,000 for the F‑35A [3]. These two examples show that national requirements, evaluation methodologies and included cost items (aircraft life, sustainment contracts, national industrial offsets) drive different conclusions [2] [3].
5. How stakeholders frame the debate
Coverage shows clear advocacy lines: Gripen supporters emphasise affordability and availability; F‑35 proponents stress interoperability with U.S./NATO forces and fifth‑generation capability [4]. The Hub accuses some public claims favoring Gripen cost advantages of being deliberate misinformation in a domestic procurement debate [2]. Readers should view cost figures as arguments in a procurement fight rather than neutral, directly comparable metrics unless the underlying scope and methodology are disclosed [2] [4].
6. Bottom line for readers: demand the apples‑to‑apples
Available sources demonstrate competing claims but do not provide a single, fully transparent apples‑to‑apples breakdown of total operating cost per flight hour or per life‑cycle that all parties agree on [1] [2] [3] [4]. If you want a definitive comparison, seek the procurement‑level cost worksheets used in formal competitions (which specify years, flight hours, infrastructure, training and sustainment assumptions) — current reporting shows these numbers are contested and often used politically [2] [3] [4].