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 and maintenance requirements of the Gripen and F-35?
Executive summary
Available reporting shows a persistent claim that the Saab Gripen has much lower cost-per-flight-hour than the Lockheed Martin F‑35—figures cited range from roughly $4,700–$7,500 for Gripen versus ~$31,000–$33,000 for the F‑35 in several analyses and commentaries [1] [2] [3]. However, newer 2024–2025 articles and government statements argue the F‑35’s total acquisition and life‑cycle cost picture has shifted, with some national procurement offices saying F‑35 buys and operating costs can be competitive with Gripen [4] [5].
1. Gripen’s operating-cost narrative: “Cheap and simple”
Jane’s–derived and long‑circulating analyses present the Gripen as the lowest operational-cost Western fighter, with estimates and manufacturer claims putting Gripen flight‑hour costs far below most peers. Older summaries and comment threads cite per‑hour numbers for Gripen in the single‑thousands of dollars (for example, cited operational figures such as $4,700 per hour appear in reporting and web commentary) and authors emphasize Saab’s design goals to minimize life‑cycle costs [1] [2]. Industry and analyst pieces repeatedly highlight Gripen’s modular avionics and simplified logistics as structural reasons for lower maintenance overhead [6].
2. F‑35’s cost picture: high per‑hour figures, but contested
Multiple sources cite high F‑35 cost‑per‑flight‑hour estimates—US Navy projections and analysts have used figures around $31,000 per flight hour and commentators commonly reference roughly $33,000 per hour for the F‑35 [2] [3]. These figures have driven the dominant narrative that the F‑35 is far more expensive to operate than Gripen. At the same time, recent reporting notes that F‑35 unit prices have fallen (for example, new lots reported down to about $82 million per aircraft in one account) and some governments claim that acquisition and operating costs for modern F‑35 buys can be competitive with alternatives [4] [5].
3. Acquisition price vs lifecycle costs: apples and oranges
Aviacionline and other outlets underscore a key tension: unit purchase price and per‑flight‑hour costs move in opposite directions in some comparisons—Gripen claimed to be cheaper to fly but sometimes slightly more expensive per unit in specific offers, while F‑35 lot prices have reportedly fallen, narrowing acquisition gaps [4]. EurasianTimes and AviationWeek cite national procurement contexts where total program costs (procurement, sustainment, infrastructure, training) change the calculus—e.g., reported Canadian budget estimates for F‑35 packages rising from CAD 19B to CAD 27.7B illustrate how acquisition costs can escalate and complicate simple per‑hour comparisons [7] [5].
4. Where figures come from — and why they disagree
Estimates derive from different sources: manufacturer claims, national program offices, analyst models (Jane’s/IHS), and media summaries. Jane’s‑based modeling warned that F‑35 CPFH (cost per flight hour) estimates were less certain due to limited in‑service data when those models were made, while Gripen and legacy types had firmer historical data [2]. Saab’s promotional numbers (and retweets of low hourly cost claims) sit alongside government statements asserting F‑35 cost reductions; commentators and think‑pieces often pick the figure that supports their argument [6] [3] [5].
5. Maintenance requirements — compact vs complex sustainment
Multiple pieces emphasize the Gripen’s design intent: modular systems, lower logistics footprint, and maintenance regimes aimed at lower life‑cycle cost, which should translate into fewer ground support demands and faster turnarounds compared with higher‑end fifth‑generation sustainment models [6] [2]. By contrast, the F‑35’s stealth and high integration demand more specialized maintenance, infrastructure and supply‑chain arrangements—factors that raise sustainment complexity and program overhead in many analyses and government reviews [2] [5].
6. Competing viewpoints and procurement agendas
Public claims about costs reflect procurement politics and industry agendas. Saab and proponents of Gripen stress low CPFH and simpler logistics; Lockheed Martin and some governments argue that F‑35 economies of scale, falling unit prices, and networked capability justify higher sustainment complexity [4] [5]. Independent analysts (Jane’s/IHS) caution that early F‑35 per‑hour modeling had uncertainty and that real‑world program costs depend on fleet size, national support arrangements, and which variant is used [2].
7. Bottom line for decision‑makers
If your priority is lowest estimated cost per flight hour and minimal sustainment footprint, the Gripen is consistently presented as the more economical option in available reporting [1] [2]. If you emphasize stealth, advanced sensor fusion and procurement ecosystems where F‑35 program scale can lower unit prices or offer broader integration, recent government statements argue the F‑35 can be competitive on total cost of ownership [4] [5]. Available sources do not provide a single, authoritative, current per‑hour ledger that reconciles competing claims across all variants and national support packages; procurement outcomes will hinge on the specific purchase lot, variant, national logistics arrangements, and what costs (acquisition, infrastructure, training, sustainment) are included [2] [5].