Fact check: What are the procurement costs of the Gripen versus the F-35?

1. Why the headline numbers favor Gripen — and what they actually mean

News coverage presents the Gripen as a more affordable option primarily by contrasting operational and lifecycle cost estimates with the F-35’s rising acquisition total, but that framing conflates different metrics and procurement scopes. Articles note the F-35 program’s Canadian acquisition tally sits at CAD 27.7 billion for the full option to 88 aircraft and that unit purchase ranges reported in USD are between about 82 and 100 million ^{[1] [2]}. Separately, commentators and advocacy pieces emphasize Gripen’s lower operating cost ratios — often cited as a fraction (one-fifth to one-sixth) of F-35 operating costs — without providing a standardized procurement unit price for Saab’s jets in the Canadian context ^{[1] [3]}. This means the apparent bargain for Gripen in public discussion is driven by operational-cost comparisons and aggregate program totals, not a single authoritative per-airframe acquisition price.

2. The F-35’s published procurement totals and their evolution

Reporting through October 2025 records an upward revision in the F-35’s Canadian acquisition estimate, with outlets flagging a 46% increase since 2022 and the current contract figures presented as CAD 27.7 billion for up to 88 aircraft, including sustainment and program costs as laid out in government communications ^{[2] [1]}. Journalists and policy pieces cite contractual commitments for an initial tranche of 16 jets with options to expand to the full fleet, and they reference unit-price ranges in USD to illustrate market pricing of the F-35 ^[1]. These published totals mix purchase price, sustainment, and system integration expenses, so headline procurement totals reflect program scope and lifecycle assumptions rather than bare airframe sticker prices ^[2].

3. Operational and sustainment costs swing the calculus

Analysts repeatedly stress the F-35’s higher maintenance and operating costs relative to the Gripen, with cited ratios placing Gripen operating costs at roughly one-fifth to one-sixth of F-35 figures in the public commentary examined ^{[1] [3]}. These operational-cost differentials are central to arguments that Gripen could deliver greater fleet size or sortie capacity for a comparable lifetime budget, but the reviewed pieces do not provide standardized lifecycle-cost models calibrated to Canadian mission sets, basing arguments on generalized program metrics instead ^[4]. Thus, while the operational advantage for Gripen is repeatedly asserted, direct lifecycle-comparison tables tied to Canadian requirements are absent in the material.

4. Industrial benefits and political dynamics shift value judgments

Coverage highlights that procurement choices are not purely about per-unit price but also about industrial offsets, domestic production, and interoperability. Reports mention potential deals to build Gripens in Canada as part of industrial-return discussions and emphasize concerns about NORAD interoperability and alliance politics should Canada mix platforms or reduce F-35 orders ^{[3] [5]}. Letters and commentary reflect public debate over sovereignty and allied cooperation, indicating that procurement cost is weighed against political, industrial and defense-integration factors in recent Canadian deliberations ^{[6] [5]}.

5. What’s missing from public comparisons — and why it matters

The reviewed articles consistently lack a single apples-to-apples procurement unit price for Gripen configured to Canadian requirements, and they do not publish a Canadian-specific lifecycle cost model comparing build, sustainment, training, and infrastructure for both platforms ^{[1] [2]}. Because F-35 totals reported include broad program and sustainment elements, and Gripen discussions are often framed around operational savings and hypothetical industrial deals, the public record reviewed does not permit a definitive per-aircraft procurement comparison without further released contract bids or government cost breakdowns ^{[2] [3]}. This omission leaves policymakers and the public relying on incomplete metrics when assessing value.

6. Divergent viewpoints and their likely agendas

Pro-F-35 reporting underscores interoperability and advanced capability as justifications for higher program costs, while Gripen advocates emphasize lower operating costs and affordability that could enable larger fleets or more domestic industrial work ^{[5] [3]}. Editorial letters and op-eds reveal concerns about sovereignty, NORAD readiness, and fiscal prudence, suggesting political constituencies influence which cost elements are foregrounded ^[6]. Each side’s framing aligns with plausible institutional agendas: military interoperability proponents prioritize alliance integration, while industrial and fiscal advocates emphasize lifecycle affordability and domestic economic returns ^{[5] [3]}.

7. Bottom line for readers seeking a firm number

Current public reporting through October 2025 makes clear that F-35 program totals for Canada are published (CAD 27.7 billion) and unit price ranges are reported in USD, while no authoritative Gripen procurement price for Canada appears in the reviewed coverage, and comparisons often rely on operational-cost ratios rather than matched acquisition contracts ^{[2] [1]}. To reach a definitive procurement-cost comparison, Canada or Saab would need to release competing, fully scoped proposals that specify unit prices, configuration, sustainment, and industrial offsets; until such documents are public, claims that one jet is definitively cheaper to procure per unit remain unproven in the sources reviewed ^{[3] [2]}.