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 estimated acquisition and per-unit purchase prices for the Saab Gripen E vs the Lockheed Martin F-35?
Executive summary
Public reporting gives widely differing headline "prices" for the Saab Gripen E and the Lockheed Martin F‑35 depending on whether sources quote unit flyaway price, lifetime cost, or entire acquisition packages. Independent listings put a Gripen E around $85 million per airframe (a commonly cited catalog/production estimate) while some recent deals and country statements show per‑aircraft package costs far higher (for example Colombia’s reported €3.1bn for 17 jets, ~€182.4m / ~$213m each) [1] [2]. The F‑35 is often discussed in terms of a roughly $200m lifetime cost or much larger national acquisition bundles; some governments argue the F‑35 acquisition and operating cost can be lower than alternatives when program support and capabilities are counted [3] [4].
1. Sticker price vs. deal package — why the numbers jump
Published “per‑jet” figures can mean very different things: a catalog or production unit cost (what one plane costs to build), a negotiated acquisition package (airframes plus spares, weapons, support, training and infrastructure), or a lifetime cost estimate (acquisition plus decades of operating and sustainment). Aerotime’s toplist cites the Saab JAS 39E/F Gripen at about $85 million per unit, which reads like a platform/production estimate rather than a full systems package [1]. By contrast, the Colombia announcement reported by NDA Study frames a €3.1 billion contract for 17 Gripen E/F as a package cost—working out to roughly $212.9 million per aircraft when the whole deal is divided across 17 jets [2].
2. The Gripen E: lean airframe, but variable deal totals
Saab’s Gripen E is commonly portrayed as lower per‑unit and lower operating‑cost than fifth‑generation jets; an industry list puts its price near $85 million per aircraft as a benchmark production figure [1]. Yet modern procurements demonstrate that nation‑level deals routinely push per‑aircraft package costs much higher because they include weapons, logistics, industrial offsets and sovereign support: the Colombia package cited by NDA Study translates to about $213 million per jet when divided evenly [2]. That gap shows procurement context matters: buyers seeking industrial cooperation, domestic workshare or extended support packages will pay substantially more than a simple catalog price [2] [1].
3. The F‑35: capability premium, but contested cost framing
Reporting often frames the F‑35’s “cost” in two ways: lifetime cost per aircraft and negotiated acquisition lots. Some outlets summarize an F‑35 lifetime cost near $200 million per plane—language used to compare long‑run expenses with other types [3]. Meanwhile, countries participating in the program can point to scale, sustainment arrangements and broader capability (stealth, sensors, networks) as reasons the F‑35 can deliver better value per mission even if its headline price looks higher. The Czech Republic, for instance, publicly argued that the F‑35 would be cheaper to acquire and operate than the Gripen E in their selection process, signaling national procurement analysis can favor the F‑35 depending on assumptions about sustainment and mission needs [4].
4. Competing viewpoints: affordability vs capability vs sovereignty
Advocates for Gripen emphasize lower baseline costs and operational affordability and note Saab’s offers often include industrial offsets and domestic work—points that appeal to buyers worried about strategic autonomy [1] [5]. F‑35 defenders, and some purchasing governments, counter that lifecycle economics and superior fifth‑generation capabilities can make the F‑35 a better long‑term investment; the Czech government explicitly claimed the F‑35 would be cheaper overall than Gripen E in its decision [4]. Independent criticism also exists: some commentators dispute overly low operating‑cost claims for Gripen, noting manufacturer‑funded figures have been challenged in competitions [6].
5. What the data do and do not say (limitations)
Available sources do not provide a single, authoritative per‑unit figure that applies universally because price depends on configuration, lot size, offset workshare, weapons, training and infrastructure—elements that vary by buyer [2] [1]. The Aerotime $85m number reads as a unit benchmark for Gripen E production [1]; the NDA Study’s Colombia figure is a reported package price dividing €3.1bn by 17 jets to get roughly $213m each [2]. Reporting that the F‑35 costs “$200m lifetime per plane” or that it can be cheaper to acquire and operate are both present in the record, reflecting competing national analyses and different cost metrics [3] [4].
6. Practical takeaway for comparisons and procurement debates
Comparisons must state which metric they use: flyaway price, acquisition package, or lifecycle cost. If you want a straight production benchmark, use figures like Aerotime’s ~$85m for the Gripen E [1]; if you want real‑world procurement reality, examine reported deal totals (e.g., Colombia’s €3.1bn/17 jets) and government cost‑benefit statements about F‑35 vs Gripen [2] [4]. Expect numbers to vary widely depending on political priorities (industrial offsets, sovereignty), operational requirements, and whether an analyst credits program‑wide economies of scale for the F‑35 [5] [4].
If you want, I can extract and tabulate the different cited figures (catalog price, reported deal price, lifetime estimate) for a side‑by‑side comparison drawn only from these sources.