Where can I find authoritative sources and databases (official service reports, DOT&E, GAO, FOIA releases) for historical MC and sortie data on Gripen and F-35?

1. Where the strongest official data exist — F‑35 oversight files

If you need quantified historical MC and sortie information for the F‑35, GAO reports are the authoritative audited source cited repeatedly in current reporting: GAO’s September 3, 2025 report (GAO‑25‑107632) analyzes deliveries, readiness, sustainment spending and mission-capable trends and is explicitly built on program data and site visits ^{[1] [5]}. GAO products list methodologies, appendices and sometimes raw readiness figures and program counts; follow those GAO report pages and their appendices to extract year-by-year MC rates, depot activity and delivery delays ^{[1] [6]}.

2. Gaps for Gripen — national sources and manufacturer data

For Gripen, there is no equivalent multinational oversight body with the same centralized public dataset as GAO for the F‑35 in the provided search results; instead you will need to assemble data from national air force service reports (e.g., Swedish Defence Materiel Administration, Brazil/Sweden procurement documents), Saab releases and country procurement filings ^[3]. Media coverage (CBC, CTV, BNN/Globe pieces) and industry pieces compile procurement numbers and availability claims but do not replace audited, time‑series sortie/MC logs ^{[7] [8] [9]}.

3. FOIA/FOI as a practical route — expect patchwork returns

For both types, targeted Freedom of Information (FOIA/FOI) requests to the service custodians of operational logs (U.S. Air Force/USN/USMC for F‑35; Sweden’s FMV/Swedish Air Force or partner nations for Gripen) are often necessary to get sortie-by-sortie or squadron-level MC history; the public FOIA infrastructure and monthly logs exist but returns are ad hoc and redacted (examples of agency FOIA pages shown in the results) ^{[10] [11]}. Note: FOIA logs are administrative; specific operational metrics require narrowly scoped requests and may be exempted or heavily redacted ^[12].

4. Complementary sources: inspector general, program office and press

Besides GAO, look at DoD/Program Office releases, inspector general summaries and service readiness reports for supplemental F‑35 numbers — these are cited or excerpted in media coverage and GAO analysis because they feed the watchdog’s work ^{[13] [6]}. For Gripen, manufacturer briefings, Saab statements and country procurement documents are the typical starting points; they must be triangulated against independent reporting to avoid relying solely on vendor claims ^{[14] [9]}.

5. Media and think‑tank coverage — useful but partisan and uneven

News outlets and specialist sites (CBC, CTV, Business Insider, Defense Industry Europe, Hush‑Kit, national security journals) give contemporaneous context—e.g., readiness debates, cost comparisons and NATO air policing incidents—but their metrics may mix program office numbers, vendor claims and activist perspectives ^{[7] [15] [16]}. Use these to flag issues or leads for FOIA queries, not as substitute primary data ^[4].

6. Practical research plan and caveats

Start with GAO reports for F‑35 audited time series (pull appendices and cited datasets) ^{[1] [2]}. For Gripen, compile national ministry of defence annual reports, Saab technical and delivery statements, and procurement contracts ^{[3] [14]}. Submit FOIA/FOI requests to specific custodians for squadron sortie logs or MC reports (expect redactions and long timelines) and triangulate with independent media and watchdog reporting to expose discrepancies ^{[10] [12] [6]}. Be explicit about what you want (dates, units, MC definition) since mission‑capable definitions and sortie counting differ between services; the GAO notes these methodological issues in F‑35 oversight ^[1].

Limitations: the provided search results contain extensive GAO material for the F‑35 and plenty of procurement coverage for Gripen, but they do not include a single public historical dataset for Gripen MC/sortie metrics; available sources do not mention a consolidated, open international database that mirrors GAO’s treatment of the F‑35 (not found in current reporting) ^{[1] [3]}.