Which countries publish real-world operational cost data for gripen e and f-35a fleets?
Executive summary
Public, real-world operational cost data for Gripen E and F-35A fleets is limited and fragmented in open reporting. Available sources cite government or manufacturer-derived flight-hour estimates and a few country-specific procurement analyses — for example, articles relay Gripen E hourly-cost figures ranging from about $4,000–$27,000 per flight hour in disputed reports and F-35A estimates ranging from roughly $21,000 up to $46,000+ per hour — but those numbers come from different methods and contested reporting [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. What public numbers exist — and who publishes them?
Governments, manufacturers and defense outlets are the visible publishers in the sources provided. Saab and allied reporting are quoted for Gripen per‑hour estimates (Saab-origin figures appear in secondary reporting) while F‑35A costs are reported via U.S. or operator-derived figures cited in industry and media. For example, a comparison piece attributes a Gripen E engine cost of “$4,000 per flight hour” and an F‑35A figure of “$21,000” per hour in an analysis of Colombia’s deal cited by NDA Study [1]. Other pieces cite very different ranges: one analysis gives a Gripen E estimated $8,000/hour and F‑35A $33,000/hour based on U.S. Air Force data [2], while outlets quoting Saab or Defense Express list Gripen E ~ $22,100/hour and F‑35A “over $46,000”/hour [4]. Radio‑Canada/Canadian reporting referenced performance scoring rather than raw per‑hour cost data [5].
2. Which countries publish operational-cost datasets publicly?
Available sources do not present a definitive list of countries that publish standardized, audited operational‑cost datasets for these types. The pieces cite national procurement documents and internal reviews — for instance, Radio‑Canada reporting references Canada’s internal fighter evaluation that scores capability (not explicit flight‑hour operational costs) [5]. Detailed, consistent public datasets from Sweden, Brazil, the U.S., or other operators are not explicitly shown in the provided search results (not found in current reporting).
3. Why published numbers vary so widely — method and agenda drivers
Diverging figures stem from differing methodologies and incentives. Manufacturer or supplier-affiliated reports (often favorable to their platform) will use optimistic maintenance and logistics baselines; national audits or operator data may include broader support, sustainment and infrastructure costs. The NDA Study piece emphasizes Colombia’s deal and frames Gripen as lower‑cost per hour versus F‑35A, citing an unusually low Gripen engine figure and highlighting geopolitical motives for Colombia’s choice [1]. Other reporting uses U.S. Air Force or third‑party estimates that produce much higher F‑35A costs and different Gripen figures [2] [4]. These contrasts reveal implicit agendas: sales/offset promotion for Saab, procurement-justifying narratives for buyers, and independent critics or analysts seeking to influence policy [1] [2] [4].
4. Country examples in the reporting — what they say
- Colombia: The NDA Study article centers on Colombia’s 2025 Gripen purchase and reports per‑aircraft and per‑hour cost claims that favor Gripen’s lower operational expense (cites $4,000 vs $21,000/hr) [1].
- Canada: Multiple pieces focus on Canada’s fighter competition; Radio‑Canada documents referenced in secondary reporting emphasize capability scoring rather than producing a transparent operational‑cost dataset [5]. Industry commentary around Canada repeats varied per‑hour estimates for both aircraft [2] [3].
- Sweden/Brazil/other operators: CZDEFENCE and other trade outlets note Gripen’s operators (Sweden, Brazil, limited export footprint) but do not provide a consolidated public operational‑cost dataset [6].
5. How to read these numbers — practical guidance
Treat per‑flight‑hour claims as indicative, not definitive. Compare like with like: does the figure include fuel, maintenance, depot reparables, spares, training, infrastructure and amortized procurement costs? Many sources conflate or omit categories, producing contradictory outcomes [1] [2] [4]. Where possible, seek primary government audit reports or defense ministry disclosures; the current set of sources mainly cites secondary analyses and media summaries rather than standardized public datasets (not found in current reporting).
6. Bottom line and where reporting is weakest
There is no single, public repository in these sources that cleanly publishes audited, operational‑cost datasets for both Gripen E and F‑35A across operators. Reporting provides competing estimates with clear methodological and political differences: Saab‑friendly or procurement‑driven pieces emphasize lower Gripen costs [1] [4], while other analyses and government reviews show much higher and disputed figures or focus on capability instead of cost [2] [5]. For a robust answer, one must obtain primary government audit documents or manufacturer lifecycle‑cost breakdowns; available sources here do not include those standardized datasets (not found in current reporting).