Your fact-checks will appear here
British actress
Gripen E is widely reported as the more fuel‑efficient, lower‑cost platform on a per‑flight‑hour basis, while the F‑35 typically burns more fuel and costs more to operate—though the F‑35 carries more ...
Across available reporting, the Gripen is consistently presented as the lower-cost option versus the twin‑engine Eurofighter Typhoon on a simple procurement-unit basis and in many lifecycle-cost compa...
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 ~$3...
Available reporting consistently says the Saab Gripen has a substantially lower cost per flight hour than the Eurofighter Typhoon, but the exact numbers vary widely between sources and depend on what ...
A clear numeric answer depends on which published per‑flight‑hour figure is used: using Saab/Aviation Week’s 2023 estimate of about $22,174 per flight hour yields an annual operating bill of roughly $...
The open reporting provided does not contain an authoritative, published specific fuel consumption (SFC) value for the Gripen E or its F414‑GE‑39E engine; Saab and public technical summaries instead d...
Publicly reported cost-per-flight-hour (CPFH) estimates for the Gripen E and the F‑16 Block 70 vary widely: independent summaries often put the Gripen E in the ~$4,700–$7,000/hr band while many recent...
The Gripen E is explicitly designed for rapid, low-crew turnarounds and is routinely marketed with sub‑20‑minute—and in many Saab and secondary accounts, sub‑10‑minute—rearm/refuel turnaround times fo...
The Saab Gripen E is consistently presented by multiple sources as the lower-cost-to-maintain option compared with modern F-16 variants, with studies and manufacturer data pointing to substantially lo...
The Gripen E uses a single General Electric F414‑GE‑39E turbofan that Saab and GE describe as “more powerful” than the Gripen’s legacy engine and as a key enabler of increased range and payload . Agai...
The Gripen E/F is consistently framed in industry reporting as a lower-cost, easy-to-sustain fighter designed for small-to-medium air forces, while the F-16 Block 70/72 benefits from scale, interopera...
Public reporting shows wide, inconsistent figures for cost‑per‑flight‑hour (CPFH/CPLH) for Gripen and Typhoon rather than firm, agreed “real‑world” numbers: multiple industry summaries and forums cite...
Upgrades such as new avionics, weapons and AESA radars typically raise both acquisition price and sustainment/operational costs, but they also change mission effectiveness — often reducing cost-per-ef...
Recent reporting and manufacturer material say Gripen’s design and logistics focus have kept its per-flight-hour and lifecycle support costs lower than many competitors, with Jane’s–cited figures from...