>During the design process, great priority was placed on facilitating and minimizing aircraft maintenance; in addition to a maintenance-friendly layout, many subsystems and components require little or no maintenance at all. [...] According to Saab, the Gripen provides "50% lower operating costs than its best competitor".
>A 2012 Jane's Aerospace and Defense Consulting study compared the operational costs of a number of modern combat aircraft, concluding that Gripen had the lowest cost per flight hour (CPFH) when fuel used, pre-flight preparation and repair, and scheduled airfield-level maintenance together with associated personnel costs were combined. The Gripen had an estimated CPFH of US$4,700 whereas the next lowest, the F-16 Block 40/50, had a 49% higher CPFH at $7,000
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen#Usability_a...
I'll admit I don't know all the ins and outs here, but I do know that "unit cost" is not the same as "final price tag".
and F-35 is probably around $30k/h
Before today, the planes remaining were:
F-18 - unit cost is somewhere around $70m
F-35 - unit cost is somewhere around $80m
Gripen - unit cost is somewhere around $85m
The plane rejected with this announcement is the first one, the F-18.
These are made by Boeing, Lockmart, and Saab respectively. This is Canada rejecting the oldest and cheapest plane of the three remaining.
I think some people are commenting here by just stating what they want to be true, rather than looking at what's actually happening.
Personally I'd rather the whole thing be scrubbed and they spend the $19b on something else. But for now, it looks like they're going to either spend billions on F-35s, or even more expensive Saab Gripens (unless they go with a very old model cheaper Gripen, but I dunno if that'll happen).