Bogotá – A $3.652 billion deal to procure 17 Gripen NG fighter jets from Saab has ignited controversy in Colombia, raising questions about the true cost and value of the acquisition. Despite initially appearing as a cost-effective option, the final price tag – nearly $215 million per aircraft – has drawn scrutiny from experts and officials who point to discrepancies in pricing and concerns about the aircraft’s capabilities compared to competing models. As detailed in a report by Pucara, the debate extends to the approval of the aircraft’s US-made engines, currently stalled amid diplomatic tensions.
Colombia’s purchase of the Gripen NG fighter jet has sparked controversy amid allegations of corruption surrounding the deal, primarily due to the high cost of the 17 aircraft. The Colombian government has stated the total cost is approximately $3.652 billion, equating to nearly $215 million per plane, making them among the most expensive combat aircraft in the world, especially considering their performance capabilities.
The manufacturer initially touted a lower acquisition and operating cost compared to competitors like the Lockheed Martin F-16 Block 70 and the Dassault Rafale. Three years ago, the Gripen offer was around $2.6 billion, compared to $3 billion for 24 F-16 Block 70s and $3.5 billion for 24 Rafales, making it an attractive option despite being a less capable platform. Even in 2022, when the Rafale was initially selected, SAAB President Micael Johansson questioned why the more expensive offer was chosen, asking “Why would Colombia pay 190 million euros for each Rafale when they can pay 120 million euros for each Gripen?”. Now, the most expensive offer has been selected, and officials are attempting to justify the price.
Experts point out the Gripen is generally considered inferior to its competitors in several key areas. It has less engine thrust (22,000 pounds compared to 29,000 for the F-16 and 17,000 per engine – 34,000 total – for the Rafale), resulting in a lower maximum takeoff weight and reduced payload capacity (6,500 kg for the Gripen, 7,700 for the F-16, and 9,500 for the Rafale). Its combat radius is also shorter, approximately 900 km compared to 1,500 km for the F-16 and 1,800 km for the Rafale, all with internal fuel.
While the manufacturer claimed lower operational costs of around $6,000 per hour, estimates by the Colombian Air Force suggest costs between $7,500 and $8,000. This is compared to $9,500 to $10,000 for the F-16 and $15,000 to $17,000 for the Rafale, meaning the cost difference with the American model isn’t substantial, especially considering the capability gap. The Gripen’s shorter range and lower payload capacity could also require more aircraft or in-flight refueling for certain operations, adding to the overall cost.
Currently, only Sweden and Brazil operate the Gripen NG, with Thailand as a new customer ordering four aircraft yet to be delivered. This totals firm orders for 100 aircraft plus the 17 for Colombia, compared to over 300 Rafales delivered and 233 pending delivery to nine countries, and 4,600 F-16s delivered to 28 countries with over 100 more on order. The latter two models have also seen combat use, particularly the F-16, leading to a well-validated doctrine of employment that continues to be updated based on experiences in conflicts like those in Ukraine, Israel, and Pakistan. The Gripen, meanwhile, saw limited combat use during a recent crisis with Cambodia, and its predecessors have never been used in combat by Sweden, meaning its employment doctrine is largely theoretical and unproven.
Colombian officials have stated that the initial budgeted value (around $115 million) was for the aircraft alone, excluding weaponry, support, training, simulators, spare parts, and other costs. However, officials involved in the program explained that Saab’s initial offer priced the aircraft itself between $45 and $60 million, describing it as a “stripped-down” model to which features are added, increasing the price. “They are the most economical on the market, that’s why they are called Smart Fighters, it’s a stripped aircraft to which things are added,” one official explained, adding that equipping it fully significantly increases the cost, potentially reaching $100 million per aircraft. In contrast, the F-16 and Rafale come with more equipped base versions, starting at $90 to $96 million for the F-16 and $110 million for the Rafale.
Adding weaponry, additional fuel tanks, simulators, spare parts, training, tools, and after-sales support brings the total cost up, but these costs are largely equivalent for all aircraft, as they are based on a basic requirement set by the Colombian Air Force. While air-to-air missiles like the Iris-T and Meteor are expensive, officials estimated the complete Gripen package should cost between $125 and $140 million, significantly below the $215 million Colombia is paying. According to one official, based on information provided by manufacturers, a fully equipped F-16 Block 70 could cost just over $160 million and a Rafale around $170 million, as the base aircraft are more expensive. “Why did the Gripen become so expensive? Because it was sold as the ‘Smart Solution.’ That is, a stripped aircraft, but then you add things to it and it becomes as expensive as the others, but in no case do those aircraft cost that much money, and obviously I’m talking about aircraft with all the toys. That is, it’s not comparable to what Chile has or what Brazil has, they are aircraft configured with radar-reflective paint, with expensive training, with the missiles that were authorized for Colombia at the time, which were the most expensive, with the integration of Israeli weaponry allowed, they were complex variants. I don’t know what this one is configured like.”
“When we’re talking about $125 to $140 million, we’re not talking about the plane, we’re talking about the complete system – the plane plus the weaponry, additional fuel tanks, logistics, pilot training, support for several years, and everything else,” one official said. “Those prices of over $200 million are ridiculous.”
Officials consulted agreed the Gripen is a good system, noting “it has a good weapons system and is within standard in terms of turn rate, power and fuel consumption, with a good auto landing, it has spectacular avionics,” but emphasized “it is still a 4.5 generation aircraft, with the limitations of that generation compared to the current 5th generation.”
The explanations offered by the Colombian government have been met with skepticism. President Petro initially claimed the F-16 offer was for used aircraft, while others have argued the $215 million price tag is justified by the complete package. However, officials familiar with the details dispute this, stating the initial offer from Saab priced the aircraft itself between $45 and $60 million, with the price increasing as features are added.
“More or less you can guess that, I did that exercise with many aircraft, so I know this because that’s how it is,” said one official who previously participated in the selection process.
The Colombian Ministry of Defense has dismissed comparisons to other similar purchases, arguing each country’s needs and package details vary. However, approximate comparisons are still possible when packages have similar characteristics in terms of aircraft type and quantity, weaponry, and logistics.
For example, Bulgaria purchased 8 F-16 Block 70s in 2020 for $512 million (approximately $64 million per aircraft), but this did not include additional items. Meanwhile, in 2018, Slovakia bought 14 aircraft with a complete package for $1.9 billion (approximately $135 million per system).
The United Arab Emirates ordered 80 Rafales in 2021 for $17.2 billion, including all equipment (approximately $215 million per aircraft).
Adding to the uncertainty, the United States has not yet approved the export of the Gripen’s engines, amid strained relations with President Petro and concerns about his alleged involvement in the drug trade. This could lead to a veto of the sale, delaying delivery, or require Colombia to wait until the 2026 elections and a potential normalization of relations to secure approval. Switching to a different engine would be costly and significantly delay delivery. As of now, the U.S. government has not officially commented on the engine issue, but officials at the U.S. embassy in Bogotá have unofficially indicated that approval is unlikely.
