Comparative drag analysis: Gripen E versus F‑35 and Super Hornet under clean and combat‑loaded configurations
Executive summary
Clean-airframe drag favors designs that carry weapons internally and have compact, low-friction shapes; the F‑35's internal bays and faceted stealth shaping therefore give it the lowest drag and radar signature in clean configuration, while the single‑engine Gripen E's smaller, less cluttered airframe yields lower parasite drag than the larger, twin‑engine F/A‑18E/F Super Hornet but without stealth benefits; with combat loads the gap narrows because large external tanks and missiles substantially increase drag on all types, and "big missiles and big tanks add a lot of weight and drag" for both Gripen and F‑35 according to reporting [1].
1. Clean configuration: stealth and airframe geometry drive drag differences
When flown clean—no external tanks, weapons stowed internally—the F‑35 benefits from an explicit low‑RCS, internally‑carried-weapons design that minimizes both parasite drag and radar return, a primary reason it is often rated superior in detectability and survivability [2]; the Gripen E, while smaller and described as having "less draggy shape" and a smaller engine that likely reduces infrared signature, lacks faceted stealth shaping and therefore has a higher radar cross‑section despite favorable aerodynamic cleanliness [1]; the Super Hornet, as a larger evolution of the legacy Hornet, "really doesn't improve much" in baseline aerodynamic performance and, as a twin‑engine, larger airframe, incurs higher clean‑airframe parasite drag than the Gripen [3].
2. Combat‑loaded configuration: external stores dominate drag growth
All three types suffer major range and performance penalties once external stores are hung—multiple sources emphasize that "big missiles (for both) and big tanks (for the Gripen) add a lot of weight and drag," an assertion applied repeatedly to the Gripen and F‑35 in reporting comparing loaded performance [1]; the practical effect is that the F‑35's stealth is compromised when it carries large external loads, and the Gripen—often marketed with provisions for external tanks and the Meteor missile—will see its speed/agility advantage reduced as drag and weight rise [4]; the Super Hornet, already less optimized for internal carriage of comparable payloads, generally accrues a steep drag penalty under heavy external stores, aligning with commentary that it offers limited aerodynamic improvement over its predecessor when loaded [3].
3. Hardpoints, payloads and mission tradeoffs: numbers matter, but reporting is partial
Comparisons note that the F‑35 and Gripen have similar counts of weapon hardpoints in some configurations and that the Gripen's integration of long‑range Meteor missiles is a tactical advantage, but these counts obscure crucial differences in internal bay capacity, pylon aerodynamics, and stealth impact when stores are carried externally [3] [4]; reporting emphasizes capability tradeoffs—F‑35's stealth and sensor fusion versus Gripen's agility, lower operating cost and Meteor carriage—but none of the sources provide raw drag coefficients or quantified penalty curves for specific loadouts, so the assessment must rely on qualitative trends already reported [5] [6].
4. Caveats, source perspectives and the limits of available data
The public discussion is colored by advocacy and deep‑dive outlets—blogs and defense magazines assert performance claims that reflect procurement debates and national biases (e.g., pro‑Gripen and pro‑F‑35 pieces) and long analytical dives that emphasize different metrics [1] [5] [6]; critically, none of the supplied reporting supplies measured aerodynamic coefficients, drag polars, or wind‑tunnel data for clean versus specific combat loads, so while the qualitative ranking (F‑35 lowest clean drag due to internal carriage and shaping; Gripen lower parasite drag than Super Hornet but vulnerable in RCS; all lose significant performance with external tanks/missiles) is defensible from the sources, precise quantitative comparisons cannot be made from the available material [1] [3] [4].