Which is faster, Gripen E with 7 missiles externally than a F-35 with 7 missiles internally?
Executive summary
Measured on published clean-airframe top speeds, the Gripen E is faster — Saab’s variant is cited at about Mach 2 versus the F-35’s roughly Mach 1.6 — but the real-world answer depends on whether weapons are carried internally or on external pylons and on the specific flight regime (supercruise vs. dash), and the open sources here do not provide a definitive, measured comparison for the exact loading case of “7 missiles” [1] [2] [3].
1. What the published numbers say: clean aircraft versus weaponed aircraft
Published comparisons treat the Gripen E as having a higher top speed (Mach 2) and the F‑35A as having a lower top speed (around Mach 1.6), a contrast that suggests the Gripen’s clean‑airframe dash capability exceeds the F‑35’s [1]. Lockheed/third‑party summaries emphasize the F‑35’s internal weapons bays and note optional external pylons exist, while public spec summaries show the F‑35’s primary armament is designed to be carried internally to preserve performance and stealth [2]. These baseline figures, however, are “clean” or manufacturer/industry comparisons and do not on their own answer how seven missiles carried externally versus internally would change the outcome [1] [2].
2. How stores change speed: drag, supercruise and the evidence
External stores add drag and typically reduce top speed and supercruise capability; commentators and enthusiast sources note both jets lose range and speed when mounting big missiles or tanks [4]. The F‑35’s advantage is that carrying missiles internally preserves its low‑drag shape and, to an extent, its supercruise performance — public sources even attribute an unofficial F‑35 supercruise figure around Mach 1.2 [3] [2]. Conversely, there are claims the Gripen can supercruise higher than Mach 1.2 carrying external ordnance in demonstration conditions — one source references Gripen demonstrators exceeding M1.2 with six missiles and a center tank — but these are unofficial or demonstration figures rather than standardized, repeatable measurements [4] [3].
3. The specific “7 missiles” loading: what the sources allow and what they don’t
None of the provided sources gives a measured, apples‑to‑apples speed comparison of a Gripen E with seven external missiles versus an F‑35 with seven missiles carried internally; [1] states the Gripen E’s standard configuration carries six air‑to‑air missiles while [2] outlines internal bay limits on the F‑35 and external pylon options, but neither supplies performance data for the exact seven‑missile configurations in the question [1] [2]. Therefore any definitive numeric claim about which would be faster under that precise load is beyond what these sources substantiate.
4. Reasoned synthesis: most likely practical outcome
Putting the published facts together, the conservative synthesis is this: a clean Gripen E has a higher maximum speed than a clean F‑35 (Mach 2 vs Mach 1.6) and demonstrator evidence suggests Gripen can sustain high supersonic supercruise even with stores in some configurations [1] [4]. The F‑35’s internal carriage gives it an aerodynamic and stealth benefit that preserves more of its speed when carrying missiles internally compared with an aircraft that mounts them outside [2] [3]. If the Gripen is forced to carry seven missiles externally it will incur significant drag penalties; whether that penalty drops its top or sustained speed below the F‑35’s internally‑loaded speed cannot be proven from the available reporting, but it is plausible the Gripen would still be at least competitive in dash speed while the F‑35 would likely retain an advantage in low‑observability and possibly in supercruise endurance when fully internal [4] [2] [3].
5. Caveats, mission context, and alternative viewpoints
Analysts caution that top speed is only one metric: agility, sensors, electronic warfare, range, missile performance, and stealth can outweigh raw dash speed in combat [5] [6]. Some commentators explicitly argue the Gripen is “faster and more agile” but still at a strategic disadvantage against the F‑35’s stealth and systems integration [5]. The sources also include partisan or enthusiast analyses and long-format deep dives that emphasize different strengths [7] [6], and the absence of direct, controlled flight test comparisons for the seven‑missile scenarios means any firm numerical verdict would be speculative beyond the cited manufacturer and reporting figures [1] [4] [2].