How do electronic warfare and self-protection systems differ between the Gripen E and F-35 (e.g., EW suites, missile warning) in 2024?

1. Two different design philosophies: “EW to compensate” vs “stealth-first with EW”

Reporting frames the Gripen E as a non‑stealth airframe that narrows the capability gap by investing heavily in electronic warfare — GaN‑enabled EW, spherical coverage and active countermeasures — while the F‑35 was designed as a stealthy, sensor‑fusion platform that embeds EW and distributed sensing to operate inside well‑defended airspace ^{[1] [2] [3]}. Authors and advocates therefore describe the Gripen approach as using advanced EW offensively and defensively to reduce detectability, whereas the F‑35’s approach is to minimise detection and then use integrated sensors and EW as part of a broader networked strike concept ^{[1] [3]}.

2. What the sources say about EW hardware and techniques

Multiple pieces cite Gripen E’s adoption of GaN (gallium nitride) technology to boost EW and AESA performance, and they describe “spherical coverage” EW suites that include radar intercept warning, missile warning, jammers and expendable countermeasures ^{[1] [4]}. By contrast, reporting about the F‑35 emphasises its top‑tier EW capabilities integrated with sensors across the airframe (including DAS), enabling collection of emissions‑intelligence and tailored EW responses—functions described as part of a deep‑strike, highly networked design ^{[3] [2]}.

3. Missile warning and infrared‑based sensors: similar aims, different mixes

Sources characterise Gripen E as carrying missile‑warning and IRST/IRST‑like passive sensors as part of its situational awareness and self‑defence package, augmented by EW jammers and decoys ^{[1] [5]}. Sources on the F‑35 highlight the Distributed Aperture System and integrated sensors that give 360° awareness and feed the fused cockpit picture, which supports countermeasures and decision‑making in contested airspace ^{[2] [3]}. Exact sensor models, sensitivity figures or warning timelines are not provided in the cited reporting (not found in current reporting).

4. Integration and soldier‑system tradeoffs: modularity vs fusion

Analysts note the Gripen E’s architecture emphasises modular, upgradable components and easy maintenance — an approach that makes field upgrades to EW and communications simpler and cheaper ^{[1] [6]}. Sources contrast that with the F‑35’s deep internal integration and software‑centric fusion, which can produce a superior single‑pane-of‑glass picture but also brings complexity, higher operating cost and upgrade-management challenges ^{[2] [3]}. Commentators therefore present a tradeoff: easier sovereignty and faster upgrades for Gripen versus potentially stronger fused situational awareness for the F‑35 ^{[2] [6]}.

5. Combat roles implied by the EW packages

Reporting implies different missions: Gripen’s EW emphasis and external hardpoint flexibility make it attractive for air‑defence, electronic attack and distributed operations; the F‑35’s stealth plus integrated EW/sensors make it tailored for deep‑penetration strikes and networked ISR/EW missions ^{[1] [2] [3]}. Observers disagree on which is “superior”—some stress the F‑35’s fusion and stealth as decisive, others stress Gripen’s agility, EW focus and lower cost as operationally attractive ^{[7] [2]}.

6. Limits of available reporting and key unknowns

Public sources in this set repeatedly mix manufacturer claims, advocacy articles and journalistic overview pieces; none publishes classified performance numbers, detailed emitter‑level EW performance, exact missile‑warning timelines, or the proprietary wiring of EW‑to‑fusion workflows (not found in current reporting). As a result, claims about “matching the F‑35” or being “top‑tier” are often interpretive and depend on whether the evaluators prioritise stealth+fusion or modular EW and affordability ^{[1] [2] [8]}.

7. Bottom line for readers and decision‑makers

If your priority is deep‑strike survivability in high‑end, radar‑dense airspace and integrated battlespace awareness, reporting gives the F‑35 the edge through fused sensors and DAS. If you prioritise modularity, lower operating cost, rapid EW upgradeability and strong standalone EW/self‑protection tools (including GaN‑enabled jamming and comprehensive missile warning), reporting highlights the Gripen E as a credible, cost‑sensitive alternative ^{[2] [1] [3]}. Sources disagree on rankings and many technical specifics remain undisclosed in public reporting ^{[1] [2]}.