Will a Gripen E with 7 missiles be faster than a F-35 with same armament
Executive summary
The simple numeric answer: available reporting suggests the Gripen E has higher raw top-speed and demonstrable supercruise performance than the F‑35, but none of the sources provide a clean, tested comparison for the exact scenario “both aircraft carrying seven missiles,” so any firm conclusion is conditional on weapons carriage method and mission profile [1] [2] [3]. Equally important, several authors stress that speed alone is an incomplete measure of combat effectiveness: the F‑35’s internal carriage, stealth and sensors change the calculus even if the Gripen can run faster [1] [4].
1. Gripen’s published performance advantages: top speed and supercruise claims
Multiple sources note that the Gripen E’s published top speed is higher than the F‑35’s — the Gripen E is cited as reaching roughly Mach 2 versus the F‑35’s Mach 1.6 — and independent or enthusiast reporting has pointed to Gripen demonstrators and NG/ E-series examples achieving supercruise in excess of Mach 1.2 while carrying six missiles and a centre tank at altitude [1] [2] [3]. Aviation analysts and hobbyist testing often use those demonstrator reports to argue the Gripen’s “faster and more agile” character compared with the F‑35 [5] [3]. Those figures support the proposition that, in clean-airspeed terms, the Gripen has raw speed potential over the F‑35 [1] [2].
2. What “same armament” actually means — internal bays versus external pylons
The devil is in the carriage: the F‑35 is designed to carry a primary air‑to‑air load internally to preserve stealth and reduce drag, whereas the Gripen’s missile fit and mission doctrine accept external carriage more readily; reporting highlights that the F‑35’s ability to operate effectively at high speed is linked to internal carriage and advanced avionics rather than sheer dash [1] [4]. Sources note that the Gripen’s standard configuration carries six air‑to‑air missiles and that adding missiles or tanks increases drag and reduces range or speed — accounts of supercruise with six missiles and a centre tank are explicitly cited [1] [2] [3]. None of the provided reporting gives a tested Mach number for either type while carrying seven missiles, so any numeric comparison for “seven missiles each” is extrapolative based on known demonstrations [2] [3].
3. Speed vs. mission effectiveness: why higher Mach isn’t the whole story
Several analyses stress that even if the Gripen can achieve a higher dash or supercruise figure, that advantage does not automatically translate into a decisive combat edge because the F‑35’s stealth, sensors and beyond‑visual‑range engagement concept compensate for or deprioritize raw top speed; one source explicitly frames top speed differences as “more than compensated for by advanced avionics and the ability to operate against the enemy beyond visual range” [1] [4]. Commentators therefore mark the comparative question as the “wrong question” in a strategic sense, urging decision‑makers to weigh survivability, sensor fusion and mission sets as well as speed [6] [4].
4. Practical conclusion and limits of available reporting
Putting the available evidence together: for clean‑air or demonstrator conditions the Gripen E shows higher published top speed and reported supercruise capability with a typical missile load, suggesting it would likely be faster than an F‑35 carrying a similar external missile fit; however, none of the provided sources supplies a direct, measured comparison of both types each carrying seven missiles, so the answer is conditional — how the missiles are carried (internal bays vs external pylons), altitude, fuel state and specific missile types materially affect real‑world speed and endurance [1] [2] [3]. Moreover, several sources caution that speed is only one dimension of combat power, and in many mission sets the F‑35’s stealth and systems can negate the tactical value of a speed edge [1] [4].