Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
How do the Gripen E (JAS 39E/F) and F-35A compare in instantaneous turn rate and sustained turn in mock dogfight tests?
Executive summary
There is no authoritative, public set of mock dogfight test numbers directly comparing instantaneous turn rate (ITR) and sustained turn rate (STR) of the Gripen E (JAS 39E/F) and the F‑35A in the provided reporting; available sources discuss broad capability comparisons, anecdotes, and forum-based estimates but do not publish measured ITR/STR figures (available sources do not mention measured ITR/STR) [1] [2] [3]. Journalistic and enthusiast analyses stress that the two designs prioritize different tradeoffs — the Gripen E as a light, agile, low-cost 4.5/4.5+ generation design and the F‑35A as a 5th‑generation, sensor‑fusion centric platform — which complicates direct turn‑rate head‑to‑head claims [3] [1].
1. Different design priorities — “scrambler” vs “people carrier”
Analysts and feature reporting emphasize that the Gripen E and F‑35A were built with different philosophies: Hush‑Kit calls the Gripen E a “stripped‑down scrambler” focused on agility, low running costs and dispersed operations, while the F‑35 is characterized as a larger, sensor‑heavy platform with stealth and fusion capabilities — a design difference that makes raw aerodynamic metrics only one element of combat effectiveness [3] [1].
2. No published, credible direct ITR/STR trials in the provided sources
The collection of sources in your search does not include declassified or press‑released test reports showing instantaneous or sustained turn‑rate curves for Gripen E vs F‑35A. Enthusiast forum posts and web comparisons speculate on relative turn performance, but those are user analysis or extrapolations rather than official flight‑test datasets [2] [4]. Therefore, precise numeric comparisons (degrees/sec, g limits, or energy–maneuverability curves) are not available in this set of reporting (available sources do not mention numeric ITR/STR test results) [2].
3. What the public reporting and analysis do claim
Feature pieces and comparison articles argue the Gripen E “matches or even exceeds” the F‑35 in selected metrics and in some tactical contexts, often highlighting Gripen’s high thrust‑to‑weight for its class, canard/delta agility, and low operating cost [3] [1]. Conversely, coverage of F‑35 strengths centers on stealth, sensor fusion, and long‑range tactics rather than classic close‑in dogfighting — implying different engagement envelopes rather than outright superiority in turn‑rate duels [3] [5].
4. Forum and enthusiast estimates — informative but not authoritative
On public forums, analysts compare older Gripen C data and derived Lavi/Lavi‑type graphs to F‑16 and other fighters; some contributors suggest instantaneous turn numbers for 4th‑gen fighters and speculate about Gripen E performance, but these are community reconstructions rather than independent flight trials and should be treated as hypotheses rather than proof [2] [4]. Hush‑Kit’s deep dive interviews Saab staff and highlights engineering tradeoffs but stops short of publishing formal ITR/STR test data [3].
5. Why numbers differ and why they matter less than tactics
Even with test numbers, instantaneous turn (how fast an aircraft can change heading at a moment) and sustained turn (how well it can hold a turn without bleeding energy) depend strongly on configuration (weapons/fuel load), altitude, speed, and pilot techniques. Sources note that both aircraft can be tailored by loadout and mission: Gripen benefits from low drag and canard/delta control; F‑35’s internal weapons bays and heavier airframe change the envelope, while its sensor and BVR focus shift doctrinal use away from close turning fights [3] [1].
6. Competing viewpoints and hidden agendas
Saab and Gripen proponents highlight agility, lower operating costs and ease of basing as strengths when competing for export contracts — messaging that can emphasize turn performance in marketing [3] [6]. F‑35 backers and reporting emphasize interoperability, stealth and sensor fusion, portraying air combat as increasingly about detection and long‑range engagement rather than classic turning dogfights [5] [7]. Both perspectives have procurement and industrial agendas: sales, national jobs, and alliance politics are underlying drivers in how capabilities are framed [6] [1].
7. Conclusion — what you can confidently say
Based on the provided reporting, you cannot confidently quote specific instantaneous or sustained turn‑rate numbers for Gripen E vs F‑35A because no such public test data appear in these sources; instead, reporting and expert commentary frame the comparison around differing design tradeoffs and doctrines — agility and lower cost for Gripen E versus stealth, sensors and networked warfare for the F‑35A [3] [1] [5]. If you need numeric ITR/STR curves, available sources do not provide them and a request to manufacturers’ flight‑test reports or independent, declassified DACT trials would be the next step (available sources do not mention numeric ITR/STR test results) [2] [4].