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 radar cross-section measurements of the Gripen E vs F-35A compare across common radar bands?
Executive summary
Direct, quantitative radar cross-section (RCS) measurements comparing the Gripen E and the F‑35A across L, S, C, X, Ku and VHF/UHF bands are not published in the available reporting. Open sources consistently state the F‑35 was engineered to minimize RCS and is a low‑observable (stealth) design, while reporting describes the Gripen E as a 4.5/4.5+ generation fighter with signature‑reduction measures and a smaller RCS than older non‑stealth fighters, but not equal to the F‑35 [1] [2] [3].
1. What the public sources actually say about RCS and design intent
The F‑35A is repeatedly described as built “from the ground up to minimize its radar cross‑section,” i.e., a fifth‑generation stealth aircraft whose shaping and internal carriage are core to its low observability claim [1]. By contrast, multiple pieces characterize the Gripen E as not a stealth aircraft: it incorporates radar‑signature reduction elements (radar‑absorbent materials, shaping, EW suites) and Saab argues generational talk is “redundant,” but mainstream coverage still calls it a conventional design without the specialized stealth shaping of 5th‑gen fighters [1] [2] [4].
2. Reported relative RCS claims — qualitative, not quantitative
Some outlets assert the Gripen E has “a smaller RCS than any other operational fighter aircraft except the F‑35 and F‑22,” a claim repeated in trade and advocacy pieces but without raw RCS numbers or peer‑reviewed measurement details in the available reporting [3]. Other pieces say simply that Gripen “uses EW measures to present the smallest radar cross section out of any other Western non‑stealth fighter,” again a qualitative marketing or analyst claim rather than a published measurement [5] [4].
3. Why band‑by‑band RCS numbers are hard to find and why they matter
RCS varies strongly with radar frequency, aspect angle, and whether weapons and pods are carried — so a single RCS number is misleading. Public comparisons in these sources do not provide L‑, S‑, C‑, X‑ or VHF‑band figures or measurement conditions; they rely on descriptive categories (stealth vs reduced signature) and performance claims [1] [2]. Because available reporting lacks raw test data, we cannot responsibly state how the two types compare at each radar band from these sources (not found in current reporting).
4. Electronic warfare, sensor fusion and tactics complicate simple RCS comparisons
Multiple accounts emphasize that Gripen E’s strengths include advanced AESA radar, IRST, and electronic warfare that can reduce its detectability and change engagement outcomes, while F‑35’s advantage includes both low RCS and sensor/data fusion. Analysts propose teaming concepts (e.g., Gripen as high‑agility shooter with F‑35 providing stealthy sensing and situational awareness) highlighting that mission effect often depends on systems and tactics rather than RCS alone [1] [6].
5. Conflicting narratives and likely agendas in the sources
Industry‑friendly or national outlets sometimes amplify the Gripen’s low signature claims (Swedish/Brazilian procurement contexts), whereas U.S.‑ or Western‑defense outlets frame the F‑35 as decisively stealthier. For example, promotional and think‑tank pieces assert Gripen’s reduced RCS among non‑stealth fighters [3] [4], while critical comparisons note Gripen “wasn’t designed for stealth” and is “more easily detectable by radar” than F‑35 [2] [1]. These opposing framings reflect procurement advocacy and marketing incentives as much as measured science.
6. Bottom line and what would be needed for a rigorous comparison
Available sources agree on two broad points: F‑35A is a purpose‑built stealth aircraft; Gripen E uses signature‑reduction and strong EW but is not a stealth design [1] [2]. However, the reporting does not include band‑specific RCS measurements (L/S/C/X/VHF/UHF) or standardized test conditions, so any precise cross‑band comparison cannot be drawn from these sources (not found in current reporting). A rigorous, public comparison would require declassified RCS test reports specifying aspect angles, frequencies, payload/configuration and measurement methods — none of which appear in the cited material (not found in current reporting).
If you want, I can: (a) assemble a checklist of the exact measurement data and conditions you’d need to make a proper band‑by‑band comparison, or (b) draft language suitable for querying manufacturers or defense ministries requesting declassified RCS figures. Which would be more helpful?