Which air forces have flown Gripen and F-35 in the same multinational exercises and published outcomes?

1. NATO confirms first inter‑Allied Gripen–F‑35 drills; governments frame it as integration, not a contest

Allied Air Command published a report noting that Danish F‑35As and Swedish JAS‑39 Gripens flew aerial combat training on 11 and 13 March 2024, calling the activity the first such training as NATO allies and emphasizing the exercise’s purpose: ensuring different generations of fighters can cooperate on a modern battlefield ^[1]. Swedish and Danish service leaders described the activity in operational terms—dissimilar air combat and shared situational awareness—rather than releasing competitive scoring or definitive "winners" ^{[1] [2]}.

2. Media coverage emphasized “dogfight” imagery; primary sources stress cooperative aims

Contemporary press pieces framed the March 2024 sorties as “1‑on‑1” or “dogfight” encounters between Gripen and F‑35 aircraft, feeding public curiosity about comparative performance ^{[3] [2]}. NATO’s Allied Air Command and quoted squadron commanders, however, framed results as interoperability lessons—F‑35s generating a richer shared picture that Gripens can exploit, and Gripens bringing complementary capabilities—rather than definitive performance tallies ^[1].

3. Ramstein Flag 2025 shows Gripen operators and F‑35s in the same large multinational exercise

Reporting on Ramstein Flag 2025 confirms that several Gripen operators—Hungary explicitly named—deployed JAS‑39s into a large NATO tactical live‑fly exercise that included fifth‑generation F‑35 jets simulating offensive and defensive counter‑air missions ^{[4] [5]}. National statements linked participation to readiness and tactics development; public accounts again emphasize collective capability development over publishing head‑to‑head scoring ^[5].

4. Published “outcomes” are public relations and doctrinal lessons, not scored competitions

Across the cited sources, official outcomes are qualitative: improved combined operational capabilities, shared situational awareness from F‑35 sensor fusion, and value in training against different aircraft types ^{[1] [2]}. There is no published numerical scorecard or formal adjudication in these sources comparing kill ratios or declaring a victor in the exercises ^{[1] [3]}.

5. Where reporting diverges: enthusiastic press vs. restrained official messaging

Commercial and enthusiast outlets amplified the narrative of a “clash” and asked rhetorically which fighter would have won, which can suggest a rivalry ^{[3] [6]}. NATO and national service releases consistently downplayed competition and highlighted interoperability benefits and learning objectives ^{[1] [2]}. Readers should note this difference in emphasis: media seek drama; official sources emphasise utility and alliance cohesion ^{[3] [1]}.

6. What the current sources do not report

Available sources do not provide quantitative exercise scoring, detailed engagement logs, after‑action reports, or validated comparative performance metrics between Gripen and F‑35 aircraft from these exercises ^{[1] [3]}. There is no public, source‑cited dataset in these pieces that declares a winner or provides validated kill/exposure ratios ^{[2] [1]}.

7. Why these exercises matter beyond "who wins"

Officials argue the exercises matter because multi‑generation fights are the likely real‑world scenario; the F‑35’s sensor fusion and secure datalinks can extend a coalition’s situational picture, while Gripens add complementary firepower and flexibility—lessons that shape tactics, force‑generation and procurement debates ^{[1] [2]}. Those doctrinal points are the primary, repeatedly stated outcomes in the reporting ^[1].

Limitations and sourcing note: this analysis uses only the provided reporting. Where independent numbers, adjudicated results, or after‑action reports would be necessary to settle performance questions, the available sources do not include them ^{[1] [3]}.