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 does the Gripen compare to other 4th and 5th generation fighter jets?
Executive summary
The Saab JAS 39 Gripen E/F is a modernized “4.5-generation” fighter that emphasizes lower acquisition and lifecycle cost, high availability, rapid upgradeability, and electronic warfare over full stealth; analysts place its lifetime cost roughly at half that of an F‑35 in some reporting and note it reaches around Mach 2 with a ~22,000 lbf engine [1] [2]. Reporting and market analyses show a continuing global demand for advanced 4th/4.5‑generation types like the Gripen alongside 5th‑generation fleets, with arguments on both sides about survivability, sensor fusion, and future relevance [3] [4].
1. Gripen’s design philosophy: affordability, flexibility, and upgradeability
Saab built the Gripen to be a relatively light, single‑engine multirole fighter that can be operated from austere locations with minimal support and a low cost‑to‑operate profile — features Saab and supporters stress when comparing it to 5th‑generation types like the F‑35 [5] [1]. Recent E/F upgrades added a larger frame, a more powerful GE F414 engine, AESA radar, and advanced electronic warfare systems so Saab positions the type as a “fourth‑plus” or 4.5‑generation aircraft able to be rapidly modernized through software and modular systems [4] [1] [6].
2. Where Gripen wins: cost, availability, and operational massing
Multiple news pieces and market reviews argue a pragmatic case: nations that cannot afford or do not need full stealth can buy more aircraft and maintain higher sortie rates with Gripens — creating “operational mass” to work alongside fewer stealthy aircraft. Reports cite a roughly half‑lifetime‑cost comparison versus the F‑35 as a persuasive selling point for some buyers [2] [3] [4].
3. Where Gripen trails: stealth, sensor fusion, and future force structures
Critics argue the Gripen cannot match the inherent survivability of 5th‑generation designs that combine low observability with deep sensor fusion and integrated data links; commentators warn that air combat is shifting toward stealth, networked systems, unmanned teaming, and AI‑driven decisioning that favor 5th‑ and future‑generation programs [7] [1]. Analysts note that while Gripen has strong EW and upgrade paths, it is “not in the same category” as jets designed from the outset for low observability and full sensor fusion [1] [7].
4. Operational doctrine matters: mixed fleets and niche roles
Several reports point out competing procurement philosophies: some states seek pure 5th‑generation fleets, others pursue mixed fleets or advanced 4.5‑generation buys to balance cost, industrial participation, and numbers. Thought pieces suggest Gripen can be decisive when paired with 5th‑generation assets — offering operational diversity and industrial ties — while defence staffs caution that running two different fighter types has logistical and operational tradeoffs [3] [8] [4].
5. Electronic warfare and “non‑stealth” survivability arguments
Gripen advocates and former test pilots emphasize survivability via electronic warfare, modular upgrades, and networking rather than pure radar stealth; interviews and analytical pieces argue effective EW and rapid upgrades can mitigate detection risks and keep the platform relevant [9] [4]. Conversely, detractors stress that canards and larger inlets create larger radar signatures that matter in high‑threat environments — raising questions about long‑term survivability as adversary sensors improve [10] [7].
6. Market context and political considerations
Defence market reviews show enduring demand for advanced 4.5‑generation types (Gripen, F‑16V, Rafale) even as major powers pursue 5th and next‑generation programs; choices often reflect cost, industrial offsets, and geopolitics as much as platform capability [3]. High‑profile procurement debates — for example Canada weighing Gripen vs F‑35 options — underscore that acquisition decisions carry diplomatic and industrial implications, and reporting documents claims and counterclaims around costs, capabilities, and readiness [8] [5] [2].
7. Limitations in available reporting and open questions
Available sources do not provide independent combat‑proven head‑to‑head data showing Gripen versus top 5th‑generation fighters in contested environments; commentators note the Gripen E had not faced sustained combat testing at scale in many reports and real‑world performance thus remains partially unproven in peer‑level fights [1] [6]. Long‑term questions remain about how future unmanned systems, AI, and full sensor fusion will favor one design philosophy over another [7] [11].
Overall, the evidence in current reporting frames the Gripen as a cost‑effective, rapidly upgradable 4.5‑generation fighter that fills a distinct niche for many air forces, while credible critiques insist that pure 5th‑generation features — stealth and deep fusion — confer survivability and capabilities that the Gripen cannot fully replicate [1] [7] [3]. Choices between them reflect doctrine, budget, industrial policy, and how nations expect future air combat to be fought [4] [8].