In what combat roles and mission profiles does the Gripen excel or lag versus Eurofighter, F-16, Su-35, and F-35?
Executive summary
The Gripen E/F is a light, single‑engine 4.5‑generation multirole designed for low cost, dispersed operations and strong sensor‑linking; its strengths are sustainment, EW/modularity and cost per flight hour, while it generally trails larger, twin‑engine designs in raw payload, range, and some BVR/survivability metrics (sources: Saab descriptions and comparative pieces) [1] [2] [3]. Independent and contest reporting shows the F‑35 scored far higher than Gripen in Canada’s 2021 evaluation on “mission performance” and upgradability (F‑35 ~95% vs Gripen ~33% in that table), highlighting Gripen’s relative limits in high‑intensity, network‑centric deep‑strike scenarios [4] [5].
1. Gripen’s mission niche: cheap, dispersed air defence and multirole flexibility
Saab and analysts emphasize the Gripen’s design priorities: small size, low operating cost, easy maintenance and the ability to operate from austere or dispersed runways — attributes that favour national air‑defence, quick‑reaction intercepts, coastal defence and lower‑tempo multirole strike missions rather than prolonged deep‑penetration campaigns [1] [3]. Several comparisons underline that Gripen’s modular avionics, network links and EW suite are intended to punch above its weight in local air superiority and integrated tasking [6] [7].
2. Where Gripen excels vs Eurofighter
Gripen’s advantages versus the Eurofighter are cost, logistics and agility for small‑nation doctrines: lower acquisition and operating costs and simpler sustainment while still carrying modern missiles like Meteor and IRIS‑T [3] [8]. Eurofighter retains the edge in raw payload, internal power and higher top‑end performance — especially BVR reach, acceleration and higher sustained performance — making it better for sustained air‑superiority, high‑workload strike packages and heavy‑payload sorties [9] [2].
3. Gripen vs F‑16: similar roles but different tradeoffs
The Gripen and modern F‑16 (Block 70/72) occupy overlapping markets as single‑engine multirole fighters; reporting notes the Gripen E is newer in architecture, optimized for lower sustainment burden and for distributed operations, while the F‑16 Block 70/72 remains larger and in many analyses “more capable” in pure payload and some avionics aspects [10] [11]. Forums and comparative write‑ups argue Gripen may have aerodynamic advantages (lower drag, lower wing loading) and strong EW/linking, but many sources conclude the F‑16 Block 70/72 is larger and in some metrics more capable overall [12] [10].
4. Gripen vs Su‑35: asymmetric matchup — networked tactics required
Against heavy Russian Flankers like the Su‑35, reporting frames the contest as asymmetric: the Su‑35 has greater speed, range, thrust and sensor power, while Gripen relies on stealth‑reducing signatures, networked datalinks and long‑range Western missiles (Meteor) plus EW to survive and engage [13] [8]. Analysts and exercises cited by multiple outlets show Gripen can score well in red‑team events when used as networked nodes and with correct tactics, but the Su‑35’s raw kinematic advantage remains a significant shortfall for Gripen in single‑aircraft duels [14] [8].
5. Gripen vs F‑35: sensor fusion, stealth and mission performance gap
The F‑35’s design centres on fused sensors, stealth and deep‑strike networked operations; Canadian evaluation releases and journalistic reporting show the F‑35 dominated Gripen in an operational scoring matrix—particularly “mission performance” and upgradability—suggesting F‑35 outperforms Gripen for coalition, deep‑penetration and highly networked missions [4] [6]. Pro‑Gripen commentary stresses sustainment, Arctic suitability and lower operating costs as counterarguments; the Canadian documents nevertheless quantify a pronounced capability gap for mission profiles that prioritized stealthy, allied‑centric operations [5] [15].
6. Practical implications for procurement and tactics
Procurement choices depend on doctrine: nations seeking affordable, widely distributable defence, quick turnarounds and sovereign sustainment may find Gripen optimal; those needing long‑range power projection, highest BVR reach or stealthed coalition strike will prefer Eurofighter or F‑35 respectively [3] [2] [4]. Multiple sources caution that simulation scores depend heavily on evaluation criteria — Canada’s scoring reflected specific mission priorities — and that Gripen proponents point to real‑world exercises where Gripen has performed strongly when networked and tactically used as intended [6] [16].
Limitations and source notes: this analysis uses only the provided reporting and comparisons; available sources do not mention every metric (e.g., classified ELINT performance, real combat kill‑loss rates in recent conflicts) and evaluate results with differing biases (manufacturer, advocacy sites, national press). Where Canada’s released evaluation is cited, the numerical gap is from those documents and related reporting [4] [5].