Have combat engagements or red‑flag style trials demonstrated situational awareness differences between Gripen and F-35 in contested airspace?

1. No public, direct combat or red‑flag knockout test exists

Reporting and analyses in the available set focus on hypothetical matchups, procurement debates and technical comparisons rather than documented contested‑airspace combats that settle SA questions; there is no cited source here describing an actual engagement or formal red‑flag trial pitting Gripen versus F‑35 that demonstrates real‑world SA outcomes (available sources do not mention any such trial or battle; ^[1], ^[2], p1_s6).

2. Why analysts credit the F‑35 with an SA advantage

Multiple pieces argue that the F‑35’s stealth, sensor fusion and integrated avionics give it a decisive theoretical advantage in situational awareness: stealth makes it harder to detect, and fused sensors present a unified battlespace picture to the pilot, which is repeatedly cited as why the F‑35 “holds the decisive advantage” in hypothetical air combat write‑ups ^[1]. Commentators also frame the F‑35 as a “quarterback in the sky” able to orchestrate drones and networked assets — an attribute tied to SA rather than raw kinematics ^[6].

3. Gripen’s practical strengths complicate any straight SA comparison

Articles about the Gripen emphasize features that affect contested‑airspace performance beyond pure sensor counts: its agility, lower operating cost, capability to operate from dispersed austere locations, rapid turnaround maintenance and longer combat range in some variants — all factors that can shape situational effectiveness even if the Gripen lacks F‑35‑style stealth and sensor fusion ^{[2] [4] [5]}. Analysts note the Gripen has performed strongly in exercises and simulated BVR (beyond‑visual‑range) fights, which informs confidence in its combat viability ^[3].

4. Exercises and war‑game anecdotes are suggestive but not dispositive

Commentary cites Gripen successes in international exercises (e.g., Falcon Strike 2015 mentioned in analysis pieces) and references to war‑game debriefs that help refine tactics — but the sources present these as part of a broader argument rather than proof of superior SA in contested airspace against an F‑35 specifically ^[3]. That distinction matters: exercises often have scripted parameters, force mixes and rules of engagement that limit how directly they translate to real combat against a stealth‑equipped adversary ^[3].

5. The public debate is driven as much by politics and procurement as by raw capability

Coverage around Canada’s procurement debate illustrates that arguments about SA and combat performance are embedded in industrial, political and geographic considerations — Saab’s sales pitch stresses Gripen’s range, low operating costs and jobs in Canada while defenders of the F‑35 highlight advanced sensors and combat provenance — revealing competing agendas shaping how SA narratives are presented ^{[7] [5] [8]}.

6. What journalists and analysts agree on — and what they don’t

There is consensus in these sources that the F‑35 offers advanced sensor fusion and stealth that translate into a theoretical SA advantage ^{[1] [6]}. There is disagreement or nuance around whether those theoretical advantages decisively beat a capable 4.5‑generation fighter like the Gripen in practice, especially given the Gripen’s operational virtues and the many contingencies in contested airspace ^{[2] [3] [4]}.

7. How to read future claims about SA differences

Treat claims of demonstrated SA superiority cautiously: absent a cited, controlled, public red‑flag trial or combat case explicitly described in reporting, assertions rely on simulations, exercise anecdotes, and vendor or advocacy framing (available sources do not mention a definitive trial or combat case). When new reports appear, check whether they describe real engagement data, independent after‑action reviews, or only simulated outcomes and procurement rhetoric ^{[1] [3] [7]}.

If you want, I can extract and compare the specific technical claims (stealth, sensor fusion, datalinks, range, logistics) each side emphasizes in the current reporting to show precisely where situational‑awareness advantages are asserted and where they remain hypothetical ^{[1] [2] [4] [5]}.