What are the differences in the avionics and electronic warfare systems of the Gripen and F-35?

1. Design philosophy: stealth + fusion vs. agile, upgradeable package

The F‑35 was built to emphasise low observability, integrated sensor fusion and battle‑networking: reporting repeatedly frames it as a stealthy, fifth‑generation aircraft whose avionics create a single fused picture and share data across forces ^{[1] [5]}. By contrast, Saab and analysts describe the Gripen E as a 4.5‑generation design that borrows “fifth‑gen” elements — advanced sensors, AESA radar, IRST and a potent EW suite — while stressing modularity, field upgradability and lower lifecycle cost ^{[3] [5] [4]}.

2. Radar and sensors: AESA and IRST versus multi‑sensor fusion

The Gripen E carries a modern AESA radar (now offered with GaN front ends and wide field‑of‑view claims) plus an infrared search‑and‑track and numerous passive sensors to enhance situational awareness ^{[3] [4]}. Reporting says the F‑35’s radar and sensor architecture are part of a deeper sensor‑fusion approach — combining radar, infrared and other feeds into a single cockpit picture and datalinked network — which analysts treat as a qualitative advantage over non‑stealth designs ^{[1] [5]}.

3. Electronic warfare: GaN EW and 360° coverage vs. integrated survivability

Multiple articles note Saab’s emphasis on an EW‑heavy Gripen E — GaN‑based AESA and EW suites that aim for spherical/self‑defence coverage and offensive EW options — and marketing that positions each Gripen as an “electronic attack” asset ^{[3] [4]}. Coverage of the F‑35 describes an advanced EW suite integrated into the aircraft’s stealth concept and sensor fusion; reporters and analysts emphasise that F‑35 survivability mixes signature reduction with electronic measures and networked support ^{[2] [5]}.

4. Sensor fusion and pilot interface: helmet and HMI differences

The F‑35’s helmet and deeply integrated avionics are highlighted as core to its advantage: the platform fuses multiple sensors into one pilot picture and supports networked operations, which numerous outlets cite as a primary differentiator ^{[1] [2]}. Saab pitches “human‑machine collaboration” and intuitive HMI on the Gripen E, but available reporting stresses that the F‑35’s level of automated fusion and helmet display integration remains the benchmark ^{[3] [5]}.

5. Interoperability, sovereignty and upgradability debates

Several pieces frame a political and industrial debate: Gripen proponents stress easier national control, lower operating costs and local industrial partnerships, while F‑35 defenders point to alliance interoperability and access to continuing US‑led upgrades ^{[6] [7] [4]}. Independent commentary warns some cost/availability claims (especially extreme per‑hour cost differentials) can be Saab‑sponsored or contested in competitive procurements ^[8].

6. Operational tradeoffs: stealth‑centric doctrine vs. flexible mission sets

Analysts summarise the operational tradeoff plainly: the F‑35’s stealth, fused situational awareness and network role are decisive in high‑threat, integrated‑air‑defence environments, whereas the Gripen E offers sensor richness, EW punch, payload flexibility and lower life‑cycle cost for patrol, interception and dispersed operations ^{[5] [3]}. Sources emphasise context matters — mission type, allied support and threat environment drive which avionics/EW approach is preferable ^{[5] [7]}.

7. Limitations of available reporting and competing claims

Reporting is sometimes promotional or politicised: Saab materials and pro‑Gripen outlets stress GaN EW, 360° coverage and low costs, while F‑35 coverage tends to emphasise fusion and stealth; fact checks note some cost claims have been disputed in competitions ^{[4] [8]}. Available sources do not provide classified technical performance tables or direct side‑by‑side EW test results; procurement debates and national security priorities colour much of the public narrative ^{[8] [6]}.

Bottom line: public reporting frames the difference as doctrinal and architectural — the F‑35 delivers stealth‑anchored sensor fusion and network effects that change how pilots fight, while the Gripen E offers a modern, GaN‑enabled radar/EW and passive sensor set packaged for upgradeability, affordability and dispersed operations; which is “better” depends on mission profiles, allied networks and national priorities cited by reporters and experts ^{[1] [3] [5]}.