Fact check: What are the radar and stealth capabilities of the Gripen and F-35?

1. What supporters claim: F-35’s stealth and sensor superiority framed as decisive

Advocates for the F-35 present a consistent narrative: low observable design plus advanced sensor fusion lets the F-35 detect and prosecute non-stealthy fighters from BVR, reducing their ability to close or even know they’re being targeted. Multiple 2025 pieces explicitly state this advantage, arguing the F-35 “holds a decisive advantage” by combining stealth with fused data from AESA radar, distributed sensors, and network links to provide superior situational awareness and first-shot opportunities ^[1]. These analyses—dated August and October 2025—frame stealth as a force-multiplier that changes engagement geometry and decisively shifts risk away from the stealthy platform ^[1].

2. What proponents of the Gripen emphasize: EW, modularity, and tactical resilience

Proponents of the Gripen emphasize a different set of strengths: advanced electronic warfare integrated into every airframe, modular avionics, and a design optimized for contested electronic battlespaces. Recent 2025 coverage describes the Gripen’s EW suite—broadband emitters/receivers, distributed apertures, and robust onboard computing—that makes it “uniquely suited to dominate the electronic battlespace,” allowing tactics to deny or degrade adversary sensing and targeting ^[2]. Analysts note the Gripen sacrifices true low-observable shaping but offsets some risk through active signature management, networking, and tactics optimized for counter-detection and survivability close to friendly assets ^[2].

3. Radar and sensor specifics: comparing advertised capabilities and operational roles

Articles contrast the Gripen’s Ericsson PS-05/A and related sensor architecture with the F-35’s more integrated sensor-fusion suite, concluding Gripen’s radar and sensors deliver strong tactical situational awareness for a non-stealth design, while F-35’s systems emphasize detection of low-signature targets and cross-domain data fusion. Reporting in 2025 cites radar performance comparisons (Gripen’s PS-05/A vs. various foreign radars) and frames the F-35’s edge as systemic rather than single-sensor superiority—a networked advantage that multiplies detection, tracking, and weapon-cueing across platforms ^{[3] [1]}. These sources place emphasis on how sensors are employed tactically, not just raw range numbers.

4. Stealth reality check: limitations, advantages, and operational caveats

Stealth provides probabilistic rather than absolute protection, and analysts stress context: weather, emitter environments, long-range sensors (including off-board radars or fighter-mounted sensors), and EW can reduce or negate signature advantages. Multiple 2025 analyses repeatedly state the Gripen lacks low-observable shaping but fields EW and tactics to counter sensors, while the F-35’s low observability materially reduces detection ranges in many but not all scenarios, particularly when facing integrated sensor networks or high-end EW ^{[1] [2]}. The balance between stealth and active EW depends on mission geometry, support assets, and rules of engagement.

5. Combat scenarios: when each jet wins and where uncertainty remains

Analysts agree that scenario matters: in distributed BVR engagements with networked sensors and permissive rules, the F-35’s stealth and fusion favor first-look, first-shot lethality; in close-in dogfights, short-range engagements, or heavily jammed/denied electromagnetic environments, Gripen’s agility and EW tools can blunt or complicate F-35 advantages. Recent pieces from 2025 emphasize that outcomes hinge on sensor order-of-battle, escorting assets, and ground-based radar networks, meaning neither platform is invulnerable and mission planning and support dictate relative success ^{[1] [2] [4]}.

6. Dates, diversity of sources, and bottom-line assessment for decision-makers

The analyses used here span 2022–2025, with concentrated reporting in 2025 that reinforces the same trade-offs: F-35 excels at stealth-enabled BVR engagement through fused sensing; Gripen excels at EW-integrated tactics, agility, and cost-efficiency. Sources include comparative pieces and manufacturer-focused coverage—each carrying potential bias toward operational narratives or procurement arguments—so policymakers must weigh these trade-offs against doctrine, allied interoperability, base infrastructure, and threat sets. The factual record shows complementary strengths rather than absolute dominance by either platform ^{[1] [2] [3]}.