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 do radar cross-section measurements compare between the JAS 39 Gripen and the F-35 Lightning II?
Executive summary
Public reporting does not provide any authoritative, measured RCS (radar cross‑section) figures directly comparing the JAS 39 Gripen (various blocks) and the Lockheed Martin F‑35 Lightning II; available articles instead offer claims and estimates—some saying Gripen has a relatively small RCS among non‑stealth fighters and others stressing the F‑35 was designed from the ground up to minimize RCS [1] [2]. Specific numeric RCS values for Gripen appear in secondary sources (e.g., 0.5–2.0 m² claims), but these are inconsistent across outlets and not corroborated by official manufacturer or government measurement data in the provided results [3] [4].
1. What the reporting actually says about stealth and RCS
Multiple pieces make two consistent points: the F‑35 is a true “stealth” 5th‑generation design whose structure, materials and internal weapons bays aim to minimize radar signature; the Gripen E includes signature‑reduction measures but was not built as a stealth aircraft and therefore is generally treated as more detectable than the F‑35 [2] [5]. Several outlets nonetheless argue the Gripen’s RCS is unusually small for a non‑stealth fighter and that its radar signature may be lower than many older 4th‑generation types [1] [6].
2. Numbers you’ll see—and their limitations
Some reporting quotes specific RCS-like numbers for Gripen models (examples: 1.5–2.0 m² for older Gripen C/D; block‑E figures as low as 0.5 m² in informal compilations), while others simply describe Gripen as “smaller RCS than any other operational fighter except the F‑35 and F‑22” [3] [4] [1]. These figures are from secondary websites or opinion pieces and are not traceable to an official, repeatable measurement method in the provided set; therefore they should be treated as rough estimates, not definitive measurements [4] [1].
3. Why official RCS comparisons are rare and problematic
RCS depends heavily on measurement frequency, aspect angle, configuration (external fuel tanks or weapons), and what sensors are used. Journalistic stories and defense blogs note capability differences—F‑35’s stealth is integral to its design; Gripen relies on electronic warfare, agility and reduced signature elements—but none of the provided sources publishes a standardized, peer‑reviewed head‑to‑head RCS test [2] [6]. As a result, numerical claims in the media reflect either manufacturer/advocate messaging or third‑party estimations rather than controlled comparisons [2] [6].
4. How each design approaches detectability
The F‑35’s architecture emphasizes low observable shaping and internal carriage to minimize RCS across many aspects; reporting stresses it was “built from the ground up to minimize its radar cross‑section” [2]. The Gripen E incorporates modern radar‑absorbent treatments, careful shaping and advanced electronic warfare and sensor suites to reduce detectability and defeat sensors, but it was not developed as a stealth platform in the same sense—commentary frames the Gripen as “reducing visibility” rather than “disappearing” [2] [7].
5. Operational context: sensors, tactics and signature management
Several articles emphasize that RCS alone does not determine survivability. The Gripen’s sensors, data links and electronic warfare systems are presented as ways to mitigate the disadvantage of not being a dedicated stealth design: jamming, networked “best sensor” targeting, and tactics such as agile basing or cooperative engagement with stealth assets [8] [5] [7]. Conversely, the F‑35’s stealth gives it an asymmetric advantage in BVR (beyond‑visual‑range) detection and first‑shot opportunities when stealth is preserved [9] [2].
6. Competing narratives and potential agendas
Pro‑Gripen outlets and some national advocacy pieces highlight low RCS claims for the Gripen and stress cost, ease of maintenance and advanced EW as legitimizing alternatives to the F‑35 [1] [7]. Pro‑F‑35 reporting and technical summaries underscore that the F‑35’s stealth architecture is a fundamental generational leap and that the Gripen cannot match that in high‑threat environments [2] [9]. These differences reflect vendor, national and editorial perspectives rather than a shared measurement dataset.
7. Bottom line for readers
Available sources do not present an authoritative, identical‑method RCS measurement directly comparing the Gripen and F‑35 (not found in current reporting). The reliable, supported takeaway from the provided reporting is: the F‑35 is expressly designed for very low observability while the Gripen E reduces signature compared with older fighters and relies heavily on sensors and EW as compensating measures—claims of exact numerical parity should be treated skeptically unless backed by transparent test data [2] [1] [8].
If you want, I can compile the specific numeric claims in the sources into a side‑by‑side table and note their provenance and credibility level, so you can see which figures are asserted where.