What is the Drag on Gripen E?
Executive summary
The Gripen E's aerodynamic drag is the product of competing design choices: its canard-delta layout and relaxed-stability aerodynamics create induced and configuration drag in some regimes, while a modern flight‑control system, aerodynamic refinement and a higher‑thrust F414 engine are claimed to minimise net drag and enable supercruise under certain conditions [1] [2] [3]. Public reporting and manufacturer claims point to a low‑drag, "slippery" aircraft in many flight regimes, but no open source provides a definitive drag coefficient or comprehensive wind‑tunnel/flight test drag polar for independent verification [2] [3].
1. Why the Gripen E’s geometry both creates and fights drag
The Gripen family uses a delta wing with canard foreplanes; canards generate useful lift but increase induced lift and therefore induced drag in some flight conditions—Wikipedia specifically notes canards contribute positive lift and that the configuration can increase induced drag as the rear stabiliser produces negative lift at high speeds [1]. At the same time, the delta wing provides large lift at many angles of attack and the airframe’s overall small size reduces frontal area, a classical contributor to form and wave drag; these are the hard trade‑offs embedded in the Gripen’s design [1].
2. Flight‑control systems as an active drag management tool
Saab and flight‑test reporting emphasise that relaxed static stability plus digital fly‑by‑wire controls let the Gripen be trimmed continuously for lower drag and higher manoeuvrability, removing many conventional flight restrictions and trimming the aircraft "for the least drag" across regimes [1] [2]. Saab presents this as an intentional systems‑level approach: by letting computers manage stability and control surface interactions the aircraft can operate with lower trimmed drag than an equivalent statically stable design [1] [2].
3. Engine power, supercruise and what that implies about drag
The E‑variant's switch to the General Electric F414G provides substantially more thrust than earlier engines and, together with aerodynamic refinements, is credited with enabling supercruise (sustained supersonic flight without afterburner) in published specs and vendor material [3] [4]. Supercruise capability is a practical indicator that, in at least some clean (internally‑fuelled, weapon‑light) configurations, the aircraft’s net drag at high speed is low enough that available dry thrust sustains supersonic cruise [3].
4. Operational loads and the drag penalty of real missions
Multiple sources stress that much of the Gripen E’s drag picture depends on mission fit: external tanks, weapons, reconnaissance pods and other stores increase wave and parasite drag and can negate supercruise or low‑drag advantages—an observation noted in comparative commentary about fighters carrying external tanks or "dropping their bags" to regain agility [5] [6]. The Gripen E does increase internal fuel capacity versus predecessors to reduce reliance on external tanks, but heavier airframe and payload options on the E also change its drag/weight balance compared with earlier models [5].
5. Evidence, competing claims and what’s missing
Pilot evaluations and Saab publicity repeatedly describe the Gripen as "slippery" and claim superior drag management via flight controls—reports cite pilots and flight‑test personnel surprised by performance and Saab’s statements about trimming for minimum drag [2]. Independent media and advocacy pieces echo low‑drag claims while noting the E is larger and heavier than earlier Gripens [7] [8]. However, none of the supplied public sources supplies raw aerodynamic data (drag polars, zero‑lift drag coefficients, or calibrated flight test parasitic/induced drag breakdowns) needed to quantify "the drag" numerically; therefore it is not possible from these sources to state exact drag coefficients, total drag at given Mach/altitude/load, or directly compare on a like‑for‑like basis to specific rivals with numbers [1] [2] [3].
Conclusion
The Gripen E’s drag profile is best described as the result of deliberate trade‑offs: an inherently drag‑producing canard/delta arrangement and a heavier, more capable E airframe are offset by advanced flight‑control trimming, internal fuel increases and a high‑thrust engine that together enable low‑drag behaviour in many combat‑relevant regimes including claimed supercruise [1] [5] [3] [2]. The narrative from Saab and flight‑test advocates is consistent: Gripen E is designed and flown to minimise drag where mission needs demand it, but public reporting does not provide the empirical aerodynamic numbers required for a definitive, quantitative judgement [2] [3].