Ramjet Advantage? How the Gripen’s Design Could Challenge Russia’s Su-35 in Modern Air Combat

Reports and analysis circulating among defense commentators this week have renewed debate over how emerging Western fighter concepts—particularly the Saab JAS 39 Gripen E—could challenge Russia’s Sukhoi Su-35 in certain operational scenarios, especially when supported by modern networking, electronic warfare, and long-range missile systems.

While there is no confirmed direct combat between the two aircraft, military analysts say the comparison reflects a broader shift in air combat thinking: from individual aircraft performance toward integrated systems warfare, where sensors, data links, and missile technology can matter as much as raw thrust or airframe size.

The discussion has been amplified by renewed attention to propulsion concepts, including ramjet-powered missiles such as the MBDA Meteor, which is integrated into the Gripen E and several NATO fighters. Analysts argue that such systems may alter traditional assumptions about beyond-visual-range (BVR) engagements.

A systems battle, not just a dogfight

The Russian Su-35 is widely regarded as one of Moscow’s most advanced fourth-plus generation fighters. It features thrust-vectoring engines, long-range radar, and high maneuverability, designed to dominate within visual range and compete at extended ranges with Western counterparts.

The Gripen E, by contrast, is significantly smaller, lighter, and optimized for dispersed operations, rapid turnaround, and advanced electronic warfare integration. Rather than relying on raw kinematic performance, it is designed to operate within a networked battlespace, sharing targeting data with other aircraft, ground systems, and airborne sensors.

A Western defense analyst, speaking on condition of anonymity due to sensitivity around comparative assessments, said the key difference is not just platform capability but operational doctrine.

“The Su-35 is a highly capable airframe with strong sensors and maneuverability,” the analyst said. “But the Gripen concept is built around survivability through connectivity and information advantage rather than direct engagement dominance.”

The ramjet factor and long-range missiles

A major focus of recent analysis is the Meteor missile, a beyond-visual-range air-to-air missile powered by a solid-fuel ramjet engine. Unlike traditional rocket motors, the ramjet system allows sustained thrust during flight, giving the missile a larger “no-escape zone” at long distances.

This means that once launched within certain parameters, targets have fewer opportunities to outrun or outmaneuver the missile before impact, according to defense industry assessments.

Military experts say this capability could shift engagement dynamics when paired with platforms like the Gripen E, which is designed to maximize missile effectiveness through advanced targeting data and sensor fusion.

Dr. Henrik Lawson, an airpower analyst at the European Institute for Defense Studies, said the significance lies in energy management during the engagement.

“Traditional missiles lose energy after motor burnout,” he said. “A ramjet sustains thrust, which changes how far a pilot can push an engagement and still retain lethal probability.”

However, Lawson cautioned that missile performance alone does not determine air combat outcomes. Detection range, electronic warfare, pilot training, and network support all influence survivability and kill probability.

Su-35 strengths remain significant

Despite renewed discussion around Western missile systems, analysts emphasize that the Su-35 remains a formidable platform. Its Irbis-E radar is capable of long-range target detection, and its thrust-vectoring engines provide exceptional maneuverability in close-range combat.

Russian defense doctrine has also increasingly emphasized layered air defense integration, where fighters operate alongside ground-based radar and missile systems to create overlapping detection and engagement zones.

A European defense official noted that the Su-35’s advantage often depends on operating environment rather than isolated platform comparison.

“In a permissive or well-supported air defense environment, the Su-35 can perform extremely effectively,” the official said. “It becomes more complicated when facing dense electronic warfare and networked adversary systems.”

Electronic warfare and network advantage

Much of the modern comparison between aircraft like the Gripen E and Su-35 now centers on electronic warfare and data integration rather than raw flight performance.

The Gripen E is designed to operate with high levels of electronic warfare autonomy, including onboard jamming, passive detection, and real-time data sharing with other assets. This allows it to engage targets without necessarily relying on its own radar emissions, reducing detectability in contested environments.

Western analysts say this could matter significantly in scenarios where airspace is heavily monitored and saturated with sensors.

Dr. Elena Hartmann, a senior fellow at the Institute for Strategic Air Studies, said the evolution of air combat is increasingly about information dominance.

“We are moving toward environments where who sees first and shoots first is determined less by the aircraft alone and more by the entire sensor network behind it,” she said. “The platform is only one node in a larger system.”

She added that comparisons between individual aircraft can be misleading without considering the broader operational architecture.

Limitations of direct comparison

Despite extensive online debate, defense experts caution that direct comparisons between the Gripen E and Su-35 are inherently limited. The two aircraft were designed under different strategic assumptions, with different support ecosystems and operational roles.

The Su-35 is optimized for air superiority and interception in a large, integrated air defense network. The Gripen E is designed for dispersed operations, rapid deployment, and survivability under contested logistics conditions.

A NATO defense planner said the most important variable is not platform-versus-platform performance but how each aircraft is supported in a real operational environment.

“No fighter operates alone anymore,” the official said. “The outcome depends on radar coverage, AWACS support, electronic warfare, missile inventory, and pilot training as much as the aircraft itself.”

Broader implications for future air combat

Analysts say the renewed discussion reflects a broader transformation in air warfare, where long-range missiles, passive sensors, and networked warfare are increasingly defining engagement outcomes.

The introduction of ramjet-powered missiles like Meteor is seen as part of a wider trend toward extended-range lethality, where aircraft may engage targets without entering traditional visual or close-range combat zones.

However, experts stress that real-world effectiveness remains dependent on complex conditions that are difficult to replicate outside of controlled simulations or training exercises.

As Dr. Hartmann summarized, “Modern air combat is no longer just about who has the better aircraft. It is about who has the better system around the aircraft.”

For now, the Gripen–Su-35 comparison remains largely theoretical in operational terms. But analysts say it offers a window into how future conflicts may be shaped less by individual platforms and more by the speed, depth, and resilience of the networks that connect them.

Ramjet Advantage? How the Gripen’s Design Could Ch...