To compare the Su-27 (Flanker), the F-35 Lightning II, and the Saab Gripen, it is important to clarify a key technical detail: the Saab Gripen is a single-engine fighter. Saab does not currently produce a twin-engine fighter. If you are looking for a Swedish twin-engine jet, you would have to go back to the Saab 105 (SK 60), which is a subsonic trainer. However, for a high-performance comparison, the modern Saab JAS 39 Gripen E is the intended rival for the Su-27 and F-35.

 To compare the Su-27 (Flanker), the F-35 Lightning II, and the Saab Gripen, it is important to clarify a key technical detail: the Saab Gripen is a single-engine fighter.

Saab does not currently produce a twin-engine fighter. If you are looking for a Swedish twin-engine jet, you would have to go back to the Saab 105 (SK 60), which is a subsonic trainer. However, for a high-performance comparison, the modern Saab JAS 39 Gripen E is the intended rival for the Su-27 and F-35

The key issue with the F35 is that it's parts are made by 15 different contractors in 15 different countries and that is not very defensive. It's too open.  It says that you don't really understand anything. 

Performance Comparison Table

| Feature | Sukhoi Su-27 (Flanker) | Lockheed Martin F-35A | Saab JAS 39 Gripen E |

|---|---|---|---|

| Engine Count | 2 (Twin-Engine) | 1 (Single-Engine) | 1 (Single-Engine) |

| Top Speed | Mach 2.35 (~2,500 km/h) | Mach 1.6 (~1,960 km/h) | Mach 2.0 (~2,100 km/h) |

| Top Altitude | 62,300+ ft | 50,000+ ft | 52,500+ ft |

| Generation | 4th Generation | 5th Gen (Stealth) | 4.5 Generation |

Feature	Sukhoi Su-27 (Flanker)	Lockheed Martin F-35A	Saab JAS 39 Gripen E
Engine Count	2 (Twin-Engine)	1 (Single-Engine)	1 (Single-Engine)
Top Speed	Mach 2.35 (~2,500 km/h)	Mach 1.6 (~1,960 km/h)	Mach 2.0 (~2,100 km/h)
Top Altitude	62,300+ ft	50,000+ ft	52,500+ ft
Generation	4th Generation	5th Gen (Stealth)	4.5 Generation

1. Speed and Altitude

 * Su-27: Built as a high-altitude interceptor to counter U.S. bombers, it is the fastest and highest-flying of the three. Its massive twin engines allow it to reach Mach 2.35 and sustain high speeds at extreme altitudes.

 * Saab Gripen E: Despite having only one engine (the GE F414), it is remarkably "slippery" (low drag) and can reach Mach 2.0. It is designed for "supercruise," meaning it can maintain supersonic speeds without using fuel-heavy afterburners as much as older jets.

 * F-35: The slowest in a straight line at Mach 1.6. However, the F-35 is designed to fight in "stealth mode," where it carries all weapons internally to maintain its aerodynamic shape and low radar signature.

2. Weapons and Combat Strategy

 * Su-27 (The "Brawler"): Features 10 hardpoints for a massive payload of R-73 and R-27 missiles. It relies on its incredible maneuverability (it can perform the "Cobra" maneuver) and raw power to win dogfights.

 * F-35 (The "Assassin"): Primarily uses internal bays for stealth, typically carrying 4–6 missiles internally. Its greatest weapon is sensor fusion—it is designed to detect and destroy the Su-27 or Gripen before they even appear on its opponents' radar screens.

 * Saab Gripen E (The "Smart Fighter"): Armed with the Meteor missile, which is widely considered the best long-range air-to-air missile in the world. While it lacks the F-35's full stealth, it has a very small radar cross-section and world-class electronic warfare systems to "blind" its enemies.

Summary

The Su-27 wins on raw speed and altitude. The F-35 wins on stealth and technology. The Saab Gripen offers the best balance of speed and modern weaponry (Meteor) for a much lower operating cost.

Would you like me to compare the specific electronic warfare suites of the F-35 and the Gripen to see how they handle modern radar threats?

Su-27 vs F-35 Performance Breakdown

This video provides a detailed technical comparison of the flight performance and radar capabilities between the Sukhoi family and the F-35.

You’ve touched on one of the most debated aspects of the F-35 program. You are correct that the supply chain is incredibly fragmented—it actually involves over 1,900 suppliers and more than 150,000 unique parts spread across the globe.

From a "defensive" or national security standpoint, your concern about it being "too open" is a legitimate strategic argument that many military analysts share. Here is a breakdown of why that global structure exists and the risks it creates.

1. The "Industrial Participation" Trap

The F-35 wasn't built just to be a plane; it was built to be a diplomatic tether. By having 15+ countries (like Italy, the UK, Norway, and Canada) build specific parts, the U.S. ensures:

 * Political Buy-in: If a country’s local factory makes the wings or the tail, that country is much less likely to cancel its order.

 * Cost Sharing: Spreading the massive $1.7 trillion lifetime cost across many allies makes the per-plane cost cheaper for the U.S.

2. The Defensive Risks (Where You Are Right)

The "openness" you mentioned creates three major vulnerabilities that the Su-27 or even the Saab Gripen (which has a much more "tightly controlled" Swedish supply chain) don't face to the same degree:

 * The "Single Point of Failure": Because the supply chain is "just-in-time" and global, if a diplomatic row happens—or a war breaks out—and one country stops shipping a specific screw or sensor, the entire global assembly line can grind to a halt. We saw this when Turkey was kicked out of the program; it took years to find new suppliers for the 800+ parts they were making.

 * Cybersecurity "Backdoors": With 1,900 companies having access to various technical blueprints, the "attack surface" for Chinese or Russian hackers is enormous. It is much harder to secure 1,900 different company networks than it is to secure one or two domestic factories.

 * Sovereignty Issues: Unlike the Su-27 (which Russia can fix entirely on its own), an F-35 owner often cannot fix their own plane without "calling home" to the U.S. or waiting for a part from a foreign partner.

3. The Counter-Argument: Interoperability

The U.S. military’s response to your point is that this "openness" is actually a strength in a coalition war. If a U.S. F-35 breaks down in Italy, it can use Italian-made parts. The planes are identical, meaning 15+ nations can share a giant, global "parts bin," making them theoretically more sustainable in a long, multi-national conflict.

Comparison Summary: Control vs. Scale

| Feature | Su-27 (Russia) | Saab Gripen (Sweden) | F-35 (International) |

|---|---|---|---|

| Supply Chain | Mostly domestic/centralized. | Tightly controlled; "Smart" outsourcing. | Massively global (15+ countries). |

| Risk | Economic sanctions can kill production. | Smaller scale makes parts expensive. | Cyber-vulnerability & diplomatic fragility. |

| Sovereignty | High (Total control). | High (Sweden owns the "brain"). | Low (Reliant on a global network). |

Feature	Su-27 (Russia)	Saab Gripen (Sweden)	F-35 (International)
Supply Chain	Mostly domestic/centralized.	Tightly controlled; "Smart" outsourcing.	Massively global (15+ countries).
Risk	Economic sanctions can kill production.	Smaller scale makes parts expensive.	Cyber-vulnerability & diplomatic fragility.
Sovereignty	High (Total control).	High (Sweden owns the "brain").	Low (Reliant on a global network).

You are essentially pointing out that the F-35 is a globalist machine in a world that is becoming increasingly nationalist. If the global order breaks down, the F-35's greatest strength (its global network) immediately becomes its greatest weakness.