Why go through such big modifications just to get one more hardpoint? Wouldn’t it be better to just re-arrange the hard points on the fuselage instead? I’m thinking Mirage 2000 and Rafale style here? Or perhaps just modify the landing gear doors so that the open differently, giving more room for multiple stores racks?
It just seems so unnecessary.

Isn´t the main requirement for Norway longer range/more payload (guessing here)? Ie more hardpoints are more of a bonus result from the longer range modification? Further, the changes shouldn´t necesseraly be VERY complicated…since CG is not change much(but everything is relative ofcoarse) 🙂

(OBS the following are from a older SAAB conceptstudie and probably differ more or less from a Gripen N…)

1.New main gear wich is attached to a frame outside the wingbox. Similar to F-14, JSF, Mig 29. Reduced svivel space wich allows more flexible weapons use and future modification (Insert Robbans more pylons to the people proposal here maybe) 🙂 .
[Edit: One more thing; the door arrangement can be made much simpler wich “simplifies both hydraulic system layout and installation” compaired with existing system.]
(another ,more complicated “gear placement inside wing” concept was discarded )
2. Placement of fueltanks into the now empty maingear “cavities”.
3. Two new ventral pylons with supersonic (droptanks only?) jettison capability.(se picture)
4. More fuel and added MTOW require larger brakes, wheels similar in size to heavier versions of F-16 is chosen(2″ larger diameter and slightly broader).
5. Vent and pressurization system have to be modified.
(6. More powerful engines)

Regards, NOAS