F414 had fewer parts, with formerly independent parts packed into modules. I remember hearing the parts count was down 40%.

The bombs underneath the outboard underwing pylons are interesting. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a Flanker carrying anything there other than an R-73 or perhaps an R-77.

I have to admit the R-77 out there is very interesting.

Please refrain from the activity whatever the case.

Back on topic, the Gripen B/D are not trainers and wouldn’t fair as well in the role as a dedicated trainer considering the integration of simulator technology in T-50 and M-346. I imagine Hawk and Yak-130 can have it integrated, but that’s the big difference between the vendors. The Lockheed Martin and Boeing teams integrate these functions into the modern fighters and from F-16 to F-22 in U.S. service it is possible to convert fighters into training modes. It’s why you buy from the big iron salesmen.

The engines being proposed in the competition are strangely chosen IMHO. Two denatured F124’s cost a little more than one full blown F125. One non-afterburning F404 is cheaper than the F125. The F404 is cheaper than the F414. Two F125’s cost less than one F414. One non-afterburning F110 costs roughly equal to the F414. Running costs favor putting larger non-afterburning engines into trainers. If you need the thrust of two engines you may as well go for one bigger engine. Running two engines raises the overall running costs and gives one twice the chances of poor maintenance leading to catastrophic failure.

Some F-104 Pr0n

Smoke. TWR. Maintenance man-hours. Reliability. IDK