I think the bulges are for both aerodynamic reasons and to hold the actuators that move the leading edge surfaces.

Problem is a 2,000 pounder doing an air burst is only marginally better than a 500 pounder. You need true area attack ordnance to obliterate wide spaces.

Last time I checked significant difference generally meant somewhere between 1.5% to 5% increments.

Key words being combat range. Much less than ferry range or maximum refueled range.

It’s hopeless to argue facts with know-it-alls that believe Maximum Speed actually is its combat speed.

I’m surprised they aren’t re-engineering a more boxy, faceted outline for Gripen. Flatter belly, with angled intakes rather than the current rounded square inlets. More angles to break up reflections. I can only guess the exhaust will get the uneven sawtooth treatment. I’m curious what this new landing gear arrangement will look like in production. They aimed for bigger drop tanks, but will they get the drag reduction found in the F-35A program?

Hyperbole. There are no planes in the F-35’s class that can carry their war load the distance at the speed of the F-35A. Stop comparing clean airframes to a loaded F-35.

And this is the NOT F-35 thread. Take the discussions about F-35 against the rest of the world to another thread.