You are looking at the blocker.

Exactly, no annular rings or spray bars visible, nor combustion chamber (pardon ‘burner chamber. Happy hour. Dangers of not working an honest day since May) view to LPC. Online eyeball RCS analysis just not used to looking up the a@s end of a fighter. Not meant as an insult to you xb-70, more the process of trying to determine what will and will not be a RCS hotspot. The early documents on the F135 addressed the RCS reduction of the nozzle, mixer, and burner

Not perfect, the F-22 non-axis symetric 2-d nozzle offered lower drag and fewer angles from which chamber was visible, but heavier and less applicable for a STOVL aircraft (x-32 Monica disagrees)

Well the current Gripen has a dry thrust of 54kN and 80.5kN with afterburner. The e will have 64kN dry and 98kN with afterburner. So 20% isn’t that much off.

Difference between F404 and -414 absolutely…. but as I stated above when intermediate thrust increases by 2,200 pounds and empty weight increases by ~2,600 lbs….

Addresed that, hence why maneuverability metrics for USAF aircraft are measured at 60% external fuel.

Wingloading- most every modern fighter is between 300 and 500 kg/m2 at loaded weight. The low side of that range is dominated by variations of delta wings. That doesn’t nescessarly mean less is better, or that a delta’s generally low wingloading is superior for maneuverability. Every planform has advantages and disadvantages in different flight regimes (to fully explain why would take a massive post, and frankly more effort than I feel like expending)

Why wingloading has little impact on supercruise:
Supercruise requires sufficient thrust in military power at cruise altitudes. Most turbofan’s performance falls off as altitude increases (example- early F100 engines produced about 23,800lbs uninstalled max thrust at sea level,in an F-16 at Mach 1 at sea level the combination of thrust and inlet produces 29,000lbs, but at 30,000 feet that same engine/inlet is producing around 15,000 lbs thrust)- that’s with afterburners…
So, a supercruiser needs a turbofan with a relatively low bypass ratio (amongst other things), and an inlet with good pressure recovery across the transonic and supersonic regime. The F119, M88 (and F414) both have a higher ratio of intermediate to max thrust than most other turbofans. The difference is that the F119 (not sure on M88) was designed for supercruise. The EJ200 is an outlier with a somewhat higher bypass ratio. But, we don’t know the flight thrust of any of these at altitudes and speeds (we do know that the three above do produce sufficient dry thrust to allow supercruise)

A supercruiser also needs low Cd at transonic and supersonic speeds, lower overall drag. Very Low wingloading isn’t necessarily beneficial here as induced drag would be higher than a moderately loaded wing, Ceteris paribus (same wing shape, same weight, different wing area).
A supercruiser needs a high fuel fraction in order to maintain supersonic speeds for any length of time.

So, just looking at thrust to weight ratio isn’t indicative of a true supercruising aircraft, its the amount of intermediate thrust it produces at higher altitudes, good transonic drag characteristics, and supersonic drag.

The Gripen E/F probably(like the C) has the ability to exceed Mach 1 on dry thrust (deltas have a high critical Mach number, and delta canards have excellent transonic performance). But that isn’t supercruising, the airflow around the aircraft has to be supersonic to be clear of the transonic regime (different for every aircraft). True supercruisers can reach and maintain speeds above Mach 1.2, well clear of transonic drag rise. I just doubt the Gripen E/F can when carrying weapons (parasitic drag: lift induced large delta, interference drag from weapons, pylons) considering thrust available.
(Edit- not disparaging a delta canard configuration for supercruise as two of the three aircraft that have demonstrated supercruise are, as they, for example also have lower trim drag than a conventional delta. Disparaging the idea that low wingloading is beneficial for supersonic flight. There are considerable generalizations in the above as I’m sure someone will point out, but post is long winded enough)

Well topspeed; I have to claim ignorance of your bizarro world aerodynamics….

But in the actual physical world, low wingloading does not contribute to the ability of an aircraft to supercruise.

As far as 20% more thrust:
Gripen c ~15,000lbs empty weight with RM12 producing 12,100 lbs intermediate (mil) thrust
Gripen E 17,600lbs empty weight with F414 producing 14,327 lbs intermediate thrust.

hmmm. Appears to be more blizzaro world physics, because in reality, the intermediate (military power) thrust to weight ratio is little changed.

From the old flightglobal link above:

Any reason to suppose that Gripen E will be as draggy as the NG? I would have thought that with advances in aerodynamic design a reduction in drag would have been achieved in the ~10 years since the supercruise demonstration.

What about cruise speed with 4 AAM’s? Would that not not be a typical loadout in an interception role?

As draggy? It’s going to have a similar Cd, but slightly higher drag overall. Slight increase in wetted area, slight increase in dry thrust to weight ratio. The Gripen C could exceed Mach 1 on dry thrust when clean as well. The NG was a modified aircraft with the F414 (but without the full weight increase or other modifications of the E/F), so its achieving Mach 1.2 unarmed means little for the E/F. The demonstrator was 2,200+ lbs lighter and didn’t have the external changes.

I’m sceptical to put it mildly. While the F414 has a low bypass ratio and a dry/max thrust ratio superior to many other engines, the aircraft gained significant weight, large wingtip ECM pods, and as stated above, an increase in wetted area. Performance is probably not significantly improved from the “C” except in respect to range and weapon carriage.

Supercruise M1.2+.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/saab-celebrates-supercruise-test-success-for-gripen-321428/

That was the Gripen NG demo aircraft in 2009!

A test flight of an unarmed prototype doesn’t mean the Gripen E/F can supercruise. Moreover, the fact that a lighter, unarmed aircraft reached Mach 1.2 on dry thrust isn’t all that inspiring that the E/F will have a useable supercruise.