Here are some shots of a few details I've worked on. I've mainly worked on the gear animations,which are difficult as the main gears do not retract in an ordinary fashion. The animation I'm trying to make has therefor become (over)complicated. It seemed to take what is effectively the shortest rotational route but it's not supposed, will have to find a fix for that.
Yes they are the same on all JAS39 models. The differences in models:
The differences between A/B, C/D and now E/F is that the original production versions (A/B) did not feauture the armarment and electronics necessary to become NATO-compatible, which at the time (circa 2000-2002) was important to even compete for the jetfighter replacement programs of then new NATO-countries Hungary and the Czech Republic (both awarded to the Gripen) and in Polan (which was awarded to the F-16C Block 50/52+, correct me if I'm wrong). Quite interesting was that this one the onliest fighter in all of those competition that needed upgrades before being able to compete (other bids coming from Eurofighter, Dassault, Lockheed-Martin and Boeing, all of which had to design to NATO-standards to start with).
Good to know is that, although there are differences between the main gears of the A/C and B/D versions in terms of the landing gear doors, there is no difference in the gears between A/B and C/D. As a matter of fact, the Swedish Air Force which originally operated A/B variants upgraded all (I believe) of it's aircraft to C/D standard. The main exterior notice of such a change is the fact that the C/D variant have inflight refeuling capabilities, which the A/B variants did not have.
And to be very clear, before we get haters throwing rocks at anything, the JAS39s offered to countries such as the Netherlands, Belgium and Norway were not "aging" (not my words, because these decisions were supposed to be made before 2010 meaning the aircraft would have been 8 years old at max) JAS39C/D variants but newly eveloped JAS39E/F variants, which has yet to perform a first flight (2017). But I guess that's politics...
Actually there is still a substantial amount of pushing and pulling to be done on the section below the horizontal stabalizer. After that it is to the main source of frustration: the underwing pylons and than I can go to the relative ease of building the engine (well atleast the mad sweeds ditched their idea of reversers as on the Viggen).
Well yeah, of course weapon loads play an important role in the cool factor of a fighter to a good extend. This is a point where the Gripen has a short-coming I'm afraid. Where previous aircraft (e.g. the F-16) could cary multiple GBUs (Paveway series bombs) on one pod allowing for up to 6 GBU-12 (or 4 of other GBU types) the gripen can only cary the GBU-12 and only one per pod. I am not sure why this is but if I had to guess I'd say it probably has something to do with GBUs being a US manufactured and the US being unwilling to supply the pod-extensions for multi-loading to Sweden but i am not sure about this. Either way those are the GBU-12s, more over another interesting ordinance is the Swedish built RBS-15 (also built by SAAB) as seen on the inner pods here. On the outer pods we find the AGM-65 "Maverick" (please no Top Gun references) and on the wing tips we see AIM-9 Sidewinders.
DISCLAIMER: Yes this is a Brazilian livery I made, I know they ordered the NG version but it's fun to look at it!
Gun has been removed btw, failure when merging some parts with the C-version