Engines - A couple of clarifications:
The VT idea is to vector the nozzle downward and balance that with nose-up trim on the canard. Hence less wing lift required and lower alpha for same weight and speed. Should not have to be too fancy as the VT is for trim and the canards and TEs are providing fine-tune control.
If the STOBAR aircraft has to be at flying speed when it leaves the ramp, then what is the benefit from the ramp, aside from a little more time to go OH
EJECT EJECT if something goes wrong? Surely (from a lift viewpoint) the STOBAR can leave the ramp below flying speed, on a ballistic trajectory, as long as it can accelerate and reach level flying speed at or close to the top of the arc?
And since modern fighters can remain under control at alphas much greater than those at which they can land (see slow pass at any air show), don't they have control authority to spare?
On the Gripen structure: I could have been clearer. My understanding is that the new stuff for the JAS 39E/F (including all the bulkheads, MLG and support structure) is being designed with a CV variant in mind, rather like the Rafale. The trick is to balance weight-optimization, on the one hand, with the goal of concentrating the extra beef in the smallest number of different parts, on the other. On the Rafale, this was one of the earliest CATIA party tricks.
As for the MTOW from 800 meters, I'm not sure what the limitations are - but I would think that 3000 lb of weapons fuel for 450 nm would be less than MTOW.