Some cracking good stuff guys. Thanks. Very interested in the Meter v. Vampire and Seahawk notes, as well the Vulcan Canberra, observations.
Jacko, yes you are absolutely right, that you should design for the next war. Every fighter I am aware of, pretty much has been. The problem is, that the next war always produces some fairly massive surprises and that has been were the problem lies. The P-51A / A-36, the Me-110 etc, etc, The F-12!!!!
And this is the crux of my point lies. Most good aerodynamicists/pilots can look at a threat platform and pretty much predict it's performance in comparison to their own. What they can't predict, (thought they can often guess) is Pilot training, C3I, logistics, yaddah yaddah yaddah…..
The Flatus point, that cost, not the OR is often the constraining factor is very germane, incisive, and obvious and I feel a prat for not having spotted it. Some has mentioned to me that the one of the factors as to why EFA took so much time to develop was because it was more OR driven than Cost and the OR was constantly changing. (Wonder why?)
Granted, since the last 30 years (design and service cycle) has seen something like a 45-50% reduction in the types of fighter and combat aircraft fielded. N.B.> Types not numbers, this is now becoming less of a challenge. Typhoon can pretty much predict it's future threat, better than the F-104, F-4 or F3 could.
Red Snow. IMO, you are just about correct in your analysis of the VNAF tactics, and I have been re-scrutinising the BoB losses you mention. I don’t think you are that wrong. The 109 certainly was a fearsome aircraft, especially in the armament stakes, but not as good a turner as the Spit.