Good points.
Interesting times on your F16 project. It surprised me to find out after marvelling at the super manoeuvrable thrust vectoring Mig/Sukhois that the Western Design Teams had already been researching that area. Obviously there were reasons why, unlike the Russians, it wasn’t incorporated into F16 F18 Tornado Rafale etc.. I suppose just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should.
I agree with your remark about having “both” if you can to increase your tactical options but fear (particularly in UK) that this is likely to be limited severely by the Fifth Aerodynamic Force (money.)
I wonder how much of Aircraft design is fashion even in the “hard nose world” of tactical fighters. Perhaps the problem is their designers love them. Most people involved with aviation love aircraft (ok X32 designers aside); whereas the people designing them shouldn’t. They should view them as mere platforms. What weapons do we have? What are we likely to get in the future? How do we get to fire ours before they get to fire theirs? How do we get to do it reliably and CHEAPLY? I think a famous German pilot who liked red planes said a variation of the above.
I can see advantages in going supersonic getting to and from places quickly, energising your missiles but what is the price? Is an engine designed to get you supersonic not one that can quickly re-energise you in a manoeuvre enviroment or one that allows better fuel efficiency ? Is an airframe designed to go supersonic too specialised to function well manoevering? Given advances in thrust vectoring can airframe limitations be overcome or will drag considerations always limit its’ application? If going a little bit supersonic is good surely going alot supersonic must be better? When does the law of diminishing returns kjck in?
I understand Aircraft Design like so much of real life is a compromise. Supersonic capability a worthwhile capability or is the price to great?
TIM