Three armchair thoughts:

1- The need for speed going into a dogfight is increasingly irrelevant.
Speed = life was the motto before modern engines. It still applies, but to
a lesser degree IMO. The thrust of the F-22 is sick. You can regain energy
unlike the Camel, P-51, F-86, F-105, F-4, or even the F-15. You absolutely
still need energy, but with better enginges, you have less need for
pre-existing speed to provide that energy.

2- "lleged reason: It's cheaper to design a missile that'll kill anyone
giving
chase than it is to design an airplane that can egress." Ideally, that
makes very good sense. Let the missile do the dogfighting. In reality, I
don't think missile technology is there yet, so you still need the agile
jet, with the ability to disengage.

3- Speed shrinks tail-on missle envelopes. Both S-A, and A-A. I bet the
Iraqi's wish they were all flying F-111s when they tried to run on the deck
to Iran! Might not have saved them all, but it would have probably saved
some of them. Speed increases head-on envelopes. The hit and run tactics
of Mig-21s and -25s have proven to be among their better options probably
because speed decreases detection time and hence increases surprise.

So I think it's clear that speed is, and always will be, an important asset
even if engines and missiles continue to improve. It matters for a lot more
than just egressing dogfights.

TV