Q? We don't need no stinking Q!

"Speed is life" was drummed into my brain starting with FAM-1 in the F-8.
Particularly vital in an era where any likely adversary would eat you alive
in a slow turning fight. Also useful when it was time to leave the scene
.... max speed to disengage and get to feet wet and safety. We're not
talking big mach numbers at altitude, but big knots(AKA Q) relatively low
.... shrinking missile envelopes and generating separation from the bad guys.

Had an interesting conversation with a PXO (former Bug driver) who just
finished 4 years at the puzzle palace. He claimed we didn't need speed in
tactical aircraft.

By default we don't have it in USN aircraft. The F-18C/D can't exceed 700
knots on a good day. The E/F is slower. They're impressive at high alpha
(only the F-22 and modded flankers are better), but they're not dragsters
(they're also a bit weak in endurance and range). But no matter.

Alleged reason: It's cheaper to design a missile that'll kill anyone giving
chase than it is to design an airplane that can egress. As the AIM-9X is
developed further, it will be able to engage a bogey at or near dead six
(!?!). Of course, the argument overlooks the fact that we've been flying
F-18's for some 20 years without this capability. In certain Pacific Rim
scenarios, an intrepid aviator in a Mig series aircraft could give chase and
run down the Bug and put one up where the sun don't shine.

Any thoughts? There aren't many potential adversaries that could put up a
significant A/A defense and current tactics are to neutralize them early
(Six day war style, as opposed to Vietnam), but it only takes one late
arrival in the furball to ruin your day. Is the day of the 800+ egress
over?

R / John