Do you think there will ever be another new manned swing-wing/variable geometry (VG) combat aircraft?

No, swing wings are an interim technology and were favored by contradicting requirements. They cause high structural weight, impose limitations in lifetime and limit maneuverability. The main advantages can be achieved easier with other solutions.

VG is a very good solution when you want to combine large payload, short take off, low landing speed, and high speed capabilities.

I have problems to see any swing-wings which excel in the points you mentioned. Better say: swing wings are useful to combine the performance of a supersonic jet with acceptable/good field performance.

VG is best for a wide range of operating conditions – low speed landing/take-off and higher dash speeds.

The old story. True is that conventional wings will give equivalent cruise speeds in the tactically useful range with minimal fuel penalty. More important for long range dash is the engine and inlet system. Turbofan engines are generally second class choice for that, but offer best compromise.

All aircraft that earned a swing wing did it because of field performance requirements. The better engine technology more or less cancelled the take-off problem, while landing remains a challenge.
I guess toughest field performance requirements were imposed on the Tornado, which also excels in being the most specialised airframe. Who ever saw a Tornado wing with all surfaces extended (slats, flaps, spoilers) will see how sophisticated the wings are.

My favorite swing wing is by the way the MiG-23.

Just wondering what aircraft Airbus and Boeing designed their A350/787 to replace? My understanding of it at the moment is this:

Boeing 787-3 = Boeing 757/Boeing 767-200ER
Boeing 787-8 = Boeing 767-300ER/Airbus A330
Boeing 787-9 = Boeing 767-400ER
Boeing 787-10 = Boeing 777-200ER/Airbus A340-300

Airbus A350-700 = Boeing 767-200ER
Airbus A350-800 = Boeing 767-300ER/Airbus A330
Airbus A350-900 = Boeing 777-200ER/Airbus A340-300
Airbus A350-900R = Boeing 777-200LR/Airbus A340-500
Airbus A350-1000 = Boeing 777-300ER/Airbus A340-600

Also, will the A350 design be refined anymore? I know they’ve just confirmed a composite fuselage, A380 nose, and reduced thrust, but none of those has a great impact on appearance, will those ugly wingtips be improved at all? Also, will the ‘XWB’ bit be dropped from the names?

I think that is a valid list.
The A350 is still some time before design freeze. By now the data for payload and range, as well as overall performance and dimensions can be considered confirmed. When it comes to materials, I think detailed decisions will come the next year or so. Airbus does not need to outlay exactly what they do from composite and what not. I actually think they will wait at least until the B787 is certified.

The A350 pleases airlines that never operated something like a B767, for example Lufthansa. Problem for Airbus is that the small family members (traditionally the less efficient) have to compete against the traditionally more efficient stretched versions of the B787. There is no A350-700. The A350-900 will be the basic version and the A350-800 its shrink.

Does someone know from which base the Norwegians normally operate?
Will the surge in intercepts in any way influence the Norwegian fighter procurement decision?

The crowd-pleasing aerobatics the Russian Flankers and Fulcrums put on feature segments of uncontrolled flight. Was it necessary to modify or override the FCS to allow the jets to gyrate and flip so dramatically?

My info is yes. Anyways, these are maneuvers well trained and flown by test pilots under favorable conditions, like most airshow maneuvers in the world. On all aircraft since the early 60ies stick-shakers are common that tell the pilot when maximum lift is reached. Normally heavy buffeting would tell anyways.

Since its the FCS computer accepts input from the pilot and is actually flying the plane, what role does the pilot actually perform in recovering from episodes of uncontrolled flight? Can he just release the controls and trust the FCS to recover the aircraft automatically? Let’s assume we’re talking about the latest jets like a Typhoon or Raptor.

For first generation fly-by-wire aircraft like the F-16 it was still possible to depart from controlled flight, though it wasn’t easy. On a type like the Eurofighter the controls can be called second generation, the aircraft is in the hands of the automatic control all the time. A departure is under normal conditions not thinkable, if departure appears, I guess the vertical exit is best option for the pilot.

if the F-14s can still be re-engined, that would imply that there is still substantial life left in the airframes..sparsely used or is it that the F-14, like the F-15 had the tremendously long Total airframe fatigue life? the F-15 can fly for upto 15,000 hrs, which is almost twice that of a Mirage-2000, which is twice that of the basic Fulcrum, which is almost twice a basic MiG-21..sometimes that would appear to even out the high initial cost..

Which is twice … no four … no eight times as much as the squareroute of the average lifetime of a Me-262. So what?
“Lifetime” of a MiG-29 or MiG-21 can be extended if maintained like an average F-15. The very short lifetime of Russian designs is not necessarily a design flaw but more a garantueed service goal. The expert asks which parts are lifetime limited and what were the assumptions for that. For an F-14 that is easy: the swing wing.

I’d finally add that to me the Tu 160 (or even some derivate of the B1A?) would be even more suited than the B1B to the low intensity CAS mission, thanks to its speed allowing for pretty much the same reaction times than a fighter/bomber. After all those CAS plane don’t need to do much low alt flying except for the show of force missions.

You use the tools you have at hand. In case of Russia, these were financed long ago and the bill is basically paid. But I have the opinion that tactical aircraft can do the mission with better effectivity per spent money. Giving the problems the Russian AF still has from its long underfinancing other areas may be more be more in need of money. First objective should be to bring the high number of tactical aircraft to a state-of-the-art level.

Boeing were practically late on everything , they cought up on a lot of things (some of which i cannot disclose) over the last 24 months , some things were much serious then what issues plague the program now .

Normal for pretty much every program I guess. Problems were similar for the B747 I guess. And I think Airbus or MDD have not had less issues.