Thats’s a way of looking at it but Su-24 had more development potential. Upgraded MiG-29s could take over over MiG-23/27/Su-17 roles.

But those upgraded MiG-29’s stayed mostly vapourware. Of course Su-24 was in most ways much more capable, but it is also expensive to maintain and requires crew of two and has poor reliability record. Su-17 would have been simpler while sharing same engine than Su-24.

AFAIR MiG-21bis had 4 hardpoints for missiles. I don’t see how K-13 in the late 80s was such a good thing as the missile was obsolete.

Wasn’t there some upgrade allowing 6 missile hardpoints?

Diesels bulky but economical. Gas turbines compact and good acceleration but not very fuel-efficient. Steam turbines something in-between but very maintenance-intensive which is why they went out of style except in nuclear propulsion.

Electric transmission is bulky but reliable and makes handling the ship easier than mechanical gearing. As tonnage makes less up in ships’ cost these days, size constraints seem to have become less meaningful.

Sure but having both typically comes at a cost, hence there is always a sacrifice.

Of course there is. Usually what you have to sacrifice to gain speed is range. When you have certain range/payload requirement for a given airframe size & weight, you have to sacrifice some speed. They could have easily made F-35 supercruising and it would not have costed any more than it currently does, but it would not have flown as far.

Still I don’t get it.
Is such ability something that was actively sought i.e. there is a precise requirement for it or its just something that was found during the trials and added to the database.
There were several planes able to fly supersonic in military mode (Mirage III, Bac Lighting etc) but it was never considered something relevant as it happened just in clean mode and at an high quote.
Fact is that planes usually are optimized for operating at an higly subsonic or, in very limited cases, into a supersonic cruise mode.

But that is exactly the point. The fact that most combat aircraft are optimized for that (which is understandable, given requirements and technology limitations) means that those who offer meaningful performance increase over that level do have a real-life advantage.
Yes, even in the ’60s you could go supersonic on mil power if that was all you wanted (first Draken prototype broke sound barrier without afterburner, on a climb) but when you loaded up weapons, fuel and avionics even attempting it usually wasn’t practical. However nowadays there are technical means to do it while carrying useful warload and some planes have been designed to take advantage of it. I’m sure they wouldn’t have bothered if it was judged completely useless.

Now 1,2 mach is instead just above transonic velocity, with all related turbulences: to get there F-35 would in every case need to use AB and also when it reach such a velocity it would still operate in a not optimal regime.
So, I repeat again what is, operatively speaking, the rationale of it?

The rationale to be faster is to be faster. When you’re faster, you dictate the terms of the engagement: you can force an engagement on your terms, and disengage again on your terms. It is a very basic parameter of warplane performance.

Question about F-35 supercruise is IMHO one of such ones in which there is a divide between sought of a given performance just to appease customer and its practical utility.
What is the tactical advantage that F-35 would achieve supercruising at 1.2 for roughtly 120km wasting an huge quantity of fuel instead of a normal higly subsonic one + a supersonic dash when needed?

It is not the F-22 that would reach throught it a speed superior to the maximum one many fighters have at full AB.
Neither is the MiG-31 that, although not having it, still goes farther and faster with AB on on than the same Raptor supercruising.
Below certain speed and certain range the capacity of remaining supersonic without using AB (above all if you still need it to get there) is just something that just look fancy on brochures (and discussion forums).

That is a very narrow view. Not every potential customers has same practical requirements. It is understandable that USA needs F-35 to be a major strike asset and as such, sacrifices some supersonic performance for range & payload. But not all air forces have similar priorities.

Wasn’t it originally planned to have all-new planar array design for MiG-29/Su-27, but it failed and they had to settle for scaled up Sapfir (MiG-23 radar)? In the end they pretty much skipped planar arrays completely.

So is Ocean replacement really off the cards? Such a ship doesn’t cost much, less than a frigate, surely RN is not that cash-strapped after carriers are done? RAF gives up 4 Eurofighters and you’re pretty much set.