I will argue that TVC is not the prime source of high energy maneuvering capability and therefore certainly not the way to now magically dodge missiles.
Dodging an AAM, i.e. kinematiclly defeating it and not at the edge of the missile performance envelope were it merely becomes outrunning it, will require high speed and the ability to quickly change vectors. This is to create a lot of angular movement from the missiles perspective and therefore force it to adjust it's flight path, wich in turn forces it to bleed energy, i.e. speed. (Or overpower the tracking rate of the seeker)
Simply doing backflips in place or flying min radius turns at 250knots won't create any issues for the missile, as it doesn't care if it hits the plane on the nose or tail and will still fly to the same spoint it space.
So we're back to maneuvering at or above cornering velocity, at which probably all fighters will achive their max Gs at moderate AoAs of maybe 20 to 35° perhaps. Pulling the planform of your jet into the wind at or above 450 - 500kts will most certainly overstretch the design load factor of the jet.
I will also say that changing direction at those speeds, to this day, relies mainly on aerodynamic means, as propulsion tech and concepts are not yet at a point were they become the main source of a change of direction. Propulsion merely provides the fast enough movement through the air for those aerodynamic means to be effective.
Now there are of course issues with changing the attitude by aerodynamic means. Deflecting the controlls is to create lift in one way to change attitude. That will naturally create induced drag. However, using the long lever arms of distant coupled canards or far aft mounted stabs will reduce the impact. And I'm still not convinced that these penalties are meaningfully bigger then the penalties incurred by the increased weight or thrust loss through deflection in TVC equipped jets.
In the cruise /"low intensity maneuvering" phase TVC has some merrits in providing a trim capability without the drag, or RCS rise, of a deflected surface. Or in controlling the jet when supersonic, were I think there are minor issues with using conventional controlls. But I wonder if the rather complex TVC tech employed today is the best option, or if a (less powerfull) "hot gas injection" system, that should use less mechanical parts, woudn't do better, and simpler.
Furthermore I do not see that direct connection between supercruise and supermaneuverability just because the two things came about roughly at the same point in time. You're not going to be supermaneuverable (in the sense of doing backflips) at supersonic speeds. For obvious reasons.
Finally, pointing your nose quickly under allmost all circumstances is indeed the domain of TVC aircraft. What has always been my issue is that if instead of driving around the corner aerodynamicly you are trying to square it with your planform against the wind, it is a risky, last ditch move.
