Phantom II – If I am reading you correctly as to where you are coming from, I support your views!

As for my 20-cents worth I think the Harrier GR.5/7/9 and AV-8B Plus are still useful and practical combat platforms.
It has evolved (as stated by Phantom II!) from a specific wanting and needed mission of that of the NATO specification for a Light Tactical Support Fighter, which wisely encompassed V/STOL.

It is unfortunate (like that of the Fairchild A-10 Thunderbolt it is being compared to!) that the service that employed it did it somewhat reluctantly and tongue-in-check.

It was interesting and encouraging for a short time to see that early in its career, some wise and sensible people in the RAF tried to deploy the likes of the GR.3’s unique capability in forward-basing / dispersal capability in West Germany during the Cold War!! (Sure this could have been made even more simpler, had the Harrier been designed or re-designed in its later GR.5/7/9 variants to allow its engine to be replaced in the field without the removal of its entire wing to do so!!).

The Harrier design proved itself far beyond anyone’s thoughts possible when it was adapted to improvised and poor-mans fighter/interceptor for the receding Royal Navy and neglecting British Ministry of Defence, in an effort to provide a means of fleet air defence and to keep the FAA alive.
The Falklands War proved once again that modern warfare was not all about opposing supersonic fighters knocking each other out of the sky with BVR missiles, without each side seeing one another. Has the British forgotten the simple and fundamental importance that the simple, subsonic and cheap Sea Harrier FRS.1 (along with the light carriers which carried, maintained and deployed them!) made the retaking of the Falkland Islands possible. That an enemy with older and simple 1960’s era aircraft, carrying dumb bombs could and did damage and sink ships!

The simple harrier design was versatile enough to be further updated, with the important and fundamental lessons of the Falklands War, which evolved into the even more capable Sea Harrier FRS.2.

Then there is the astute stubbornness and determination of the far sighted USMC who truly saw the operational potential and unique capability that the Harrier offered its unique mud fighting requirements – whilst at every effort and turn being opposed by the US Navy and Senators. (I am still very curious as to whether given the opportunity tomorrow, without the political control and clout of the US Navy hanging over it – would the USMC fit skijumps to its amphibious ships to improve its AV-8B’s performance and capability?)

The fact that the combat proven Harrier has allowed and encouraged the likes of Spain, Italy, India and to a lesser degree Thailand to deploy light aircraft carriers at all!

No I personally find it a great pity that those in the British Ministry of Defence (and to some extent the RAF and RN) have got that ‘Bling’ factor in their eyes and sights once again – that a combat aircraft has to be ultra modern, supersonic and ridiculously expensive and complicated to be deemed fashionable and viable as a combat platform – even if it means depleting its military of given and important capability, whilst it waits a aircraft – the F-35 (in any guise, be it F-35A/B or C)

Once again the British remind me of the USAF’s wet dream about the Fairchild A-10 being unsuited over the modern battlefield – and that the sleek, modern and supersonic F-16 should replace it at any opportunity (even after its excellent and powerful combat proven record)

Crazy if you ask me!!!!

Regards
Pioneer

Bell Model D2064 Tri Service VTOL transport;
Vought/Ryan/Hiller XC-142A Tri Service VTOL transport