My next door neighbor flys them and says they are quantum levels better than the Harrier if the Marines want to keep the same mission capabilities. In that case, it is not a failure it is the necessary next generation replacement for the Harrier.
Whether that fits the needs of the other two mission variants I can't say. But the Marines flying them now feel they will live long enough to retire. It is a success for them.
That Harrier (especially the first British model) was supposed to be the most difficult to fly piece of equipment ever built. Any failure of any kind, equipment or pilot, usually resulted in a crash.
Good comment about the Marine’s version. I have read the same. In the close air combat role it will NEVER replace the A-10 and the F-22 has been a better aircraft in many aspects.
Yes, the pilots all say how easy it is to fly. Great, if one like to fly extremely expensive planes that are easy to fly. However, ease of flight is not the issue. The issues are all the other systems do not work, can not work or have to be (in the case of its software) totally redesigned from scratch. The plane can soar above the fray, until the Russian BVR missiles fly, until it meets a SU-35. Then it becomes a very expense way to die.
It cannot fight, and has a low probability of survival in actual combat. The Israelis tried theirs in combat and now they sit idle.
Its a POS no matter what pilots say, and what else can they say - short of being demoted to desk jockey?