I was there, in the 70s. I trained on the AV-8A and C, worked on every model of the A-4, except C, F-5 Tiger II, T-38 and BaE Hawk. I was an all systems QAR on OA-4Ms and an Avionics and Airframes QAR for Lockheed. I have worked for the militaries of three different nations including one during wartime. I was boots on the ground living the dream in Desert Storm. You are obviously just a wannabe.
I point you to air2air kill ratios in combat.
https://migflug.com/jetflights/the-combat-statistics-for-all-the-aircraft-currently-in-use/
That is my starting point. Fuq off with your wannabe insults.
Going in depth on those combat kill ratios, we find a platform that fulfilled its mission that no other aircraft could fulfill. Second only to the venerable F15 in air2air kills, and the F15 was DESIGNED as a fighter while the Harier was DESIGNED as an attack aircraft/bomber.
It makes sense for the air force to keep fulfilling those niches if it really does want a new zoomer. Revive the P.1154 supersonic Harrier project with modern avionics, modern materials engineering, modern power plants. DESIGN it as an air superiority assistance fighter, with niches in CAS that no one else can fill.
What is it with this wannabe reversion argumentation tactic?
Why can’t you guys simply argue apples-to-apples comparisons?