VTOL was not theoretical. If the Egyptians had it in 1973 they woulda done serious damage to Israeli fighters and bombers and tanks. And right here on this thread was another bombed out airfield example where the A4s had to divert to some other airfield while they were in the air. Not theoretical.
If the day of tight turning knifefights in the air are over, then the air force does not need a “new fighter”.
The Harrier does not have a fly-by-wire system, does not require a computer to fly it.
As long as we “need” a new fighter, it makes sense to upgrade the STOVL fighter to supersonic so that we can continue to fill those niches that you claim are so theoretical.
In the Falklands, the brits took 2 container ships and within a matter of weeks, converted them to ski lift carriers. Then the Harrier pilots flew out to them and, without any flight deck training prior, they landed on those 2 light aircraft carriers. Try THAT with your fancy zoomer jets.
I did not say a Harrier is fly by wire, but it does have on board computers to assist in VSTOL. If they did not the AV-B and Harrier IIs would have been just more expensive American built lawn darts.
Again your history is lacking a bit. The Brits had no choice but to convert container ships because they decommissioned all but one carrier. Budget cuts. Desperation is the mother of invention. But don't believe me this is from a report issued in 1988 after the introduction of the AV-8B
“No mythical capability of the AV-8B aircraft
created by publication has been more distorted than the
aircraft's performance in the air-to-air regime.......”
“This myth is further supported by the belief that the
British’ “Sea Harrier” preformed outstandinably in the Falklands War. The reality is that most of the Argentine
aircraft were destroyed either on the ground or by the
British surface-to-air-defense systems.7 Those Argentine
aircraft that were engaged and destroyed in the air by the
“Sea Harrier” had already dropped their weapons on British
shipping and were operating at their maximum combat radius.
The aircraft could not afford to engage in defending
themselves and waste precious fuel needed to reach the
mainland; effectively they were defenseless.”
You can find the entire article on the Global Security website. Oh there was one more thing author had to say: “The United States Marine Corps
became so mesmerized by the V/STOL capability of the
AV-8B aircraft that it acquired an aircraft deficient
in its mission performance.”
This is the first time I read this article, but the authors opinions were well know by those of us heavily involved in Marine Corps Aviation in the 70s and 80s. IN fairness since that article was written, the AV-8B has gone through many upgrades including it's weapons computer systems and flight systems. But it is still a single engine jet in an environment where most zoomers prefer twin engines for speed and surviablitiy. The F-16 suffers from the same issue which is why the USAF wants to replace a proven airframe.
I go back to the fact that you have to brag about British Jump used in a small regional war that took place what 38 years ago. What have the Harriers done lately, that a fancy zoomer cannot do?
1967, not 1973.