[tanknetter]

This is a battle between the Royal Navy, which flies Harriers,

Actually, the Royal Navy flew (past tense) Sea Harriers ... before the RAF persuaded them to give up the Sea Harriers' unique capabilities in favor of the RAF's Harrier GR.9.

Now the RAF is trying to pull the rug COMPLETELY out from underneath the RN when it comes to carrier-capable fixed wing. The Harrier GR.9s are better strike platforms (and better than nothing), but they don't in any way come near the organic counter-air capabilities that the Shar took to sea. The Brits were supposed to have learned the hard way (Falklands) the value of organic air cover. Not.

[Army Air Corps]

The Sea Harrier was quite a machine; pity about its demise.

[USNBandit]

I had an exchange instructor that flew Harriers for the RN and it sounded frightening. To take off you had the nozzles back, ran the engine up to 90% and wiped out the controls. When cleared to take off you released the brakes and went to full throttle. At the end of the ramp you slapped the nozzles to 60 degrees and looked at the Engine Pressure Ratio gauge. If you didn't see at least 1.04, you punched out.

To land you only had 90 seconds of water injection which was required to hover. If you were in warm environments they would cut that to 60 seconds.

[Vanders9]

Oh they understand the value of organic air cover all right, that’s why they are building two more carriers.