Lechon and others,
It might help if I follow up Mogwi's post with some information about supporting Harriers.
Bluntly, the aircraft was bad (and expensive) to maintain. The Harrier I was a direct development of the prototype P1127, and the amazingly complicated wing lift method to change an engine would normally have been rejected at the design review stage. The Harrier II introduced some limited improvements, but most of the access to items was really, really poor. To Mogwi's list, I would add that removing and replacing the engine meant disturbing, reconnecting and then testing the flying controls, fuel systems, landing gear systems, reaction control hot air ducts and the weapon systems connections to the wing pylons. I would also add that every time you lifted the engine, there was a TON of rectification work required to repair the interior of the fuselage where the mighty Pegasus had simply shaken bits of it loose.
Many parts of the aircraft were fully obsolete and getting replacements was becoming a real challenge. As an example, the undercarriage selection switch was the same item used in the Hawker Sea Fury. (I am not making this up). It was a huge lump of Bakelite and came fitted with rubber insulated wires, which we then had to cut off and replace before installing it. Many other components in the aircraft were antique, unreliable and amazingly hard to get at. The rear end of the aircraft was essentially under engineered, and the tailplane would regularly wear out its bearings. The reaction controls at the rear of the fuselage would shake themselves apart (I mean here in less than 50 hours). The RAF's Harrier fleet would have required a full rear fuselage replacement programme had they gone on in service much longer. The Pegasus engine was not especially reliable, and rarely (if ever) achieved its published life before having to be removed for repair.
But, I loved being associated with the Sea Harrier and the Harrier GR7s. The Harrier's STOVL concept was a work of pure British genius, and gave the UK an aircraft that was the key to winning a vital war in 1982. In the 90s, the Sea Harrier FA2 was one of NATO's most capable air to air combat aircraft. The people were great, the jobs incredibly satisfying, and standing on a deck next to an aircraft that had stopped dead in the sky always gave me a rush. But, time moves on, aircraft have their day, and then they don't. The new replaces the old, as it should, and the F-35B now has to be made to work in service. I know that the RN and RAF personnel charged to do that will succeed, along with their excellent USMC counterparts. Certainly, in combat, the F-35 will be a far more capable machine than the Harrier ever could have been. In support, it will be a challenge. Having worked with the people who took great pains to make servicing it as easy as it can be on an LO aircraft, I also know that it will be a better aircraft to maintain and support at sea. On that, I have no doubts at all.
Best Regards as ever to all those who are going to make the aircraft a success,
Engines