Engines,
I wish I could have summarised the issues as succinctly and eloquently as you have.
In my opinion the original concept of JFH was utterly sound. There absolutely are times and places where operating from a carrier would be my first choice. (e.g. during OIF when I slept very well in my air conditioned, NBC-proof cabin with plenty of creature comforts - a far cry from having to live in a tent at the end of the runway at Al Jaber) The capabilities of FA2 and GR7 complimented each other very well and the future really was bright... right up until the Ministers scrapped the SHar. I can't help but feel that the RN transition to the GR7/9 has been badly rushed, but, as you say, what we need to do now is focus on sorting the issues out quickly.
Double Zero,
As for the Harrier II+ questions - it definitely would have had advantages. There's nothing quite like having 180 flares, JDAM, triple-ejector racks, Litening II AT, a big engine as standard, a VREST and CAS page, great map overlays, AMRAAM, 5" rockets, napalm and a gun, that's for sure. But the range of the cut down APG-65 dish isn't fantastic, and you're always going to be a tad limited by the Harrier's inherent weakness of being a bit slower and lower than most modern air threats when you come to take first shots. There are obviously ways around the problem e.g buying Link 16 too. The staff solution would have been to integrate the Blue Vixen into a II+ airframe, but I don't think anyone ever dreamt there was the money for that. It's all too late now though as the Boeing line has closed so we just have to make do with what we've got. Until 2022....
Regards,
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly