If it had not been retired, the mighty Sea Harrier (hopefully with the upgrade it was meant to get in 2002 onwards - new engine, Link 16, improved avionics and so on) would undoubtedly have been the star of the current
FLY NAVY 100 events. Although a Sea Harrier will be featured in a ground display of static aircraft, the fact that flypasts are being conducted by non carrier capable aircraft (RN Hawks) is really a reminder of how the Royal Navy has been emasculated in the last decade (not just by losing the Sea Harrier). There is currently a one off publication on sale, from the stable of
Air Forces Monthly, that features the major aircraft flown by major air forces and air arms. In the absence of the Sea Harrier the RN is represented by Lynx HMA8 and Merlin HM1.
However, Art Nalls and his team in the US are now happily flying their Sea Harrier, see
Nalls Aviation for more details. Even in retirement, in private hands, it is still serving the UK, advertising our aerospace industry.
When it was reported on this thread and elsewhere that India had expressed an interest in purchasing surplus Sea Harriers it must have meant that India thought that those stored aircraft were still in a decent condition. Hopefully that suggests the aircraft at the dummy deck at Culdrose are also in a good condition. I recently had a chat with a couple of friends who had returned from operations at sea in the Middle East. They both commented on how sea spray effects weapons - in that it makes them rust, so extra cleaning and lubrication is needed.
When equipment is intended for shipboard use it is modified for that environment, particularly with things exposed to the elements. When the Harrier airframe was modified to become Sea Harrier, the materials used in both the airframe and engine were adjusted to improve their corrosion resistance. Presumably other measures were taken to prevent water/salt ingress. Since they were designed to spend very long periods at sea, much of it up on deck, I would imagine that the Cornish weather will be less of a problem for the jets moving around the dummy deck than it would be to land based aircraft used for similar purposes at other places.
Lastly, my comments about the SuE came from three facts: firstly that when armed with Exocet it could carry no air to air missiles, secondly that the Argentine Navy pilots were under orders not to risk their aircraft and not to waste their missiles unless they had a target they could hit (several pilots took part in a Channel Four documentary a few years ago), and thirdly that the French Navy felt the need to have fighters in addition to the SuE, and continued to operated the F8 Crusader until the late 90s. As far as I know they didn't get any kills, however the French carriers took part in various operations, and the F8 (FN) was a deterrent.
Postscript (22 May 09): Although Rolls Royce and Martin Baker have unfortunately not been involved in supporting Art Nalls' efforts (probably due to the influence of lawyers and beancounters), other UK companies have supplied parts. Additionally, as mentioned several pages ago, Sea Harrier parts are being produced (under licence) for export to India. This month's edition of
Air Forces Monthly notes that an Indian Navy Sea Harrier FRS51, damaged during a carrier landing in 2006, has been rebuilt by BAE Systems, and was redelivered in February this year. Presumably, in addition to BAE Systems themselves, a number of components (airframe and other) would have had to have been manufactured specially. Build to print is alive and well!