Hey I like the SHAR as much as the next man, but some of these posts are getting fanciful. DH gave you a good hint that whilst the SHAR was capable of doing some good things, modern mud moving was not one of them.
The quotes about ‘hot and high’, hover and relevance to theatre are ridiculous – ‘hot and high’ is just as relevant for conventional Harrier flight. Blessed with a tiny wing and an engine that was sapped of power at high ambient temperatures (let alone the airfield altitudes of Afg) the old girl could struggle, even at light weights.
Double Zero, the ‘extra drag and weight’ of the GR9 that you speak of is not there for fun – it’s to do its job. I’ll keep it simple, ignoring money, wiring, performance, weight, safe carriage and release, RF threats etc lets consider a modern load-out:
Draw a sketch of the SHAR
Now add 6 hard points
Think about the tiny internal fuel load
So add 2 external tanks to the 2 inboard pylons
Think about DAS
So add IR BOL to the 2 outboard pylons
Oh and a TERMA pod to a fuselage pylon of your choice
Now what to do with that remaining pylon; hmmm…:
Perhaps a targeting pod (perhaps a mate could bring a bomb)
Perhaps a single gun
Perhaps a single dumb bomb
Perhaps a single rocket pack
The poor old SHAR was never going to be a decent CAS platform, hence the move to a big wing, multiple pylons, increased fuel load, bigger engine, mixed weapons loads, decent cockpit, FLIR, decent avionics etc that all came with the later generation Harrier II.
Oh and regarding Blue Vixen at 80+ miles – well the radar had many plus points but long range work was certainly not one of them. Having also joined-in with SHAR-centric bombing contests it was always good for a giggle. The opening rules usually started by prohibiting the other contestants from using their normal suite of weapons, or their usual means of delivery…