kbrockman
Yes the Boeing concept was simpler than the Lockheed but it fell on the hurdle of supersonics. Supersonics need a much higher exhaust gas velocity and we don't know how to get that velocity for the combat mission without making the exhaust pretty hot in the process. So when they pointed this exhaust out under the CG they had recirculation problems with hot air making its way into the intake.
I'm sorry but combining supersonics and VL is very difficult. Lockheed have managed it (by using the cool fan exhaust as a dam to stop the rear hot exhaust penetrating forward) but at the cost of much complexity.
Leon
I would never suggest a subsonic engine can give top class interceptor capability for all the reasons you mentioned. However a simple reliable multi role capability available in real numbers is a very useful tactical bit of kit. The UK never saw the Harrier as having ANY air to air capability until the USMC in 1970 said putting a sidewinder on it could be very useful tactically because it had real persistence in a fight with the US reheated fighters of the day, could fight remarkably well defensively until they bingoed and got them as they tried to disengage. Harry Blot then stayed on the range and said send the next lot out. Its hard to beat the sfc of a large subsonic turbofan.
Hey ho.
JF