Without the Harrier the UK would have had to stick with proper carriers with Phantoms and Buccaneers. The would have changed the Falklands War a bit.
- Yes it would have changed the war a bit. The war would not have taken place at all. The UK made the decision to not build CVA01, and then not to replace Ark Royal etc prior to knowing that the Sea Harrier was viable. Then the RN basically had to smuggle the Invincibles through the budget process. So no Harrier = no attempt to retake Falklands.
But 'world changing'? Not really.
- Yes it was world changing. It was the point at which the Soviet Union realised that the UK needed to be counted as well as the US, in both military and political terms. That in turn caused them to think again about the resolve of the remainder of the Western allies. On the other side of the equation it led to a renewed confidence in the allies within the USA, most especially and directly between Reagan-Thatcher at a personal level, but running up and down the whole system. That understanding that the allies were in it together was a part of the Reagan approach to ending the Cold War.
So yes, I do argue that the Harrier was world changing. It was a very direct link between what was militarily possible in one conflict, and then politically possible in another. And ending the Cold War definitely changed world. I'm not saying that the Harrier was solely responsible, but I am saying that the Harrier was the crucial enabler for the successful Falklands campaign and that the consequences of that were very significant in the Cold War context.
Regards, pp