@ too many people to list!
1/ Fighter pilots keep asking for cannon because all too often they end up getting close and personal with their targets, and a backup is always nice to have. It also helps in "policing" actions when you can fire a shot across the bows (or nose), whereas if you fire a missile then it's not a warning it's terminal (anyone remember a Sukhoi shooting down a commercial Jumbo over Korea 'cos the Suke didn't have a cannon?).
2/ Harrier pilots used VIFF to tighten turns, usually to gain a few degrees on supposedly better-turning opponents, and again usually to get a bead for the old and reliable 30mm Adens. The "I'll throw open the airbrakes and he'll fly right by" trick only works in Top Gun (and with much more humour in "Hot Shots"). One Harrier trick was similar, this involved using VIFF to cause a sudden climb whilst maintaining an almost level attitude, a trick that caused many opponents to undershoot.
3/ The GR7 and GR9 Harriers were originally to have the new 25mm Aden. This was the old Aden cannon updated to fire modern (American GAU-12) 25mm ammo. Whereas the old Adens could be carried in pairs in slim underbelly bulges on the previous Harriers, the 25mm Aden had the gun in one pod and feed from ammo in the second. All nice until the gun jammed (which it did a lot!). The old Aden was much more reliable but still did jam occaisionally, but having two meant there was still one to shoot those pesky supersonic drivers down with. The cancellation of the Aden 25 left the GR7 and GR9 without cannon, it was not an original design decision.
4/ For the Falklands, the RN was quickly supplied with what was then the latest AIM-9L Sidewinders - these still proved very disappointing, with many falling short of the brochure range. The pilots themselves said the most reliable solution was getting in close and using the Adens. One pilot put it "I rated the Sidewinder as 50% effective, but the Aden as 100%." The next gen Sea Harrier FA2 got better radar to allow use of AMRAAM instead, but kept the trusted 30mm Adens. If only the RAF had perservered we wouldn't have wasted so much time and money on the Aden 25. This is even funnier when you consider many Argentinian pilots complained their DEFA 30mm cannon (the French competitor to Aden) often didn't work! This saved at least one Sea Harrier. Rafale has switched to the new and still French GIAT 30mm, apparently not without issues, rather than co-operate on a new design or use the existing Mauser 27mm.
5/ The Dassault Super Etendard was a flying piece of cack. The navalised Jaguar would have been massively superior, but Dassault made sure that never happened. We lost our picket destroyers in the Falklands because we didn't have AEW, plain and simple. When the Harriers were able to find the Etendards they shot them down with ease. In Kossovo (and the Gulf) the Americans had so little faith in the French jets (christened "Super Reatrds" by the USN) they gave them the easiest missions only, and kept the tough jobs for themselves. Dassault tried to make marketing out of the fact that the Etendards scored "highly" against the easy targets, everbody in the know laughed. In the Falklands, it was Exocet and poor RN counter-missile capability that led to losses.
6/ Rafale is good, very good even, but expensive and tailored very closely to the French requirement. It would be hideously expensive to refit to RN requirements, especially as there are doubts about Rafale's ability with AMRAAM despite Dassault's insistance it is tested. Rafale has so far failed in every sale outside of France, beaten by older but better kit like the F-16 and F-15. Even the Eurofighter Typhoon which Dassault tried its best to saboutage is doing better, and anyone who thinks the French can't pay bribes really does need to do some reading! SuperHornets are better all-rounders in nearly every respect and would probably be cheaper to buy off-the-shelf than Rafale. Both, however, just like the navalised Eurofighter, Rafale and teh SuperHornet cannot work from smaller carriers, unlike the F35B..
7/ The US Marines love the Harrier. It is the USAF that hate it. Having browbeaten the US Army into giving up fixed-wing aircraft, the USAF is intent on getting the Marines into the same pickle. Most attacks on the Harrier (including the rubbish about how it is a bigger IR target for MANPADS) originates from the USAF. Thankfully, as well as being tough, the USMC is notoriously stubborn!
8/ The Harriers have problems in hot air like the Gulf - all aircarft burn more gas in hot air, especially when manouvering, as hot air is thinner. The Tornado display team used 20% more fuel in their Riyadh display than they did at home! This hot air led to problems with GR7s in the Gulf and lots of media frenzy, but it is often forgotten that the GR7s still did the job. If needed, the Harriers could have remained, it was just at that point with hostilities over it made more sense to withdraw them.
9/ Supersonic fighters do not do well at low level - especially when the pilots have been trained for higher level operations. Harrier has proven much better at the lower levels than many fighters. The USAF found out the hard way when it used fighter jocks in F-16Cs to support ground forces in Iraq, and the F-16 drivers started smearing themselves all over the scenary. The A-10 was and still is better for such operations than the F-16 or the F-18 or any other supersonic figter, and the Harrier a close second. I expect the F35B to be as good, though without the A-10's super-toughness.
10/ STOVL is a much safer way to land on a carrier! With conventional jets you have to land and then stop, with STOVL you stop and then land. The former means taking an aircraft designed to fly supersonic and trying to get it to fly as slow as possible without falling out of the sky, then bringing it to a halt in a very short space. This means building fast fighters to fly well at the 180 knot range (hard!) and making them strong enough to take the deccelleration form 180 knots to zero under arresting (heavy!). Harrier was simply lighter as it didn't need all the extra reinforcement. The RN saw a major drop in landing accidents per flight with Harrier, especially as their carriers have always been smaller. The RN's use of Phantoms on the old HMS Ark Royal was considered suicidal by the USN, and that was much bigger than the Falklands carriers. It also means you can park more aircraft ready on the deck, whereas with arresting you have to clear a space for each aircraft to land. I have seen a pair of Harriers landing at once on the tiny HMS Invincible with two others hovering nearbye. I have never seen more than one conventional jet landing at a time, even on the USN supercarriers, and any companion flying out well away in circuit.
11/ The new Russian fighters are very good, as were many of the older ones, especially as they have moved to building high quality rather than quantity. But the F35B will still be a far better naval fighter. The Sukhoi 27 would probably have been just as ineffectual as the Mirage in the Falklands as it was the Argentinian strategy and training that put them in a poor position. The RN pilots were better trained and had a better tool for the job. In a replay, given the same strategic issues, I would expect F35Bs to triumph over a force of Argentinian Sukes and Super Retards.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
