Point 1: The F-35B does not use the Forgers engine layout at all, it only has one engine not three. the forward lift fan is shaft driven from the single aft facing engine, which employs a single swivelling nozzle at the rear. In vertical mode it sits on a column of hot air at the rear and a column of cold air forward, produced by a single engine just like a Harrier.
The point remains it is not using swivel intakes.
Point 2. If a heat seeking AAM hits any fighter aircraft its time to find out how true the claims of Matin Baker Ltd really are,- EJECT EJECT EJECT! In fact the position of the Harriers nozzles reduces it's IR signature compared to most fighter precisely because of it's mid position, when viewed from above the nozzles are hidden by the wings and the hot air exhaust from the nozzles is mixed with cold air from the forward nozzles, reducing the overall temperature of the exhaust. Name another fighter that can pull that trick...
Wrong. The heat signature, including the ---exhaust plume that you don't see with your eyes--- is as visible from the top as it is from the bottom. Furthermore being closer to the front, it is easier to see from the frontal aspect as well, making it heaven sent for a heater. Lets not forget that heat conducts through metal, so what is hot below will soon be hot above.
Putting your nozzles right at the body of the aircraft heats up the entire aircraft faster, as opposed to ejecting the exhaust to the rear and well away of the aircraft.
Point 3. The accident rate. Time to put this to bed once again. When the USMC first introduced the AV-8A in the early 70s, the
Does not change the fact that statistically, the Harrier has one of the highest accident rates of any fighter-attack aircraft.
Point 4. Afterburners. A great way of emptying your fuel tanks and making yourself the 'brightest point in the sky', just what your opponent's heat seeking Mach 3 AAMs wished for. Ask any fighter pilot, the best way to avoid such a misslie is by dropping flares and turning hard, the faster missile will not be able to turn as quickly because of it's speed. Try turnig a car at 20 mph and at 70 mph, you'll see the difference. Harriers have the best turning performance of any Fast jet in service today, thanks to their nozzles. When a Harrier 'VIFFs' (Vectors the nozzles in Forward Flight), the aircraft's nose pitches upwards by anything up to 90 degrees allowing the aircraft to turn inside of any other aircrafts radius and any missile's radius for that matter.
If afterburners are so bad, then why include it in the F-22? Or just about every modern fighter around the world?
The "dash" is the best way to get in and out of a situation. It still is the best way to gain energy rapidly. Remember Boyd's EM theories?
Dropping flares? Many late generation missiles are quite flare resistant thanks to multispectral or IIR seekers.
VIFFing does not escape you from modern HOBS missiles, some of whom have TVC nozzles and can turn in excess of 40 to 55G.
VFFING does not improve your turn rate. That's nothing but an internet legend. It short cuts the turn but it does not improve the turn rate. It does not improve the energy into and out of the turn. A tighter turn does not let you escape a modern AAM, which explodes using proximity fuses. The best way to deal with a bad situation is to be out of the situation, not this hollywood thingie where missiles can miss overshooting the underside of an aircraft that suddenly maneuvered.
Slow aircraft = dead aircraft in today's modern energy dominated air combat.
Without VIFFing as a matter of fact, the Harrier does not have a good turn rate. It has a wing area smaller than a MiG-21 for a weight at least a ton greater. That means high wing loading, which means without resorting to VIFFing, you will have a large turn, and a higher stall speed, which means a higher minimum speed to make that turn.
Point 5. As for the RCS of the intakes, yes it is large. But the Harrier is smaller than most jets and is harder to pick up visually (where most air to air combat takes place thanks to rules of engagement in most conflicts) so this is balanced out somewhat. The intake RCS only makes a difference if the engagement is head on or from a forward vector. No difference at all from the side or the rear. From above the Harrier has low RCS and low IR signature, which is why Harriers prefer to operate at low to medium altitudes where the engine has best performance (ie below the altitude of marauding enemy fighters).
You really have a very outdated notion about some modern air combat concepts. Pick up visually? Even in visual distance, radar can pick you up and mark you as a target in the HUD or in the latest generation systems, in the HMS.
Head on is the most common, and thus the most discussed form of BVR combat. That's why reducing the frontal RCS is the most important aspect of all.
I have already debunked your claims about the Harrier having low thermal signature. Now try dealing with an aircraft that has an IRST mounted, and its going to spot it pretty quick, and before you know it, queing with a WOBS heater that will not only attack from any aspect, but from a field of view as wide as 120 degrees.
Remeber also that in 1982 a force of 28 'subsonic, high RCS, High IR signature toy fighter with no BVR weapons' defeated an land based air force with supersonic low RCS fighters that outnumbered them by at least 5 to 1. As Cmdr 'Sharkey' Ward (CO of 801 NAS aboard Invincible at the time) said: "We are not outnumbered, we are in a target-rich environment!". The most important characteristic of any fighter is not it's speed, but the quality of the pilots.
Those supersonic fighters were for one thing, pretty much fuel BINGOed by the time they reach the combat space, and another thing they lack all aspect IR AAMs. That means using IR missiles of the previous generation, you need to get a tail shot to make it work, making them vulnerable to VIFFing and all that. In contrast, the Harriers were equipped with all aspect missiles (AIM-9Ls) so they can attack the Mirages at any aspect. The Argentinian pilots were actually well trained, you know, but no training can compensate the tactical disadvantage of having little fuel and only rear aspect missiles.
