Mith, the Sea Harrier is highly capable as a BVR air-air platform.  The Harrier GR.7 on the other hand is not a Sea Harrier.

And French, stop trying to turn this into a UK vs France debate.  France only has one real aircraft carrier, and you do not come close to our amphibious and RFA assets.  Put simply France does not have the expeditionary warfare capabilities of the UK - even with our current reduced capabilities.  Stop dreaming.

FS, could it be said that the loss of industrial base is due to rampant and uncontrolled outsourcing, especially to a country like China?
If so, the UK has made itself to be the posterchild for outsourcing gone awry and it would benefit France and Germany to start making serious efforts to bring back heavy industry and technological industries back home or at least to eastern europe.

The US should heed this warning as well, we should bring back our manufacturing to Mexico, proximity is a great strategic asset and the increase in jobs will keep the number of illegal entries down.

The Sea Harriers' BVR capability was highly dependent upon the existence of  good targeting data from AWACs.  Without USN/USAF support, that kind of capability cannot be had with U.K navy forces alone.  Secondly, since the Sea Harriers have already been retired, there is really no significant sea-based air superiority fighter left within the U.K military.  When I say that the U.K is an American vassal, this is not to discredit the past achievements of the U.K military, but merely a reflection of it's current state.

A nation such as Britain can choose it's own fate.  And it CHOSE to let it's military/industrial fall into a state of disrepair.  The reason is because it was EASIER and CHEAPER to buy better weaponery from have a country like the U.S.   Of course the cost of such actions was to give up freedom of action to the supplier of such weaponery and military support.  The fact of the matter is, the U.K gave up it's own national independence in exchange of easy weaponery and an illusion of importance on the global stage.

The U.K isn't the only such country.  Canada, Australia, even India are all getting themselves into the same situation.

Thus, when Anglo-American posters rant about how backward or inferior China's home-grown weapons are compared to American ones, I don't mind in the least.  Our global clout is backed by a broad and INDEPENDENT military capability.  Sure, it is not as good as Amerian engineered systems,but nobody can build weapons like the Americans.  What is important is that we put in the effort and treasure to actually do it ourselves.  Sure, building a 4th generation fighter or modern SSBN is hard, but we would not be China if we don't try to do it ourselves.

This is also why a certain degree of respect is given to countries like Russian and France.  Because they at least TRY to do it themselves rather than running straight to lick the American boot.

Mith, I don't care for the West vs China arguments on these boards.  I don't have anything against the Chinese armed forces as such, their equipment may be very outdated for the most part, however I think them to be a fairly professional force (if questionable in human rights.)

My arguments with your posts are your poorly informed opinions on the bright side, or your outright lies, if looking more negatively.  The above quote for instance is rubbish.  The Sea Vixen radar of the Sea Harrier FA2 forms the basis of the radar in the Eurofighter Typhoon, and is a more capable radar than that in the Tornado F3.  It is so good in fact, that the Harrier FA2 in the past was used in a mini-AWACs role itself.  In this case you either don't know what you are talking about, or you are lying, or perhaps you are thinking of the Harrier FAS.1 of 1982 fame.
 

I didn't say that the FA2s were not BVR capable without AWACS, just that their utility as BVR capable aircrafts are greatly diminished without AWACs. 

The issue still stems from the fact that without AWAC support, the limited number of FA2s would be faced with the following:

1.  A greatly reduced early warning time.
2.  A greatly reduced inflight missile guidence capability in an ECM saturated environment
3.  A greatly diminished detection capability against low flying threats.

Moreover, these Harriers are already retired and is no longer a viable force for the U.K.

A big part of independence in weaponery is an independent capability to manufacture critical subcomponents.  Despite owning other European subsidary defense companies, France still retains the ability to manufacture critical components of their weapons.  The components that they do not currently produce can be quickly made domestically if the need arises.  In contrast, the FCS of the South Korean tank or the engine of the Taiwanese Ching Guo Fighter is entirely beholden to their out of country suppliers.   Moreover, disruption of supply has a huge effect  on developmental projects of this nature, look at the sorry state of India's LCA as the perfect example.

Building a complete weapons system is not about feeling good, it's about having your nation's military/industrial complex be able to achieve a certain state of readiness thus allowing your country to have a great deal of geopolitical freedom of action.