If it is so ineficient how come its been used by so many countries for so long ?
How does thef 35b jsf compare ?
Maybe like comparing a beetle with a ferrari but will it see as much serviceas the harrier?

They were first introduced as a war plane 1969, but it was first used in actual combat during the Falkland Islands conflict between Britain & Argentina, when Argentina invaded the British owned Falkland Islands in April, 1982. Because of the great distance, the only fixed wing aircraft Britain could bring to the area were the Harrier jump jets. Through shooting down 31 enemy aircraft, & flying 2,000 attack missions, the Harriers suffered no loss in combat.

It is because of this success that so many countries used it, including the US Marines.

The F-35 JSF will be the front line military aircraft once it finished & entered service. The Harrier is in a different generation of jets, it does not compare with the F35. The f35 has the very best technology- stealth, thrust vectoring etc, stuff which was not invented when the Harrier was being designed/built.

Efficiency does not matter as much as performance, & it does perform, plus the Harrier can do things other fighter jets can not do. The F-14 Tomcat was incredibally inefficient-it went through fuel like hell, the original engines were underpowered & troublesome, with many problems, & they cost the earth to keep in maintance. But they were used by the US Navy for over 30 years-1972-2006, as they were a fronline fighter, the best they had.

And l expect that the F35 will get at least as much service as the Harrier, considering it is already a joint effort money wise with the designing & testing of the F35 ( l am not sure how many exactly, but l know the US is in charge, with the UK & Australia being 2 of the countries supporting, both which will use the F35 when it is complete).

l think other countries would like to purchase the F35, it may be the only aircraft which might be able to match the F22, America is new, highly advanced fighter which is not for sale on level, for any amount of money, in combat. But many countries would probably not be able to afford it, Australia has already spent over $12 million into the production of the aircraft, in exchange for a cut off the purchase price once actually purchased, the cost to purchase them without contributing to the designing & testing, would be unthinkable.

Generally military organizations do not worry about efficiency so much if it means a combat advantage. The Harrier is not efficient to fly, but it can do things that no other aircraft can, so it still gets used.

It is first use in combat, as previously stated was the Falklands conflict, where it performed well. It was also used by the USMC in the liberation of Kuwait back in the 90's.

The Harrier has been a warplane since its introduction in 1969. Efficiency of warplanes is judged by whether it does it is job or not, and apparently it has done it is job well, and will continue for many more years.
Countries that can afford a better plane will no doubt buy he F35s when they become available.