I remember when I was a young airman stationed at Little Rock AFB in Arkansas in the 80's I was left on the "Christmas Tree" doing a compass swing on a C-130. A Harrier came in on approach to the runway (apparently for refueling), saw me sitting out there with the equipment while everyone else was at lunch (like I said, I was an airman, low man on the totem pole), stopped in the air, turned towards me, dipped his nose, and raised up in the air. I saluted the pilot and smiled. He dipped the nose again, turned back to the runway and continued his landing.
I find it astonishing that someone would choose to make a video about the history of the Harrier, and not even mention the Falklands conflict of 1982. Up to that, the world had scoffed at this slow aircraft. After that, airforces around the world wanted them. Its performance in dogfights was extraordinary.
The video isn't about the original Hawker/BAe Harrierr, it's about the McDonnell Douglas Harrier II - same family of aircraft, but a significantly different upgrade by comparison. Your criticism is equivalent to wondering why the F/A-18 Hornet isn't mentioned in a vid concerning the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet.
"After that, airforces around the world wanted them."(sic) Not really. Both the Harrier II and Harrier had limited use around the world - United States, UK, Spain, Italy, Thailand and India with 815 total built.
@@rogersmith8339i didn’t ever hear that before! All them Harriers crossed the Atlantic on the British Carrier’s as they were the British Aerospace Sea Harrier not the AV8A or B
@@StewartWalker-hy1eo You obviously never saw the photos I did in a limited / restricted circulation magazine article that I got access to after the conflict. It contained some very revealing facts that did not paint our glorious leader at the time in good light! It was not some underground subversive publication but a serious "industry" publication in English but not published in the UK as far as I could tell.
Being under a vertical takeoff and steep angled climb by a Harrier at Plymouth Navy Days back in the 80s was the loudest thing I ever heard. The second loudest was front row at The Prodigy.
Had one fly over from Biggin Hill airport one year back in the 1980s, it appeared so fast from the opposite hill, we all threw ourselves at the ground as it went over, the sound was, well I never got to see the Prodigy😅
when i was on the tarawa off the coast of Iraq in 2003 i remember the harriers launching from halfway along the flight deck of the 800ish ft ship. Right next to the island is where the launched from. Their nozzles at like 45-55deg, full brakes, full spool up, and when it dragged through the brakes they'd release the brakes, accelerate down the remaining 400ish feet, dip below the bow of the ship and then appear a few seconds later. from early march 2003 to early may 2003 we had all 6 harriers flying as fast as we could refuel them.. until the end when 3/6 needed engines or major inspections.
@@paulbarnett227 and you dont think a bomber would have been useful?, the first thing we did a soon as the runway is Stanley was ready we brought in Phantoms and took the harriers home, No one wanted Harriers they were forced on the Navy due to the size of the carriers
@@graveperil2169 The thing with the phantoms was they were much faster being supersonic so once the Islands were taken back they became the better option going forward. I still maintain the close combat dogfights were aced by the harriers.
And really hard to stand on top of them while they fly, you can easily slip and fall, getting yourself hooked on the Sidewinder and then get launched at a helicopter through a building!
My uncle was a Harrier pilot in the late 90's/2000's. He's got some awesome stories about what that plane could do. He also said that everyone was scared to death of it because it got squirrely on vertical operations.
I was attached to a Harrier squadron when I was in the Marine Corps and when it worked correctly it was awesome but when it got squirrely it quite often meant death for the pilot! The problems were always takeoff and landing vertically and that was the only way I ever saw then operate because the procedure had to be second nature but malfunction could rarely be overcome no matter how good the pilot was! The day before I arrived on base they lost a Harrier and the pilot on landing, he was hovering when there was a malfunction and the pilot ejected, at that very moment the Harrier flipped and shot the pilot straight into the ground!
@@scrateshooter January, 6, 1976, Cherry Point, NC I was discharged, I went through the area about 10 years ago and everything has changed so much I didn't know where I was it's grown so much! Just the opposite with the Millington Naval air station in Tennessee, I went through there 3 years ago and it's just a shadow of it's former state. It used to be a busy and growing community!
My brother was a RAF Harrier pilot, operating out of RAF Wittering. Completed three operational tours, a requirement to even be considered by the Red Arrows. After his Hawk conversion, he became Red10 for four years, but he still says the Harrier was the hardest to fly. Had many phone calls from him before a 'Chop' ride during training; fail the chop ride and you're gone from the program.
As a kid I used to run outside base on their flight path for landing on the runway. They would have their thrust vectored down and you'd get a huge blast of jet wash, it was amazing! They knew we were coming too so they'd slow up a bit. We would wave at them and you could see them waving their wings at us sometimes. Once we even had 1 stop and hover over us for a moment :D This was 1 of my favorite aircraft growing up.
I was working (for a civilian contractor) when RAF St. Athan was a repair base. ( they restored a WWII Lancaster there but that's another story) A fully loaded Harrier was being tested about 1/4 of a mile away. It's really REALLY loud and when it rotates slowly about 50 ft off the ground with missiles pointed at you.................................well, even as a friendly it's terrifying and you really want to be somewhere else. The gate guards at the time had just come back from Belfast so 'everyone' entering was a potential terrorist. It wasn't a fun time
What base was that? I know they ended up at Cottesmore but that was hosting Tornadoes in the 90's, I used to watch them from my bedroom window. Was it Wittering?
Here in the UK I had the pleasure of seeing one at the Duxford air show many years back. It hovered maybe 100 feet away and around 60-70 feet off the ground. The two main things I recall (apart from the sound) was how the ground was vibrating, obviously because of the downward thrust, and the intense smell of fuel. The amount of energy involved in keeping those things just hovering there is pretty insane.
Don't forget, it could travel 670 mph, FOUR times faster than any attack helicopter. In the Falklands War, Argentine chopper pilots were terrified of having to fly to the combat zone because the Harrier could hover and hide behind rocks and trees. It would pop up and usually, if you saw the Harrier, you were already dead.
@davelines5251 When the United States says jump, the uk says how high. Yes, I'm sure the crown now bows before the former colony. Are those American Jets on their aircraft carrier ? Yes.. Yes, they are
When I was a kid this aircraft and Concord were undergoing development and testing and I saw them come in and I remember how amazed we all were at all the development around us . The future was big back then . Unfortunately that excitement died out and innovation appears to have stagnated.
Have you ever noticed how people say "Concord" as if it were one aircraft rather than the Concord which would be correct. That to me indicates just how iconic they were as I know of no other man made object where a number were produced but they are always spoken of as the singular.
@@OpenWebDiscourse... I'm watching the development on starship and I'm quite chuffed about it. It's a pity though that the magic of the past has gone out of it. I was in high school when the first gliding flights of the shuttle were carried out from the back of the modified 747. Everything was so exciting and watching launches on TV was a very special occasion for me.
The innivation never stagnated, it just was killed by treasonous politicians who scrapped the aeroplanes. The original Harrier - the Kestrel P1127 was scheduled to scrapped- but survived as a private venture. The P1154 supersonic Harrier scrapped, TSR2, and HS681. Look at the Avro Arrrow, killed off and the Canadian engineers ended up working in America with the lunar module mostly by Canadian engineers. Good engineers, poor government.
Innovation never stagnated imho. Aside from politics and other artifices and shit like that, the point is that 60 years ago almost every new "invention" was groundbreaking, because a lot of the areas we now take for granted were almost unexplored. And so of course everything looked new and exciting. As time went by, and more and more things were discovered and experimented, we gained an almost unmeasurable amount of knowledge that let us optimize what to research and how, so it may seem like there is "no innovation", but now small changes mean a lot more in proportion.
In the USMC we were calling them the "scarrier" they were just too damed useful and the av-8b solved the issues. It was excellent-outstanding whoop ass on call during desert storm.
I was just coming through a village in Northamptonshire once, 2004 I think, Weedon it's called and just as I crossed the junction at the A5 to head towards the M1 I heard the roar of jet engines approaching so I pulled over and got out of my van to have a look. The noise got louder, deafening louder, then 2 of these UK variants blew over me carrying out highly illegal low altitude dog fighting manoeuvres. How low? They barely cleared the trees on the other side of the road is how low and the wash from the jets blew me off my feet, if my van wasn't behind me I would've ended up in the ditch at best. It was an awesome sight and display of skill and I'm not sure folk realise just how composed these things look at 50ft above the ground doing 3 or 4 hundred miles an hour while been thrown around like stunt planes. I imagine the two cheeky RAF chappies got a bit shouted at when the data was downloaded from their flight recorders, let alone the panic back at base when they dropped off the military radar. They probably suffered the harshest of punishments, no tea rations for a week.
@@peterstubbs5934 Doubt there's any difference in skill between the RAF and US pilots. But the Americans initially put helicopter pilots in the Harrier because they both hovered. Such a stunning lack of common sense could only come from a senior officer, as anyone would know what was bound to happen if you put a chopper pilot in a fast jet that is a challenge to fly.............so it got called the 'widow maker'. Once they put jet pilots into the Harrier, the accident rate plummeted.
If you search on UA-cam you’ll find a great video of a harrier doing a deck landing (vertical) with its front nose wheel still stored. The flight deck crew ran into a shed and pulled out a “cradle” that was built just in case of this, but had never been used… the pilot does a perfect landing onto it despite not being able to see it himself (guided on by the deck crew)… it’s all on video and a remarkable piece of flying / landing!
I saw a Harrier "commercial" years ago showing a commuter train station in the UK. A train drew in and disgorged a flock of business-suited men carrying brief cases who collected their cars and drove away. A Harrier descended into the car park and out got a business-suited pilot carrying a brief case who also found his car and drove away. Point made!
I worked on these for several years in the USMC VMA-513. The Harrier II (AV-8B) was a completely new design and much safer and much more capable than the original AV-8A/C models. Rugged plane with great pilots. We had an incident in which a pilot landed on a ship at night after losing its main gear. We had a cradle for nose gear failures, but nothing for main failure. Took a bit of maneuvering, but he safely set it down on the nose wheel and outriggers in rolling seas! We quickly ran out and chained it down. A fisherman caught the missing main gear assembly in a fishing net a year later. Turns out that the large locking ring failed, and the assembly just slid right out into the water just after takeoff.
Yeah, the original Harrier was typical British engineering...overly complicated and unreliable. McD made the thing a real weapon....reliable and much simplified.
I remember hearing of similar case where a fighter pilot got a warning about faulty nose gear, and he decided to do some go-arounds to have control tower confirm the issue. Can't remember wether it was Harrier or one of Fs. Despite the circumstances he successfuly landed on supporting stand, prepared by maintenance crew, that was meant to play the role of nose gear.
@@utrock5067 Yes, that was a Harrier that I believe was out of MCAS Cherry Point. The gear system has an emergency "blow down" system, but if the nose gear turns in the gear well, it can get stuck. A cradle can be put in place in which the pilot can hover down and land on to support the forward fuselage. Pretty tricky landing method but it works!
Good old Brits being the 1st again . “we’d like a jet that can take off vertically? “ “Hang on ,I’ll just finish my tea ☕ and get on it this afternoon! “ 🇬🇧🇬🇧
"Good old Brits being the 1st again ."(sic) First operational - with a lot of help and money primarily from the US taxpayer via the MWDP - but not the first.
@@AA-xo9uw I assume your referring to the AV-8B? Because the harrier jump-jet was built by hawker siddeley and was not built with any foreign investment. In fact the first real noticeable involvement came from the yanks after the Falklands War, there was a large US marine interest prior to that period but Fleet Air Arm and RAF harriers battering the argie air force, whilst at sea, proved once and for all just how deadly this little beauty was. Those with a little foresight and imagination just 6 years earlier had jumped at the chance to redevelop the harrier and this in turn became the AV-8B. If you are referring to american financial involvement, that is where it happened and not before.
@@utrock5067 of course we are silent, we invented terms like the silent service .. and we don't usually shout about our achievements, we leave the dead bodies lying about to prove that point.
@@F4Insight-uq6ntit was the P.1127 Pegasus engine that was subsonic which the British government funded instead of the P.1154 supersonic engine so you obviously don’t know much about the aircraft
@@F4Insight-uq6nt Yeah I don't think you can really say and aircraft which first flew nearly 60 years ago and is still in service in some places today can really be called a failure. Even if what you claimed was true, it clearly found its niche.
@@StewartWalker-hy1eo "which the British government funded"(sic) Incorrect. 75% of the development cost for the Pegasus was provided by the US taxpayer via the MWDP. The remaining 25% was provided by Bristol itself due to Duncan Sandys and the MoD refusing to fund it.
I was at an airshow at London Ontario in the late 80's where an AV-8B was doing a demonstration. The plane landed a center stage and then did a vertical take off. It rose to about 40 feet when it wobbled and had a hard landing. The pilot shut the engine off when on the ground. Apparently, thevolane has an oil pressure failure when hovering. Quick thinking with the pilot prevented a far worse accident.
Had a Spanish AV-8 crash right next to where we were testing a A-3 ...pilot didn't have to eject just a very hard landing when his engine failed while hovering. He got out and walked away...a Spanish guy towed the plane dragging it all the way down leaving FOD all the way 😂
That was a common problem of the Harrier design. The downward facing engine nozzles at low altitudes (mostly while landing) would often cause hot exhaust gasses to get into the intakes causing the engines to flame out. It was not uncommon for the Harrier to actually drop the last few feet when landing vertically. This is a big reason why the VTOL version of the F-35 uses a large fan for VTOL operations. The downwash would be cold and oxygen rich so would not case problems if entering the engine intakes. They kept the swivel nozzles at the back since the large fan would push the exhaust away from the jet.
An airplane that could stop dead in flight and even fly backwards if so required. A marvel of British design. My endearing memory of the aircraft was when out walking in the Lake District. A pair of Harriers came up the Troutbeck Valley from Windermere. I was on Troutbeck Tongue, a low spit of land jutting out into the valley. They split up and flew either side, hugging the valley floor such that I was looking down into the cockpit, and the pilot I was watching, just cool as anything gave a wave as he went past. Absolute magic.
I'd observe the Harriers flying sorties over Bosnia back in the 90s. The "Flying Fish" was always a sight to behold when they would come in slow and low. They were something else!!
i'll never forget the Birmingham air show at Billesley common in 1973, they had a Harrier showing it's VTOL and hovering capabilities, simple fences and basic crowd control, it left quite an impression on me as a 6 year old kid, we also had the Vulcan there and the red arrows in Gnats skimming the tops of trees
So let me get this straight - there was actually an airshow on Billesely common in 1973? My Irish aunt and uncle (and their kids) lived in Yardley Wood Road and I visited them in 1965 just before I joined the British Army at the beginning of 1966. We visited Billesley common and it was a massive (and very beautiful) area bordered on the "left" side, as you entered the Yardley Wood Road gate, by a row of prefabs in the distance from the war and on the "right" side (again from the Yardley Wood entrance) by a chain fence to a girls' school playground (was it called Swanhost or some such?). Towards the "back" (as seen from the entrance) was a set of tennis courts and a children's playground - with a narrow path leading out to the road that led to the Billesley Inn (a lovely building, by the way) situated on a roundabout. I'm actually working from pure memory here, but, as I recall, the ground sloped steeply away towards the aforementioned prefabs far in the distance on the "left" side (as you came in), so how was is possible to fit a Vulcan in there? Did it land there? I'm genuinely intrigued. MsG
The first combat action the Harrier saw was in the 1980's and in the theatre of the Falklands war where it flew from carriers. It's performance was exemplary given it was designed for land based conflict with the EUSSR.
I see the Harriers at air shows in the 80's and the bow was always a big hit with the crowds... They were very LOUD moments! I also got to see and hear the Vulcan bomber! Two awesome aircraft!
Saw a harrier do that hovering just off the side of Ark Royal at a rosyth navy day, up there with feeling a vulcan scream overhead or seeing into the cockpit of a low flying jet while abseiling down a crag
I think they didn’t mention the Falklands because this video was about the AV-8B and it was the -8As in the Falklands. But I agree it should have mentioned the Falklands, since that’s where the original Harrier first cut its teeth.
They didn’t mention the Falklands because it was an insult to another nations Aircraft that they couldn’t fly and don’t like to mention that another nation didn’t have problems
@@daschuly5892 It's mainly the Sea Harrier (FRS1) that people associate with the Falklands. The GR.3 (AV8A in US service) did see action there too, but there was quite a big difference between that and the FRS1.
Grew up in a house less than 1 mile away from RAF Waddington's runway and was lucky enough to have my bedroom window looking straight into the base. Waking up every morning to see upto 8 E-3 Sentry' was always a treat, but I'll never forget the first time I saw a Harrier perform a VTOL. Instantly fell in love :')
I was stationed aboard the USS Tarawa LHA-1 from 1999-2004. We specialized in the transport of marine troops to and from the battlefield. Our shorter runway wouldn’t allow for the conventional jet aircraft, so harriers were perfect for us. I still remember being in our barracks and listening to the flight ops. I will never forget the roar of the engines as the plane slowly hovered down to its landing spot, getting louder and louder, then silence as the pulpit killed the engine before it damaged the flight deck. We were also able to watch the take offs and landings on the shipboard cctv. Funny how all of it seems more exciting now than it did back then.
I used to live on the edge of town near extensive moorlands which were frequently used for exercises involving Harriers. It was always a special moment to see a Harrier suddenly appear from out of a copse of trees which had previously appeared completely deserted. Amazing aircraft!
My father worked on the Harrier simulator a long time ago. I even got to briefly sit in one once at Cherry Point. Apparently the Marines had lost pilots in training, of course that was about 45 years ago.
My introduction to the AV-8 Harrier was in March 1982 when I was first stationed at MCAS Cherry Point as a young Marine Corps Private. About a week after I reported, there was a Colonel undergoing training. While he was hovering over the flightline he lost control and ended up doing an inverted ejection (ejected upside down). This resulted in his being killed, not from the impact on the flightline, but also from the Harrier landing on him. I had several friends who were pilots in the Harrier. It was absolutely a difficult aircraft to master. You were part jet pilot and part helicopter pilot. Even knew a couple who lost there lives flying them. To this day, I don't think there is anything as awe inspiring as an AV8 hovering in front of you at 20 feet above the ground.
The only Harrier loss that occurred in March of 1982 was a VMA-542 AV-8A flown by 1stLt Robert G. Wilson who was killed during the ejection at Cherry Point. First AV-8B loss occurred on 31 March 1985 when a VMAT-203 Harrier II flown by LtCol John Capito suffered engine failure and caught fire in flight crashing into Long Island Sound. The pilot ejected but died as a result of hypothermia in the water awaiting rescue.
@@halbennett4491 Colonel Ditto was killed piloting a VMAT-203 AV-8A BuNo 159368 on 19 January 1981. First flight of the AV-8B didn't occur until November of 1981. Ditto was an experienced pilot, nearly 5000 hours, but had only logged 13.7 hours in the AV-8A at the time of his death waiting too long to eject after loss of control.
The Harrier depict in video photo is a Spanish Navy with red and yellow flag,here the Harrier was a highly appreciated plane and his spaniard call id was "Matador"(meaning killer,bullfighter),and served in our Armada with distinction and ironically,a low rate of accidents.
@@roddeazevedo still is a good plane but naval strategist think is someway aged and we need some more advanced and technologically in the edge,but i think supposedly marvel gamechangers loke F 35 are not well proven yet
@@roddeazevedo we have very advanced technology in aeronáutics like Indra and C.A.S.A Aerospace,no doubt we could design and put into service our own fighter,but as in many other things is a political matter,not a military one..
The USMC’s original Harrier safety record was average. With experienced fliers. When the Marines turned it over to new junior officer pilots the accident rate went up exponentially
That was with the original Harrier. The AV-8B version brought in much more automated controls which made the jet much easier to fly. The British are really good at jet engines and airframe design. The US brought their controls and avionics experience to compliment the British expertise.
@@knoahbody69 'Hovering was difficult to impossible to do manually?' Every RN FAA pilot managed to 'over and down' their SHAR FRS1 & FA2's manually , That was GR3 based
@@herbb8547 Legend has it British crash rate is a LOT LOWER Than the USA Because the RAF converted Fast jet pilots while the USMC converted Helo Pilots?
USMC Harriers were a staple at the EAA Airventure Convention in Oshkosh, WI for many years. They were always part of the afternoon air show. I've worked at the EAA convention for over 30 years, and the Harriers were a crowd favorite (mine, too). But BOY were they LOUD on hover. As a "regular", you got to where you ignored most of the aircraft going over. But you always noticed when the Harrier was on hover.I generally left showsite when the afternoon airshow began, and I swear I could hear it miles away while driving home!
Loudest damn thing ever. When my Helicopter squadron moved to a Harrier base in the late 90's, we were put at the far end of the airfield and our flight line was right next to the Pegasus Engine test and Harrier tie down bay........ the noise was incredible.
Like with so many British inventions in the U.K. the greatest obstacle is the government who 9 times out of 10, cancel promising projects at the last minute, when they look like they will shine. Britain’s Black Arrow was a radical rocket for its time, which had the potential to send a British man to the moon but it was cancelled. Our failures in the U.K. to develop Frank Whittles Jet Engine design which was British allowed the Germans to later develop it. Although we did develop Radar and at least that proves we can take things forward sometimes. Even today Britain is a superpower when it comes to innovation and invention but our lack to invest in our tech, allows our competitors to surpass us and leave Britain lagging behind. The F35 Jet is 15% British and I’m sure it was inspired by the Harrier Jump Jet.
The word government can easily be swapped with 'money'. UK governments (all except Tories anyway) are usually as interested in innovation as we are, but we just don't have the immense finances that the US does. Which is why we often invent something and the US buys it to manufacture.
The worst thing about Britain is the shitty governance. Could have had a national fiber optic network in the 80s/90s. Thatcher killed that. With our new carriers they were going to have cats and traps then they were then they weren't or something, I lost track, and they came very close to cancelling Prince of Wales. Production numbers of the escort fleet were slashed. We let a foreign company buy ARM which is the company who licenses the main technology in almost every smartphone.
Good video. I wish it would have mentioned it’s high accident rate. I live around Cherry Point and we have a term for the harriers know as lawn darts, because of how many ended up in peoples lawns around here in the late 90s and into 2000s. They may be versatile but they are not without issues, more so then most other aircraft.
A lot of the accident rate in the US was down to the fact that the 'powers that be' thought that as it could go straight up and down, it would be better to use helicopter pilots rather than jet pilots. Stupid idea.
F-16's used to be lawn darts, too. Luke Air Force Base, the primary US base for F-16's until very recently, is in my area. You'd always hear of 1 or 2 a month crashing. It took them around 10 years to figure out the defect in the engine that was causing it.
Exactly what I was waiting for... After the enemy was in pursuit: 1) Go to hover 2) They fly past 3) Shoot them down 4) Return and re-arm 5) Repeat as necessary
Pilots called it VIFFing. Vectoring in forward flight. The Harrier would dramatically slow and jump vertically. The enemy would overshoot below. You then fire your Aim 9L missile up their tail.
@@icanreadthebible7561 VIFFing was used only once in the Falklands by a SHAR pilot attempting to down a Pucara with disappointing results. The claim that VIFFing - a defensive tactic - was used extensively in the Falklands is a myth perpetuated by the ignorant.
@@flyingweed9671 There was no viffing during the Falklands though, the Mirages and Daggers were far less manoeuvreable than the Sea Harrier so you could get behind them without viffing.
One of the things about the harrier was appreciation of the sad fact that in a shooting war with the Soviet Union, airfields with nice long jet-friendly runways were going to be suddenly very rare. I remember reading somewhere that allegedly some supermarkets happened to be designed with frontages that might be swiftly removed such that a harrier landing in the car park might be quickly wheeled in for resupply and maintenance, nicely out of sight. Does anyone recall any details by any chance?
The Harrier was designed at a time when it was assumed the Soviets would steamroll through Europe and destroy most airbases. It would allow almost any small area to be used to land and take off.
I was raised near USMC El Toro and LTA in Santa Ana. My father flew USMC helos and was stationed at both bases during his career and after he retired we settled near El Toro! I remember the earlier A/C Harriers Models killing many pilots. On base, there was a USMC paper called "The Flight Jacket" and I loved picking those papers up, each time my mother and I went shopping at the PX. I remember in 84' there was one story in the flight jacket paper that had a photo spread of all the USMC pilots that died trying to master the Harrier and I will never forget the headline: "More than a Few Good Men!" In that story, the pilots had a very hard time in managing the fuel and keeping the center of gravity stable while in hover. And some pilots complained to their wives that this airplane may kill them. It is far to difficult to master!" Appreciate any feedback to any former or current leathernecks that know more about this issue, than me! Semper Fi!
I was a corpsman during Vietnam and ran air evac missions to El Toro, stationed at long Beach naval Hospital we would get Marine pilots after a crash..it was my worst duty.
The British Pilots were much better than the Americans. At least they knew how to fly the harriers without killing themselves!! Plus the British built them.. America couldn't. Bit like Concorde!!
Its worth keeping in mind that the Harrier wasn't supposed to ever see active service it was a testbed for a much more powerful supersonic "jump-jet" that would have looked a lot more like the Jaguar.... Another aircraft that ended up in a role it wasn't originally designed for... The is a theme here!
@@derekfancett8218 as cool as the Concorde was (also it was half French) it unfortunately is very difficult to label a success, as although it was very good at doing what it was designed to do, it never was commercially viable and largely ran as a loss. The Harrier not only achieved success within our own military, it became one of the favoured airframes of (it pains me to say this) the most powerful military in the world.
I remember the first time I saw this aircraft was on the news during the Gulf war. When I saw it land vertically I told my older brother how did he do that?
You guys looking at the Harrier in basic flying runs are missing out. I got to see them as Aggressor a/c and NAB Cubi Point. Harriers and F-4's were "attacking" and F-18's were "defending". It was the first time I saw how the Harriers (and Wild Weasels) really flew in ACM training against other a/c. I saw one fly the lowest and fastest I'd EVER seen a plane fly to this day. A Harrier was being tailed by an F-18 - the Harrier was flying FAST, at tree-top level and jinking back and forth - being "chased" by a Navy F-18C (this was before the Super Bug). It was fast and loud at that low altitude and at that speed - the whole maintenance compound shook - even the doggone concrete vibrated, LOL. The F-18 couldn't really keep up at the Harriers' very low-level at that high speed quite as well - they were quite a bit higher in the air and struggled to maintain the low-level of the Harriers. Marine Aviators (who are still Naval Aviators) are some of the absolute best aviators that the Navy produces, IMO......
@johnashtone7167 yes, it was 'Vectoring In Forward Flight' - VIFFing - where the jet nozzle could be turned from facing rearwards in forward flight, past the 90º hovering position, to slightly forward with the force of the jet nozzle dramatically slowing the aircraft down. Any following aircraft would fly-by unable to match the Harrier's rapid deceleration, and the Harrier would then resume normal rearward thrust and pursue the enemy. Took dog-fighting to a whole new level for a while.
Yes , it had issues, but none were shot down by air to air combat during the Falklands conflict, better than a lot of other supposedly superior supersonic aircraft.
Mom worked on the Night Attack avionics development for this fighter which included the integration of night vision, forward looking, and rearward looking infrared capabilities and for the mid 80’s during the tail end of the Cold War it was a really big deal. She was there from the time I was 5 to the time I was 12 and it was annoying that she couldn’t tell me what she did at work. When I was 35 after her government security NDA expired she told me the whole story over dinner for my birthday and it finally made sense what the big secret was. Very proud of her!
I live less than ten miles from raf Wittering and growing up seeing Harriers day in day out from the 70s to their retirement was a joy. The best thing of driving north on the A1 was hoping to see a Harrier come in to land directly over the main route north in the UK. A couple of times they passed above us by less than 10m, which was a huge thrill. All that said, forgetting their combat action during the Falklands wars is criminal as it proved the plane concept in action and none of the post 82 development would have happened if not for that action.
"and none of the post 82 development would have happened if not for that action."(sic) Incorrect. The Harrier II redesign effort commenced in 1973 and the AV-8B Harrier II first flew in November of 1981 nearly six months before the GR.3s and FRS.1s saw action over the Falklands. In fact the British returned to the Harrier II in August of 1981 after abandoning it in 1975 as the Memorandum of Understanding that the UK signed unambiguously states.
Interesting point about how various British Companies named their Jet Engines, Bristol used names with ancient Greek routes Olympus and Pegasus etc, Rolls-Royce used British Rivers Trent, Severn etc. RR's point was to differentiate the continuous power of a River rather than the 'beat' of a birds wings for their Internal Combustion Engines Merlin Kestrel etc.
Especially the Sea Harrier FRS1, which was what dominated the Argentinian jets in air to air, and was based on the original Harrier, unlike the later FA2 Sea Harrier, which much improved radar and ability to carry AIM120 missiles, which did include the AV8B wing and powerplant developments, and foolishly scrapped by the UK government.
Way back in the 1980s I went to a Biggin Hill air show & one of these amazing aircraft performed in front of me. You won`t believe it until you see it. I know this video is about the 2nd gen Harriers which now the F35s are replacing but still something else!
Hawker Hurricane, the Spitfire, the F4F Wildcat, the Douglas Dauntless and the Skyraider, the F9F Cougar model # 6, the A-4, the Harrier, and the F-35B. For single engine attack and fighter uses, if you made this list it was not just for your looks.
The Harrier's capabilities regarding dispersal were much greater than stated here. It did not even require a "road" to operate: any suitable clearing, even in a jungle could be used.
The dispersal factor was a big part of the planes appeal in 1980's cold war. We'd go on detachment to a field because it was assumed all airfields would be nuked and we were the only sqn's with aircraft still flying. Thats why 3 and 4 sqn Harriers were in Germany, as a last line of air defence/attack ready to disperse to the middle of nowhere with no need of runways.
The UK produced some amazing aircraft. I was devastated when they scrapped the TSR2; If only they had waited a year because the F1-11 had problems. Howe sad :(
I didn't know these even existed until 1982 while watching Falklands War footage on the news. Totally blew my mind when they stopped in mid air over a carrier then dropped straight down.
That and the videogame GTA: San Andreas were usually how people learned that a plane can hover, I imagine nowadays people learn everything from the internet.
I first started building model kits at about the age of 6 or 7 years - and the Harrier was one of my early ones! (I'm now 63 and the kit was of the Hawker P1127, which became the Harrier soon after!)
We tested the AV8B on the USS Peleliu in the spring of 1984 off the coast of socal. Pretty cool they were attaching all kind's of things to that thing.
@@kevinp7056 They flew in the day I remember it blowing up non skid. They where filling drop tanks with water and doing all kinds of shit. Fake bombs and other stuff.
I was a Marine on the Wasp's intitial cruise. The Sailors worked like hell to work out her 'kinks". Of course, with me being on the flightline and the maintenance shops in the hangar-bay nearest the port elevator - our jobs were very different. Anchors aweigh Sailor - and Semper Fi......
When I was a lad in the ATC back in the 80s I dreamed of being a Harrier pilot. Then my eyesight deteriorated and put paid to my dream since childhood.
How do you completely pass over the Harrier's first use in combat during your trial by fire segment? Had the British experience in the Falkland war not gone well for the Harriers I'm sure that would have been the end of the program all together for the US Marines as well.
I believe the exocet missile from France was the bane of the Brits in the Falkland conflict imagine to allow weapons from allies to destroy each other strange but true?? But that's war I suppose?
Incorrect. The Corps had been operating the Harrier for over a decade prior to the Falklands and McDonnell Douglas developed the Harrier II prior to the Falkands.
@@AA-xo9uw No they didn’t, stop talking nonsense mate. The AV8 didn’t go into operational service with the USMC till 1985..thats 3 years after the the Falklands War .please continue to embarrass yourself, it’s giving everyone who can do 2 minutes research a laugh.
@@csh5414 "No they didn’t, stop talking nonsense mate."(sic) I'm not your mate, pogue. Get a grip on reality. It may offend your warm beer, bad dentistry, thin skinned sensibilities but that is irrelevant. "The AV8 didn’t go into operational service with the USMC till 1985.."(sic) Incorrect. The Marine Corps received its first production AV-8A in January 1971. First flight of the McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II was 5 November 1981. Five months before the Falklands were invaded on 2 April 1982. The first generation Hawker Siddeley AV-8A Harrier and the second generation McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II are entirely different aircraft. Your knowledge on the topic at hand is quite deficient, madame. You would have difficulty finding your prat with both hands if I spotted you nine fingers, wanker. You're an embarrassment to the United Kingdom.
I lived near the Rolls Royce facility when the Harrier was developed. It was known locally as the flying bedstead, that's exactly what it locked like, a bedstead with an engine at each corner. There was a pub in the nearby town named "The flying bedstead".
@@petegarnett7731 I don't understand why you mentioned the Pegasus in reply to my comment, I didn't mention it. The Osprey is an interesting aircraft, it was designed to do what the Fairey Rotodyne was supposed to do.
When I was stationed at MCAS(H) New River in N.C. I was sent out with a "crackerbox" ambulance when the Marines were testing field landing pads (aluminum mats). I watched landings from just a few dozen yards away. (I was released from active duty September 1972.)
The UK should never had got rid of these aircraft. They can be operated without an airbase critical for survivability. Same goes for the Tornado a superb low level bomber
During the cold war in the UK it was assumed that in any conflict the air fields wound be the first targets. I remember, around me, you could always see or here F111's permanently in the air. Harriers were for defence, flying from forest clearings, Jaguars flying from roads, both 60' jets. Kind of sad the RAF dropped them, a compliment that the US gave this innovative versatile aircraft a seconds life. And ... "Harrier", what a beautiful and apt name, " Harriers characteristically hunt by flying low over open ground, feeding on small mammals, reptiles, or birds."
I remember the F111's flying over the edge of my home town in the 70,s .also tornadoes and jaguar's. All the aircraft stopped flying over in the late 80,s dont know why. Miss those days.
My ship, the Iwo Jima, was the one carrying the 26th MEU for OEF in 2003. An interesting quirk of launching harriers from that kind of ship is the sound heard on the forecastle. You would hear their engine spool up, then start getting closer as they did their take off roll. Just as they got near the end of the deck, directly over the forecastle, they would swivel their nozzles and it would go absolutely silent in the space...followed by a huge thunderclap as the exhaust clears the deck edge, bounces off the water and slams into the space from beneath! You learned really fast to cover your ears when you hear the take off roll. 😅
This is my favorite warplane hands down and to this day there is nothing which can out-maneuver a Harrier. You get into a dogfight with one you have one option...run. Only one catch, only the best pilots can affectively fly them 🙂
I deployed with 3 & 4 squadron Harriers a couple of times in Germany (before being moved to Hejicopters) , they never ceased to amaze me , operating from hides in German woods was it`s natural habitat . Sadly there will never be another aircraft to match this , it was built to fill a need for a ground attack/fighter that could operate from any location at a pinch , we called them the Parafin budgie . A shame the Falklands wasn`t mentioned as I have little doubt the Harrier`s performance against numerically and potentially superior Aircraft sparked the interest in resuming it`s upgrading to the AV8b onward as until that point it was all about high mach speed interceptors/fighter`s , then suddenly up pops an old by then slow Aircraft flown by pilots who knew it`s full capabilities and threw the apple cart into a cart wheel !
I was on duty as a cook at the inflight kitchen at Kadena AFB, Okinawa when a Marine Harrier had a flame-out in one of it's engines, causing the jet to roll over and crash onto the infield between the runways. I got pretty busy immediately as our shop was the closest place to feed all of the emergency personnel that had to react to the crash. Thanks to the circumstances of my having just cooked up 30 lbs of chicken and getting my orders for the next morning out of the way early I earned the award for the PACAF Services Airman of the Quarter and subsequently was chosen by the squadron commander to represent our base for the Hennessey Award at the 1978 NRA convention. Pretty sweet TDY for an E-3! I never found out what happened to the crew of the Harrier, there were substantial problems with the aircraft at the time.
I remember when I was a young airman stationed at Little Rock AFB in Arkansas in the 80's I was left on the "Christmas Tree" doing a compass swing on a C-130. A Harrier came in on approach to the runway (apparently for refueling), saw me sitting out there with the equipment while everyone else was at lunch (like I said, I was an airman, low man on the totem pole), stopped in the air, turned towards me, dipped his nose, and raised up in the air. I saluted the pilot and smiled. He dipped the nose again, turned back to the runway and continued his landing.
That must've been awesome to see the capabilities of it yourself firsthand like that
and then everyone clapped
I find it astonishing that someone would choose to make a video about the history of the Harrier, and not even mention the Falklands conflict of 1982. Up to that, the world had scoffed at this slow aircraft. After that, airforces around the world wanted them. Its performance in dogfights was extraordinary.
This video isn't about the history of the Harrier. It's about 'MURICA.
The video isn't about the original Hawker/BAe Harrierr, it's about the McDonnell Douglas Harrier II - same family of aircraft, but a significantly different upgrade by comparison.
Your criticism is equivalent to wondering why the F/A-18 Hornet isn't mentioned in a vid concerning the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet.
"After that, airforces around the world wanted them."(sic)
Not really. Both the Harrier II and Harrier had limited use around the world - United States, UK, Spain, Italy, Thailand and India with 815 total built.
Oh my lord, it’s Lindybeige!
To be honest I was waiting for the plane's use in the Falklands War to be covered, until I read your comment haha.
Should've talked about the importance of the Harrier in the Falklands war.
That was my thought too.....
"Makes you proud to be British"
Some of those were USAF aircraft repainted in our colours.
@@rogersmith8339i didn’t ever hear that before! All them Harriers crossed the Atlantic on the British Carrier’s as they were the British Aerospace Sea Harrier not the AV8A or B
@@StewartWalker-hy1eo You obviously never saw the photos I did in a limited / restricted circulation magazine article that I got access to after the conflict. It contained some very revealing facts that did not paint our glorious leader at the time in good light! It was not some underground subversive publication but a serious "industry" publication in English but not published in the UK as far as I could tell.
Being under a vertical takeoff and steep angled climb by a Harrier at Plymouth Navy Days back in the 80s was the loudest thing I ever heard. The second loudest was front row at The Prodigy.
Unfortunately i haven't experienced a Harrier, but front row at The Prodigy.... now there's a good memory!!
Had one fly over from Biggin Hill airport one year back in the 1980s, it appeared so fast from the opposite hill, we all threw ourselves at the ground as it went over, the sound was, well I never got to see the Prodigy😅
You did not hear a VULCAN on after burners
@@grahamwalker5693 nice
when i was on the tarawa off the coast of Iraq in 2003 i remember the harriers launching from halfway along the flight deck of the 800ish ft ship. Right next to the island is where the launched from. Their nozzles at like 45-55deg, full brakes, full spool up, and when it dragged through the brakes they'd release the brakes, accelerate down the remaining 400ish feet, dip below the bow of the ship and then appear a few seconds later. from early march 2003 to early may 2003 we had all 6 harriers flying as fast as we could refuel them.. until the end when 3/6 needed engines or major inspections.
The British Harrier was hugely important in the Falklands. The vectored thrust made it unbeatable in a dog fight.
Phantoms and Buc's would have been better but as the carriers were scrap they were all we had
@@graveperil2169 Actually no. And the buc is a bomber, not a fighter.
@@paulbarnett227 and you dont think a bomber would have been useful?, the first thing we did a soon as the runway is Stanley was ready we brought in Phantoms and took the harriers home, No one wanted Harriers they were forced on the Navy due to the size of the carriers
@@graveperil2169 The thing with the phantoms was they were much faster being supersonic so once the Islands were taken back they became the better option going forward. I still maintain the close combat dogfights were aced by the harriers.
@@paulbarnett227 The bucaneer had a huge range and could carry a lot of weapons, It would of wiped out the Argies much quicker.
No mention of how complicated and difficult to fly the harrier is. These pilots are so highly trained.
What’s difficult about it?
@@heavyizthacrown-5842- It’s not a video game in your parents basement
You make a bloody video of you know so much
And really hard to stand on top of them while they fly, you can easily slip and fall, getting yourself hooked on the Sidewinder and then get launched at a helicopter through a building!
@@sim.frischh9781 😂😂😂 that movie is hilariously awesome
Should've talked about the importance of the Harrier in the Falklands war.. The aircraft was an incredible breakthrough, irrespective of issues..
My uncle was a Harrier pilot in the late 90's/2000's. He's got some awesome stories about what that plane could do. He also said that everyone was scared to death of it because it got squirrely on vertical operations.
I was attached to a Harrier squadron when I was in the Marine Corps and when it worked correctly it was awesome but when it got squirrely it quite often meant death for the pilot! The problems were always takeoff and landing vertically and that was the only way I ever saw then operate because the procedure had to be second nature but malfunction could rarely be overcome no matter how good the pilot was! The day before I arrived on base they lost a Harrier and the pilot on landing, he was hovering when there was a malfunction and the pilot ejected, at that very moment the Harrier flipped and shot the pilot straight into the ground!
Unreliable is the one word I would use to describe this plane.
@@living-wellon-less5669
We were in Yuma at the same time then.
@@scrateshooter January, 6, 1976, Cherry Point, NC I was discharged, I went through the area about 10 years ago and everything has changed so much I didn't know where I was it's grown so much! Just the opposite with the Millington Naval air station in Tennessee, I went through there 3 years ago and it's just a shadow of it's former state. It used to be a busy and growing community!
My brother was a RAF Harrier pilot, operating out of RAF Wittering. Completed three operational tours, a requirement to even be considered by the Red Arrows. After his Hawk conversion, he became Red10 for four years, but he still says the Harrier was the hardest to fly. Had many phone calls from him before a 'Chop' ride during training; fail the chop ride and you're gone from the program.
As a kid I used to run outside base on their flight path for landing on the runway. They would have their thrust vectored down and you'd get a huge blast of jet wash, it was amazing! They knew we were coming too so they'd slow up a bit. We would wave at them and you could see them waving their wings at us sometimes. Once we even had 1 stop and hover over us for a moment :D This was 1 of my favorite aircraft growing up.
I'm convinced that the night flying variants of these are responsible for half the UFO sightings in the World, the Stealth bomber the other half.
I was working (for a civilian contractor) when RAF St. Athan was a repair base. ( they restored a WWII Lancaster there but that's another story)
A fully loaded Harrier was being tested about 1/4 of a mile away.
It's really REALLY loud and when it rotates slowly about 50 ft off the ground with missiles pointed at you.................................well, even as a friendly it's terrifying and you really want to be somewhere else.
The gate guards at the time had just come back from Belfast so 'everyone' entering was a potential terrorist.
It wasn't a fun time
What base was that? I know they ended up at Cottesmore but that was hosting Tornadoes in the 90's, I used to watch them from my bedroom window. Was it Wittering?
@@indigogolf3051
US MCAS Yuma, AZ
Here in the UK I had the pleasure of seeing one at the Duxford air show many years back. It hovered maybe 100 feet away and around 60-70 feet off the ground. The two main things I recall (apart from the sound) was how the ground was vibrating, obviously because of the downward thrust, and the intense smell of fuel. The amount of energy involved in keeping those things just hovering there is pretty insane.
Don't forget, it could travel 670 mph, FOUR times faster than any attack helicopter. In the Falklands War, Argentine chopper pilots were terrified of having to fly to the combat zone because the Harrier could hover and hide behind rocks and trees. It would pop up and usually, if you saw the Harrier, you were already dead.
The fuel cost of hovering was too high for the Harrier to use it for laying in wait.
that doesnt seem true the harrier has very limited vtol time as it uses water cooling, plus that would be an extreme waste of gas
@@wg4112 In a fight between a Super Apache and a Sea Harrier, I'd bet on the the Apache.
@@johnpauljones9310 Okay? what does that have to do with anything i said
@@wg4112 You do realize that my comment was an extrapolation of your comment which outright stole my first comment, right? Derp.
The Brits are brilliant and ahead of their time in battlefield innovation.
People think the Germans invented the jet engine but it was invented by Frank whittle
Bro they're a vassal state to their former colony... calm down
@@matthewwilliams7913 We ain't vassals to anybody you fool.
@@matthewwilliams7913 Former colony? ...You sure..?
@davelines5251 When the United States says jump, the uk says how high. Yes, I'm sure the crown now bows before the former colony. Are those American Jets on their aircraft carrier ? Yes.. Yes, they are
The Harrier and the A10 are part of my top two favorite military aircraft. Most impressive that they were able to bump up the payload to 9200 lbs.
I add the f22s and F35 now to my list list and A10 and Harrier are at the top.
@@PatClassic1980
Vulcans and Lancs.
When I was a kid this aircraft and Concord were undergoing development and testing and I saw them come in and I remember how amazed we all were at all the development around us .
The future was big back then .
Unfortunately that excitement died out and innovation appears to have stagnated.
Have you ever noticed how people say "Concord" as if it were one aircraft rather than the Concord which would be correct. That to me indicates just how iconic they were as
I know of no other man made object where a number were produced but they are always spoken of as the singular.
@@OpenWebDiscourse... I'm watching the development on starship and I'm quite chuffed about it. It's a pity though that the magic of the past has gone out of it.
I was in high school when the first gliding flights of the shuttle were carried out from the back of the modified 747. Everything was so exciting and watching launches on TV was a very special occasion for me.
The innivation never stagnated, it just was killed by treasonous politicians who scrapped the aeroplanes. The original Harrier - the Kestrel P1127 was scheduled to scrapped- but survived as a private venture. The P1154 supersonic Harrier scrapped, TSR2, and HS681. Look at the Avro Arrrow, killed off and the Canadian engineers ended up working in America with the lunar module mostly by Canadian engineers. Good engineers, poor government.
@@percyprune7548 Not only the politicians but accountants in the civil service who only think of cost and not value.
Innovation never stagnated imho. Aside from politics and other artifices and shit like that, the point is that 60 years ago almost every new "invention" was groundbreaking, because a lot of the areas we now take for granted were almost unexplored. And so of course everything looked new and exciting.
As time went by, and more and more things were discovered and experimented, we gained an almost unmeasurable amount of knowledge that let us optimize what to research and how, so it may seem like there is "no innovation", but now small changes mean a lot more in proportion.
In the USMC we were calling them the "scarrier" they were just too damed useful and the av-8b solved the issues. It was excellent-outstanding whoop ass on call during desert storm.
The Marine Pilots were crazy enough to fly them. Other pilots enjoy their life.
@knoahbody69 well they are marines
I was just coming through a village in Northamptonshire once, 2004 I think, Weedon it's called and just as I crossed the junction at the A5 to head towards the M1 I heard the roar of jet engines approaching so I pulled over and got out of my van to have a look. The noise got louder, deafening louder, then 2 of these UK variants blew over me carrying out highly illegal low altitude dog fighting manoeuvres. How low? They barely cleared the trees on the other side of the road is how low and the wash from the jets blew me off my feet, if my van wasn't behind me I would've ended up in the ditch at best. It was an awesome sight and display of skill and I'm not sure folk realise just how composed these things look at 50ft above the ground doing 3 or 4 hundred miles an hour while been thrown around like stunt planes. I imagine the two cheeky RAF chappies got a bit shouted at when the data was downloaded from their flight recorders, let alone the panic back at base when they dropped off the military radar. They probably suffered the harshest of punishments, no tea rations for a week.
Its not the Harriers fault that RAF pilots are better than yours. ;)
@@peterstubbs5934 Doubt there's any difference in skill between the RAF and US pilots. But the Americans initially put helicopter pilots in the Harrier because they both hovered. Such a stunning lack of common sense could only come from a senior officer, as anyone would know what was bound to happen if you put a chopper pilot in a fast jet that is a challenge to fly.............so it got called the 'widow maker'. Once they put jet pilots into the Harrier, the accident rate plummeted.
The Harrier ......... one of the greats in aviation history.
If you search on UA-cam you’ll find a great video of a harrier doing a deck landing (vertical) with its front nose wheel still stored. The flight deck crew ran into a shed and pulled out a “cradle” that was built just in case of this, but had never been used… the pilot does a perfect landing onto it despite not being able to see it himself (guided on by the deck crew)… it’s all on video and a remarkable piece of flying / landing!
I saw a Harrier "commercial" years ago showing a commuter train station in the UK. A train drew in and disgorged a flock of business-suited men carrying brief cases who collected their cars and drove away. A Harrier descended into the car park and out got a business-suited pilot carrying a brief case who also found his car and drove away. Point made!
I worked on these for several years in the USMC VMA-513. The Harrier II (AV-8B) was a completely new design and much safer and much more capable than the original AV-8A/C models. Rugged plane with great pilots. We had an incident in which a pilot landed on a ship at night after losing its main gear. We had a cradle for nose gear failures, but nothing for main failure. Took a bit of maneuvering, but he safely set it down on the nose wheel and outriggers in rolling seas! We quickly ran out and chained it down. A fisherman caught the missing main gear assembly in a fishing net a year later. Turns out that the large locking ring failed, and the assembly just slid right out into the water just after takeoff.
Yeah, the original Harrier was typical British engineering...overly complicated and unreliable.
McD made the thing a real weapon....reliable and much simplified.
@@HyperSpaceProphetare you american?
I remember hearing of similar case where a fighter pilot got a warning about faulty nose gear, and he decided to do some go-arounds to have control tower confirm the issue. Can't remember wether it was Harrier or one of Fs. Despite the circumstances he successfuly landed on supporting stand, prepared by maintenance crew, that was meant to play the role of nose gear.
@@utrock5067 Yes, that was a Harrier that I believe was out of MCAS Cherry Point. The gear system has an emergency "blow down" system, but if the nose gear turns in the gear well, it can get stuck. A cradle can be put in place in which the pilot can hover down and land on to support the forward fuselage. Pretty tricky landing method but it works!
@@HyperSpaceProphetyou are wrong
Good old Brits being the 1st again .
“we’d like a jet that can take off vertically? “
“Hang on ,I’ll just finish my tea ☕ and get on it this afternoon! “ 🇬🇧🇬🇧
Tea hmm? and biscuits? Oh and a TSR2 just to keep those chaps on their toes!
"Good old Brits being the 1st again ."(sic)
First operational - with a lot of help and money primarily from the US taxpayer via the MWDP - but not the first.
Brits seem to be such silent but when time comes they seem to become power to be reckon with. Though sometimes they suck for their allies.
@@AA-xo9uw I assume your referring to the AV-8B? Because the harrier jump-jet was built by hawker siddeley and was not built with any foreign investment. In fact the first real noticeable involvement came from the yanks after the Falklands War, there was a large US marine interest prior to that period but Fleet Air Arm and RAF harriers battering the argie air force, whilst at sea, proved once and for all just how deadly this little beauty was. Those with a little foresight and imagination just 6 years earlier had jumped at the chance to redevelop the harrier and this in turn became the AV-8B. If you are referring to american financial involvement, that is where it happened and not before.
@@utrock5067 of course we are silent, we invented terms like the silent service .. and we don't usually shout about our achievements, we leave the dead bodies lying about to prove that point.
The aircraft was an incredible breakthrough, irrespective of issues.
It failed completely!!! It was designed from the outset to be VTOL '& SUPERSONIC. It failed to be supersonic, so it was a complete FAILURE.
@@F4Insight-uq6ntit was the P.1127 Pegasus engine that was subsonic which the British government funded instead of the P.1154 supersonic engine so you obviously don’t know much about the aircraft
@@F4Insight-uq6nt Yeah I don't think you can really say and aircraft which first flew nearly 60 years ago and is still in service in some places today can really be called a failure. Even if what you claimed was true, it clearly found its niche.
@@F4Insight-uq6nt Incorrect.
@@StewartWalker-hy1eo "which the British government funded"(sic)
Incorrect. 75% of the development cost for the Pegasus was provided by the US taxpayer via the MWDP. The remaining 25% was provided by Bristol itself due to Duncan Sandys and the MoD refusing to fund it.
gotta love the harrier
It was before it’s time
It will be pity to get this plane retire. It's as iconic as A-10.
I was at an airshow at London Ontario in the late 80's where an AV-8B was doing a demonstration. The plane landed a center stage and then did a vertical take off. It rose to about 40 feet when it wobbled and had a hard landing. The pilot shut the engine off when on the ground. Apparently, thevolane has an oil pressure failure when hovering.
Quick thinking with the pilot prevented a far worse accident.
Now say it in English.
@@Mk1Male Plane had a boo boo
@@Mk1Male The airplane had low blood pressure and got dizzy, so it had to sit down.
While stationed at MCAS Cherry Point, this was not an uncommon event. 😉
That was one the yanks had messed up. AV8 was the US marine version.
Had a Spanish AV-8 crash right next to where we were testing a A-3 ...pilot didn't have to eject just a very hard landing when his engine failed while hovering. He got out and walked away...a Spanish guy towed the plane dragging it all the way down leaving FOD all the way 😂
Let them fix their own damn runway...🙃
That was a common problem of the Harrier design. The downward facing engine nozzles at low altitudes (mostly while landing) would often cause hot exhaust gasses to get into the intakes causing the engines to flame out. It was not uncommon for the Harrier to actually drop the last few feet when landing vertically.
This is a big reason why the VTOL version of the F-35 uses a large fan for VTOL operations. The downwash would be cold and oxygen rich so would not case problems if entering the engine intakes. They kept the swivel nozzles at the back since the large fan would push the exhaust away from the jet.
@cleemccarthy1022 we had to do the FOD Walk down so our jets could take off and land lol.
@@Snipergoat1 talked to some engineers and maintainers over the years and said the same about the ducting and fan. 👍
Whats FOD ?
An airplane that could stop dead in flight and even fly backwards if so required. A marvel of British design. My endearing memory of the aircraft was when out walking in the Lake District. A pair of Harriers came up the Troutbeck Valley from Windermere. I was on Troutbeck Tongue, a low spit of land jutting out into the valley. They split up and flew either side, hugging the valley floor such that I was looking down into the cockpit, and the pilot I was watching, just cool as anything gave a wave as he went past. Absolute magic.
I'd observe the Harriers flying sorties over Bosnia back in the 90s. The "Flying Fish" was always a sight to behold when they would come in slow and low. They were something else!!
The most unique sounding jet aircraft ever. That engine whine is unmistakable no matter were I am at the airport.
Harrier always has a soft spot in my heart, since a young boy
i'll never forget the Birmingham air show at Billesley common in 1973, they had a Harrier showing it's VTOL and hovering capabilities, simple fences and basic crowd control, it left quite an impression on me as a 6 year old kid, we also had the Vulcan there and the red arrows in Gnats skimming the tops of trees
@@pmrose18 living by Daisy Farm Park at the time, i remember the day well
So let me get this straight - there was actually an airshow on Billesely common in 1973? My Irish aunt and uncle (and their kids) lived in Yardley Wood Road and I visited them in 1965 just before I joined the British Army at the beginning of 1966. We visited Billesley common and it was a massive (and very beautiful) area bordered on the "left" side, as you entered the Yardley Wood Road gate, by a row of prefabs in the distance from the war and on the "right" side (again from the Yardley Wood entrance) by a chain fence to a girls' school playground (was it called Swanhost or some such?). Towards the "back" (as seen from the entrance) was a set of tennis courts and a children's playground - with a narrow path leading out to the road that led to the Billesley Inn (a lovely building, by the way) situated on a roundabout.
I'm actually working from pure memory here, but, as I recall, the ground sloped steeply away towards the aforementioned prefabs far in the distance on the "left" side (as you came in), so how was is possible to fit a Vulcan in there? Did it land there?
I'm genuinely intrigued.
MsG
The first combat action the Harrier saw was in the 1980's and in the theatre of the Falklands war where it flew from carriers. It's performance was exemplary given it was designed for land based conflict with the EUSSR.
EUSSR? Moron.
Saw an RAF Harrier do a spectacular display at RAF Leuchars many years ago. The pilot bowed its nose after the performance!😁
A RAF Harrier pilot did that in Japan once. He bowed his Harrier to the spectators, and the crowd bowed back to him.
I see the Harriers at air shows in the 80's and the bow was always a big hit with the crowds... They were very LOUD moments! I also got to see and hear the Vulcan bomber! Two awesome aircraft!
They always did this to Her majesty the Queen over Buckingham Palace
Saw a harrier do that hovering just off the side of Ark Royal at a rosyth navy day, up there with feeling a vulcan scream overhead or seeing into the cockpit of a low flying jet while abseiling down a crag
@@fredericksaxton3991 How cool, bet the Japanese crowd were impressed with that.
You forgot to mention it's service in the 'Falklands War' where it really first cut it's teeth and proved its self.
I think they didn’t mention the Falklands because this video was about the AV-8B and it was the -8As in the Falklands. But I agree it should have mentioned the Falklands, since that’s where the original Harrier first cut its teeth.
They didn’t mention the Falklands because it was an insult to another nations Aircraft that they couldn’t fly and don’t like to mention that another nation didn’t have problems
@@daschuly5892 It's mainly the Sea Harrier (FRS1) that people associate with the Falklands. The GR.3 (AV8A in US service) did see action there too, but there was quite a big difference between that and the FRS1.
not Merican. They can barely bring themselves to admit the AV8B is a BAE Harrier.
@@daschuly5892 "and it was the -8As in the Falklands."(sic)
GR.3s and FRS.1s both of which were significantly different from the AV-8A.
Grew up in a house less than 1 mile away from RAF Waddington's runway and was lucky enough to have my bedroom window looking straight into the base. Waking up every morning to see upto 8 E-3 Sentry' was always a treat, but I'll never forget the first time I saw a Harrier perform a VTOL.
Instantly fell in love :')
I grew up visiting my dad's ship, invincible.
Watched these take off and land countless times
Great fun
If it wasn't for the Harrier jump jet we would not have the F-35.
I thought the f 35 has an auxiliary jet to lift it off the ground, in that sense it would be more like the yak-38
I was stationed aboard the USS Tarawa LHA-1 from 1999-2004. We specialized in the transport of marine troops to and from the battlefield. Our shorter runway wouldn’t allow for the conventional jet aircraft, so harriers were perfect for us. I still remember being in our barracks and listening to the flight ops. I will never forget the roar of the engines as the plane slowly hovered down to its landing spot, getting louder and louder, then silence as the pulpit killed the engine before it damaged the flight deck. We were also able to watch the take offs and landings on the shipboard cctv. Funny how all of it seems more exciting now than it did back then.
I used to live on the edge of town near extensive moorlands which were frequently used for exercises involving Harriers. It was always a special moment to see a Harrier suddenly appear from out of a copse of trees which had previously appeared completely deserted. Amazing aircraft!
As a kid I was obsessed with this airframe. Still one of my top 3 favorites.
My father worked on the Harrier simulator a long time ago. I even got to briefly sit in one once at Cherry Point. Apparently the Marines had lost pilots in training, of course that was about 45 years ago.
My introduction to the AV-8 Harrier was in March 1982 when I was first stationed at MCAS Cherry Point as a young Marine Corps Private. About a week after I reported, there was a Colonel undergoing training. While he was hovering over the flightline he lost control and ended up doing an inverted ejection (ejected upside down). This resulted in his being killed, not from the impact on the flightline, but also from the Harrier landing on him.
I had several friends who were pilots in the Harrier. It was absolutely a difficult aircraft to master. You were part jet pilot and part helicopter pilot. Even knew a couple who lost there lives flying them.
To this day, I don't think there is anything as awe inspiring as an AV8 hovering in front of you at 20 feet above the ground.
That was Col. Ditto, the MAG-32 CO. I watched the crash from VMAT-203 hanger.
The only Harrier loss that occurred in March of 1982 was a VMA-542 AV-8A flown by 1stLt Robert G. Wilson who was killed during the ejection at Cherry Point.
First AV-8B loss occurred on 31 March 1985 when a VMAT-203 Harrier II flown by LtCol John Capito suffered engine failure and caught fire in flight crashing into Long Island Sound. The pilot ejected but died as a result of hypothermia in the water awaiting rescue.
@@halbennett4491 Colonel Ditto was killed piloting a VMAT-203 AV-8A BuNo 159368 on 19 January 1981. First flight of the AV-8B didn't occur until November of 1981. Ditto was an experienced pilot, nearly 5000 hours, but had only logged 13.7 hours in the AV-8A at the time of his death waiting too long to eject after loss of control.
The Harrier depict in video photo is a Spanish Navy with red and yellow flag,here the Harrier was a highly appreciated plane and his spaniard call id was "Matador"(meaning killer,bullfighter),and served in our Armada with distinction and ironically,a low rate of accidents.
@@roddeazevedo yes and sooner a replacement for the bird will be necessary,still doubts:
¿ F 35 ?
@@roddeazevedo still is a good plane but naval strategist think is someway aged and we need some more advanced and technologically in the edge,but i think supposedly marvel gamechangers loke F 35 are not well proven yet
@@roddeazevedo we have very advanced technology in aeronáutics like Indra and C.A.S.A Aerospace,no doubt we could design and put into service our own fighter,but as in many other things is a political matter,not a military one..
The USMC’s original Harrier safety record was average. With experienced fliers. When the Marines turned it over to new junior officer pilots the accident rate went up exponentially
Hovering was difficult to impossible to do manually. The F35B has a lot of automated vertical landing features.
That was with the original Harrier. The AV-8B version brought in much more automated controls which made the jet much easier to fly. The British are really good at jet engines and airframe design. The US brought their controls and avionics experience to compliment the British expertise.
@@knoahbody69
'Hovering was difficult to impossible to do manually?'
Every RN FAA pilot managed to 'over and down' their SHAR FRS1 & FA2's manually , That was GR3 based
@@herbb8547
Legend has it
British crash rate is a LOT LOWER Than the USA
Because the RAF converted Fast jet pilots
while the USMC converted Helo Pilots?
@@farmerned6 Legend as in BS?
USMC Harriers were a staple at the EAA Airventure Convention in Oshkosh, WI for many years. They were always part of the afternoon air show. I've worked at the EAA convention for over 30 years, and the Harriers were a crowd favorite (mine, too). But BOY were they LOUD on hover. As a "regular", you got to where you ignored most of the aircraft going over. But you always noticed when the Harrier was on hover.I generally left showsite when the afternoon airshow began, and I swear I could hear it miles away while driving home!
Loudest damn thing ever. When my Helicopter squadron moved to a Harrier base in the late 90's, we were put at the far end of the airfield and our flight line was right next to the Pegasus Engine test and Harrier tie down bay........ the noise was incredible.
Like with so many British inventions in the U.K. the greatest obstacle is the government who 9 times out of 10, cancel promising projects at the last minute, when they look like they will shine. Britain’s Black Arrow was a radical rocket for its time, which had the potential to send a British man to the moon but it was cancelled. Our failures in the U.K. to develop Frank Whittles Jet Engine design which was British allowed the Germans to later develop it. Although we did develop Radar and at least that proves we can take things forward sometimes. Even today Britain is a superpower when it comes to innovation and invention but our lack to invest in our tech, allows our competitors to surpass us and leave Britain lagging behind. The F35 Jet is 15% British and I’m sure it was inspired by the Harrier Jump Jet.
The word government can easily be swapped with 'money'. UK governments (all except Tories anyway) are usually as interested in innovation as we are, but we just don't have the immense finances that the US does. Which is why we often invent something and the US buys it to manufacture.
The worst thing about Britain is the shitty governance. Could have had a national fiber optic network in the 80s/90s. Thatcher killed that. With our new carriers they were going to have cats and traps then they were then they weren't or something, I lost track, and they came very close to cancelling Prince of Wales. Production numbers of the escort fleet were slashed. We let a foreign company buy ARM which is the company who licenses the main technology in almost every smartphone.
Behind the spitfire , the harrier is my favourite plane just in front of Concorde , amazing they are all British.
Good video. I wish it would have mentioned it’s high accident rate. I live around Cherry Point and we have a term for the harriers know as lawn darts, because of how many ended up in peoples lawns around here in the late 90s and into 2000s. They may be versatile but they are not without issues, more so then most other aircraft.
Russia IS FINISHED
The F-104 Starfighter was the original Lawn Dart.
A lot of the accident rate in the US was down to the fact that the 'powers that be' thought that as it could go straight up and down, it would be better to use helicopter pilots rather than jet pilots. Stupid idea.
What's the easiest way to get a Harrier? Own land in Havelock or Yuma.
F-16's used to be lawn darts, too. Luke Air Force Base, the primary US base for F-16's until very recently, is in my area. You'd always hear of 1 or 2 a month crashing. It took them around 10 years to figure out the defect in the engine that was causing it.
Western Counties do awesome things together for the common good of all. I count my blessings I was born free in the West.
I LOVED working on the AV8-B at McDonnell Douglas. One of my most favorite air frames. I so miss working on them.
So cool. It's great growing up with stories in the news over the years. 1982.
No mention of the Harrier's performance in the Falklands?
Exactly what I was waiting for...
After the enemy was in pursuit:
1) Go to hover
2) They fly past
3) Shoot them down
4) Return and re-arm
5) Repeat as necessary
Pilots called it VIFFing. Vectoring in forward flight. The Harrier would dramatically slow and jump vertically. The enemy would overshoot below. You then fire your Aim 9L missile up their tail.
@@icanreadthebible7561 VIFFing was used only once in the Falklands by a SHAR pilot attempting to down a Pucara with disappointing results. The claim that VIFFing - a defensive tactic - was used extensively in the Falklands is a myth perpetuated by the ignorant.
@@flyingweed9671 There was no viffing during the Falklands though, the Mirages and Daggers were far less manoeuvreable than the Sea Harrier so you could get behind them without viffing.
The Falklands? WTF is that? says your typical American military fanboy.
One of the things about the harrier was appreciation of the sad fact that in a shooting war with the Soviet Union, airfields with nice long jet-friendly runways were going to be suddenly very rare. I remember reading somewhere that allegedly some supermarkets happened to be designed with frontages that might be swiftly removed such that a harrier landing in the car park might be quickly wheeled in for resupply and maintenance, nicely out of sight. Does anyone recall any details by any chance?
The Harrier was designed at a time when it was assumed the Soviets would steamroll through Europe and destroy most airbases. It would allow almost any small area to be used to land and take off.
which is the same philosophy behind the Swedish Gripen.
I was raised near USMC El Toro and LTA in Santa Ana. My father flew USMC helos and was stationed at both bases during his career and after he retired we settled near El Toro! I remember the earlier A/C Harriers Models killing many pilots. On base, there was a USMC paper called "The Flight Jacket" and I loved picking those papers up, each time my mother and I went shopping at the PX. I remember in 84' there was one story in the flight jacket paper that had a photo spread of all the USMC pilots that died trying to master the Harrier and I will never forget the headline: "More than a Few Good Men!" In that story, the pilots had a very hard time in managing the fuel and keeping the center of gravity stable while in hover. And some pilots complained to their wives that this airplane may kill them. It is far to difficult to master!" Appreciate any feedback to any former or current leathernecks that know more about this issue, than me! Semper Fi!
I was a corpsman during Vietnam and ran air evac missions to El Toro, stationed at long Beach naval Hospital we would get Marine pilots after a crash..it was my worst duty.
The British Pilots were much better than the Americans. At least they knew how to fly the harriers without killing themselves!! Plus the British built them.. America couldn't. Bit like Concorde!!
I've been to many airshows. The Harrier (IMHO) was the loudest single engine jet I ever witnessed.
The Harrier was the peak of British Aircraft design. Sadly nothing since has compared to it.
Probably because we haven't actually made anything since, all our planes post-Harrier have been joint ventures via Panavia, Eurofighter and Lockheed.
Let's not forget Concorde.
Its worth keeping in mind that the Harrier wasn't supposed to ever see active service it was a testbed for a much more powerful supersonic "jump-jet" that would have looked a lot more like the Jaguar.... Another aircraft that ended up in a role it wasn't originally designed for... The is a theme here!
@@derekfancett8218 as cool as the Concorde was (also it was half French) it unfortunately is very difficult to label a success, as although it was very good at doing what it was designed to do, it never was commercially viable and largely ran as a loss. The Harrier not only achieved success within our own military, it became one of the favoured airframes of (it pains me to say this) the most powerful military in the world.
@@mjc8281 that's interesting... there were a couple such testbed aircraft prior to the harrier.
She was always a jet to watch when they flew over our area, one of my favourites
I remember the first time I saw this aircraft was on the news during the Gulf war. When I saw it land vertically I told my older brother how did he do that?
You guys looking at the Harrier in basic flying runs are missing out. I got to see them as Aggressor a/c and NAB Cubi Point. Harriers and F-4's were "attacking" and F-18's were "defending". It was the first time I saw how the Harriers (and Wild Weasels) really flew in ACM training against other a/c. I saw one fly the lowest and fastest I'd EVER seen a plane fly to this day. A Harrier was being tailed by an F-18 - the Harrier was flying FAST, at tree-top level and jinking back and forth - being "chased" by a Navy F-18C (this was before the Super Bug). It was fast and loud at that low altitude and at that speed - the whole maintenance compound shook - even the doggone concrete vibrated, LOL. The F-18 couldn't really keep up at the Harriers' very low-level at that high speed quite as well - they were quite a bit higher in the air and struggled to maintain the low-level of the Harriers. Marine Aviators (who are still Naval Aviators) are some of the absolute best aviators that the Navy produces, IMO......
@johnashtone7167 yes, it was 'Vectoring In Forward Flight' - VIFFing - where the jet nozzle could be turned from facing rearwards in forward flight, past the 90º hovering position, to slightly forward with the force of the jet nozzle dramatically slowing the aircraft down.
Any following aircraft would fly-by unable to match the Harrier's rapid deceleration, and the Harrier would then resume normal rearward thrust and pursue the enemy.
Took dog-fighting to a whole new level for a while.
Beautiful aircraft even today.
Yes , it had issues, but none were shot down by air to air combat during the Falklands conflict, better than a lot of other supposedly superior supersonic aircraft.
Mom worked on the Night Attack avionics development for this fighter which included the integration of night vision, forward looking, and rearward looking infrared capabilities and for the mid 80’s during the tail end of the Cold War it was a really big deal. She was there from the time I was 5 to the time I was 12 and it was annoying that she couldn’t tell me what she did at work. When I was 35 after her government security NDA expired she told me the whole story over dinner for my birthday and it finally made sense what the big secret was. Very proud of her!
I live less than ten miles from raf Wittering and growing up seeing Harriers day in day out from the 70s to their retirement was a joy. The best thing of driving north on the A1 was hoping to see a Harrier come in to land directly over the main route north in the UK. A couple of times they passed above us by less than 10m, which was a huge thrill.
All that said, forgetting their combat action during the Falklands wars is criminal as it proved the plane concept in action and none of the post 82 development would have happened if not for that action.
"and none of the post 82 development would have happened if not for that action."(sic)
Incorrect. The Harrier II redesign effort commenced in 1973 and the AV-8B Harrier II first flew in November of 1981 nearly six months before the GR.3s and FRS.1s saw action over the Falklands. In fact the British returned to the Harrier II in August of 1981 after abandoning it in 1975 as the Memorandum of Understanding that the UK signed unambiguously states.
Amazing what the P1127 became.
Interesting point about how various British Companies named their Jet Engines, Bristol used names with ancient Greek routes Olympus and Pegasus etc, Rolls-Royce used British Rivers Trent, Severn etc. RR's point was to differentiate the continuous power of a River rather than the 'beat' of a birds wings for their Internal Combustion Engines Merlin Kestrel etc.
It is almost as if English was their native language or something !
The Harriers used Rolls-Royce "Pegasus" engines. It has a HUGE first stage fan.....
Olympus and Pegasus are Rolls Royce engines.
How do you fit RB211 into a bird name?
As a youth I used to love driving past RAF Wittering and seeing the harriers in flight.🇬🇧👍
A mention , and some of the amazing footage from the Falklands war would have been good. Otherwise great vid 👍
Especially the Sea Harrier FRS1, which was what dominated the Argentinian jets in air to air, and was based on the original Harrier, unlike the later FA2 Sea Harrier, which much improved radar and ability to carry AIM120 missiles, which did include the AV8B wing and powerplant developments, and foolishly scrapped by the UK government.
when great allies come together
I helped develop the AV-8B avionics. Was a pretty awesome jet to work on.
Remember the Brits took the Harrier to Top Gun and flew circles around our top fighters with it.
Sshhhhhh don’t mention that aloud
Amazing aircraft engineering.
No matter which aircraft, the pipe-smoking, elderly gentleman in the circle of its developers always shows up.
the man gets around, that's for sure.
"Old Smokey" is legendary.
Kilroy was here
there's always that somebody with the authority that has to sign-off on the final paperwork in order to start production..... anywhere
@@robozstarrr8930 In my days at Rockwell, production changed were signed off by that same guy AND they had to be signed in blue ink. No joke.
Way back in the 1980s I went to a Biggin Hill air show & one of these amazing aircraft performed in front of me. You won`t believe it until you see it. I know this video is about the 2nd gen Harriers which now the F35s are replacing but still something else!
Hawker Hurricane, the Spitfire, the F4F Wildcat, the Douglas Dauntless and the Skyraider, the F9F Cougar model # 6, the A-4, the Harrier, and the F-35B. For single engine attack and fighter uses, if you made this list it was not just for your looks.
Add the P47 and your list is complete. The JUG was terrifying when bringing the hammer down.
@@PrinceAlhorian agreed.
Typhoon, Tempest, Sea Fury, Vampire, Hunter amongst others would like a word.
The Harrier's capabilities regarding dispersal were much greater than stated here. It did not even require a "road" to operate: any suitable clearing, even in a jungle could be used.
The dispersal factor was a big part of the planes appeal in 1980's cold war. We'd go on detachment to a field because it was assumed all airfields would be nuked and we were the only sqn's with aircraft still flying. Thats why 3 and 4 sqn Harriers were in Germany, as a last line of air defence/attack ready to disperse to the middle of nowhere with no need of runways.
@@Tony-jm1ji Ukraine 2023 comes to mind. The AV-8B+ would definitely come handy there!😕
The UK produced some amazing aircraft. I was devastated when they scrapped the TSR2; If only they had waited a year because the F1-11 had problems. Howe sad :(
US Government philosophy, why compete when you can bully, why buy when you can steal?
I didn't know these even existed until 1982 while watching Falklands War footage on the news. Totally blew my mind when they stopped in mid air over a carrier then dropped straight down.
The AV-8B Harrier II was featured in the movie True Lies from 1994.
You're fired
I was still refreshing this moment when they entered the scene. So memorable.
That and the videogame GTA: San Andreas were usually how people learned that a plane can hover, I imagine nowadays people learn everything from the internet.
Further trivia: The same prop aircraft is the one that the Hulk slams Thor into in “The Avengers”/“Avengers Assemble”.
Guess you forgot about the Falklands war then.
I first started building model kits at about the age of 6 or 7 years - and the Harrier was one of my early ones!
(I'm now 63 and the kit was of the Hawker P1127, which became the Harrier soon after!)
I made parts for the original Bristol Siddeley Pegasus engines at Parkside Coventry.
We tested the AV8B on the USS Peleliu in the spring of 1984 off the coast of socal. Pretty cool they were attaching all kind's of things to that thing.
👍 we followed in your wake as plane guard. As I remember it they were only flown after nightfall to help keep their presence secret
@@kevinp7056 They flew in the day I remember it blowing up non skid. They where filling drop tanks with water and doing all kinds of shit. Fake bombs and other stuff.
@@kevinp7056 We had just got back from Westpac and had to do the infamous so-cal ops
Had the Harrier on my last ship; USS Wasp LHD 1...
I was a Marine on the Wasp's intitial cruise. The Sailors worked like hell to work out her 'kinks". Of course, with me being on the flightline and the maintenance shops in the hangar-bay nearest the port elevator - our jobs were very different. Anchors aweigh Sailor - and Semper Fi......
When I was a lad in the ATC back in the 80s I dreamed of being a Harrier pilot. Then my eyesight deteriorated and put paid to my dream since childhood.
How do you completely pass over the Harrier's first use in combat during your trial by fire segment? Had the British experience in the Falkland war not gone well for the Harriers I'm sure that would have been the end of the program all together for the US Marines as well.
I believe the exocet missile from France was the bane of the Brits in the Falkland conflict imagine to allow weapons from allies to destroy each other strange but true?? But that's war I suppose?
Incorrect. The Corps had been operating the Harrier for over a decade prior to the Falklands and McDonnell Douglas developed the Harrier II prior to the Falkands.
@@AA-xo9uw No they didn’t, stop talking nonsense mate. The AV8 didn’t go into operational service with the USMC till 1985..thats 3 years after the the Falklands War .please continue to embarrass yourself, it’s giving everyone who can do 2 minutes research a laugh.
@@csh5414 "No they didn’t, stop talking nonsense mate."(sic)
I'm not your mate, pogue. Get a grip on reality. It may offend your warm beer, bad dentistry, thin skinned sensibilities but that is irrelevant.
"The AV8 didn’t go into operational service with the USMC till 1985.."(sic)
Incorrect. The Marine Corps received its first production AV-8A in January 1971. First flight of the McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II was 5 November 1981. Five months before the Falklands were invaded on 2 April 1982. The first generation Hawker Siddeley AV-8A Harrier and the second generation McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II are entirely different aircraft. Your knowledge on the topic at hand is quite deficient, madame.
You would have difficulty finding your prat with both hands if I spotted you nine fingers, wanker. You're an embarrassment to the United Kingdom.
Big respect for this jet from Canada 🇨🇦
I lived near the Rolls Royce facility when the Harrier was developed. It was known locally as the flying bedstead, that's exactly what it locked like, a bedstead with an engine at each corner. There was a pub in the nearby town named "The flying bedstead".
The Pegasus was not developed from the bedstead. That was an experiment in a different concept.
@@petegarnett7731 I don't understand why you mentioned the Pegasus in reply to my comment, I didn't mention it. The Osprey is an interesting aircraft, it was designed to do what the Fairey Rotodyne was supposed to do.
When I was stationed at MCAS(H) New River in N.C. I was sent out with a "crackerbox" ambulance when the Marines were testing field landing pads (aluminum mats). I watched landings from just a few dozen yards away. (I was released from active duty September 1972.)
I have seen the initial British Harrier and the newer Harrier II fly, man, they are deceptively fast down low.
The UK should never had got rid of these aircraft. They can be operated without an airbase critical for survivability. Same goes for the Tornado a superb low level bomber
"By the 1980's the design faced obsolescence"
The Falklands conflict enters the room.
That's why the redesign commenced in the early 70s.
During the cold war in the UK it was assumed that in any conflict the air fields wound be the first targets. I remember, around me, you could always see or here F111's permanently in the air. Harriers were for defence, flying from forest clearings, Jaguars flying from roads, both 60' jets. Kind of sad the RAF dropped them, a compliment that the US gave this innovative versatile aircraft a seconds life. And ... "Harrier", what a beautiful and apt name, " Harriers characteristically hunt by flying low over open ground, feeding on small mammals, reptiles, or birds."
I remember the F111's flying over the edge of my home town in the 70,s .also tornadoes and jaguar's.
All the aircraft stopped flying over in the late 80,s dont know why.
Miss those days.
My ship, the Iwo Jima, was the one carrying the 26th MEU for OEF in 2003. An interesting quirk of launching harriers from that kind of ship is the sound heard on the forecastle. You would hear their engine spool up, then start getting closer as they did their take off roll. Just as they got near the end of the deck, directly over the forecastle, they would swivel their nozzles and it would go absolutely silent in the space...followed by a huge thunderclap as the exhaust clears the deck edge, bounces off the water and slams into the space from beneath! You learned really fast to cover your ears when you hear the take off roll. 😅
So amazing to see what we've all achieved
This is my favorite warplane hands down and to this day there is nothing which can out-maneuver a Harrier. You get into a dogfight with one you have one option...run. Only one catch, only the best pilots can affectively fly them 🙂
I deployed with 3 & 4 squadron Harriers a couple of times in Germany (before being moved to Hejicopters) , they never ceased to amaze me , operating from hides in German woods was it`s natural habitat . Sadly there will never be another aircraft to match this , it was built to fill a need for a ground attack/fighter that could operate from any location at a pinch , we called them the Parafin budgie . A shame the Falklands wasn`t mentioned as I have little doubt the Harrier`s performance against numerically and potentially superior Aircraft sparked the interest in resuming it`s upgrading to the AV8b onward as until that point it was all about high mach speed interceptors/fighter`s , then suddenly up pops an old by then slow Aircraft flown by pilots who knew it`s full capabilities and threw the apple cart into a cart wheel !
@Dark Skies Do one about the swedish mercenary pilot Carl Von Rosen who attacked airbases with modified Cessna-planes carrying rocket pods.
Being English (British) this is still my fav aircraft even tho we had electric lighting and spitfire and so many others to many to mention.
I was on duty as a cook at the inflight kitchen at Kadena AFB, Okinawa when a Marine Harrier had a flame-out in one of it's engines, causing the jet to roll over and crash onto the infield between the runways. I got pretty busy immediately as our shop was the closest place to feed all of the emergency personnel that had to react to the crash. Thanks to the circumstances of my having just cooked up 30 lbs of chicken and getting my orders for the next morning out of the way early I earned the award for the PACAF Services Airman of the Quarter and subsequently was chosen by the squadron commander to represent our base for the Hennessey Award at the 1978 NRA convention. Pretty sweet TDY for an E-3! I never found out what happened to the crew of the Harrier, there were substantial problems with the aircraft at the time.
“One of its engines” ?
"when a Marine Harrier had a flame-out in one of it's engines,"(sic)
The Harrier/Harrier II is single engine.
Ask the Argentinians how much of a monster the British Harrier was.
Without those AIM-9Ls provided by Reagan and Weinberger it would have likely been a pussycat.
Just going to gloss over the Falklands? The is a heavily skewed view on the Harrier
I don’t understand your comment.
This largely deals with the Harrier II not the first gen GR.3s and FRS.1s that flew during the Falklands skirmish.
This is a high quality & professional channel I thouroughly enjoy the videos on offer.