Interview with Bob Marston on the Harrier GR3 

He must have skills, it sounds like he was fast-tracked into flying fast jets. That doesn't happen to all potential fly boys......

Thanks for sharing that story, Ron!

Hi Ron, Great comment, I think the Harrier left a lasting impression on everyone, in my childhood the RAF were operating GR-7 and the Navy FA-2, I was fascinated by its ability to hover, bow and fly backwards, as I got older and learnt more about the Harrier but still fascinated by it, one of the best planes Britain had, not the fastest by any means but diverse and manoeuvrable.

Accord to the Book Phoenix Squadron , it was 2 RN Buccaneers that did the 1st flyby over Belize in 72, the Harriers were on their way , But HMS Ark Royal was charging over to bring her airwing to bear, 2 Bucc's were deployed WAY beyond their normal range, with extra fuel in their bombays, buddy refueled by 2 more Buccaneers ,then had to fly a very economic flight to Belize, and were nearly shot down by the US, just had enough spare fuel to fly over to signal that Britain was coming/inrange, then fly Back , meet up with their Buddy fuel coparts again and then Land on the Ark, Its a great read - I recommend it

they were Buccanears

@@farmerned6 Indeed, an excellent book. I did read somewhere of a later incident when there was more nonsense from Guatemala and an invading column stopped when it turned a corner to see a Harrier hovering over the road pointing at them. They stopped and turned around, nothing more was heard from them to the present day.

Glad you enjoyed it.

Cheers David

Tim Robinson thanks very much.

They are a great read and you won’t be disappointed!

Glad you enjoyed it. I could of spent a whole day talking to him!

Glad you enjoyed it. I shall tell him about it when i next speak to him, Matt.

Glad you you enjoyed it.

Thanks Michael!

It surprised me too. Cheers for watching

Shows how many people get thrown away in the military due to standards, that if allowed could be some of the best. He was lucky they were willing to give him a chance at that time, if he had been in the class before he would have been made ground crew.

Cheers! They are a great read so you won’t be disappointed.

Cheers Kevin.

Cheers

Cheers

Thanks very much!

Your welcome, Michael. That would be interesting to hear.

There wouldn't be much difference from the AV-8. It's the same airframe -- it's the avionics fits that are the main differences between the US and British machines. The US Marine Corps, when they adopted the type, didn't make a lot of changes but they also didn't add much in the way of avionics which really limited the first-generation American machines (AV-8A). They were roughly equivalent to the British Harrier GR.1... The surviving AV-8A's -- those they DIDN'T manage to crash -- were upgraded into AV-8C which is out of sequence seeing as the Harrier II (in the US) was called the AV-8B and a true next-generation plane with much more advanced technology. (AV-8C was basically a service-life extension of the AV-8A; it had none of the advanced features of the AV-8B. They just tried maximize the lifespan of the airframe and tried to improve the plane's VTOL handling without spending a lot of money. The Harrier II had the first significant flight control improvements -- fly-by-wire for one -- as well as eventual implementation of decent avionics which made the Harrier II a MUCH better plane than the original Harrier. Only the Sea Harrier would be arguably better in air-to-air avionics, especially after the FSR.2 upgrade with AMRAAMs and true look-down, shoot-down radar which would make Exocet/cruise missile strikes a lot less likely to be successful against friendly surface ships. They eventually installed good, all-weather radar in upgraded Harrier II's that enabled those planes to fire AMRAAMs, too, but that was well after the Sea Harrier upgrades...) There were enough changes from the AV-8 that the next generation (Harrier II) really should have been advanced in designation to AV-11 or AV-12. Why not AV-11 or AV-12 in the end? Well, Harrier follows the unified US DoD aircraft designation put in place in 1962. It's an attack plane, the "V" designating that it has vertical take-off capability. It followed after the A-7 Corsair II but before the A-10 Thunderbolt... A-9 was already reserved for the Northrop CAS contender that lost to the A-10. (And no, skipping over A-11 or A-12 has NOTHING to do the predecessor to the SR-71... The A-12 Blackbird was still classified at the time development began on the Harrier II and the AV-8B designation had already been reserved for the Harrier. Harrier II still could have been called AV-11 or AV-12 if the manufacturer had been honest about the project's new-build, new-design status.) So, it was politics that determined Harrier II would be called AV-8B. You can hide some things by claiming it's a new model of an existing plane instead of admitting it was a NEW plane, PERIOD, which is the truth. Redesigned airframe, new flight controls, new wing, new yadda-yadda-yadda... Well, they lied when they said it was "just a new Harrier" -- like it was the same plane that flew in the 1960s!

T523 Glad you enjoyed his tales.

That's much appreciated and glad you enjoyed it. Well we have a couple in the works regarding the US forces :)

@@deeremeyer1749 You are nothing more than an attention seeking troll ! Jog on toss pot

lol thats funny...crazy times

Thank you for the kind words its much appreciated! We will certainly be interviewing a Lightning pilot and Seaking aircrew this year.

Duggie Bader thanks very much. He is a lovely chap with some great stories that's for sure!

Thank you Chris. Hopefully in the future.

Thanks, Justyn. I have thought of David and is always possible for the future :)

Sqn Ldr Jerry pook would be good too, his book is excellent!

Shirley Ward would be a good option

Justyn Keebl

Thanks, Gail!

Thanks Peter.

Cheers Tim

Thank you very much.

Unfortunately not, it might be worth getting account as you here of everything thats up and coming. If not our web site www.aircrewinterview.tv updates of upcoming interview.

lordmick roach Always a possibility for the future.

Splendid!

Great to hear you enjoyed.

He would indeed.

Yeah. USA, Spain, Indian and probably more.

It could be!

The Harriers are all ground attack, not fighters (No radar), with the exception of the Sea Harrier, which had an Air-to-Air Radar and AMRAAM missiles.

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-joUzXB6t0Gw.html

The more I hear about the problems they had with Harrier operations -- USMC and RAF/RN --, the more surprised I am they DIDN'T have more accidents than they did! The engine FOD ingestion issue was as bad or worse than other jet types and the fact is they caused damage to ships AND landing pads when they did vertical landings. They could superheat the ground and cause landing areas to explode! The other thing they can't dispute is that they left an IR signature, too, from the heat of the jet blast on the ground. Of course, the fact that these jets are relatively small makes them tons easier to hide than even an F-16. You are pretty much stuck to an airfield or ship with other jet types. The Harrier really was the only practical V/STOL jet that was fielded. The Russian equivalent, the Yak-38 Forger, was junk and at least 5 times more hazardous to the pilot. For all the mechanical issues the Harrier has, I can't help but think the F-35B is going to be horrible to maintain in the field between the stealth coating that has to be constantly repaired and that complicated fanblade system/power shaft it uses for vertical flight. They lost a lot of useful interior space for fuel and who knows what else to accommodate that lift fan! The whole thing looks terribly complicated. Even 90-degree pivoting nozzle exhaust at the rear looks less complicated than the lift fan system. Freaking doors have to open and close right and you have to hope the shaft connected to the turbofan never breaks! The V/STOL version of the F-35 (B model) can't have much better range than a Harrier if it even does match the range of the Harrier II.

AvengerII Verbose and inaccurate. Your assessment is based on what exactly?

Harrier pilots wore boots with reinforced tongues on them because of the risk of the instrument panel damaging their legs upon ejection, despite their legs being pulled back by tapes as the seat went up the rails upon ejection. A friend of mine is a Harrier ejection survivor and has the scars on his shins to prove it.

johan schmidt no. You leave at an angle. About. 6 cm clearance between your kneecaps & the windshield 😬

It's a very tight office 🙄

I dont know, because I watched a video on RU-vid about this jet in the Falklands war. Try and find it, its interesting.

The Harrier was a Failure. The Falkland was not a War.. It was classed as a CONFLICT. Nobody declared War. & I know why too.

No need. I've spent many hours of research looking into the Falklands Conflict Hoax already.

RR PLANB The larger supersonic version was killed off by politicians.

Read up on 1154