The Harrier Jump Jet: How Cold War Anxiety Inspired a Vertical Takeoff 

The Lockheed AH-56 rigid rotor Cheyenne was the sort of fast attack helicopter you were hoping for. Sadly the project was scrapped. i.redd.it/a0x861rdqh351.jpg

do a video on the R-7/Soyuz/Vostok

10 RU-vid channels, and now an insurance salesman as well.

Want a seriously sketchy VTOL craft? Check out the V22 osprey. I have personally almost died multiple times riding in the back of those pieces of absolute garbage.

@@WilbanksUSMC death traps

Dude that's awesome

Waaow Can you share the time tag

What time in the video?

It is amazing what you see. I was watching some videos on submarines and saw two pictures of my late brother re-enlisting on the sub. These were taken in the mid sixties on a sub that actually served in the Pacific during WW2. Good job on the jet. I was stationed in Brunswick NAS and got to see one of these. I worked on something less exotic, a P-3B.

You must have worked in the factory in Kingston then...

That or how the guy who created Skunk Works dealt successfully with erectile disfunction pre Viagra...

🤣 cold War has done him all right!

That and the Roman Empire ;D

Perhaps these days the title could be sort of reversed as in “How Brexit inspired the vertical take-off of a second Cold War?” Oops politics, sorry! But at least that, er, Project is likely to provide Simon with plenty of material to easily cover him for the rest of his working life! A benefit - we have finally found one - hooray!

@@megaprojects9649 You know, the Roman Empire collapsed eh.....not what I'd be aspiring towards.....

It was not a full size ship as well , just a small coaster . Landed partly on a container and a van , brilliant work

@@MrTarmonbarry you are a legend for knowing that story too!

anyone watching this video about a military jet has probably saw that video atleast once in their lives. its like saying people watching top gun two has probably seen top gun one

@@m1a1abrams3 I hadn’t heard that story before

@@bradwatson2085 hence why i said “probably”. not 100% of ppl who will go see top gun 2 will have seen top gun 1

@Richard Lambert It still is. The US Marines plan on flying theirs for a few more years until the F-35 orders all come in.

Sometime in the 50s or 60s the US Air Force experimented with dog fighting between a helicopter gunship and a fighter jet. Their conclusion: it was "inconclusive" as to whether aircraft would have shot the other down. Despite the helicopter's comparatively slow speed, its ability to move on the x axis (up and down) at will meant the jet couldn't get a shot at the helicopter. For the helicopter possible engagement times were very narrow because of the speed of the jet. Accordingly, using guns alone neither could effectively engage the other. Of course with modern air-to-air missiles that abiulity to manoeverup and down wasn't going to help the helicopter survive. The missile would literally hit so fast the helicopter pilot simply wouldn't have a chance to react. Shooting in the other direction, apparently the copter's ability to chase the jet was nonexistent and that made engaging them with missiles difficult. On the other hand, a hovering helicopter provided a nice stable platform from which to launch missiles and gave the helicopter a little bit of advantage in that respect. Still, nowadays the smart money would be on the jet to win.

@@patrickscalia5088 Well, in the Gulf War of 91 helicopters were being blown out of the sky by A-10s using 30mm cannon shells, so real life = jets win.

@@RCAvhstape Well admittedly but it assumes a skilled pilot in the helicopter who knows what he's doing. Saddam's pilots were barely confident to get his helicopters off the ground, and like all technically inclined jobs worked under a murderous dictator they did NOT learn to think for themselves and they probably had no idea they were in danger until the helicopter started coming apart around them. In the Air Force studies the copter pilots knew what they wee up against and had already worked out strategies and like I said, the tests were -- and this is the word the Air Force used -- "inconclusive." It's not likely that Saddam's helicopter pilots would have ever put a scratch on the A10s but at the same time given a modicum of flying skill and -- most importantly -- some awareness of what they were up against, then yes they could probably have preserved themselves against the A10. A few of them anyway. What it comes down to is that ANY of Saddam's pilots, whether in a helicopter or a MiG or for that matter a commander in a T72, for the skilled US and other coalition forces EVERYTHING Saddam deployed was like shooting fish in a barrel so it's not a valid comparison. If you matched an A10 pilot against a well trained pilot in an Apache, or especially in a smaller recon helicopter like a Little Bird, the only way the A10 is going to score a hit is if he catches the copter hovering stationary or moving slowly and gets the element of surprise. Not sure what the controversy is with this because it's acknowledged that despite having no where near the conventional flying agility of say an F16, the Harrier would have been tough to dogfight and shoot down because of the Harrier's ability to hover and maneuver straight up and down on the X axis. Helicopters are even more agile in that respect.

@@patrickscalia5088 Harriers never hover in combat. Hovering is for vertical landings, only, and they can only do it for so many minutes before they run out of water for injection. They also never take off vertically except in air shows when they are lightly loaded. Operational takeoff from a ship is a rolling start with vectored nozzles. So I don't know where you are getting this stuff from. And if it's a Harrier vs. any helicopter, no matter how skilled the helo pilot, I wouldn't give two cents for that helo pilot's life. Harrier pilots have a 25mm cannon and trust me, they can shoot straight and hit their targets in one pass before the target even sees them coming.

EdMcF1: I saw your comment and looked up Sir Tom. Sopwith lived to 101 years, he was lucky when and where he was born, but did he ever make the most of his time on earth. A guy who met the Wright brothers was still around to work on jet aircraft in the late 1970s. Amazing.

A biographics on sir Tom Sopwith would be amazing Simon

Made some very famous planes too such as the camel

This reference made me smile.

Ogbb

From the sounds of the video, Simon will not be liking your comment.

oh god

@@brettiup you know what he DOES like? People telling him he looks like Michael from Vsauce. AM I RIGHT, PETER?

Watching an F-35 hover was the most bizarre thing. It just doesn't look right

@@joshuapowell2675 "you're supposed to move in a line not stop on a dime!"

@@joshuapowell2675 And the F -35 uses a lot of ideas from the soviet VTOL , how unusual for America ))))

The technology for the VTOL version of the F35 came partly from, of all places, the Soviet Union. They'd designed a VTOL fighter plane that for reasons unknown never went past the testing stage, maybe because the USSR collapsed. Their jump-jet had that big fan right in the middle of the fuselage. Sometime in the 90s, if memory serves, Lockheed bought the patents for that vertical lift fan from the Russians, and the F35 got the big fan in the fuselage.

@@patrickscalia5088 Yes , the fan looks almost identical on the F35 as the Russian plane , did not know that Lockheed bought the patents though and very surprised that Russia did that

Semper fi..i did avionics for ace of spades but deployed with tigers 98-03

@@phettywappharmaceuticalsll8842 Semper Fi, DD. Ace of spades - I can't remember which sqdn that was (223, 231, 331, 542?), but I remember seeing it daily. I wanna say VMA-542 tho, unless they changed MAGs (possibly) or mascots (unlikely).....

nice lol

Do tell! What was it like?

I would imagine the linkage just to vector the thrust is crazy.

I did ordnance on the Harrier for four years and can confirm: loved and hated her

@@parandiac I worked avionics on the P3s. There was a lot with all the radios, radar and sensors for finding submarines.

@@jamesengland7461 well I did a total of 9 deployments with various Harrier units from land based to boat dets. The best were boats. Watching a her launch off the boat fully loaded using only 750ft of the deck then coming back Winchester and landing vertical.

Fun fact: the Harrier in True Lies was a prop built for the film. In some shots it was hanging by a cable, in others it was in front of a green screen. The spinning turbine blades in the inlets were actually a CGI effect.

A great fun movie even beyond showcasing the Harrier.

"If I damage it, they can take it out of my pay."

Have they done the death star yet? Then that'll be one for the year after. :)

DUUUUDE! That was the first one that popped in to my head. He did have the Dyson's Sphere, so why not do another theoretical one on supersonic helicopters.

Airwolf vs Blue Thunder video

Yes I have noticed that as well.

Blaze Simon is in control... He's like Agent Smith in the last Matrix film - taking over everything!!

Allegedly...

I was just about to say that, glad I checked the comments first lol.

Yes , between Horshan and Dorking, You can see it as you drive between the two places

Their work in the Falklands conflict was quite something. They were worth every penny we paid for them.

"I'm not allowed to say how many Harriers took part but I counted them all out and I counted them all back." Brian Hanrahan, BBC News ( on assignment during the Falklands conflict)

@@chrisvowell2890 I remember hearing it at the time . . . . quite something!

I do believe that all the episodes of airwolf were in fact documentaries 😆

@@badmutherfunster "Historical Documents" just like Gilligan's Island!

@@scottthewaterwarrior I knew it,gilligans Island was an original 60's survival docu drama

@@scottthewaterwarrior by Grabthar's Hammer, you're right!

@@timwheeler8523 We shall bring back Airwolf. Never give up! Never surrender!

Here's a grainy, old but mesmerising video of John Farley doing his thing in Harrier... ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-P25OJtXmOfM.html

That would have been Farley's first wife Patricia.

germans had the idea in ww2

@@paktahn Correction, the germans build working supersonic jumpjets in the 60's befor the Harrier. ;D

@@mandernachluca3774 Lots of people built working prototypes because it was obviously a good idea... Only the Harrier proved to be practical however.

That must've been an amazing time to be part of that crew., I can only imagine the intensity of the operations you were all involved in. USS Bataan, definitely an aircraft carrier!! You had more Harriers on board than HMS Hermes during the Falklands war. All the best from Scotland Commander.

@@jacksprat9172 Thanks, mate! It was indeed intense, the most intense tour in my Navy career.

Nice

The 💩's gonna hit the fan......

Where are you working on them as a civilian? And which Marine squadron did you serve with?

As long as you're willing to put the Gloster Meteor in between the Spitfire and the Harrier, I can agree. It may have just been beaten by the Me.262 into operation, but the Meteor was the world's first jet fighter, and would continue to serve for over a decade despite the immense speed at which jet fighter technology developed between the end of World War II and the late '50s.

The harrier was a strike aircraft rather than a fighter. So the mosquito is possibly the better comparison rather than the spitfire.

The gift that keeps on giving.

That's the thing about wars... they make megaprojects easier to justify.

Its a subject that will never run out of material for videos

Just be happy that it stayed a Cold War, I stood under a Soviet Recce Jet as it took photos of the NATO School in Oberammergau, I was literally underneath it and could clearly see the Hungarian Insignia. By the time the German NATO Tornados turned up to chase him off he was probably back at his place swigging on a bottle of Vodka. I lived there until the Iron Curtain came down and the Soviet jets used to come over 1982-83-84 etc almost every other day, or rather try to, this was the only successfull Jet that got so close that I saw it, whether any others broke through I have no idea, they were mostly intercepted over Austrian Airspace that was Neutral, or supposed to be. The NATO jets came from Lager Lechfeld, just as they passed over the World Famous Wieskirche they hit the speed for their sonic booms, they flew over so often that the Church had to be renovated as the cracks were getting too big to be ignored. Nobody remembers the real casualties of the Cold War, mostly car accidents or exercise deaths, the British Army had more casualities in Germany than they had in Northern Ireland!

Just be sure to include the corruption, politics and the fact that it was a prime case of a second-rate product winning out through the corruption of 60's DC.

@@owenshebbeare2999 and don’t forget to smoke your daily dose of crack

@@owenshebbeare2999 you must be thinking of the M-14.

Maybe cover that the M-16 is not the AR-15 for the hoplophobes out there.

"Nothing to see here. Look at those cars over there. Ooooh, shiny"

Oooooooooh Anyway

It was secret back then not now XD

Some say that he got into the habit of wearing helmets while testing Harrier prototypes, and that he got kicked out of the RAF for only taxiing around the airfield at very high speeds. All we know, he's called The Stig!

@@crowttubebot3075 I love you lol

Simon doesn't spend enough time on that episode in their life. They were simply outstanding there.

Sharkey Ward is a legend.

To be fair, they were taking on Argentine jets that were at the end of their combat range and couldn't afford the fuel to engage in a dog fight. And yes, the Harrier pilots did a heroic job. Although the F-15 Eagle has an even better track record of 102-0-0. SEE: migflug.com/jetflights/the-combat-statistics-for-all-the-aircraft-currently-in-use/

@@ScottLongwellR Honestly, the real decider between the Royal Navy jets and the Argentine was the level of skill of the pilots. All is fair in love and war though, I mean many F-15 kills have not been against completely peer level trained and equipped forces either. The F-15 is an exceptional bit of kit, with great pilots, I'm certainly not denying that. To compare their relative score sheets is somewhat unfair however because of the numbers in which the F-15 has been used in warzones since its inception relative to that of the Sea Harrier and it's roles in those wars.

@@willsabri4815 I get a kick out of the same people who before the combat kicked off were saying how the battle hardened Iraqis would kick American butt, then after the combat ends they say "yeah, but they were a little country, you'd never beat a near peer nation"

The best airstrip... In the world.

@@xKrispyx you are a genius

Some say the airfield is cursed by the sound of screeching tires and a mysterious figure in all white is seen in the shadows

I'll NEVER forget how loud that darn thing was while hovering...

My father, a WW-2 pilot, worked a civilian job at the Norfolk naval airstation. One day in the early 70's, as I recall, he came home all excited and bursting his shirt to tell us about something he saw out the window during the day. He had seen an airplane not only hovering but moving slightly backward appear from behind a hangar, which the Harrier could do. He had a hard time wrapping his head around that one.

I saw one at an air show in Atlantic City a few years ago, it was stupid cool! Previously the closest I had gotten was flying the Hydra in GTA San Andreas.

Without the funding from the US taxpayer via the MWDP, the Kestrel and Harrier likely wouldn't have made it past the drafting table.

I came to check for someone mentioning this before I did it myself. Absolutely love the Tonka - a sweep wing icon.

I remember seeing the Harriers and Sea Harriers on the news during the Falklands War then later the US Marines using them in Desert Storm. They used to build them near my house. 👍

Those parks were full of pale shirtless people because that was the first (and possibly the last) day of sun we'd seen that year... 🤣

Pale is the best way to be.

Hell yes the harriers ,the only good part of the movie "Battlefield Earth" there was a scene in the movie where the humans were hovering in a building

You should do a video based on Fairchild Republic A-10 Warthog

Harrier VIFFing ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-8UE9i82Kc_Y.html

I second and third this. The A-10 is my favorite bird

*corps

Yea it wasn't mentioned that although the Harrier is a wonderful and innovative airplane it did kill a lot of pilots over the years. It is difficult to take-off and land vertically.

We called them "North Carolina lawn darts", lol.

@@garymartin9777 unfortunately the Marines didn't adopt the training methods the RAF used. Pilots were first given helicopter training before converting to Harriers. The RAF had a low accident rate by comparison.

@@alanjm1234 Most of the Marine pilots who transitioned to the AV-8A during the early stage of the program were rotary winged pilots. That changed.

that means the f35 has better engineering surely

That is a grate idea!

It's 59.99

American*

@@ibDirtyGlasses ye

The performance difference is unreal, though. The Harrier, due to design constraints, has an unflattering thrust to weight ratio wjen saddled with ordance and fuel. The F-35B has the highest thrust engine in single-engine fighters.

And if it wasn't for lots of previous inventions there would have been no Harrier. As this video notes, the Harrier used innovations that were developed by NASA. Plus, there were other experimental VSTOL aircraft before the Harrier.

The F-35 is far superior in every respect, the harrier could only take off vertically with light loads, was very unstable in hover, had a very short range, & can fly at supersonic speed. the F-35 can lift more weapons and fuel, can hover hands off, has range comparable to conventional aircraft, and can fly at supersonic speeds. And it's light-years ahead of the harrier in it's avionics and electronic warfare capabilities. The harrier was awesome in it's day, but it's day ended in 1993.

"The Brits did a much better job managing its costs and development." That would be the same Brits whose government refused to fund the development and had to rely instead on the US taxpayer providing a boat load of funding via the MWDP.