The Harrier - RAF's Top 10 Warplanes | Forces TV 

And the Victor (for in air refuelling) to get the Vulcan that distance.

Actually 25 years. The Meteor entered service in 44. Harrier still a fantastic achievement though.

Joseph Brittan yes I would be nice but we don’t have the same resources or economy as the US

If we had the same budget they do then we would have the most technologically advanced defense force in the world.

And Britain use a lot of American tech. Like the Apache, M-4 Carbine, Harpoon Missiles and Trident missiles. So does that mean Britain is America's 51st state?

mark blizzard well no considering Britain made America

@@black10872 53rd

Whilst at the time I too was upset, since 2011 have we had a conflict where we have suffered due to lack of airpower? Also with having no aircraft carrier for such a long time, I was skeptical but we have not needed one in the break between decommission and obtaining the new one. Looks to be the same for the VSTOL type aircraft. So if anything we have saved a lot of money on running costs, albeit at the risk of being under equipped for a short period of time. Looks as though the gamble is paying off thus far.

Indeed

Not really, we've never had insufficient air power since it's been absent and the F35 is a superior upgrade in every aspect.

@@GJ-qt2kk That remains to be seen. The IAF had to do a lot of work on their version. Hard- and software. Besides, any normal person don't throw away a proven, working machine till the new machine has shown that it works as advertised.

@@camofrog44 true, but it was an irresponsible gamble.

How recent RAF we use to call them leaping heaps I don't work on them but I have lots of friends who did if it needed a engne change it required the wing to be removed irst not the most convenient way to operate as I understand that this as particularly labour intensive!

Blame the Treasury. The MOD was told it could only fund one bomber and the Tornado was more capable so got the vote.

Because we have idiots as leaders (and I use that term loosely) who sold off our fleet of harriers to soon in my opinion. The us marines are using them still so what was wrong with them... just money that's all

Clayp.E30_V8 - well it was indeed all about money but not how you mean. The UK was basically bankrupt in 2010 after the fallout from the 2008 / 09 crash. We were baling out banks to keep cash in the economy and had a £140 Bn annual deficit to reduce so we had to get rid of certain capabilities to preserve the future projects. Invincible has been decommissioned in July 2005, Sea Harrier was retired in 2006 and Ark Royal was retired as a result of the 2010 SDSR in 2010. Illustrious carried on as a helicopter carrier. One can argue the Harrier was retired too early in 2011 but we had to choose and Tornado was a far more viable option especially with Typhoon being upgraded to replace it with a service life out to 2040. And what was saved? Two huge 70,000 ton carriers and our involvement in the F-35. So we basically had 6 years without STOVL capability. A price worth paying I would say given what we now have being delivered just for the RAF (and FAA): 14 new Voyager tankers 22 new A400M Freighters 138 new F-35 fighters RAF Marham upgraded Restoration of all stored Typhoon jets to QRA duties Typhoon replacement of Tornado in 2019 9 new Poseidon MRA aircraft RAF Lossiemouth upgraded And now we have Team Tempest to replace Typhoon

thanks for this information

Someone said a while back that the F35 “Can’t Turn, Can’t Climb, Can’t Run”. The Harrier did all three exceedingly well.

No the harrier was very slow compared to its contemporaries, it's turn rate was amazingly average and it's climb rate was the same.

Just confirmed it was filmed in Tangmere! such a lovely place

Apple Islander hi, that is the harrier II which was jointly developed together with the US to create the AV-8B and GR5/7/9. Those harriers have more hardpoints and updated avionics unlike the harrier GR1/3 and Sea harrier FRS 1/(2?) and FA2 which only accommodate 5 hardpoints.

@@105aviation4 Yeah, but it's labelled as ''Hawker Siddeley Harrier'', which specifically refers to the 1st generation harrier manufactered by Hawker Siddeley, as opposed to McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II or British Aerospace Harrier II.

@@appleislander8536 good point didn't see that

@@105aviation4 "which was jointly developed together with the US"(sic) "jointly" is quite the stretch as the UK abandoned the Harrier II from 1975-1981 returning only after McDonnell Douglas had completed the overwhelming majority of the redesign.

Most amazing STOL VToL ever

It’s called F-35.

@@timgosling3076 The f35 is not as versatile when it comes to flight, the harrier can take off from your backyard

​@@timgosling3076F35 isn't very good!

@@jacksonhudd3681 those who operate it might disagree. It out-performs Harrier in every metric.

+ Tom H. He was talking about the remaining retired harriers being sold to the US marines for a mere £60million for the lot. Also that is incorrect the harrier was entirely developed by the British with British money not the americans. The americans just kitted out their AV-8B to be in line with their combat doctrine which is different to ours.

+Tom H. Sorry but thats a load of crap, theres no reason at all that they could not afford the 2nd generation harrier its simply that external investment to spread the cost is just smart. If they could have found a partner who was interested in buying some aircraft carriers to help spread the cost of the 2 new carriers then they would have but since they didnt they did it on their own. Theres simply no reason at all that the British couldnt afford the 2nd gen harrier program back then its simply down to the fact that the program gained the attention of the americans who wanted it for the US marines. Stop repeating bullshit historical myths, US pride is one thing but historical delusion is another.

@Tom H. And we returned the favor with giving you our Lighting IIs

@flip inheck lol

@@eraldorh "the harrier was entirely developed by the British with British money not the americans."(sic) Incorrect. Were it not for the American taxpayer providing funding via the MWDP the Kestrel/Pegasus/Harrier wouldn't have made it past the drafting table. The MWDP - meaning the US taxpayers - underwrote 75% of the cost of developing the Pegasus. Suggest you locate a copy of Duncan Sandys 4 April 1957 "White Paper" and become edified. "The americans just kitted out their AV-8B to be in line with their combat doctrine which is different to ours."(sic) Incorrect again. The UK abandoned the Harrier II from 1975-1981 returning to the project only after McDonnell Douglas had completed the overwhelming majority of the redesign.

Government is very inefficient. It's very easy to spend someone else's money

Doesn't make it a completely different design. Just evolutions of the previous design. You wouldn't call a mini from the 1990s a completely different design to the one in 1959 surely, despite the fact that so much had changed. The original beetle has the same thing. Is a spitfire from 1939 a completely different design to one from 45? Despite over a dozen variations between the two they are still the same plane, just different variations of it.

@@theant9821 No, an original mini has no common parts with a BMW generation one, apart from maybe the tyre valve caps. It looks a bit the same and that’s it. Similarly the AV-8B is only similar to the original in general layout. It is larger and made of different materials. The engines likewise share no components above nut and bolt level. It may look similar but it is a different aircraft, designed by a different company.

@@timgosling3076 I'm not talking about the bmw mini which didn't exist until after production of the original mini ceased in 2000. (As i said 1990s).

@@theant9821 Yes you’re right; they weren’t launched until 2000. But the simile still stands for the Harrier. Harrier II is a completely different beast, a composite airframe with databus electronics compared to an aluminium one with rods, pulleys and analogue electrics.

@@timgosling3076 so in you're opinion a sport quattro is a completely different car to the regular quattro? I know the sport quattro has a swb, composite wide wheelarches, A different engine block and cylinder head Different transmission Etc. Its still an Audi Quattro. Is an m5 bmw a different car to a 5 series? They are variants of the same cars Like the av8b is a variant of the harrier. Not a completely different design. A highly evolved variation of the original design.