Why Britain Never Made Another Harrier Jump Jet | INTEL 

We (Americans) wouldn't be here without them (the British).

We British too often loose out to big money, and our ideas go off to the USA more often than not.

As a former US Marine air winger who serviced Ground Support Equipment, I have had the chance to witness the Harrier up very close quite a bit. Nothing is like the high pitched whine of that engine.

... as a Brit I thank you Sir! (the F-35 is so brilliantly beautiful)

I am also a former Marine from the same time frame. I remember how incredibly capable the Harrier was. I loved watching it in the range in MCAGCC in Twentynine Palms. I'd be standing on the bench, inside of our AMTRAC, with the top open, and watch the Harriers do strafing runs on their targets. The buzzing roar of their canons roaring across the entire landscape and filling the entire sky with that sound was thrilling. I was sad to see it taken out of service.

Now I hate politicians even more...

With upgraded Harriers we wouldn't need aircraft carriers.

Politicians have no right in choosing shit for combat.

Yep Politicians would get awards for pushing another nations jets such as the F35 that can only claim a top speed of mach 1.2 as the F35 standard is not vertical tack off and still cant do mach 2 i think only 1200MPH is its max unloaded and in testing. because of the structure of all types of stealth aircraft speed is limited. As the Raptor which claimed mach 2. Even now the only plane to hit over mach1 in a vortical clime is the old electric lightning. But there was a secrete Harrier being built along side the normal one. Only one was built tested for the air force made to be faster than mach1 in 1969 but our government did not like spending money so after testing which is still secrete information the plane disappeared. There are photos of it some on the internet looks similar to the harrier but looked like the Jaguar on other angles. With modern materials I think they could had made a more efficient and better harrier perhaps closer to Mach2. Using the new Rolls Royce jet engine that is lighter and far more powerful than the normal harrier.

@@jonathanvince8173 lot going on in that post, almost too many to google... got any sources?

Ya... you look at the operational losses, not combat, just the operational losses, and you start to realize this jet was more of a danger to itself, than the enemy.

Dumping the Harrier is typical of British political and defence decisions, going back to the TSR2. If it's good, abandon it.

​@@sumott497well that's whats expected when your military far outmatches the enemy. Like in the gulf war, most of the deaths of the coalition were from friendly fires compared to the enemy. Although bad, it's a good sign that shows your military dominance that when you barely lose any troops to the enemy.

​@@diollinebranderson6553 Well now when you dig deeper into why the operational losses occurred, and find that many were due to pilot error thats a problem. Combat is nasty, and after flying a jet by yourself for several hours, possibly exhausted from pulling G's, the pilot has to pull his brain back together and manually land a jet that doesn't let you relax. The F-35 will land itself if the pilot is compromised, or not 100% with it. Survivability wise the F-35 will save it's pilot far more readily than the Harrier ever could.

@@sumott497 well duh. The harrier is ancient at this point

how annoyed are you going to be when you realise that at one minute in, the narrator says 'VSTOL' not 'STOVL' or 'VTOL'. (I have never heard of VSTOL, only VTOL and STOVL.)

@@AlMcpherson79 V/STOL was/is commonly used when referencing the Harrier and Harrier II.

Vertical short takeoff landing VSTOL?

Not for ever my friend, a dead skull is empty.

@@AlMcpherson79 same

Sorry to say this but, you're sons a leftie.

@@Showloveclothing ohh Hell yes, im not taking offence, it is what it is, he thinks he's a liberal but doesn't understand how far the left has moved over to the left, he thinks I'm far right and doesn't even acknowledge that there might be a right of center, a right, or even a genuine center as i would understand it, the fact that i have voted both labour and conservative in the past means nothing, I've already been judged, it started when he returned from uni and slowly got worst I'm afraid, I'm sure he will level off to some degree as he gets older but i have to admit i begrudge the possibility of losing these years to what seems to me a far left ideology that prevails at this time, and the real burn is he is so damned clever in the book sense, its the wisdom that is missing unfortunately I'm afraid.

@@casperslaststandme5991 Well, there are certain things that really shine in the history of the UK, such as kicking off industrialisation. That being said, I have noticed that the UK in general hasn't bothered critically reflecting their past. Even today there is a significant amount of people glorifying "The Empire", i.e. brutal colonial oppression of people around the world. I don't think your son is "far left". You, on the other hand, suggest "locking up politicians and throwing the key away". I know this is not meant to be taken literally, but think about what you're really suggesting here.

Don't stop trying! British engineers, scientists and inventors pretty much laid the foundations of the modern world...we were the first industrialised nation after all. It is a crying shame that successive governments have allowed (or forced) the atrophy of our defence industry to the point that the only thing we do entirely ourselves is building warships. It is embarrassing that we're now reliant on the US to provide aircraft for the RAF and Royal Navy...at least until / unless the Tempest project is given the green light.

@@Hurricane2k8 hello there hurricane, firstly let me thank you for a reasoned and thoughtful reply :), yes the lock them up and throw away the key was a somewhat tounge in cheek remark, and yes the days of empire and colonialism are of course long past, but should we judge them by todays standards and if we do are we to do so on an impartial manner ?, there were many knock on benifits that country's like india gained from that time, hence the fact they are more advance by todays standards than others having been left a huge amount of infrastructure, a high price to pay of course but still a benifit denied to other colonies of other countrys one might say, your point about our own industrial revolution can also be viewed on the other side of the coin as it were, there was a huge amount of suffering caused by that time period, the working class at that time would be considered as virtual slaves by todays standards, but benifits also came from it, not just national economical benifits of course but child labour laws, security of housing health care charitable aid and many others, and many if these lessons were exported also, we tend to look on the bright side of things out of self preservation of course, its, human nature, one of the worst of the colonies of course was that of the Belgium congo, but Germany, the Dutch, France, spain, portugal, Italy, Japan, China, the USA to some extent although carried out in a somewhat different manner, the Soviet Union, the Arabs caliphates and many many others all indulged in this practise, i think it is the fact that the UK seems to be the go to empire to beat someone on the head without acknowledging the many others that gets peoples backs up in this regard that makes them wish to defend the past when thats what it should be regarded as, the past, as i tell my kids 'all that is old is not. Necessarily bad all that is new s not Necessarily good' :).

It wasnt proven against much though. But it was a great idea for small carriers.

@@j.b.2263 Really? Extensive combat operations in just about every major conflict since the Falklands. Flown by Britain, the US, Spain and Italy, it fought in both Gulf wars, Yugoslavia, Kosovo, Bosnia, Afghanistan, Libya, and other parts of Africa, up to attacking ISIS targets. Thousands of bombing missions and reconnaissance sorties. Ground support and ground attack, securing airspace, night and day, land and sea based. What part of proven do you disagree with?

98% mission success rate in Afghanistan. The best of any jet. Defeated asupersonivpc airforce of top quality Argentine fighters

(@@karentodd6938 ) I think the F-15 would definitely disagree with you, it has NEVER lost a plane in any war..

@@karentodd6938 No. Argentina didnt have top fighters. Whats more they had 3 minutes flying time over the conflict zone, they had no air to air capacity since they where in a sea/ground attack role, they had to carry chaff in there air brake since they had no ecm or flare/chaff deployers, Chile was informing the British when the jets where launched and in which direction which made them easy to intercept. Afghanistan: well a slow flying jet would have an advantage there where its not up against much either was it? It wasnt deployed to any hotspot though.

Well said.

well, the f-35 is a pretty good plane but it doesn’t even nearly reach the level of speed or armament of russian jets. Yes, it is stealth, but the new Su-57 is also stealth. Also the f-35 is extremely expensive and hard to maintain

@Рамис Карама ig but then isn’t the whole point of carriers being able to strike quickly anywhere on the globe?

@Рамис Карама Let's hope we never have to test your theory.

As a Falklands veteran its always nice to see my old ship (Hms Hermes). I have one photo and, in it you can count 30 harriers parked.

Absolutely. The most disgusting thing was that the Harrier had just had an upgrade and would have been able to serve the Raf for many years to come. But the pen pushers, decided to save a few quid. And, I remember the press conference given by Cameron. Wrong on so many levels. The entire harrier fleet, was sold to America, for the price of one airframe apparently. If so, that's not exactly good business.

Lol, the harrier only destroyed a few Argentine jets.

@@chrometutor-tipstricksandt9427 and what was the k/d ratio hm?

ChromeTutor! - Tips, tricks, and tutorials 21 and we only had 20 harriers

@@SamanthaGuttesen ..Typically the UK, Cameron is all about the money in the bank, never about National heritage. We could have Licensed the technology to the states, and had something back, but, typical UK Politicians, sold us out, again ...

@David Ogborn the troops i knew who served in the Falklands all legend para engineers of 9 squadron like proper heros us young lads looked up to all having the same stories , and later on you tube the Argentinians were scared so much of the jets so much , like any jet noise they would duck instantly, not as much in my day but my mate who's dad was an sbs photographer told me "he was scottish" told us of the day he truly knew about his dad's war days cos of the mountain run all the jets through 2 went by an my mate said his dad just disappeared, he had gone to ground behind a rock , I don't know why I think of it so often , it was the screams of the jets which thankfully I never encountered the front end of , but I'm still aware of it an im frightened

@David Ogborn Thank you for the history lesson 👍

VIFFing was a technique first demonstrated by then Marine Corps Captain Harry Blot in 1970. The technique was/is part of the Marine Corps' training syllabus for Harrier/Harrier II pilots as their Harriers were equipped with air-to-air missiles from the get go. Not so with the Brits. When the nozzles are rotated the jet doesn't simply stop in mid air. The nose pitches down and lift is rapidly lost causing the aircraft to roll. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-8UE9i82Kc_Y.html

Yep they still don't have a heat seeking missile that will go sideways!

Not RAF Wegberg, by any chance? I was stationed just down the road in Birgelen and used to watch them lift out of the woods.

Too bad its a 60 year old design id love to see them stay.

US MARINES don't fly junk. Their adoption of the Harrier Jump Jet says volumes.....

Thank our politicians, as they know best ?

The Harrier's "required operational capability" is being met with another airframe. A different airplane. A more capable airplane.

@@jds6206 Yes, love the Harrier, but outdated at this time ...

The U.S. Marines will fly the AV-8B Harrier II until 25'.

Mainly due to budge cut and Harrier's maintance cost so British decided to decommission Harrier early on.

The F35 is a joke

@@russell7852 what a stupid Sloth ridden statement..

And we shouldn't have retired the aircraft carriers that went with them.

My father served on board INS Viraat (rechristened name when it was sold to India) and was proficient on the Pegasus engine. A beautiful aircraft I must say. A beautiful ship too

if it wasnt for politicians, maybe Britain could have continued with CTOL carriers and Argentina wouldnt have even tried the Falklands

@@pushkarironside8911 aaaa

I have had others argue that it couldn't operate that many Barriers thanks for documenting it. In a video I remember a RAF pilot mentioning 31.

Do not forget that the harrier air superiority against the Argentine air fleet was only due to the 200 US missile AIM-9 Sidewnider. Ronald Reagan speed up its delivery as the war started.

What practical use does being able to fly backwards in a real battle have?

@@KondorDCS I think being able to fly backwards might be useful landing on a carrier in high winds.

@@KondorDCS The ability to fly backwards means that its stall speed was minus 70mph. When fighters get into a tight turning knife fight, they approach their own stall speeds. The Harrier has no stall speed. Its ability to Vector In Forward Flight [VIFF] very quickly alongside its heavy wing loading & small size was what led to it having the 2nd highest air-to-air battle kill ratio behind the F15. And you can't land an F15 on a cargo ship.

@@kevinomalley6517 Yet as the following video shows when the nozzles are rotated fully down in flight the aircraft will in fact stall. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-8UE9i82Kc_Y.html

same here lol . Can`t wait to have some memes with it .

I wanna hover over 2s6 and drop bombs Lmfaoo

Also same here

New (Over)Power

Well the reason is RU-vid finds you watching videos with the Harrier as titel and gives you more. Its pretty funny tho i also agree.

Best Flying Machine ever invented, shame they used so much fuel, they could probably fix that eventually.

Imagine sitting in your garden looking at your treetops and watching one of these rise up from behind staring you down

this is the most british thing i've ever had the pleasure of reading

Hahaha.. The pilot wanted to see what cream cakes was on the tea-table!!!

You use clever words, but you remain stupid.

@@Harry-xu2yn "Hey Kids, wanna buy some freedom?" the Harrier would say.

I remember them bowing to the audience!

VMA-231 and VMAT-203 '79-86. Few of these folks know what they're talking about...

@@halbennett4491 I heard they combined 542 and 231 into one squadron. Always wanted to get my back seat license on the trainers. Never got the chance. Nice to hear from a fellow Cherrypointer! Semper Fi Marine!

Me too... 1978-1982, VMA542, Cherrypoint, N.Carolina. Avionics. Got out in '82. Semper Fi !!

@@Barron5362 Hey man! Good to hear from a fellow 542 alumni 😀 We kicked ass didn't we! Remember getting banned from going back to Puerto Rico! Semper Fi brother.

And politicians don't get enough shit for the endless dissapointments they provide.

Yes Engineers deserve credit, but they also deserve ridicule for their either impossible feats on paper or the insane capitol it costs to build their Idea's and they always leave KISS on the back burner which always ends up being their own demise...unless of course you work for a U.S. Auto maker then hell WTF just pass the faults onto the American consumer.

What feats? Killing pilots or bragging rights for being able to take off from a very short runway with an almost unappreciable weapons load?

You get so used to the noise that living in suburbia with it's relative silence makes it almost impossible to get to sleep! It took me a few days to adjust when I enlisted, but it took me weeks to adjust when I got out.

I understand. From age 3 to age 6, I was in a SAC B-52 base--B-52 's and KC 135 tankers everywhere.

sorry for your loss :(

Unfortunately one of their weaknesses they were difficult to land and take off…many of them crashed 😮

All of the UK Harrier IIs purchased by the Marine Corps are being used for spare parts. None remain flying.

Same answer why its still malfunctioning today lmfao

Not really. If you watch the video you'd see there was no way to rework the harrier, 11:09

You have to take in progress as a factor - the World does not stand still but sometimes people do.

It's not the 60's, or even the 80's, Lockheed spent billions developing it. Also the amount of tech is amazing. As you can see in the video the VTOL was the complicated part.

Very original comment, almost like the original has 1k likes on the exact same video you’re commenting on?

i mean, the UK is still very big in aviation production.

@@ddha0000 we have rolls royce we build wings for airbus we gave away our helicopter industry to the Italians we do not have the capacity to build and indigenous combat aircraft of our own nor a passenger aircraft of our own we've pulled out of the jet trainer market we build good radars and weapons systems if i was a teacher i would say this child has potential must apply himself and do better

We need paper bags more than the plastic ones. and with most decisions it's the politicians that cock it up and a few years later move on.

@@martinburke362 Whats tempest then you moron?

Go start an aircraft manufacturing business then....

Let's be ownest. Harrier is a legend because that airplane never took part in the war against capable enemy.

@@ryszardsokolowski1999 there's F-35B now, the harrier is obsolete and useless. Harrier only scored kills from world's first all aspect AIM-9L with high hit percentage.

@@ryszardsokolowski1999 There hasn't been a properly symmetrical conflict since WWII. The Harrier proved itself in the Falklands. 21 jets down, NO loses against allegedly "better" fighters (A-4 Skyhawks, IAI Daggers Super Etendards and Mirage IIIs) and it is still a capable aircraft with capabilities unavailable to the majority of countries. The Harrier is a proven effective combat aircraft.

@@ryszardsokolowski1999 The Sea Harrier was an afterthought for air defence of small carriers.. The original Harrier idea was always to be a close support/ground attack aircraft, able to deploy close to the front line where it was needed. If the The Hawker Siddeley P.1154 had been developed to production versions. The future of all combat aircraft would have changed, particularly naval aviation.

@@gonzomuse those kills were made by AIM-9L, world's first all aspect IR guided air to air missiles. Argentine fighters are old and lacked head on engagement missiles, only rear aspect old magic missiles. If British didn't force French to reveal weakness of Exocet anti-ship missile, the entire British fleet would have lost. Mind you that Argentina was being placed on embargo by American government leaving most of Argentine aircraft grounded due to no parts. If Soviet Union had access to sell weapons to Argentina, things would have been different and harriers will be in trouble.

if only the tsr2 could have made it into production. it was incredible.

The Jaguar was a collaboration with France with SNECMA producing the engines.The Tornado was a joint effort with France,Germany,Italy with only the engines supplied by RR.The Harrier and TSR2 was all British.

The UK fell short when it came to ironing out glitches and selling their aircraft. The DeHavilland Comet is a perfect example. Not having the biggest military budget and financial constraints also didn't help.

British labour party in government cancelled TSR2 on request of Russia.

@@waltersansom127 Blatantly not true , USA scuppered deal & offered F111 as replacement, which would've cost more than whole TSR2 programme !

*remember opening up a box of WeetBix and seeing a card with a harrier on it, fell in love with all things aerodynamic in a second.

@Izno Iznogoud Falklands campaign proves you wrong.

@Izno Iznogoud nobody ever died in a harrier since the falkland war lmao

@1:06 don't look at the graphics, look at the rest of the frame. I LOVE IT!

@@EricTViking it shot down 25 A-4 and Super Etendard attack aircraft, 1 cargo plane, 1 cessna, and 1(only 1) fighter...a Mirage that fell into the harriers airspace after a highspeed stall causing a flatspin...The harriers only advantage was its STOVL...its performance was Mundane, even in the 80s

@@EricTViking If anything the Falklands proved the issues with the tiny Invincible ski slope boats...And that Ark Royal with Real Fighters couldve saved alot of lives, as the harrier never managed to actually protect the airspace, which it was rather poor at, in response and intercept times...

I was on 3(f) at Gut, mid to late 80's. 13 field deployments done.

@@seanjoseph8637 i was at Wildenrath 73 /76 my sister was at gut in 83 i think

Takes me back to 71 I think. Laarbruch , others went to Gut. and Wildenrath. We were all CCF Air Cadets on camp . On arrival at ATC were told , 'Sorry , its boring today , too much low cloud :-( ' Seconds later were told ,' hold on have a Harrier coming in '. Shortly after joined by 4 others , no idea where they came from . They hovered all over the airfield , almost a 'ballet ' , then one by one , flew off into the clouds .

@@potdog1000 Do you know John Lamonby?

@@seanjoseph8637 name doesnt ring a bell but that soesnt mean a lot as i might have donr by sight, i was there from 73-76 Tactical Supply/stores

Money money money is a rich government’s world ....Why would British government buy into it ? They now just tag onto the big boys and fly low. The British now are second class at the moment in innovation, technology and intuition, we now follow everybody else. So sad so sad

@@P888JAC there are some interesting combat philosophies in the works, especially for the challenger 3's ability to deploy small combat drones. (we are going to be going full Tau) What is sad is we are leaving behind the Hercules for the Airbus Atlas and that will cost us even more military engineering jobs in this country, while providing a tool that isn't best suited for either of the two very different jobs we are going to give it.

@@joewoodland8635 We need good government to install the greatness we had when all groups were hand in hand..RR ..LOCKHEED. Etc NOT SO MUCH BAE but they are still up there (don’t know why) We got two massive carriers with no British planes contracted to USA I think we lost the plot giving it all away Britain lost out because politics gave away all of the control we had for a few bucks in advance

Sounds like Australia 🇦🇺

Fish n chips, and... uhh tea, lots of tea

I did a detachment to Lakenheath way back and we took a load of Harriers up there proper great detachment that was way before they retired though

Afghanostan has NO air force !

All a waste of money. Stealth drones supersonic drones even multiple warhead cruise missiles just around the corner. Carriers like the queen Elizabeth could be changed to handle this tech. Imagine 20 interceptor drones above the carrier 24 7. And 30 odd strike attack drones in a in a high te soon theatre. F35 It's the last big combat aircraft project.ANOTHER 10 YEARS it will be obsolete.

@@rutherfojr TBH, spending the money we do trying to find more efficient ways to kill each other is ALL a waste of money! BUT - if we are to stay 'free' then we must ensure that we have at least as big a stick as the other guy and, if they're not better, then at least that we have a damn site more of them! :-) Finally, 'just around the corner' means when, in terms of years? :-)

@@rutherfojr Why do you believe there's a need for intercept drones near a destroyer or carrier? It'll take quite a few planes launching even more missiles to damage anything of the forward operating vessels afloat today; it'd be like"kamakazi".

and the Short SC1 which was the daddy of them all.

I built a 125 engineering team at Hawker Sidley in 60's and then 20 eng for USA company to support US Marines.

politicians and civil servants , the curse of Briain .

typo error , Britain not Briain .

Harold Wilson . Bless him.

I saw these at air shows in the 80's very impressive jets. They'd come to a dead stop in front of the audience, backup, rotate, bow, then exit at full throttle.

Noisy bloody things tearing down the welland valley !! Ejoyed watching them tho as a kid.....

Spent 6 happy years based at Wittering in the 80s.

At Cottesmore?

@@seanjoseph8637 Yes mate on IV (AC).. 2001

@@zippy5131 My last tour was there in the Hyd bay, still live locally. It is now Kendrew Barracks and full of squadies.

@@seanjoseph8637 So you'd probably know Paul Coombes. Used to go fishing with him for the Station.

@@zippy5131Aye I know Paul, I haven't seen him for a long time though. I remember he used to disappear to do his fishing, I think he even went to the states on an exped. I'm pretty sure you and I know each other by sight at least.