kzread.info/dash/bejne/dYGc0Nurkqu2XbQ.html ► F-14 Tomcat kzread.info/dash/bejne/lqmf1dKhkcnRqKw.html ► F-4 Phantom II kzread.info/dash/bejne/aHWKj8WMdsebd6w.html ► Why Some Fighter Jets Dump Their Fuel Tank

@mysteriesmadeknown2874

Жыл бұрын

I think they should make passengers airplanes like this for faster and safer flights.

Thankfully there was a former Harrier pilot named Art Nalls who bought a lot of the Harriers when they were retired. Nalls will keep those planes flying for several decades more. Nalls is also training other pilots to take over his role once he passes on too.

@AA-xo9uw

Жыл бұрын

Nalls purchased three Harriers, a FA.2, T.8 and a nonflying GR.3. All three are for sale at the reduced price of $7,995,000.00

@FinalLugiaGuardian

Жыл бұрын

@@AA-xo9uw Getting the two flying harriers onto the FAA registry was also quite an ordeal for Nalls too. Eventually the FAA agreed to let's Nalls put his Jets onto the FAA's registry after they heard all his qualifications, but Nalls himself had to pay the conversion costs to refit the Jets with civilian radio and avionics. To my knowledge, Art Nalls himself and one other pilot in his organization are the only pilots who hold a civilian type rating in the Harrier. Perhaps Art Nails will help train the staff of pilots of whoever acquires the Harriers next.

@bear1245

Жыл бұрын

US government bought most of the 77 sold

This explained nothing

@ctawab

Жыл бұрын

There is something funny about the channel

@ctawab

Жыл бұрын

It appears to be artificial intelligence. Something about the accent too!

@Tzuchiyang

Жыл бұрын

The Harrier was replaced by the f-35. He could have been more clear though.

@ferrarim5p75

Жыл бұрын

The reason is that UK has not been a rich country for a long time. It's trying to own something - new aircraft carriers and new F-35 jets - that it cannot afford. Hence, it has to sell off the old carriers & Harriers, retrench most of its naval crew & pilots, technicians & managers and close off (parts of) air force bases so as to save up money to be able to afford the carriers and fighters many years later. Even then, it could not afford to replace the Harriers with equal or even close to equal number of F-35s. Then Brexit happened. Bye bye UK. Bye bye, Great Britain. Bye bye, British Empire. You had lived off the suffering and wealth of your colonies for too long. The truth of it is that you had been shit for a long time.

@johnphillips5310

11 ай бұрын

It was retired by the marines mostly because it had an incident, or "accident" roughly 4x that of the hornet. In other words "marines make jet go boom" lol

That didn't explain much but the British knocked it out of the park with this design. It was very successful for many years. 🇺🇸🇬🇧

@mothmagic1

6 ай бұрын

As proved by its performance in the Falkklands.

To answer the question, the reason why the UK decommissioned it's harriers and aircraft carriers was to free up money for the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers. The invincible class with harriers could of gone on until 2020.

More likely because defense contractors needed to sell more expensive weapons, and politicians were more than happy to help.

@globalcitizen8321

Жыл бұрын

Yeah, I could believe this.

@IDBTitanosaurus

Жыл бұрын

As long as the new toys are actual new technology. But I wish there was a system of longevity. I’m amazed the b52 is pushing 75+ years.

@davidjones341

Жыл бұрын

@@IDBTitanosaurus That's because it doesn't matter how old the B-52 is it's a glorified missile truck I also pity the Harrier is such a wonderful bird I just hope more get preserved and don't suffer the fate of our Tomcats.

@ferrarim5p75

Жыл бұрын

No. The reason is that UK has not been a rich country for a long time. It's trying to own something - new aircraft carriers and new F-35 jets - that it cannot afford. Hence, it has to sell off the old carriers & Harriers, retrench most of its naval crew & pilots, technicians & managers and close off (parts of) air force bases so as to save up money to be able to afford the carriers and fighters many years later. Even then, it could not afford to replace the Harriers with equal or even close to equal number of F-35s. Then Brexit happened. Bye bye UK. Bye bye, Great Britain. Bye bye, British Empire. You had lived off the suffering and wealth of your colonies for too long. The truth of it is that you had been shit for a long time.

@StrikeNoir105E

Жыл бұрын

​@@IDBTitanosaurus I mean for the most part most militaries, including the US, try to hold on to weapons as long as possible until their use or life runs out. I mean, the M2HB machinegun is over a hundred years old at this point and yet is still the premier heavy machinegun for nearly everything from trucks to helicopters, and the US Army the past few decades has repeatedly tried and failed to replace their M16 and M4's with a newer rifle. And of course the USAF has their C-130's and B-52's which have been serving since the 1950's.

Q: Why was the Harrier retired? A: To allow the money to be diverted into the F-35 and Queen Elizabeth Class aircraft carrier programs.

@brianmitchell8904

Жыл бұрын

The A to the question is parley correct but the British where making new technology they new that the hairier would be obliterate that is why the British sold them kept some for training and in museums so not all of them where gone.

“The Harrier was the most iconic British fighter design” The Spitfire: Are you sure about that?

@bikechainmic

Жыл бұрын

Ide have said the Hurricane

@george-ev1dq

18 күн бұрын

The Buccaneer trumps both of them with ease.

Hi from the home of the Harrier, Wittering, we miss them all.😥

US Marine AV8B are continuing in service until 2029. This aircraft would be an ideal tactical close air to ground support for UKR far more effective at the front line than F16 and F-18 that need long hard standing runways. But as the US Marines found out in early service airmanship is not conventional and conversion training would be extensive.

It can do vertical landing too Hell yeah Perfect for Navy A bomber A fighter Jet A perfect Aircraft, Sad to see these aircrafts getting old

The two Queen Elizabeth carriers the Royal Navy now operates are very impressive ships but Britain’s role within NATO at sea was always based primarily on anti submarine warfare in the North Sea and the North Atlantic. For that role we didn’t need the QE class. Instead we could have invested in more smaller ships to fulfill the ASW role as well as also covering other roles in the North Sea and Atlantic. Great as the new carriers are the Royal Navy is not suited to a worldwide role in the way the USN is, and the RN used to be when Britain had colonies worldwide. It would have been better to retain the smaller carriers and their Harriers until new smaller carriers with F35s could have been built. Britain is not a world power it is, and has been, for a long time a regional power best suited to defending Europe and the seas around it imo.

@kirkoid1530

Жыл бұрын

To be brutally honest I wish we didn’t give away our entire empire and kept some land because after giving away our empire Britain has become weaker, and it seems that we just import planes from other countries and we seem to have dropped from the forefront of research, however maybe the tempest program may be a solution and bring Britain back into the development game.

@jackduddle9449

11 ай бұрын

The Royal navy doesn't revolve around nato it built carriers for protecting the UK not the world and their usefulness was shown in the Falklands

The Harrier design went as far as it could go.

@mothmagic1

6 ай бұрын

Only because the government were unwilling to back further trials with Plenum Chamber Burning which would have transformed the harrier's performance capability.

@neilmchardy9061

4 ай бұрын

There was solid developments of a version which could go supersonic using nozzle after burning, the aircraft is highlighted in the book project cancelled. It’s sadly the old story of such decisions being made by those least able to grasp the nettle of continuous development, politicians. Excuse me while I spit.

@neilmchardy9061

4 ай бұрын

@@mothmagic1the biggest problem is that the least capable of making these decisions are the ones who make them. Politicians!

Such an amazing air craft.

It was a beautiful plane Indian Navy use it a lot :)

@Donkeymaster9000

Жыл бұрын

Indian navy will use literally anything

@nitingupta2738

Жыл бұрын

So true indians used it better than anyone else.we have well trained pilots.proud of indian navy.

They aren’t completely retired yet, the US still has 2 harrier squadrons

If there was a conflict that fitted the original purpose of the Harrier, it is Ukraine. All available, F35,F16, A10 etc need concrete runways, all of which are targeted.

You did not answer the question "Why was the Harrier Retired" you just said that they did and sold them to the US.

What a monster

I am surprised that the yak-38 was not mentioned?

@george-ev1dq

18 күн бұрын

cause it was rubbish

We sold I think about 4 to McDonnell-Douglas as patterns. All the others operated by the USMC were built under a production licence.

such a cool design i wish there were more rc toys based on this jet

The AV-8B will remain in service with the Marine Corps until mid 2029.

@FinalLugiaGuardian

Жыл бұрын

Which means that it will finally be fully retired by the USMC in 2064.

@Aeronaut1975

Жыл бұрын

Italy and Spain also still operate the Harrier.

@loona5530

Жыл бұрын

in my hometown they operated many harriers and still kept 2 on display along with an F-4 Phantom,A-4 Skyhawk, and an A-6 Intruder

The loudest things on earth I have ever heard.

@nigeh5326

Жыл бұрын

You’ve never heard my ex wife when I left the toilet seat up 😃

@Aeronaut1975

Жыл бұрын

You've clearly never heard Concorde take off!

@kells3411

Жыл бұрын

@@Aeronaut1975 I'm with you on that.

@Mr.mysterious76

Жыл бұрын

@@nigeh5326 Always leave it up

@george-ev1dq

18 күн бұрын

You have never heard an Avro Vulcan then.

So WHY were the Harriers retired???

Because the MIC wants everyone to purchase the F35 to offset its over the budget pricing, the Harrier could have had a successor that would have been an affordable option for militaries with small to mid level budgets

Harrier is still active in US Marine Corps untill 2028 they are operating around 100 of them and replacing with f35b. According to Google. Can anyone verify this?

28 Sea Harriers? 14 Harrier G3s? That's far too few!

what's a kom-bat? Is it a type of bat?

America got it incredibly improved it and still has it 👏

I also remember in the 1980's watching these at RAF Wyton near Huntingdon in Cambridgeshire, UK. The reconnaissance plane Cambera was the main aircraft at Wyton, other planes made numerous appearances.

One of the few Aircraft sold to America.. Oh yeah forgot The Canberra The Hawk... The Viscount The BAC 1-11.

the british harriers shouldnt have been retired until the replacement was in hand. they scrapped them and we had no use for our carriers so they then scrapped them. its a bad habit to scrap a capability before the replacement is in hand. they got rid of the nimrods, harriers, tornados, list goes on

@djl5634

Жыл бұрын

F35 is replacing them. Also USA still uses harrier in the Marines.

@djl5634

Жыл бұрын

F35 is replacing them. Also USA still uses harrier in the Marines.

Simple, the UK had no aircraft carriers to put them on.

They’re still being used what do you mean

So, why was it retired?

It was retired due to costs. They’re retired 8 years earlier than expected. The government didn’t want to pay for their upkeep. Said it was save the taxpayer millions. They also got rid of HMS Ark Royal.

@bikechainmic

Жыл бұрын

Each Harrier was given an 8 million pound refit , stuck in warm storage then retired. So the cost was paid by the taxpayer regardless

F-Thirter-five? Say it with us. THIRTEEE-FIVE!

So why were they retired?

The title of this Video Where did the Harriers go?

Short answe: it was retired because it was being replaced by the F-35B Lighting.

I mean I love aviation

Strike back like cruise missiles 😂

So many ill-informed comments on here.

when on holiday and out pony trecking in the lake district cumbria uk a few years ago now one of these flew over head frightening the shite out of me however turpin my pony was unflafflable he just looked around at me as if to say for god sake get a grip mrs its only a effing plane

Constant Tory defence cuts is why they were retired .

Theyre replaced with a better ultra expensive one the JSF fat jet

Biggest heartbreak. dodge getting rid of the viper. And us getting rid of the harrier. Ill mever forgive either

Why and then was the Harrier retired ?

A more balanced and complete account is had by considering that in 2010 the UK had a government led by Mr Cameron and Mr Clegg - each of whom was weak with no interest in UK national security. The Harriers they junked had just been upgraded at considerable cost and with no replacement we were at serious risk. The small carriers we had at that time were also decommissioned and newly upgraded maritime search aircraft were physically destroyed on the runway by mechanical diggers.

@timwoodman1154

5 ай бұрын

An ever more balanced reply is that the treasury could not afford both the Harrier and the Tornado. As the RAF runs the MOD the Harrier was scrapped. Source: Cdr Sharkey Ward.

has to do with crawling speed, very slow to speed is approximately 180km/ hr a pure kombi in the air!!

The F-35B is going to be a worthy replacement.

NOVEMBER 2023 Through a, a large dose of stupidity, is my conclusion to retiring our UK Harrier Fleet. 🇬🇧Ⓜ️🇬🇧🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔

Simple answer it is old as hell and would get destroyed by MOST modern fighters.

It was 1960s technology and it wasn't supersonic so it couldn't fend off next-gen opposing fighters. It was just outdated.

@globalcitizen8321

Жыл бұрын

However, it could have been used as a ground close support aircraft. The best think about the Harrier was that it could take off and land anywhere. That is an strategical advantage that should not have been dismissed so lightly.

@karmpuscookie

Жыл бұрын

Rubbish. You know zip.

@Then.72

Жыл бұрын

The USA updated it didn’t they ?….. VTOL technology is still the same as the British invented supersonic VTOL with the P.1154 although the subsonic P.1127 was used & won every dogfight against it’s opposing supersonic fighter jets in the Falklands

@verdebusterAP

Жыл бұрын

The technology wasn't outdated, the design however could no further

@haihengh

Жыл бұрын

supersonic is overrated, even F22 with supercruise capability would not go supersonic for long. it was outdated in terms of avionic, but that can be upgraded as well, just if you want to keep it running or not. the main problem, however, I think it's the control for hovering, which was all analog, depend on human hand, has high rate of failure, but i think with modern computer control it should not be an issue as well. I can see a comeback in the future, since the harrier is cheap, like 20 million a pop compared to 110 million for the F35, also if you use the harrier design to make it a drone swam, it could make a lot of sense, like you make a cheap 30k ton drone carrier and launch drones that are being fed target info from more expensive F35, those design could work well.

Oh the jingoism... you couldn't have named to Do-31 properly, no? Sigh...

Light attack, heavy airshow.

Wouldn't these be ideal for Ukraine since conventional runways are vulnerable?

It was old and had used all its options on upgrades without seriously changing the design..

@alanfrost4661

Жыл бұрын

A bow and arrow is old tech but can still kill

@richhughes7450

Жыл бұрын

@@alanfrost4661 I love the Harrier, it was way ahead of its time but its just to slow by today's standards

Cuz it got tiered 🥁 tssssss

Because cuts

why why why???

Retired what the fuck

good war plane for its time.

Ya to f35 ka mukabla kr rha ha .wo be este saal phela technology aa gyi thi..

Does not explain “why”!

Sorry iconic have you forgotten how the Vulcan beat America air defences twice in the sixties? Also the lightening jet. Convenient you forgot those as iconic aircraft the Harrier was one of a few!

Send three squadron of it to Ukraine it gonna change the face of war quickly

Hairyer 😂

Chad AV-8 > Virgin F-35B

The US Marines lost 1/3 of it's Harriers to Crashes. I seem to remember reading somewhere that about 50 percent of all harriers ever built crashed. That could be called Retirement.

@bikechainmic

Жыл бұрын

True the Americans had a few problems early on but its a false to say half crashed. But if you look at their combat record youlre see they punched way above their weight.

You forgot to mention that Russian in the 1950s already have a fighter with vertical jump.

@williamjordan5554

Жыл бұрын

If you're talking about the Yak-141, that came later.

@AA-xo9uw

Жыл бұрын

Not in the 50s they didn't.

F thirta five 😄

At the end of the day, attack helicopters can also take off vertically

Ohhhhhh, they fucked up the Argentine Air Force?!?!?!? OOooooOOOOeeeeeWWWiii!!!

@maxv6837

Жыл бұрын

That's like bragging that you beat up a little person. 😆

@aking-plums6985

Жыл бұрын

@@maxv6837 On average, the people in the UK are taller than the people in Argentina, so the UK can claim bragging rights for that as well!!!

@chrisaskin6144

9 ай бұрын

Don't belittle and slag off the Harrier's performance against the Argentinians. Before 1982 the Harrier was unproven, with Air Forces and so called experts all around the world dismissing it as little more than a gimmick, a one trick pony that was fine for entertaining the crowds at air shows, but largely irrelevant in combat. But then the Falklands War broke out. No one can deny the bravery of the Argentinian pilots, but the Harrier "owned" them in combat. After that the Harrier was viewed very differently.

Not sure the F-35 is as reliable as the Harrier.

@jamiegray6931

Жыл бұрын

It is far more reliable, the amount of accidents the old Harrier had is astronomical in comparison.

@cshader2488

Жыл бұрын

The harrier was not a reliable aircraft.

@MrMoon36O

Жыл бұрын

Landing the harrier vertically was all analog, so naturally, more failures.

@jamiegray6931

Жыл бұрын

@@ServalKitty Th F-35 b absolutely can VTOL. What are you saying?

Yeh so, why were they retired? This was a total waste of time.

Where was the explanation then? An F35b costs about twelve times as much as a late period Harrier...how can it possibly be 12 times better? Mad amounts of money spent on the two carriers for the UK...what on earth are they actually for? Just enormous targets essentially...meanwhile we have a wide variety of social crises that require investment...

Great concept, poor aircraft. The F-35C is what they dreamed of when they made the Harrier.

@bl8danjil

Жыл бұрын

Did you mean the F-35B, the short takeoffs and vertical landings (STOVL) variant? The F-35C is the Navy CATOBAR, it can't do STOVL.

@Then.72

Жыл бұрын

Wake up dead head ! The Harrier was actually a Jet powered VTOL aircraft not a STOVL aircraft like the F35B !

@trentnordhagen

Жыл бұрын

@@Then.72 The harrier and F35b can both take off vertically, but usually don't to increase payload. This isn't a problem when landing because most of the fuel weight is gone

So they could sell the UK the F35 and makes loads of money

Tories government it everything.the Harrier would do well on the two aircraft carriers.

It's still the best vstol aircraft ever built. F-35s have still a long way to prove they are worthy

Dumb it was retired, like the F-15, F-16, they traded old reliable, VTOL, for junk.

@trentnordhagen

Жыл бұрын

F-15 and 16 are not retired

It was a piece of junk😅

That would be the Ministry of Defense. Not Military of Defense.

Yep, explained nothing so, waste of time so, let me make a statement. While not super sonic, it was fast and manoeuvre better than any plane today and certainly not as expensive as current aircraft. Also, I would rather have retained the Harrier over the A10 and while the A10 is a fine plane, the harrier far more capable as a ground attack aircraft and a lot faster.