Harrier Pilot Kevin Gross, Colonel (Ret) USMC, describes Harrier history and design features. Produced by Jarel & Betty Wheaton for Peninsula Seniors www.pvseniors.org
I flew GR3 in the RAF 1975-79 and went on to fly Tornado GR1 in 1980s and later became an airline pilot (boring). Much as I enjoyed all that I’ve always regretted not getting back to Harriers to fly GR5, 7 and 9. Thanks for the memories. 👍
A truly exceptional example of British design and engineering that single handedly gained total air superiority over the Falklands for the British army and the Royal Navy with only a couple of dozen aircraft flying at limits of range and loiter time against land based supersonic strike and fighter aircraft already proven in battle in the Middle East and Vietnam {Dassault Mirage, Douglas A-4 Skyhawk). The USMC made a good choice in adopting this airframe for close air support.
Bruce Manning----I was aboard the USS F D Roosevelt CVA42 when they brought a squadron of AV8A birds on board for the ;Rosie's '77 (and last) Med. cruise. Never quite got used to seeing a fixed wing aircraft hovering motionless!!
My god Mate you know your plane , as a Brit vet in the cold war we used to lie on our backs and watch the Harrier viff , and the star fighter over shoot , bugger you made an old happy
I was based at KCAE early 90s and some Harriers from iirc KNBC Beaufort MCAS came up which is rare. Tower gave them permission to land but NO HOVER. Well they both did and burned holes into the main runway, caught rubber on fire and fouled it which btw serves major airlines, UPS/FedEX and others. Later the runway was closed for 3 months and both ends were beefed up for heavier loads. Never saw Harriers again.
It's fun watching someone being so enthusiastic. It leaves little doubt that you lived that dream and it was great to hear someone add the realities of their everyday, help fill in a laypersons understanding of something so fantastic. Very much enjoyed this.
Wow Terrific video. I have always been interested by the how and why the Harrier seemed to break all the rules of flying and manoeuvring with impunity. Thankyou for the informative and interesting presentation, showing the technical and operational views of using this aircraft. I'm green.I also liked how you showed the unique characteristics of this aircraft made it a real game changer. Also like anyone who has served in the military, thank you for your service.
I was at a lecture by Hawker Chief Test Pilot Billy Bedford Who said "The Harrier is a Great aircraft but not a patch on what it could have been if the government had fronted the money we asked for". NUFF SAID
Yes; Otto Lilienthal did a lot for aviation. To George Caley we owe a great deal more. He not only designed aircraft but he propounded the forces of flight vis: Thrust , Lift, Drag a long time before Lilienthal was born. In 1799 in fact. He built his first model glider five years later (1804) and a full size one in 1853 which he got his coachman (from memory) to fly in. Who promptly resigned saying he came to drive horses not fly like a bird. By 1799 he designed his first model helicopter with twin rotors. If other Brits had taken heed of what he did there would have been aircraft with proper controls decades before the Wtight Bros.
He was diplomatic when he mentioned the hastily acquiring of the remaining Harriers, for spares. The navy is probably not all to comfortable with the promised success of the JSF.
Yet another great presentation or "briefing" as some of the presenters call them! I always thought it was ironic that the first thing the British Govt did after the Falklands War was to build a huge great runway there! Shame they got rid of the Harrier. I used to a make part for them in the 1980,s it was a small 2" dia stainless steel flexible joint that was part of the reaction controls, we also made a barometric bellow for the engine controls.
Yes and had the British had a long Runway in the Falklands in 1982, the Argies would never have been able to take the place as the British could have flown troops and equipment down there at a drop of a hat in any long range commercial transport.
@@richardvernon317 Your forgetting that the British Government didn't act on the intelligence they had on Argentine intentions. They reacted after the Argentine forces had invaded the Falkland Islands when a long runway would have allowed the Argentine Air Force to base Jets on the Island. Without air superiority the Islands could not have been retaken. The biggest mistake by Argentina was invading to early. If they had waited another year John Nott the defence minister had planned to sell or scrap the only aircraft carriers the Royal Navy had. HMS Invincible to Australia and HMS Hermes to the scrapyard. No carriers, No aircraft, No recapture of the Falkland Islands.
@@rows10 Had Britain's full sized carriers and their Phantoms not been decommissioned shortly before the Falklands conflict, the Argentinians would've probably never invaded in the first place. Other cuts included the swapping of woollen clothing in the navy for cheaper acrylic clothing- making burns much worse. Weren't Hermes and Invincible converted cruisers?
The reason why many countries are obsess with VTOL is because during the cold war, many countries believe all the air bases run way in Europe will be hit by ICBM during the first 24 hrs of the war. The only aircraft that can still fly are the type that don't use long run way.
VTOL also means naval aviation can use far smaller and far cheaper ships to carry fixed wing aircraft. Sure VTOL aircraft have severe disadvantage against other planes, but they are far better than having only rotorcraft or nothing at all. That's why India, Spain and Thailand chose it, their carrier programs are far cheaper than the rest. It took quite a budget increase for India to move to Mig-29Ks.
Yutaka Go surely IRBM or other short range missiles? The other issue for the European airbases during the Cold War was that the Soviet and Warsaw Pact bombers could be over the German, Dutch, Belgian and Danish airbases (these include the British and American bases on mainland Europe) with very little warning; the British would have had a bit more warning of an air attack on their airfields.
I heard that USMC pilots rewrote the rule book on how to fly the Harrier.They introduced "viffing" and found that the Harrier was virtually impossible to shoot down in air to air combat and demonstrated it's ability to virtually turn on a dime. Semper Fi
That's is why i say the Harrier CAN NOT be replaced. It's unique, others may be replaced, like the Crusader, The Vigilante and some others... it's very complex to pick the right jets to replace bcz that leads to a mistake like the British did. They got World's best vertical takeoff close support jet and replaced it for a Vertical Fighter-Bomber but that one's not intended for giving proper close support. Gladly, the Americans didnt make the same mistake leaving the A-10, bcz it's simply unreplaceable. F-35 is an awesome & good jet but Harrier should NOT be replaced. F-35 its just the perfect couple it needs. F-14 is NOT replaceable either. Is not about only their functions, but their PERFECT performance & unique design what make them the best on their roles.
![Megan Thee Stallion - BOA [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/TKQY2ZlIEjY/mqdefault.jpg)
I flew GR3 in the RAF 1975-79 and went on to fly Tornado GR1 in 1980s and later became an airline pilot (boring). Much as I enjoyed all that I’ve always regretted not getting back to Harriers to fly GR5, 7 and 9. Thanks for the memories. 👍
That was the best description of the Harrier I have ever heard. Many thanks for putting it up.
A truly exceptional example of British design and engineering that single handedly gained total air superiority over the Falklands for the British army and the Royal Navy with only a couple of dozen aircraft flying at limits of range and loiter time against land based supersonic strike and fighter aircraft already proven in battle in the Middle East and Vietnam {Dassault Mirage, Douglas A-4 Skyhawk).
The USMC made a good choice in adopting this airframe for close air support.
Very interesting to hear a US pilot discuss the Harrier. Thanks for the upload. :)
Bruce Manning----I was aboard the USS F D Roosevelt CVA42 when they brought a squadron of AV8A birds on board for the ;Rosie's '77 (and last) Med. cruise. Never quite got used to seeing a fixed wing aircraft hovering motionless!!
My god Mate you know your plane , as a Brit vet in the cold war we used to lie on our backs and watch the Harrier viff , and the star fighter over shoot , bugger you made an old happy
As always, a splendid video, most interesting. Many thanks and kind regards from Lincoln, England.
I was based at KCAE early 90s and some Harriers from iirc KNBC Beaufort MCAS came up which is rare. Tower gave them permission to land but NO HOVER. Well they both did and burned holes into the main runway, caught rubber on fire and fouled it which btw serves major airlines, UPS/FedEX and others. Later the runway was closed for 3 months and both ends were beefed up for heavier loads. Never saw Harriers again.
100% kill rate in the Falklands war. None were downed air to air
Another superb video from this channel. Thank you.
great insights into an amazing aircraft :)
It's fun watching someone being so enthusiastic. It leaves little doubt that you lived that dream and it was great to hear someone add the realities of their everyday, help fill in a laypersons understanding of something so fantastic.
Very much enjoyed this.
Very informative and interesting, thank you!
Wonderful aircraft. Thank you for displaying this for the people to see.
Wow Terrific video. I have always been interested by the how and why the Harrier seemed to break all the rules of flying and manoeuvring with impunity. Thankyou for the informative and interesting presentation, showing the technical and operational views of using this aircraft. I'm green.I also liked how you showed the unique characteristics of this aircraft made it a real game changer. Also like anyone who has served in the military, thank you for your service.
Brilliant presentation. Thanks for sharing!
Exellent, professional presentation... I enjoyed very much. Thanks !
Extremely good presentation.
Superb presentation ... kudos Sir
I was at a lecture by Hawker Chief Test Pilot Billy Bedford Who said "The Harrier is a Great aircraft but not a patch on what it could have been if the government had fronted the money we asked for". NUFF SAID
Yes; Otto Lilienthal did a lot for aviation. To George Caley we owe a great deal more. He not only designed aircraft but he propounded the forces of flight vis: Thrust , Lift, Drag a long time before Lilienthal was born. In 1799 in fact. He built his first model glider five years later (1804) and a full size one in 1853 which he got his coachman (from memory) to fly in. Who promptly resigned saying he came to drive horses not fly like a bird. By 1799 he designed his first model helicopter with twin rotors. If other Brits had taken heed of what he did there would have been aircraft with proper controls decades before the Wtight Bros.
He was diplomatic when he mentioned the hastily acquiring of the remaining Harriers, for spares. The navy is probably not all to comfortable with the promised success of the JSF.
“I wanted to support the Marines in the beach” Semper Fi Sir!!!
Semper Fidelis
Yet another great presentation or "briefing" as some of the presenters call them! I always thought it was ironic that the first thing the British Govt did after the Falklands War was to build a huge great runway there! Shame they got rid of the Harrier. I used to a make part for them in the 1980,s it was a small 2" dia stainless steel flexible joint that was part of the reaction controls, we also made a barometric bellow for the engine controls.
Yes and had the British had a long Runway in the Falklands in 1982, the Argies would never have been able to take the place as the British could have flown troops and equipment down there at a drop of a hat in any long range commercial transport.
@@richardvernon317 Your forgetting that the British Government didn't act on the intelligence they had on Argentine intentions. They reacted after the Argentine forces had invaded the Falkland Islands when a long runway would have allowed the Argentine Air Force to base Jets on the Island. Without air superiority the Islands could not have been retaken. The biggest mistake by Argentina was invading to early. If they had waited another year John Nott the defence minister had planned to sell or scrap the only aircraft carriers the Royal Navy had. HMS Invincible to Australia and HMS Hermes to the scrapyard. No carriers, No aircraft, No recapture of the Falkland Islands.
@@rows10 Had Britain's full sized carriers and their Phantoms not been decommissioned shortly before the Falklands conflict, the Argentinians would've probably never invaded in the first place. Other cuts included the swapping of woollen clothing in the navy for cheaper acrylic clothing- making burns much worse.
Weren't Hermes and Invincible converted cruisers?
The reason why many countries are obsess with VTOL is because during the cold war, many countries believe all the air bases run way in Europe will be hit by ICBM during the first 24 hrs of the war. The only aircraft that can still fly are the type that don't use long run way.
VTOL also means naval aviation can use far smaller and far cheaper ships to carry fixed wing aircraft.
Sure VTOL aircraft have severe disadvantage against other planes, but they are far better than having only rotorcraft or nothing at all.
That's why India, Spain and Thailand chose it, their carrier programs are far cheaper than the rest. It took quite a budget increase for India to move to Mig-29Ks.
Yutaka Go surely IRBM or other short range missiles? The other issue for the European airbases during the Cold War was that the Soviet and Warsaw Pact bombers could be over the German, Dutch, Belgian and Danish airbases (these include the British and American bases on mainland Europe) with very little warning; the British would have had a bit more warning of an air attack on their airfields.
I heard that USMC pilots rewrote the rule book on how to fly the Harrier.They introduced "viffing" and found that the Harrier was virtually impossible to shoot down in air to air combat and demonstrated it's ability to virtually turn on a dime. Semper Fi
This guy sounds like Will Forte!
No worries man...
That's is why i say the Harrier CAN NOT be replaced. It's unique, others may be replaced, like the Crusader, The Vigilante and some others... it's very complex to pick the right jets to replace bcz that leads to a mistake like the British did. They got World's best vertical takeoff close support jet and replaced it for a Vertical Fighter-Bomber but that one's not intended for giving proper close support. Gladly, the Americans didnt make the same mistake leaving the A-10, bcz it's simply unreplaceable. F-35 is an awesome & good jet but Harrier should NOT be replaced. F-35 its just the perfect couple it needs. F-14 is NOT replaceable either. Is not about only their functions, but their PERFECT performance & unique design what make them the best on their roles.