I concur!!! Just a badass ...on the lines of the A10...each completely different with BADASS in common👍👍👍

Yak from the USSR.

​@@peterlamin8363 Технологию ссср украли, но довести до ума не сумели.

@@peterlamin8363 In the English language Yak means to throw up🤮. Perfect word for that worthless piece of junk.

@@peterlamin8363 Forger came along after the Harrier.

Ye the harrier is pretty cool

Rubbish, it only flies normally. Never once did they use differential thrust

@@teeanahera8949 Incorrect. One SHAR pilot attempted to VIFF to down a Pucara which proved to be unsuccessful. Unlike the Marine Corps, VIFFing was not an operational tactic employed by the Brits.

Its british.

@@Steelstofzuigerand?

​@@Steelstofzuiger Yea that was mentioned in the video.

I was on the USS Wasp during Desert Storm. We had TWO squadrons onboard. It was amazing when they took off 4 or 5 at a time, back to back to back - with each next plane using the thrust from the plane in front of it for extra lift while loaded down with rockets, missiles, bombs, and drop tanks.....

Incorrect. One Mirage IIIEA of FAA Grupo 8 was downed and one was damaged by sidewinders fired by SHARs from 801 squadron on 1 May 1982. The damaged one was then shot down over Stanley by Argie AAA killing the pilot. The Argies chose to steer clear of the SHARs after that.

Aye Richard, Americans have a huge, pathological aversion to giving credit where it's due. But this 73 yr old Geordie will always remember it as the beautiful Harrier "jump-jet".

@@brianwood7480 👏

Live everything else Europe does got a huge upgrade in the United States.

Yes, skipped the part that this amazing aircraft was birthed by the RAF's British Aerospace, the Hawker Siddely.

@@brianwood7480 Brits have a pathological aversion in admitting that were it not for the US taxpayer providing substantial funding via the MWDP that the Pegasus/Kestrel/Harrier never would have made it past the drafting table thanks to Duncan Sandys and the MoD refusing to fund it.

Not the first. The first one is russian's yak-38.

​@@bambangm7606The Harrier first flew in 1967, the Yak-38 in 1971.

@@bambangm7606 Incorrect.

What abaut f35

Як- 36 взлетел в 1964 году. Як38 в 1970. Харриер в 1966. Благодаря хорошему двигателю Харриер был лучше.

The AIM-9L made the difference thanks to Ronald Reagan and Caspar Weinberger.

NO, it done!

The F35 made this thing a relic.

It did and is called a F35

Just watched it yesterday for 2 scenes. 1 was with the Harrier and the other was....🤔😍😍😂😂🤣

​@@skizztrizz4453 Are you referring to the famous actress Jamie Leigh Curtis? Daughter of Tony Curtis and Janet Leigh who was born a boy with deformed genitalia and was surgically altered as a child and raised with estrogen treatments as a girl? Seriously, that boyish like face of hers never struck you as odd? Look it up, all of her and Christopher Guest's children are all adopted, and now you know why.

@@skizztrizz4453 cool 👍

Incorrect

Pepsi had a contest years ago to give one away, if I remember correctly it was around the time the Harrier was made famous in the Arnold Swartzennegger movie True Lies. They thought no one would be able to meet the next to impossible criteria to win the contest and when some guy did and they reneged on the deal there was a big stink over it, since they teased Pepsi in the thumbnail they really should have explained that in the video. There's a documentary about it on Netflix called Hey Pepsi, Where's My Plane?

He said near supersonic...

Mach One can be exceeded with the aircraft clean and in a dive.

Going supersonic would require them to make it use afterburner witch they couldn't put in it; Hence the f35.

@@linussandell831 you don't need an afterburner to go supersonic you just need sufficient thrust. the pegasus engine had the thrust output to supercruise but not the cowling to slow the air down to subsonic speeds for the engine. a design to fix this problem was made by Hawker and SIddley and called the P1154. it was not considered by the RAF or royal navy and instead the F4 phantom was chosen.

​@@biddinge8898 Yes it's true that you don't need afterburner to go supersonic, but to achieve supercruise you need a really heavy engine, and the only way that was going to work in it's current role to do VTOL operation was to install a afterburner, which they did. Development originally started under P.1150, which was essentially a larger and faster version of the basic layout and technology being developed by the smaller subsonic Hawker Siddeley P.1127/Kestrel. A key difference of this design was the addition of plenum chamber burning, essentially an afterburner-like arrangement in the thrusters used during hover, greatly increasing their thrust. - Wikipedia. The thing about the harrier that made it so great is that they managed to put a great engine in it with 22 thousand pounds of thrust (Harrier II) while keeping it light, this is what made it possible in the first place. Making the engine bigger just makes it heavier thus removing the benefit from it, and would require use of afterburner while hovering. There was no need for such designs at the time because of technology back then, hence why they went with the Phantom instead. In today's day and age where such feats do serve a purpose in the battlefield showcased by the harrier is why we now have the F-35 WITH afterburner. I do appreciate all your points, have a good day :)

@@biddinge8898 "you don't need an afterburner to go supersonic you just need sufficient thrust. "(sic) The engine that was proposed for the P.1154 - the BS.100 - would have used PCB - Plenum Chamber Burning - so yes, some sort of burner/reheat is required.

@AA I'm aware of Supercruise the main thing I was talking about was the intake which was the main reason why the harrier couldn't go supersonic.

I was stationed with a Harrier squadron for 10 years. They used no more fuel during a hover, than they did in forward flight. They did however have a 50 gallon water tank filled with demineralized water behind the rear nozzles. Water was injected into the combustion chamber to help keep the engine cool during hover.

@@bobbiejb56 Semper Fi, Devil Dog. I was at MCAS Cherry Point, NC in the Harrier Group there (ie: MAG-32). Both MAG-32 and MAG-14 made up the 2nd MAW (along with 3rd LAAMB and various Wing support and command units).....

Please tell us. Thanks

I do, I remember the contest they had to win one, and then they reneged on the deal and the guy who'd won raised all kinds of hell over it. There's a documentary on Netflix about it called Hey Pepsi, Where's My Plane?

Dang another backlash to Pepsi after the 349 scandal.

clickbait

They had a contest years ago to win one that they thought no one could possibly win, then when some guy came forward who'd actually met the criteria by having enough proofs of purchases or whatever it was that was needed to win they reneged on the deal and there was a big stink over it. There's a documentary on Netflix about it called Hey Pepsi, Where's My Plane?

But useless, just waste it !

The Yakovlev performed just as well as the Soviet Concord ! A foot note in history boox

You do understand that in English the word Yak means to throw up don't you?

Incorrect

Not quite.....

The Harrier II was abandoned by the Brits from 1975-1981. The UK returned only after McDonnell Douglas had completed the overwhelming amount of work on the redesign and Thatcher had become PM.

@@AA-xo9uw Also the British design was known for crashing all the time which the American design eliminated almost entirely.

Didn't know that, knew it was British but I never knew the same guy designed it. That's interesting.

Sydney Camm led the design team for the Kestrel predecessor of the Harrier. Dying in March of 1966, he didn't design the Harrier by himself and he played no role in the design of the subject aircraft, the McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II.

The AV-8B wasn't license built by McDonnell Douglas. The Brits got thrown a bone for what amounted to a minority amount of work on the Harrier II.

Isn't one shown during the part where he talks about the Falkland campaign? That one sure looks like the original nose they had.

The McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II isn't British "bro" and without the substantial funding provided by the US taxpayer via the MWDP and the technical assistance provided by the United States, France and Germany the Kestrel/Pegasus/Harrier never would have made it past the drafting table, "bro".

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

They still fly at MCAS Cherry Point, NC......

Incorrect

Well yea, the Harrier is indeed a british invention, but the AV-8 designation is the one made in the USA, but since the AV-8B variant is the most known for being the latest one on the operating USA, people who dont study aviation basically think its the only harrier out there.

You mean the guy with the British accent who clearly says it was originally in British service along with seeing it flying in British markings? Is there any of you guys over there who won't carry on like a little bawl baby over your own mispercieved slights? The whole world has known forever that the Harrier was invented in England, Jesus Christ these comments are full of so many of you children carrying on about it. Go talk to the guy with the British accent in this video about your insecurities, the guy never "says it like it was invented in America", he even clearly says "and then it came to America", how do you get from that anyone implied it was invented in America? Get over your diaper rash you guys have over something non existent.

Nope, AV-8 is already US made and refitted with armaments and possibly replaced the original Rolls Royce turbofan engine. The original was by the British Aerospace's Hawker Siddely Harrier.

The McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II - subject of the post - isn't British.

Incorrect

😂😂

pogue

The real war crimes are these "Islamists" habitually using civilians as "human shields". Note that I mentioned "Islamists" - not to be confused with real Muslims......

This is nowhere near a Yak. The Harrier came well before the Yak was even a thought - though the Yak is/was part of the foundation for the F-35 (but the Yak is much less able or practical).....

Technically no , but the yakovlev was useless in war ! It couldn't carry ordinance etc. It's the same thing with the Soviet "concord " (Ty 154) It was the first Fts passenger plane, but it was so far behind the real thing that it was not worth mentioning

The Forgery wasn't first.

Saddam Hussein and other "Muslim" "Islamists" are notorious for using civilians as "human shields". That's where most of the civilian casualties have come from - not on purpose at all......

Incorrect

The McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II isn't British.