RIP Harrier Jump Jet

[anna]

Another truly remarkable example of fine British engineering about to be sold on.

Ironically enough was first developed due to financial cut backs that saw the end of its predecessors (aircraft carriers).

A sad ending for such a fine piece of craftmanship.

[Ed]

Watched it on the news - very sad day.

I wonder whether Argentina might be interested in buying them:confused:

[andrewsmith]

Just seen the ceremony on News24

Sad sad day!! Bets on Argentina tried to invade in 2011 :p

[Treacle]

Such a sad sad day. And such a bloody short sighted decision.:smt092

[Fruity-ya-ya]

It seems our government are under all sorts of euro pressure, however this just seems wrong.
Well, maybe the car share scheme could apply to the euro-fighters?

[Wideboy]

the Falklands wont be invaded they will be handed over

government = thick ********s

[Quiff Wichard]

end of an era ..

remember seeing one when I was a kid at woodford air show.. WOW veretical take off. was like something from the movies..

and now they kicking loads of the clever folk that built them and others out of their jobs.. .. aghhhhh

[maviczap]

and now they kicking loads of the clever folk that built them and others out of their jobs.. .. aghhhhh

They maybe saving money in the sort term, but there'll be a big price to pay long term

[dizzyblonde]

I can remember one turn up on Blackpool beach when I was little, nose to beach, side by side with the tower......then it just kinda reversed or something and buggered orf!

Amazin!

[sv4me]

I was under the impression that they were being scrapped as the costs to maintain were so much higher than more modern designs.

But having read this (http://www.key.aero/view_feature.asp?ID=3&thisSection=military) i'm not so sure now :confused: I would have thought the advanatages the harrier has over other jet fighters makes it worth keeping. Does this mean 1 will be going cheap on eBay? :cool:

[Ian P]

what country has aircraft carriers but no aircrafts to put on them? oh well. wasnt that long ago we lost the Phantom (what a jet that was)

[Treacle]

And don't even get me started on the TSR-2! Grrrrrrrrrr!!!!!!!

[beabert]

Slow sums up the harrier jump jet in one word, if there is no replacemnt it is a stupid move cancelling early, but if there is; im glad to see the back of them.

[gruntygiggles]

I am so genuinely gutted about this. I avoided the news all day yesterday as I knew I would get upset seeing the reports. Ended up seeing it at my mum and dads house last night and yep, I got upset. It's my favourite plane, always has been. I have scars on my face from watching them at airshows as a kid and because my sister didn't like the noise, my dad would take me right up to the front, sit me on his shoulders and we'd watch the displays together.

Part of me actually hopes that this decision comes back and bites our government in the rrrse to teach them a lesson (so long as it means no occupation and no-one getting hurt). Long term, the harrier is much more cost effective, but no government cares about the long term...they care about what savings they can make when they are in office.

A very very sad time :-(

[Jimmy2Feet]

I get why they are getting rid of them, and to be honest i support the decision. They are an old design, 1969, a great design i may also add, well before there time. and for any aircraft to have lasted that long just goes to show how good they actually were.

However technology moves on, and they are no comparison to modern jets, i.e the joint strike fighter. the harrier may have done us proud over the last 40 years but so did the spitfire. that was also a sad day to see it go i am sure (obviously i don't remember first hand) but we couldn't carry on using them as times change.

HOWEVER.......what i don't get is why they are getting rid of them with nothing to replace for the next 10 years as i understand it!!!.. i am no expert on the situation at all, however my understanding is that all we have is a couple of euro fighters to defend us. not a problem as i really don't think in todays world that we will be invaded, however what we do need to aircraft to be able to launch from our carriers!!! so we can launch from sea if needed! though whole situation is a little backward, understandable in the long term, but backward non the less!!

[gruntygiggles]

I get why they are getting rid of them, and to be honest i support the decision. They are an old design, 1969, a great design i may also add, well before there time. and for any aircraft to have lasted that long just goes to show how good they actually were.

However technology moves on, and they are no comparison to modern jets, i.e the joint strike fighter. the harrier may have done us proud over the last 40 years but so did the spitfire. that was also a sad day to see it go i am sure (obviously i don't remember first hand) but we couldn't carry on using them as times change.

HOWEVER.......what i don't get is why they are getting rid of them with nothing to replace for the next 10 years as i understand it!!!.. i am no expert on the situation at all, however my understanding is that all we have is a couple of euro fighters to defend us. not a problem as i really don't think in todays world that we will be invaded, however what we do need to aircraft to be able to launch from our carriers!!! so we can launch from sea if needed! though whole situation is a little backward, understandable in the long term, but backward non the less!!

It's very easy to get stuck on the whole "40 years old" point, but it is invalid.

The Harriers that are in service now were brought out in the late 80's and also, more recently, all harriers have been put through upgrades. I think there were two levels of upgrade. There were massive plans put in place to support continuing upgrades through to 2018 and they would have been serviceable long beyond that time.


There are many many things that we still use today, hardly changed from designs that are much more than 40 years old.

Of course, I am biased ;-)

[maviczap]

Name me another aircraft that has vertical take off and landing capability?

What aircraft is capable of take off and landing on our aircraft carrier

It maybe old & (relatively) slow, but it has attributes that make it useful in many fields of combat

Which is why defence chiefs were so against it going early

[andrewsmith]

It's very easy to get stuck on the whole "40 years old" point, but it is invalid.

The Harriers that are in service now were brought out in the late 80's and also, more recently, all harriers have been put through upgrades. I think there were two levels of upgrade. There were massive plans put in place to support continuing upgrades through to 2018 and they would have been serviceable long beyond that time.


There are many many things that we still use today, hardly changed from designs that are much more than 40 years old.

Of course, I am biased ;-)

Its the right decision but 10 years + too early. The killing off of the Harriers and the Ark Royal has been done as cost cutting that leaves the UK with compromised defences (on Sea based air deterrent). The Ark royal was built to last 40 years plus and British Built (well Geordie Built).

GG's right there is a lot of automotive designs still in production (Chevvy V8 has hardly changed in its existence, neither the LD defender basic design). Could go on and on

[gruntygiggles]

Its the right decision but 10 years + too early. The killing off of the Harriers and the Ark Royal has been done as cost cutting that leaves the UK with compromised defences (on Sea based air deterrent). The Ark royal was built to last 40 years plus and British Built (well Geordie Built).

GG's right there is a lot of automotive designs still in production (Chevvy V8 has hardly changed in its existence, neither the LD defender basic design). Could go on and on

Yep...if this was happening as planned in 2018, I would be sad but not annoyed.

[Jimmy2Feet]

It's very easy to get stuck on the whole "40 years old" point, but it is invalid.

The Harriers that are in service now were brought out in the late 80's and also, more recently, all harriers have been put through upgrades. I think there were two levels of upgrade. There were massive plans put in place to support continuing upgrades through to 2018 and they would have been serviceable long beyond that time.


There are many many things that we still use today, hardly changed from designs that are much more than 40 years old.

Of course, I am biased ;-)

I understand that, and i am not saying that it is a bad design, infact quite the oposit, it is a freat design, but it is now dated. newer technology completly outdoes the harrier.


Its the right decision but 10 years + too early. The killing off of the Harriers and the Ark Royal has been done as cost cutting that leaves the UK with compromised defences (on Sea based air deterrent). The Ark royal was built to last 40 years plus and British Built (well Geordie Built).

GG's right there is a lot of automotive designs still in production (Chevvy V8 has hardly changed in its existence, neither the LD defender basic design). Could go on and on

This is the point that i am making, it is time for change, but not for another 10 years, or how ever long it takes to get the f35 over to us and up and running.

Name me another aircraft that has vertical take off and landing capability?

What aircraft is capable of take off and landing on our aircraft carrier

It maybe old & (relatively) slow, but it has attributes that make it useful in many fields of combat

Which is why defence chiefs were so against it going early

the F35 (i.e the joint strike fighter) to all the above, it also has a top end speed of mach 1.6, stealth ability, plus much more i am sure. that along side the euro fighter i think will be a great combo.

However they should have kept the arch royal and the harriers until the new carriers and the f.35's are build and available to us!!

Simples!

[Supervox]

A totally ridiculous decision :-(

For those who may be interested, HERE (http://fightercontrol.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=23799) are some stunning pics of the Harrier flying - taken only a couple of days ago - so these may be the last 'public' pics of this incredible machine.

Treacle - especially for you HERE (http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.stevebroadbent.net/images/TSR-2%2520219%2520transit%2520flight%2520lo.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.stevebroadbent.net/tsr2memories.html&usg=__XrGbN6osogXeCuxMa88u03ybpeA=&h=298&w=591&sz=18&hl=en&start=1&zoom=1&tbnid=wURFFOf46KCKCM:&tbnh=68&tbnw=135&prev=/images%3Fq%3DTSR%2B2%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%2 6tbs%3Disch:1&um=1&itbs=1)

[gruntygiggles]

A totally ridiculous decision :-(

For those who may be interested, HERE (http://fightercontrol.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=23799) are some stunning pics of the Harrier flying - taken only a couple of days ago - so these may be the last 'public' pics of this incredible machine.

Treacle - especially for you HERE (http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.stevebroadbent.net/images/TSR-2%2520219%2520transit%2520flight%2520lo.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.stevebroadbent.net/tsr2memories.html&usg=__XrGbN6osogXeCuxMa88u03ybpeA=&h=298&w=591&sz=18&hl=en&start=1&zoom=1&tbnid=wURFFOf46KCKCM:&tbnh=68&tbnw=135&prev=/images%3Fq%3DTSR%2B2%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%2 6tbs%3Disch:1&um=1&itbs=1)

Well, that's had me properly tearing up here again...thank goodness I don't work in an office! This plane, along with the Vulcan is like my childhood with my dad all wrapped up!

I'm taking him to S. Africa for a flight in a Lightning next year (when it's flying again) and that's his favourite. I truly cannot wait!

[Jimmy2Feet]

A totally ridiculous decision :-(

For those who may be interested, HERE (http://fightercontrol.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=23799) are some stunning pics of the Harrier flying - taken only a couple of days ago - so these may be the last 'public' pics of this incredible machine.

Treacle - especially for you HERE (http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.stevebroadbent.net/images/TSR-2%2520219%2520transit%2520flight%2520lo.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.stevebroadbent.net/tsr2memories.html&usg=__XrGbN6osogXeCuxMa88u03ybpeA=&h=298&w=591&sz=18&hl=en&start=1&zoom=1&tbnid=wURFFOf46KCKCM:&tbnh=68&tbnw=135&prev=/images%3Fq%3DTSR%2B2%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%2 6tbs%3Disch:1&um=1&itbs=1)

Stunning pics, Cant take away that its a great looking machine!

[Bri w]

The Harrier out of date?

So where is an aircraft that covers the same capabilities? No doubt other are quicker, and carry a bigger payload but can they take off from your back garden?

Just coz its 40 odd years old doesn't mean its past its sell by date.

I was originally designed many thousands of year ago. And in the current varient, built in 1958. Since that date I've undergone a number of changes, most recently being the ability to carry a bigger payload internally. Hairodynamics continue to be streamlined, and are undergoing a colour change. Sadly both sonar and radar appear to be failing although Specsavers have gone some way to maintaining the radar, and Johnson's cottonbuds are used with limited success on the sonar.

And finally, I'd like to think I'll still be in service in 2040 but you never quite know when the scrapman will call.

[gruntygiggles]

The Harrier out of date?

So where is an aircraft that covers the same capabilities? No doubt other are quicker, and carry a bigger payload but can they take off from your back garden?

Just coz its 40 odd years old doesn't mean its past its sell by date.

I was originally designed many thousands of year ago. And in the current varient, built in 1958. Since that date I've undergone a number of changes, most recently being the ability to carry a bigger payload internally. Hairodynamics continue to be streamlined, and are undergoing a colour change. Sadly both sonar and radar appear to be failing although Specsavers have gone some way to maintaining the radar, and Johnson's cottonbuds are used with limited success on the sonar.

And finally, I'd like to think I'll still be in service in 2040 but you never quite know when the scrapman will call.

I just love that whole post! :-)

[andrewsmith]

The Harrier out of date?

So where is an aircraft that covers the same capabilities? No doubt other are quicker, and carry a bigger payload but can they take off from your back garden?

Just coz its 40 odd years old doesn't mean its past its sell by date.

I was originally designed many thousands of year ago. And in the current varient, built in 1958. Since that date I've undergone a number of changes, most recently being the ability to carry a bigger payload internally. Hairodynamics continue to be streamlined, and are undergoing a colour change. Sadly both sonar and radar appear to be failing although Specsavers have gone some way to maintaining the radar, and Johnson's cottonbuds are used with limited success on the sonar.

And finally, I'd like to think I'll still be in service in 2040 but you never quite know when the scrapman will call.

:winner:
Haha u've cheered me up bri

[metalangel]

the F35 (i.e the joint strike fighter) to all the above, it also has a top end speed of mach 1.6, stealth ability, plus much more i am sure. that along side the euro fighter i think will be a great combo.

However they should have kept the arch royal and the harriers until the new carriers and the f.35's are build and available to us!!

Simples!

The F-35C which the UK is now getting is NOT VSTOL. The order was previously for the F-35B which functions much like a Harrier. There's not much need for air superiority (as per the EuroFighter) in current wars, the Taliban doesn't have a force of MiG-29s to send against us. Strike aircraft like the F-35 and Rafale are much more useful.

Also, the Ark Royal has two sister ships, one of which is still in active service as I understand it.

[Bri w]

The Harrier out of date?

So where is an aircraft that covers the same capabilities? No doubt other are quicker, and carry a bigger payload but can they take off from your back garden?

Just coz its 40 odd years old doesn't mean its past its sell by date.

I was originally designed many thousands of year ago. And in the current varient, built in 1958. Since that date I've undergone a number of changes, most recently being the ability to carry a bigger payload internally. Hairodynamics continue to be streamlined, and are undergoing a colour change. Sadly both sonar and radar appear to be failing although Specsavers have gone some way to maintaining the radar, and Johnson's cottonbuds are used with limited success on the sonar.

And finally, I'd like to think I'll still be in service in 2040 but you never quite know when the scrapman will call.

I just love that whole post! :-)

:winner:
Haha u've cheered me up bri

I thang you. we're here all week

[-Ralph-]

If the Harrier is 40 years old, then the Porsche 911 is 46 years old. S**t compared to modern sportscars those 911's aren't they ;-)

[davepreston]

The F-35C which the UK is now getting is NOT VSTOL. The order was previously for the F-35B which functions much like a Harrier. There's not much need for air superiority (as per the EuroFighter) in current wars, the Taliban doesn't have a force of MiG-29s to send against us. Strike aircraft like the F-35 and Rafale are much more useful.

Also, the Ark Royal has two sister ships, one of which is still in active service as I understand it.
the f 35 series is a good peice of kit (i know we build them here) but it wont be rolled out for ages , and the harrier was not used for air superiority it was used as a ground assalt aircraft to assist troops on the ground. which it did a cracking job at, now we are using the euro fighter to do all roles ,which it can do but not up to the same standard as the harrier (again euro fighter is good kit also built here)
now if we had more apachies to fill the ground assistance role the mothballing would make sence, but alas we dont ,so in real terms we have lost (guestamation) about 20% combat effectiveness when it come to air ground operations
should have waited till the f35 was live

imho

[Richie]

until they build a vertical take of and landing aircraft fuel tanker and cargo plane then they will always need runways....
since they always need runways then the VTOL was distend for other things.. (Navy)

Beautiful aircraft, and I will miss it as it save my bacon in Bosnia. Op Grapple 3

[davepreston]

Beautiful aircraft, and I will miss it as it save my bacon in Bosnia. Op Grapple 3
fecking brillcream boys we nearly had ya that time too

[Jimmy2Feet]

The F-35C which the UK is now getting is NOT VSTOL. The order was previously for the F-35B which functions much like a Harrier. There's not much need for air superiority (as per the EuroFighter) in current wars, the Taliban doesn't have a force of MiG-29s to send against us. Strike aircraft like the F-35 and Rafale are much more useful.

Also, the Ark Royal has two sister ships, one of which is still in active service as I understand it.

My understanding was that the C was, the B had been adapted for short takeoff's and the A was conventional. but again i could be wrong.

The inportant thing here IMO is that we all agree that they shouldn't have been scrapped yet. and as for them being scrapped at all.....well i think we need to agree to dissagree.

I know this is going to cause some strong words from some people......and for the record i dont agree with it, i am just saying what i think is going through whitehalls minds.......being that we are now taking part in all (known) current conflicts, and all (known) future conflicts as part of ISAF we have access to other countrys resources......mainly USAF when it comes to aircraft, and there is no arguement against the fact that they have the machines to cover all bases.....they may sometimes lack the ability or will to support us......But i am sure that was a factor when you look at how much money has just been saved by cutting back in the way they/we have!

[STRAMASHER]

Last Harrier fly past over the Houses Of Parliament.

"You need to squint a bit to see what the boys are saying."

http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g87/stramasher/harriers.jpg

[SoulKiss]

Last Harrier fly past over the Houses Of Parliament.

"You need to squint a bit to see what the boys are saying."

IMAGE DELETED

Above post will look a LOT like this in 10...9...8...7...

[speedplay]

Last Harrier fly past over the Houses Of Parliament.

"You need to squint a bit to see what the boys are saying."

http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g87/stramasher/harriers.jpg


Nice :)

[andrewsmith]

Last Harrier fly past over the Houses Of Parliament.

"You need to squint a bit to see what the boys are saying."

http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g87/stramasher/harriers.jpg

:thumright:=D>=D>

Bravo!!!

[Supervox]

If anyone's really interested in preserving one of these for posterity - then take a look HERE (http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/WOW-EX-RAF-4-SQN-Harrier-Jump-Jet-Aircraft-XW269-RARE-/130482517099?pt=UK_CPV_Aviation_SM&hash=item1e615d346b)

[yorkie_chris]

Just up the road from me that :)