I miss the Harrier too but nostalgia doesn't win wars. The F35B is a better fighter aircraft in almost every way. Better avionics, stealth, supersonic, and greatly improved handling, range and payload. It's a worthy successor.
@@dan79600 ....and who exactly are we fighting that the harrier isnt good enough to win? What near peer are we in combat with? When was the last time we were in combat with a near peer? Korea? Or the Argentines? Im all for innovation and pushing the boundaries, but the cost !!! F35b 135 million and 300,000 per hour to run. Harrier 7b 25 million and 30,000 per hour to run. I wonder which one the aircraft companies want to make.....
@@catlee8064 The Government regularly asks the RAF to carry out operations all over the world. Air policing and surveillance over the Baltic region and the Russian NATO border, air to ground operations in Yemen against the Huthis, in Syria against ISIS, etc. All of these people have access to sophisticated air to surface weapons via Iran and Russia. The real question is how much are we willing to pay to protect the lives of service personnel who carry out these operations. I know what plane I’d rather fly on one of these missions .. and it isn’t the Harrier.
@@dan79600 "The real question is how much are we willing to pay to protect the lives of service personnel...." No one said anything when i was banging round Iraq in a snatch in 03/04.....or Afghan in a stripped down Land rover 06/08....or had my body armour taken off me to give to the infantry '03....or ran out of water and ammo so we had to beg the yanks to drop us some....or had to use black tape to repair our boots because they had none in our sizes....but god forbid we dont get the sexy new plane that the yanks say we need. Oh and the harrier was designed to be prepared for those soviet manpads....because sure as shit stinks the soviets arent giving out the best gear to some rebels in shithole countries.
@Transport272 except they're completely capable of being CATOBAR, but the government thought they'd "save" money by making it a ski jump. The maintenance and running costs of the B will probably be way higher than if they'd just gone with CATOBAR and got the C. It seems like the government left the decision of which one to pick up to some 16 year old boy who said let's get the B because it's the coolest.
@Transport272 I think TH-cam hates me. Can't seem to post a reply. Let me try again. I know the QE and PW have ski ramps, but they were designed to be able to have CATOBAR. The government decided it would "save" money by going with the ski jump and the B. I think the operating costs for the B are way more expensive than if they'd gone for Cs and got a CATOBAR. Even with the extra maintenance on the ships. The B is the slowest and has the lowest fuel and payload. It feels like the MOD got some 16 year old kid to pick the plane, and he picked the B because it was the coolest.
@@swiftnicknevison4848 According to GAO report 106217 on weapons systems sustainment, the C is the most expensive of the three to operate per hour, just a bit over the B. The C does have extra fuel and bigger internals but the space is somewhat wasted as certain 2,000lb weaponry is either too large to fit (think AIM-174) or, for the standard GPS guided bombs, there are smarter and more effective weapons like SPEAR 3, GBU-53s, that can be carried in the same amount by all three. There's a massive element of flexibility that comes with the B over the A and C however, as it doesn't rely on prepared surfaces. Aircraft are inherently tied to runways which can make things fairly restrictive with regards to where and how you plan to use them that can be exploited by adversaries. With the B, the Navy can maintain the Harrier's ability to launch from basically the jungle cover if necessary, with an aircraft giving much superior payload and sensing over it. Granted, for the British Navy I'd imagine the F-35C's range and carriage of anti-shipping weapons would be preferable but it seems the Marines have an answer for that stuff so the other B operators will likely follow suit. Sidenote: Going with the ski jump likely made things less cost efficient given the nature of political cost cutting instead of healthily funding certain things (though in this case, the original plan was ski jump and the planned costs of CATOBAR ballooned), but overall it's fair to say it's quite a bit less expensive than the CATOBAR equivalent. For reference: the Ford class costs twice as much, requires nearly 3x more personnel, and carries up to 90 aircraft vs the QE's 70-ish (probably in ferry config, expect ops to be less for each). The only other CATOBAR non-supercarrier more comparable is the Charles De Gaulle, but it's tonnage and air wing size is near equal to the Wasp/America class and even then the only real difference is how the aircraft launch and recover (side-sidenote: cat length tends to decide ship size, which decides ship cost. CDG's cat is shorter than normal which means launches are harder and more stressful on the airframes and can limit launch payload; they also can't simultaneous launch and recover like QE/LHA(D) can). Whether or not it's worth is a different argument, but in terms of straight up cost it's generally more within the pocketbook to do it this way. Now the _real_ question is, why haven't y'all taken any -As?! Also greetings from across the pond and sorry for the wall of text
![[4K] Volkel; F-35A Kicks in the Afterburner and goes almost vertical](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/W5GeRD8CWnM/mqdefault.jpg)
![ตีสิบเดย์ [FULL] | นางเอกหมอลำเงินล้าน "อุ๋งอิ๋ง เพชรบ้านแพง" & ไฮโซสาวสุดฮอต "ลิลลี่ เหงียน"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/jPxQS_EgrJ4/mqdefault.jpg)
Harrier still looked sexier.......
Agree. I remember being impressed by V/STOL displays in the '70's by Harriers, 50 years later, it's lost its 'wow' factor.
I miss the Harrier too but nostalgia doesn't win wars. The F35B is a better fighter aircraft in almost every way. Better avionics, stealth, supersonic, and greatly improved handling, range and payload. It's a worthy successor.
@@dan79600 ....and who exactly are we fighting that the harrier isnt good enough to win? What near peer are we in combat with? When was the last time we were in combat with a near peer? Korea? Or the Argentines? Im all for innovation and pushing the boundaries, but the cost !!!
F35b 135 million and 300,000 per hour to run.
Harrier 7b 25 million and 30,000 per hour to run.
I wonder which one the aircraft companies want to make.....
@@catlee8064 The Government regularly asks the RAF to carry out operations all over the world. Air policing and surveillance over the Baltic region and the Russian NATO border, air to ground operations in Yemen against the Huthis, in Syria against ISIS, etc. All of these people have access to sophisticated air to surface weapons via Iran and Russia. The real question is how much are we willing to pay to protect the lives of service personnel who carry out these operations. I know what plane I’d rather fly on one of these missions .. and it isn’t the Harrier.
@@dan79600 "The real question is how much are we willing to pay to protect the lives of service personnel...." No one said anything when i was banging round Iraq in a snatch in 03/04.....or Afghan in a stripped down Land rover 06/08....or had my body armour taken off me to give to the infantry '03....or ran out of water and ammo so we had to beg the yanks to drop us some....or had to use black tape to repair our boots because they had none in our sizes....but god forbid we dont get the sexy new plane that the yanks say we need.
Oh and the harrier was designed to be prepared for those soviet manpads....because sure as shit stinks the soviets arent giving out the best gear to some rebels in shithole countries.
Shame they melt runways if they hover any closer to the ground!
Why on earth did we go with the B?
@@swiftnicknevison4848 because the carriers the raf use don’t have catapults so the aircraft need vtol capabilities like the harrier did
@Transport272 except they're completely capable of being CATOBAR, but the government thought they'd "save" money by making it a ski jump. The maintenance and running costs of the B will probably be way higher than if they'd just gone with CATOBAR and got the C.
It seems like the government left the decision of which one to pick up to some 16 year old boy who said let's get the B because it's the coolest.
@Transport272 I think TH-cam hates me. Can't seem to post a reply.
Let me try again.
I know the QE and PW have ski ramps, but they were designed to be able to have CATOBAR. The government decided it would "save" money by going with the ski jump and the B.
I think the operating costs for the B are way more expensive than if they'd gone for Cs and got a CATOBAR. Even with the extra maintenance on the ships.
The B is the slowest and has the lowest fuel and payload.
It feels like the MOD got some 16 year old kid to pick the plane, and he picked the B because it was the coolest.
@@swiftnicknevison4848 According to GAO report 106217 on weapons systems sustainment, the C is the most expensive of the three to operate per hour, just a bit over the B. The C does have extra fuel and bigger internals but the space is somewhat wasted as certain 2,000lb weaponry is either too large to fit (think AIM-174) or, for the standard GPS guided bombs, there are smarter and more effective weapons like SPEAR 3, GBU-53s, that can be carried in the same amount by all three. There's a massive element of flexibility that comes with the B over the A and C however, as it doesn't rely on prepared surfaces. Aircraft are inherently tied to runways which can make things fairly restrictive with regards to where and how you plan to use them that can be exploited by adversaries. With the B, the Navy can maintain the Harrier's ability to launch from basically the jungle cover if necessary, with an aircraft giving much superior payload and sensing over it. Granted, for the British Navy I'd imagine the F-35C's range and carriage of anti-shipping weapons would be preferable but it seems the Marines have an answer for that stuff so the other B operators will likely follow suit.
Sidenote: Going with the ski jump likely made things less cost efficient given the nature of political cost cutting instead of healthily funding certain things (though in this case, the original plan was ski jump and the planned costs of CATOBAR ballooned), but overall it's fair to say it's quite a bit less expensive than the CATOBAR equivalent. For reference: the Ford class costs twice as much, requires nearly 3x more personnel, and carries up to 90 aircraft vs the QE's 70-ish (probably in ferry config, expect ops to be less for each). The only other CATOBAR non-supercarrier more comparable is the Charles De Gaulle, but it's tonnage and air wing size is near equal to the Wasp/America class and even then the only real difference is how the aircraft launch and recover (side-sidenote: cat length tends to decide ship size, which decides ship cost. CDG's cat is shorter than normal which means launches are harder and more stressful on the airframes and can limit launch payload; they also can't simultaneous launch and recover like QE/LHA(D) can). Whether or not it's worth is a different argument, but in terms of straight up cost it's generally more within the pocketbook to do it this way.
Now the _real_ question is, why haven't y'all taken any -As?! Also greetings from across the pond and sorry for the wall of text
@@swiftnicknevison4848It was the closest thing to a Harrier, which the UK is used to.
You mean they actually got one airborne ?
yeah it flew in form Midenhall and did a display which was over six minutes
Why wouldn't they