@boricuaboy24 Rather depends how's flying it and what its fighting against. The Sea Harrier FRS1 won every single one of its dogfights in the Falklands War, against faster and more agile Mirage IIIs.
@bryUK british knew how to use their harriers. argentine air force pretty much loaded its planes with anti-ship missiles. while harriers specificly where armed with anti-air weapons. allso british had trained for this sort of stuff for years.
@gethsoftware Few corrections.The RN hadn't trained its pilots for that kind of thing for years. Their expected role, as part of NATO, was little more than day time interception of Soviet Tu-95's scouting for NATO fleets. SHARs also carried mixed loads, as they were used for both air to air and air to ground. They didn't have enough pylons to carry external fuel tanks + Sidewinders + Bombs/Rockets.
@gethsoftware Finally, the Argentine Mirage III's were dedicated to air to air operations. However, after the first few encounters all resulted in losses, they were ordered to avoid the SHAR at all costs. In hind sight, a big mistake given the numerical difference.
The only jet they had which could carry anti-ship missiles (Exocet) was the Super Etandard). Mirage V's, A-4's and Pucara's were typically dedicated to air to ground operations with conventional bombs, rockets and guns.
vertical take off and landing, a british invention, shared with the americans as the harrier, partnered in the develpment of the next generation F-35. It makes you proud to be friends doesn't it?
There was this old combat flight sim WWII. I played every plane, but the one i got the most kills with was a freaking Sopwith Camel! Though wounded, she stayed in the air and i managed to see my internet (90's) foes coming at me. I shot down 14 planes much more capable than my own and mine was critically wounded. Just goes to prove your plane does not improve the pilot. But your pilot can improve the plane.
@akaterr I suppose that depends what you intend to be doing. In Air to Air combat, the Harrier is one of only two jets that has a 100% kill rate with no losses. The other is the F-15.
In context, 5 Harriers were lost to ground fire in the Falklands War and none in air to air combat.
By comparison 12 Mirages were shot down (10 by Sea Harriers) and 22 A-4 Skyhawks were shot down (8 by Sea Harriers).
@akaterr Its a bit of a myth that the Harrier has a large heat signature. Truth is, the thrust is divided amongst 4 nozzles rather than one or two, giving it an overall lower heat signature compared to other jets.
Their position also means that the wing can mask the nozzles, making engaging them from behind and above more difficult.
@keoism Not really. The plan was for it to be retired once the F-35 was operational to replace it, but that is still years away from happening (2016 is the earliest service entry date at the moment)
The reason it was retired from British service almost a year ago now, 6 years before the F-35 will be ready, was to save money, while maintaining the Tornado fleet.
@sooupdragon dogfights are mile-high flights. this is only good for hovering low altitude. thus, this is not "unbeatable" in a dogfight. F-22 is what you're looking for.
@schm147 Dogfights can occur at any altitude, and there is no such thing as an unbeatable aircraft, especially in a dogfight. There are some famous HUD images of an F-22A that was caught in the gunsights of a US Navy F/A-18E during a mock dogfight.
With the development of Helmet Mounted sights and off-boresight super agile missiles, just about any suitably equipped fighter has the capacity to win a dogfight.
@sooupdragon You're living in a bit of a dream world and, more than anything, don't know much about the actual characteristics of the Harrier in Air Combat. Hovering is not used in that way.
The only two things that are unique to the Harrier are VIFFing and a little known trick of lowered the nozzles about 20 degrees which enables the RCS valves.
It can do some neat tricks, but in an actual turning fight, the Harrier is only capable of about 7/8g.
@sooupdragon You're living in a bit of a dream world and, more than anything, don't know much about the actual characteristics of the Harrier in Air Combat. Hovering is not used in that way.
The only two things that are unique to the Harrier are VIFFing and a little known trick of lowered the nozzles about 20 degrees which enables the RCS valves.
It can do some neat tricks, but in an actual turning fight, the Harrier is only capable of about 7/8g.
@sooupdragon Of all the kills the Sea Harrier claimed in the Falklands War, every single one of them was achieved through conventional flight. The nozzles were never used in real combat.
@sooupdragon No, but the fact of the matter is that its not part of any doctrine. Hovering is not an option. Aside from the fuel and payload issues, it would be a sitting duck.
VIFFing is, like the Cobra, considered a last ditch desperation manoeuvre with a questionable value in the real world. It is generally not encouraged because of the stress it places on the airframe, especially the wings, if high throttle settings are used.
I love the Harrier, but I'm not ignorant to its limitations.
@MrCanSpank whats that date ? and also no it was my favorite jet when back in like 2002 when i was like 5 or somthing but its still my favorite but the a10 warthog is real close
AAwwww what a let down... I spent my entire life thinking they used complicated engineering to somehow output different thrust to each of the nozzles to control the pitch and other stuff... they just added thrusters... fu$"ing lazy asses, they made it the same way I'd make it in garry's mod xD
@AtomicFreerun They didn't though, and they certainly all tried. The Russian's came closest with the Yak-38, but it was significantly less capable than the Harrier. As for the American's, rather than try to design and build an alternative, they just bought Harriers instead.
@DONTdoSMACK Its true. Its patented by Lockheed-Martin as was the basics of the initial idea, but it was developed into a functional product by Rolls-Royce. Its official, full title is the "Rolls-Royce Lift System".
@bryUK The engine is a small part of work compared to the work Lockheed put into design. Lockheed-Martin could have easily made another engine for a lift system. But why do that when you can buy the one that has worked so far at a cheaper price? Also, the engines in the Harrier and F-35 are two very different engines.
@DONTdoSMACK Erm, I never said they had the same engine. In fact, the engine is a completely different matter all together. The F-35's engine, the F315, is completely designed and built by Pratt & Whitney, and American company and a development of the F-22A's F-119 engine. Lockheed-Martin don't make engines.
The Lift System in the F-35 is not an engine in its own right and has nothing in common with the Harrier's Pegasus engine. However, Rolls Royce were given the job because of their experience
@stig781 No. The F135 is completely down to Pratt & Whitney. The alternative engine for the F-35, the F136, is a joint project between General Electric and Rolls-Royce.
With the UK changing its order from the STOVL F-35B to the CATOBAR F-35C (no Rolls-Royce Lift Fan) and question marks of the F136 ever being finished and entering service, at this point, its entirely possible that Rolls-Royce will be completely uninvolved in the UK's F-35's, and yet they will be in the USMC's F-35B's.
@Irnwkr28 A lot of the parts come from different countries, especially the Boeing airliners, but not so much from China. More like Canada, the UK, Italy and Japan.
Wrong, no parts are mad in China. It's a joint project between Boeing, KAI (korean aerospace), BAE, Canadian Government + companies, and of course the USAF.
It is great, but its getting old now and very unpractical for the air-force, no air force would retire a great aircraft, if its being retired its being retired for a good reason. The F-35 isnt bad at all. Its actually a great aircraft. I dont know why you think its a horrible plane that will bomb its own troops.
@galatasarayfan67 That's not quite the full story. The RAF didn't retire it because they wanted to, its because they have no choice. Their budget has been slashed by the current Government and they had to retire an aircraft from their fleet. They wanted to keep the Tornado, and in order to do that, the Harrier had to be sacrificed.
Seeing it is from the 60s design Im sure it was retired because it was getting old. But, technically, they still retired the Harrier over the Tornado because the Tornado was more likely superior for them.
@galatasarayfan67 They had just finished spending millions upgrading the Harrier. There were formal protests from many in the military. Given the choice, they would have kept both the Harrier and the Tornado, but they simply did not have that choice. Right now, retiring the Harrier is already coming home to roost as Tornados are having to fly from Italy to Libya, rather than Harriers from Carriers in the Med.
@punditkitchenfailure I'd love to see an F-15 go against an F-22, too, as that'd be the first combat the F-22 would have seen. I don't deny or doubt that the Raptor is a superior aircraft, but being good on the drawing board means nothing in a combat situation. In terms of combat history, the F-15 has been infinitely more valuable than the F-22 likely ever will be.
As to the Russian planes...yeah, those things are purchased by countries that can't make their own planes and can't afford US stuff
What did the pilots do with F-15E in Libya??Crashed by itself?? Bad for American market: Can not sell Jet like F-15 to other countries because they afraid to have same problems with USA. Russian are very happy about this case because more customers look for their SUKHOI than US Jet! Poor things! Bad for US 's market!
@CharlieDoan Any plane can suffer a mechanical failure. The F-15 has had no problems selling to the likes of Japan, Israel, South Korea and Saudi Arabia. The thing is, the F-15 now finds itself going up against the likes of the Rafale, Typhoon, F-35 and the advanced versions of the MiG-29 and Su-27. Its nothing to do with 'problems', its simply an ageing airframe that is having to compete with brand new ones that use cutting edge technology.
@CharlieDoan dude you fail. F-15 is a quite old jet plane constructed in the late 70s and even the F-15E "Strike Eagle" is an oldtimer compared to the F-35, F-22, Dassault Rafale and Eurofighter Typhoon. So I guess your russian planes can mess with F-15s but I would love to see one of your planes come up against a F-22 "Raptor"... Guess you wouldn't even see him before your smithereens go elsewhere... And honestly I don't know any big country that buys russian planes btw...
Horrible yankee aircraft like the F35 that you obviously buy and are not doing any better than to be talking like you are and putting down in that fashion as if you and your 'people' do any better. That's right, only Americans are known to kill civs. Nobody else did. All innocent. Arrogant punks. Why not look in the mirror about what you did in YOUR past before you throw stones. And as for that yankee F35....build one better chap before you run your mouth. Enough said "mate".
@Sanojei it's not a case of building one better, the harrier is better. Yes it's old, but we've been flying the thing since the 60s sweetheart, it's in our blood, our heritage. That plastic yank jet is going to take off, have a computer take over at the controls so you can sit back and have a fucking cinnabon. It's then going to recognise our own troops as targets and bomb them. Enough said "mate". Cheeky little fuck.
Stuart, take a little pride. Those computers that fly the F-35 are British designed. We developed the software in our very own VAAC Harrier. 35% of the F-35's fuselage are built by British Aerospace and all UK F-35's will be assembled in Britain. If you didn't know, the Harrier II which we just retired is also a 'yankee jet'. The RAF retired its last true British Harriers over 15 years ago.
@Afrocanuk An actual conversion, no. It would be more like building an entirely new engine. The concept actually existed in the 60's though with the Bristol Siddeley BS100, the afterburning successor to the Pegasus that was intended to power the P.1154.
The layout was tested in a Harrier configuration (P.1127) but it looked quite ridiculous with the massive front nozzles.
@cozstuart i think they should be put back into service and revamped with new tech, but i would go as far to say the f35 is crap. an bomb ur own troops? a dumb pilot would put his troops at risk......
@lb8068 Its a powerful engine, but that hasn't really been converted into speed. The F-35 can reach Mach 1.8, but it has not been designed to 'super cruise' like the F-22.
The F-35 is indeed faster than the Harrier, it can go supersonic in level flight, whereas the Harrier could only exceed the speed of sound in a dive. But this is more to do with the shape than engine power. The Harrier was never designed to be supersonic.
The Harrier II actually has a higher thrust/weight ratio than the F35
@bryUK agreed. the Harrier is basically a production lash up of the P1127 concept aircraft. Hawkers P1154 would have been VTOL & supersonic by using a longer fuselage, afterburning Pegasus, and especially variable area inlets. This would have been the same performance as an F35 but 40 years ago. (No stealth tho. as this was not thought of then except for U-boats in ww2).
@kaimanawaggs Well, not entirely. I think the Harrier proved itself beyond being a stopgap. I love the aircraft and have a personal attachment to it. I definitely think it deserves a heritage example for airshows in the UK, along with the Vulcan. The P1154 is a big 'what if'. Truth is, we have no idea if it would ever have lived up to its concept, which was a V/STOL F-4 Phantom II. I think it was retired too soon and it was a foolish decision, but I know it couldn't be on the frontlines forever.
@bryUK I didn't claim that a stopgap cant be successful. The Lancaster was a stopgap for the Manchester, the Spit IX was a stopgap for the VIII, but more were made (particularly if XVIs are included). The RAF/RN's Phantom IIs were stopgaps for the F111 which was a stopgap for the TSR2.
The Harrier (or P1154) would not have been in use forever, but the main thing is that the UK aero-industry had been destroyed by politics with no competition and particularly no "Private Venture" development.
@cozstuart you should blame the british government because they had almost no interest that their own industry should develope a next gen fighter....I thought the UK wants to use the Eurofighter as their airsuperiority fighter ?
@Sallytheg4y The GR4 is a strike aircraft, and only carries a couple of AIM-9 Sidewinders or AIM-132 ASRAAMs for self-defence. It doesn't even have an air-to-air radar.
The Air Defence of the UK was the responsibility of the Tornado F3 until 2007 when it was officially handed over to the Eurofighter Typhoons. The Typhoon replaced the Falkland islands Tornados in 2009.
At the moment, there is only a single Tornado F3 squadron left, and they will be retired in April 2011.
The harrier is good for close ground support, and can function from a smaller forward runway. However, it has a limited payload, very limited AA, and is quite a maintenance hassle. Although is a unique design, the needs for its somewhat better ground support does not outweigh its flaws. It does need to be replaced.
Its's a hassle to work on, breaks down a lot, and takes a while to fix it. Any engine work requires a full engine pull, and taking the wing off. Single engine lawn dart.
@cozstuart they have plans to cancel the a-10 too and its the best fixed wing ground attack aircraft possible really. for some reason the military has plans to cancel everything. the abrams tank is only supposed to last to 2050, the apache to 2040, the a-10 to 2028, f-22 to 2050 and i dunno about the others but why does the military have to put a time limit on everything? why cant they just keep these? i guess its a matter of money.
@crossvariation We had actually just finished upgrading them all. That's part of the problem. We've cut a recently upgraded aircraft, cancelled another that was nearly ready (Nimrod MRA4) and will be scrapping another aircraft we bought just a few years ago (Sentinel R.1). The amount of money 'saved' pales compared to the amount of money that has now been wasted on development, upgrades and procurements.
@cozstuart Don't be so selective. I never said I wanted the Harrier retired, its played an important part in my life.
But nothing lasts forever. Its a design over 40 years old and all good things must come to an end eventually. Otherwise we'd still be flying Spitfires, Lightnings and Phantoms. If a superior replacement is available, by all means use it. The problem is retiring the Harrier years before its replacement is ready and retiring the Nimrod with no replacement planned at all.
@ResiusOnline Yes, but I didn't say the Harrier II was 40 years old. I said the design of the Harrier was.
The Harrier II is still based on the original design. The first pair of Harrier II prototypes were in fact modified Harrier AV-8A's with the new wing, etc. Its a brilliant design and I still think it has a good decade or so of life in it. It was still going to need to be replaced sooner or later though.
Of course it needs replaced, they just needed to WAIT for the F-35 instead of leaving a 7 year gap where we'll be using fucking TORNADOs for air-to-ground operations...
@hiei154 stop reffering to modern warfail 2. I dont give a shit about your 7 kill streak if you were in real life combat i dont think i could call in someone over my radio to help me out with a 3 million dollar jet
@cozstuart The F-35 might not be as 'yankee' as you think. BAE Systems are responsible for about 35% of the fuselage and systems of every aircraft. Rolls-Royce will also be making every lift-fan for the USMC version.
To be honest, the F-35 is probably more 'British' than the Harrier II.
@bryUK very true, but it has that very horrible word Locheed infront of it, which i'm not very fond of. it's almost like we're saying we would rather have the p51 mustang over the spitfire. no thank you.
@cozstuart We did fly the P-51 Mustang. In fact, the RAF was the first air force to use it. The first P-51's were all British spec. We had over 900 of them.
Difference is we played no part in building the P-51.
That's not going to happen with the F-35. The British ones are all going to be assembled in the UK by BAE Systems, in the same way the BAE Harrier II's were and the Westland Apache AH-1's.
We won't call it the F-35. Here it will most likely be designated the BAE Lightning II FGR1
@bryUK also true, but i don't really see it being cost effetctive for us to be pruchasing american military equipment, when we could just upgrade our own. and on the apache subject, i think we wasted our money there too because the tiger eurocopter which france and germany fly would have been cheaper to buy, and far out performs the apache in terms of manueverability.
@cozstuart We could just upgrade the Lynxes forever.
The Apache makes up for its lack of airshow tricks by being more heavily armoured and being able to carry more weapons. Also that rescue operation where Royal Marines rode in on British Army Apache's under heavy fire to recover the body of one of their comrades in Afghanistan couldn't have been done with a Tiger.
We could and did upgrade our Harriers, but we don't have the means to design an actual stealthy replacement. Can't upgrade forever.
@cozstuart What reasons do you have for disliking Lockheed Martin? Their Skunk Works have created some of the most cutting-edge aircraft from WW2 up till today.The p-80, Starfighter, Blackbird, F117, F22, and this aircraft. England is contributing greatly to the development of this aircraft. The Harrier was a tremendous acheivement for its time and a great credit to British engineering, but technology marches ever onward and this may be a worthy successor! Only time will tell.
@BabyRay55 it's not that i dislike them, it's that i would much rather have british technology behind me when i go into combat than american technology. i'm joining the army very soon and it's a very serious thing for me. i trust our equipment much more than american equipment.
@cozstuart Take it from me, there's nothing wrong with the American equipment. My older brother was in the British Army for nearly 20 years, serving on the front lines of both Gulf Wars. The equipment is fine and usually superior. He had no qualms about buying American gear out of his own money because the crap we get given isn't good enough. Like boots that melted in the desert heat.
@cozstuart Its only the people using the equipment you have to worry about, the ones who use their trigger fingers before their brains, or the weekend warriors like the National Guard pilots who have no real business being on the front lines.
@cozstuart As Jeremy Clarkson put it in regards to the AH-64: "The best attack helicopter in the world now flown by the best pilots in the world, the British Army."
Just think of it that way. Let's be honest, very little of our equipment is actually British now anyway. Even our assault rifles are German.
@Sterlingjob If you know anything about the gun, you should know I was referring to how Heckler&Koch were contracted to upgrade all of them, though its more accurate to say they were re-manufactured into the L85A2.
Just because H&K were owned by Royal Ordnance at the time doesn't stop them being a German company.
did anyone know that you can fly a harrier jump jet on grand theft auto: san andreas
i have ps2, the cheat for it on ps2 is:TRIANGLE,TRIANGLE,SQUARE,CIRCLE,X,L1,L1,DOWN,UP THIS IS REALLY THE CHEAT!!! it's called a hydra,and not a hairrier
enemy harrier above XD
OwnTrick 6 days ago
They're pretty lethal weapons. All you need is a 7 killstreak too, easy enough. lol
MrLaedis 1 month ago
@MrLaedis kthxbai pls
zaktan744 2 weeks ago
In a close in fight, Harriers are a brutal opponent.
crispycritterz 1 month ago
gdddamn I'm a mechanical engineering major and I still can't get this stuff. lol great invention, smart people those British.
Cpillin425 1 month ago
san andreas
mastercheifzXXXback 1 month ago
how does it fly with negative dihedral?
bf1942acepilot 1 month ago
@bf1942acepilot Quite easily. Lots of aircraft have anhedral wings.
bryUK 1 month ago
@bf1942acepilot positive dihedral gives you stability. It's not too stable
40joel 2 days ago
Hands down, best fighter jet ever made (I know it's debatable)
TruroCityBoy 1 month ago
@TruroCityBoy this thing wouldn't stand a chance in a dog fight, just saying
boricuaboy24 1 month ago
@boricuaboy24 Rather depends how's flying it and what its fighting against. The Sea Harrier FRS1 won every single one of its dogfights in the Falklands War, against faster and more agile Mirage IIIs.
bryUK 1 month ago
@bryUK british knew how to use their harriers. argentine air force pretty much loaded its planes with anti-ship missiles. while harriers specificly where armed with anti-air weapons. allso british had trained for this sort of stuff for years.
gethsoftware 1 month ago
@gethsoftware Few corrections.The RN hadn't trained its pilots for that kind of thing for years. Their expected role, as part of NATO, was little more than day time interception of Soviet Tu-95's scouting for NATO fleets. SHARs also carried mixed loads, as they were used for both air to air and air to ground. They didn't have enough pylons to carry external fuel tanks + Sidewinders + Bombs/Rockets.
bryUK 1 month ago
@gethsoftware Finally, the Argentine Mirage III's were dedicated to air to air operations. However, after the first few encounters all resulted in losses, they were ordered to avoid the SHAR at all costs. In hind sight, a big mistake given the numerical difference.
The only jet they had which could carry anti-ship missiles (Exocet) was the Super Etandard). Mirage V's, A-4's and Pucara's were typically dedicated to air to ground operations with conventional bombs, rockets and guns.
bryUK 1 month ago
@MrDevin712 it can go as high as your fuel supply will take you
Jpwner1 2 months ago
vertical take off and landing, a british invention, shared with the americans as the harrier, partnered in the develpment of the next generation F-35. It makes you proud to be friends doesn't it?
Siberian68 2 months ago
Nozzles don't usually rotate that easily.
stefen0603 2 months ago
Can this hover really high in the air?
MrDevin712 2 months ago
A real life 'Q'.
bonesstorage 3 months ago
fantastic aircraft~ only eats up a hell of alot of fuel doing a vertical takeoff
imacookieSF 3 months ago
fuck, i'd marry with this plane
Beltramstein 3 months ago
try building a rc version of this.....nobody has successfully done it!!! wonder if any brains in the UK can do it?
MovieMad007 3 months ago
There was this old combat flight sim WWII. I played every plane, but the one i got the most kills with was a freaking Sopwith Camel! Though wounded, she stayed in the air and i managed to see my internet (90's) foes coming at me. I shot down 14 planes much more capable than my own and mine was critically wounded. Just goes to prove your plane does not improve the pilot. But your pilot can improve the plane.
akaterr 3 months ago
Harrier pilots are a special breed. Flying a modern one seems easy enough, but they've proven themselves as easy targets.
Don't get me wrong. It is one of the coolest planes ever concieved.
My only problem with it is the low takeoff weight, low speed, and heat sig. I'd rather fly an A-4 Skyhawk in a fight..
akaterr 3 months ago
@akaterr I suppose that depends what you intend to be doing. In Air to Air combat, the Harrier is one of only two jets that has a 100% kill rate with no losses. The other is the F-15.
In context, 5 Harriers were lost to ground fire in the Falklands War and none in air to air combat.
By comparison 12 Mirages were shot down (10 by Sea Harriers) and 22 A-4 Skyhawks were shot down (8 by Sea Harriers).
bryUK 3 months ago
Not sure i'd like to give up design elements of a fighter jet that is still in service.
It does look like a tricky plane to fly. Especially those earlier ones.
They do seem prone to heat seekers since they have that large heat signature.
I'd like to learn to fly one and have one in my collection.
akaterr 3 months ago
@akaterr Its a bit of a myth that the Harrier has a large heat signature. Truth is, the thrust is divided amongst 4 nozzles rather than one or two, giving it an overall lower heat signature compared to other jets.
Their position also means that the wing can mask the nozzles, making engaging them from behind and above more difficult.
bryUK 3 months ago
@bryUK correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Harrier retired in favour of F35?
keoism 2 months ago
@keoism Not really. The plan was for it to be retired once the F-35 was operational to replace it, but that is still years away from happening (2016 is the earliest service entry date at the moment)
The reason it was retired from British service almost a year ago now, 6 years before the F-35 will be ready, was to save money, while maintaining the Tornado fleet.
bryUK 2 months ago
hydra from GTA SA
mcfilms100 3 months ago
anyone find these things kinda creepy. i dont know why it reminds me to much of a ufo. dont ask me why it just looks creepy when it hovers like that
nikoisbaws25 4 months ago
CoD has ruined this aircraft forever. I used to love harriers but now every time I see one I just want to fucking destroy it. I want them to BURN!
1337wafflezz 4 months ago
I think the verticle take off is extremly usefule . Aircraft carriers dont need to have runways if all planes could launch vertclly
darkruler528 4 months ago
@darkruler528 aircraft carriers are too heavy to use a hover system, the fuel to support those monsters would cost a fortune
wngmartin 4 months ago
@sooupdragon dogfights are mile-high flights. this is only good for hovering low altitude. thus, this is not "unbeatable" in a dogfight. F-22 is what you're looking for.
schm147 4 months ago
@schm147 Dogfights can occur at any altitude, and there is no such thing as an unbeatable aircraft, especially in a dogfight. There are some famous HUD images of an F-22A that was caught in the gunsights of a US Navy F/A-18E during a mock dogfight.
With the development of Helmet Mounted sights and off-boresight super agile missiles, just about any suitably equipped fighter has the capacity to win a dogfight.
bryUK 4 months ago
@schm147 completely wrong, actually. the harrier can fly sideways. the F-22 kills its pilots by asphyxiating them.
sooupdragon 4 months ago
@schm147 completely wrong, actually. the harrier can fly sideways.
sooupdragon 4 months ago
Comment removed
sooupdragon 4 months ago
@sooupdragon and backwards... in fact, in any direction it chooses. The Craptor can't, which is why the Harrier would beat it.
sooupdragon 4 months ago
@sooupdragon You're living in a bit of a dream world and, more than anything, don't know much about the actual characteristics of the Harrier in Air Combat. Hovering is not used in that way.
The only two things that are unique to the Harrier are VIFFing and a little known trick of lowered the nozzles about 20 degrees which enables the RCS valves.
It can do some neat tricks, but in an actual turning fight, the Harrier is only capable of about 7/8g.
bryUK 4 months ago
@bryUK And it takes off and lands vertically. More neat tricks that make it more versatile than other aircraft.
sooupdragon 4 months ago
@sooupdragon You're living in a bit of a dream world and, more than anything, don't know much about the actual characteristics of the Harrier in Air Combat. Hovering is not used in that way.
The only two things that are unique to the Harrier are VIFFing and a little known trick of lowered the nozzles about 20 degrees which enables the RCS valves.
It can do some neat tricks, but in an actual turning fight, the Harrier is only capable of about 7/8g.
bryUK 4 months ago
@sooupdragon Of all the kills the Sea Harrier claimed in the Falklands War, every single one of them was achieved through conventional flight. The nozzles were never used in real combat.
bryUK 4 months ago
@bryUK Proves nothing. Doesn't mean they can't be used that way.
sooupdragon 4 months ago
@sooupdragon No, but the fact of the matter is that its not part of any doctrine. Hovering is not an option. Aside from the fuel and payload issues, it would be a sitting duck.
VIFFing is, like the Cobra, considered a last ditch desperation manoeuvre with a questionable value in the real world. It is generally not encouraged because of the stress it places on the airframe, especially the wings, if high throttle settings are used.
I love the Harrier, but I'm not ignorant to its limitations.
bryUK 4 months ago
Comment removed
sooupdragon 4 months ago
My uncle developed part of this aircraft :)
Bobzska 4 months ago
this is awkwardly interesting
InsaneBlackPandaxD 4 months ago
hasn't Canada first invented the hovering jet?
xRockyboxer 5 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
what the hell is a leeever?
he means lever
mercanaries3 5 months ago
@mercanaries3 Heaven forbid that the nation that created the language pronounces some words differently, even from one region to another.
Thank you for your invaluable contribution.
bryUK 5 months ago 28
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@bryUK
heaven? or god, make your statement understandable.
mercanaries3 5 months ago
@mercanaries3 No, I meant heaven. Both are used and acceptable. Interchangeable even.
If that is a phrase you have difficulty understanding, perhaps you should not be critiquing other peoples use of the language. =)
bryUK 5 months ago 7
@bryUK
Also the nation that designed the Harrier. I love this plane.
Ali3nat0r 4 months ago
10.000 clicks before mw2
MultiTrailermaker 6 months ago 3
Comment removed
tviscool1234 6 months ago
Seems I'm the only one here who knew the harrier BEFORE 9-november 2009?
MrCanSpank 6 months ago
@MrCanSpank whats that date ? and also no it was my favorite jet when back in like 2002 when i was like 5 or somthing but its still my favorite but the a10 warthog is real close
flamingarse1 6 months ago
@flamingarse1 That date is when a game came out where the harriers took a role in.
And I love the specs and the maneuvres of the Siddely. I knew it when i was 7 or 6 also.
MrCanSpank 6 months ago
@MrCanSpank ? what game was it
flamingarse1 6 months ago
@flamingarse1 You don't want to know, man.
MrCanSpank 6 months ago
@MrCanSpank awww cmon dont make me have to google it
flamingarse1 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@flamingarse1 Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2.
MrCanSpank 6 months ago
Cant these basically stop in mid air?
elbeavo11 6 months ago
@elbeavo11 Yep, pretty much like a helicopter
aspiringdrummer17 6 months ago
What a drag at 2:50 with full flaps almost 90degrees deflected and continue to climb
SuperJojohn 7 months ago
before mw2: 50,00
after mw2: 197,449
MrDoodi568 7 months ago
7 kills = harrier = chopper gunner = nuke = dead
legomaster851 7 months ago
fuck all call of duty comments
Nikolai940 8 months ago 41
Cool I know how to fly one now.
CrytellGames 8 months ago
fuk 7 killstreak im using hardline.
dalilpebble 8 months ago
Comment removed
ShindaDesu 8 months ago
i think you can actually fly backwards in the newer models of harriers
jumpinjaxsproduction 8 months ago
@jumpinjaxsproduction All models of the Harrier, and even its forerunners that it was developed from (the Kestrel and P.1127) can fly backwards.
bryUK 8 months ago
A legendary aircraft, immortalized worldwide.
SpikeRazzor 8 months ago
AAwwww what a let down... I spent my entire life thinking they used complicated engineering to somehow output different thrust to each of the nozzles to control the pitch and other stuff... they just added thrusters... fu$"ing lazy asses, they made it the same way I'd make it in garry's mod xD
smokingflowers 9 months ago
Comment removed
smokingflowers 9 months ago
Amazing piece of British engineering.
no other country could build it.
RowanSIG 9 months ago
@RowanSIG i think many others could do. Russia, Germany, US etc.
AtomicFreerun 9 months ago
@AtomicFreerun They didn't though, and they certainly all tried. The Russian's came closest with the Yak-38, but it was significantly less capable than the Harrier. As for the American's, rather than try to design and build an alternative, they just bought Harriers instead.
bryUK 9 months ago
@RowanSIG Um... the F-35 does it...
Thyself17 8 months ago
@Thyself17 Not the best example, saying as the F-35's lift fan is also British. Better suggestions would be the French or the Russians.
bryUK 8 months ago
@bryUK Not true, they provided the engine because it's powerful. That doesn't mean they made it. The WHOLE design was from Lockheed Martin.
DONTdoSMACK 8 months ago
@DONTdoSMACK Its true. Its patented by Lockheed-Martin as was the basics of the initial idea, but it was developed into a functional product by Rolls-Royce. Its official, full title is the "Rolls-Royce Lift System".
bryUK 8 months ago
@bryUK The engine is a small part of work compared to the work Lockheed put into design. Lockheed-Martin could have easily made another engine for a lift system. But why do that when you can buy the one that has worked so far at a cheaper price? Also, the engines in the Harrier and F-35 are two very different engines.
DONTdoSMACK 8 months ago
@DONTdoSMACK Erm, I never said they had the same engine. In fact, the engine is a completely different matter all together. The F-35's engine, the F315, is completely designed and built by Pratt & Whitney, and American company and a development of the F-22A's F-119 engine. Lockheed-Martin don't make engines.
The Lift System in the F-35 is not an engine in its own right and has nothing in common with the Harrier's Pegasus engine. However, Rolls Royce were given the job because of their experience
bryUK 8 months ago
@bryUK They're both Rolls-Royce engines.
stig781 8 months ago
@stig781 No. The F135 is completely down to Pratt & Whitney. The alternative engine for the F-35, the F136, is a joint project between General Electric and Rolls-Royce.
With the UK changing its order from the STOVL F-35B to the CATOBAR F-35C (no Rolls-Royce Lift Fan) and question marks of the F136 ever being finished and entering service, at this point, its entirely possible that Rolls-Royce will be completely uninvolved in the UK's F-35's, and yet they will be in the USMC's F-35B's.
bryUK 8 months ago
I think the B-52 is the perfect example of American engineering:
Loud, obnoxious, huge, and with a LOT of firepower.
psychoboo13 5 months ago 3
@psychoboo13 Also she's going on 60 years old and still doing good for her age!!!
maverickdallas100 4 months ago
@cozstuart How can you be critical of a plane that hasn't even entered service yet? Sounds like sour grapes to me.
fkerpants 9 months ago
@cozstuart F-35 is not American, it's an international project BAE systems are making some parts for it.
Tommyfungun 9 months ago
All the united states jets or what not. All the pieces are made in china but the actual jet or whatever is put together here. I know this for a fact.
Irnwkr28 9 months ago
@Irnwkr28 A lot of the parts come from different countries, especially the Boeing airliners, but not so much from China. More like Canada, the UK, Italy and Japan.
bryUK 9 months ago 16
@bryUK your right.
moemoe20092007 9 months ago
@Irnwkr28
Wrong, no parts are mad in China. It's a joint project between Boeing, KAI (korean aerospace), BAE, Canadian Government + companies, and of course the USAF.
MrConsumerWhore1 9 months ago
@Irnwkr28 looks like you got pwnt in the face.
lepazoga86 9 months ago
@Irnwkr28 If that was true i don't think the planes would hold together that long
bluecrab7 8 months ago
Great video thanks for sharing.
Gig540 9 months ago
it was easy on San Andreas
nvrusesamelogin 10 months ago
@cozstuart
It is great, but its getting old now and very unpractical for the air-force, no air force would retire a great aircraft, if its being retired its being retired for a good reason. The F-35 isnt bad at all. Its actually a great aircraft. I dont know why you think its a horrible plane that will bomb its own troops.
galatasarayfan67 10 months ago
@galatasarayfan67 That's not quite the full story. The RAF didn't retire it because they wanted to, its because they have no choice. Their budget has been slashed by the current Government and they had to retire an aircraft from their fleet. They wanted to keep the Tornado, and in order to do that, the Harrier had to be sacrificed.
bryUK 10 months ago
@bryUK
Seeing it is from the 60s design Im sure it was retired because it was getting old. But, technically, they still retired the Harrier over the Tornado because the Tornado was more likely superior for them.
galatasarayfan67 10 months ago
@galatasarayfan67 They had just finished spending millions upgrading the Harrier. There were formal protests from many in the military. Given the choice, they would have kept both the Harrier and the Tornado, but they simply did not have that choice. Right now, retiring the Harrier is already coming home to roost as Tornados are having to fly from Italy to Libya, rather than Harriers from Carriers in the Med.
bryUK 10 months ago
@bryUK ;
Guess your right than.
galatasarayfan67 10 months ago
@punditkitchenfailure I'd love to see an F-15 go against an F-22, too, as that'd be the first combat the F-22 would have seen. I don't deny or doubt that the Raptor is a superior aircraft, but being good on the drawing board means nothing in a combat situation. In terms of combat history, the F-15 has been infinitely more valuable than the F-22 likely ever will be.
As to the Russian planes...yeah, those things are purchased by countries that can't make their own planes and can't afford US stuff
Ctmnt08 10 months ago
@cozstuart As an American I will always give the British points on this: They understand the concept of if it's not broke, it don't need fixing.
GreatWhite85 10 months ago
@GreatWhite85 precisely, thank you
cozstuart 10 months ago
What did the pilots do with F-15E in Libya??Crashed by itself?? Bad for American market: Can not sell Jet like F-15 to other countries because they afraid to have same problems with USA. Russian are very happy about this case because more customers look for their SUKHOI than US Jet! Poor things! Bad for US 's market!
CharlieDoan 10 months ago
@CharlieDoan Any plane can suffer a mechanical failure. The F-15 has had no problems selling to the likes of Japan, Israel, South Korea and Saudi Arabia. The thing is, the F-15 now finds itself going up against the likes of the Rafale, Typhoon, F-35 and the advanced versions of the MiG-29 and Su-27. Its nothing to do with 'problems', its simply an ageing airframe that is having to compete with brand new ones that use cutting edge technology.
bryUK 10 months ago
@CharlieDoan dude you fail. F-15 is a quite old jet plane constructed in the late 70s and even the F-15E "Strike Eagle" is an oldtimer compared to the F-35, F-22, Dassault Rafale and Eurofighter Typhoon. So I guess your russian planes can mess with F-15s but I would love to see one of your planes come up against a F-22 "Raptor"... Guess you wouldn't even see him before your smithereens go elsewhere... And honestly I don't know any big country that buys russian planes btw...
punditkitchenfailure 10 months ago
WTF??? the harrier wuz scrapped?? whats the military thinking? that wuz the biggest mistake of history
MBJCHIEN 10 months ago
@LooieENG2 It could, but its a lot more practical to just perform air-to-air refuelling.
bryUK 10 months ago
Too bad it only has a range of 300 miles.
Anonymous1226 10 months ago
@Anonymous1226 Correction, a -combat radius- of 300 miles. Big difference.
In reality, the Harrier II has a similar range to the F-16.
bryUK 10 months ago
@cozstuart
Horrible yankee aircraft like the F35 that you obviously buy and are not doing any better than to be talking like you are and putting down in that fashion as if you and your 'people' do any better. That's right, only Americans are known to kill civs. Nobody else did. All innocent. Arrogant punks. Why not look in the mirror about what you did in YOUR past before you throw stones. And as for that yankee F35....build one better chap before you run your mouth. Enough said "mate".
Sanojei 10 months ago
@Sanojei it's not a case of building one better, the harrier is better. Yes it's old, but we've been flying the thing since the 60s sweetheart, it's in our blood, our heritage. That plastic yank jet is going to take off, have a computer take over at the controls so you can sit back and have a fucking cinnabon. It's then going to recognise our own troops as targets and bomb them. Enough said "mate". Cheeky little fuck.
cozstuart 10 months ago
@cozstuart You should both behave yourselves.
Stuart, take a little pride. Those computers that fly the F-35 are British designed. We developed the software in our very own VAAC Harrier. 35% of the F-35's fuselage are built by British Aerospace and all UK F-35's will be assembled in Britain. If you didn't know, the Harrier II which we just retired is also a 'yankee jet'. The RAF retired its last true British Harriers over 15 years ago.
bryUK 10 months ago
Isn't it possible for Rolls-Royce to convert the Pegasus engine to a twin-turbine format to enable the harrier to exceed march-1?
Afrocanuk 10 months ago
@Afrocanuk An actual conversion, no. It would be more like building an entirely new engine. The concept actually existed in the 60's though with the Bristol Siddeley BS100, the afterburning successor to the Pegasus that was intended to power the P.1154.
The layout was tested in a Harrier configuration (P.1127) but it looked quite ridiculous with the massive front nozzles.
bryUK 10 months ago
my dream ride,,,,!!
sannynic 10 months ago
@cozstuart i think they should be put back into service and revamped with new tech, but i would go as far to say the f35 is crap. an bomb ur own troops? a dumb pilot would put his troops at risk......
camvvti 11 months ago
jumpjet lol
agent47FX 11 months ago
@cozstuart I agree but sadly the harrier is slow and does not have a big payload ..the f35 is not a really good vtol
jet but its faster
thegabshow1 11 months ago
@jericoparazo They did make a FBW version of the Harrier. The VAAC Harrier which was used as a test bed to develop the software for the F-35.
You know the Harrier doesn't have a cannon either, right? Like the F-35B, the Harrier has to carry an external cannon pod.
The basic benefit of the F-35 over both the Harrier or the Yak-141 is stealth.
bryUK 11 months ago
@bryUK And speed right? If I'm not mistaken, the F-35 A/B/C has one of the most powerful engines in the world, right?
lb8068 11 months ago
@lb8068 Its a powerful engine, but that hasn't really been converted into speed. The F-35 can reach Mach 1.8, but it has not been designed to 'super cruise' like the F-22.
The F-35 is indeed faster than the Harrier, it can go supersonic in level flight, whereas the Harrier could only exceed the speed of sound in a dive. But this is more to do with the shape than engine power. The Harrier was never designed to be supersonic.
The Harrier II actually has a higher thrust/weight ratio than the F35
bryUK 11 months ago
@bryUK agreed. the Harrier is basically a production lash up of the P1127 concept aircraft. Hawkers P1154 would have been VTOL & supersonic by using a longer fuselage, afterburning Pegasus, and especially variable area inlets. This would have been the same performance as an F35 but 40 years ago. (No stealth tho. as this was not thought of then except for U-boats in ww2).
The Harrier has been a very successful stop gap.
kaimanawaggs 10 months ago
@kaimanawaggs Well, not entirely. I think the Harrier proved itself beyond being a stopgap. I love the aircraft and have a personal attachment to it. I definitely think it deserves a heritage example for airshows in the UK, along with the Vulcan. The P1154 is a big 'what if'. Truth is, we have no idea if it would ever have lived up to its concept, which was a V/STOL F-4 Phantom II. I think it was retired too soon and it was a foolish decision, but I know it couldn't be on the frontlines forever.
bryUK 10 months ago
@bryUK I didn't claim that a stopgap cant be successful. The Lancaster was a stopgap for the Manchester, the Spit IX was a stopgap for the VIII, but more were made (particularly if XVIs are included). The RAF/RN's Phantom IIs were stopgaps for the F111 which was a stopgap for the TSR2.
The Harrier (or P1154) would not have been in use forever, but the main thing is that the UK aero-industry had been destroyed by politics with no competition and particularly no "Private Venture" development.
kaimanawaggs 10 months ago
@cozstuart you should blame the british government because they had almost no interest that their own industry should develope a next gen fighter....I thought the UK wants to use the Eurofighter as their airsuperiority fighter ?
Sallytheg4y 11 months ago
@Sallytheg4y We are using the Typhoon for all of our Air Defence purposes, and with the latest updates its a true multi-role fighter/bomber.
But it can't operate off an aircraft carrier.
bryUK 11 months ago
@bryUK I thought the RAF is using the Tornado GR4 for most of the Air Defence purposes ?!
Sallytheg4y 11 months ago
@Sallytheg4y The GR4 is a strike aircraft, and only carries a couple of AIM-9 Sidewinders or AIM-132 ASRAAMs for self-defence. It doesn't even have an air-to-air radar.
The Air Defence of the UK was the responsibility of the Tornado F3 until 2007 when it was officially handed over to the Eurofighter Typhoons. The Typhoon replaced the Falkland islands Tornados in 2009.
At the moment, there is only a single Tornado F3 squadron left, and they will be retired in April 2011.
bryUK 11 months ago
@bryUK thank you for your answer ! :)
Sallytheg4y 11 months ago
The harrier is good for close ground support, and can function from a smaller forward runway. However, it has a limited payload, very limited AA, and is quite a maintenance hassle. Although is a unique design, the needs for its somewhat better ground support does not outweigh its flaws. It does need to be replaced.
Its's a hassle to work on, breaks down a lot, and takes a while to fix it. Any engine work requires a full engine pull, and taking the wing off. Single engine lawn dart.
bigsexy13 11 months ago
Scrapping Harriers? What about scrapping Air Sea Rescue for an idea on an Island? Do I pay tax to fucking idiots os what?
bazadata 11 months ago
how much fuel does it take just to hover? and can u compare this to the F35?
Shift4chizzle 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Your total marriage solution partner rockmycity.info
lushaaloma 11 months ago
this guy looks like spoc... live long and prosper
4winered 11 months ago
@cozstuart they have plans to cancel the a-10 too and its the best fixed wing ground attack aircraft possible really. for some reason the military has plans to cancel everything. the abrams tank is only supposed to last to 2050, the apache to 2040, the a-10 to 2028, f-22 to 2050 and i dunno about the others but why does the military have to put a time limit on everything? why cant they just keep these? i guess its a matter of money.
jgtheman84 1 year ago
@cozstuart personally, I think they should upgrade it and make it better. Then bring it back.
crossvariation 1 year ago
@crossvariation We had actually just finished upgrading them all. That's part of the problem. We've cut a recently upgraded aircraft, cancelled another that was nearly ready (Nimrod MRA4) and will be scrapping another aircraft we bought just a few years ago (Sentinel R.1). The amount of money 'saved' pales compared to the amount of money that has now been wasted on development, upgrades and procurements.
bryUK 1 year ago
@crossvariation someone who agrees with me, at last
cozstuart 1 year ago
@cozstuart Don't be so selective. I never said I wanted the Harrier retired, its played an important part in my life.
But nothing lasts forever. Its a design over 40 years old and all good things must come to an end eventually. Otherwise we'd still be flying Spitfires, Lightnings and Phantoms. If a superior replacement is available, by all means use it. The problem is retiring the Harrier years before its replacement is ready and retiring the Nimrod with no replacement planned at all.
bryUK 1 year ago
@bryUK
The Harrier II was only introduced in 1989.
Only 22 years ago, not 40.
ResiusOnline 11 months ago
@ResiusOnline Yes, but I didn't say the Harrier II was 40 years old. I said the design of the Harrier was.
The Harrier II is still based on the original design. The first pair of Harrier II prototypes were in fact modified Harrier AV-8A's with the new wing, etc. Its a brilliant design and I still think it has a good decade or so of life in it. It was still going to need to be replaced sooner or later though.
bryUK 11 months ago
@bryUK
Of course it needs replaced, they just needed to WAIT for the F-35 instead of leaving a 7 year gap where we'll be using fucking TORNADOs for air-to-ground operations...
ResiusOnline 11 months ago
i need to get a 7 kill streak. I need me one of these.
hiei154 1 year ago
@hiei154 stop reffering to modern warfail 2. I dont give a shit about your 7 kill streak if you were in real life combat i dont think i could call in someone over my radio to help me out with a 3 million dollar jet
DUBLINPEEPZ4LIFE 1 year ago
@DUBLINPEEPZ4LIFE Well you could, that's what Close Air Support is all about.
Though a Harrier II would set you back about $35 million.
bryUK 1 year ago
This is one of the most ugly plane designs in history, for sure.
Blokin 1 year ago
@cozstuart The F-35 might not be as 'yankee' as you think. BAE Systems are responsible for about 35% of the fuselage and systems of every aircraft. Rolls-Royce will also be making every lift-fan for the USMC version.
To be honest, the F-35 is probably more 'British' than the Harrier II.
bryUK 1 year ago
@bryUK very true, but it has that very horrible word Locheed infront of it, which i'm not very fond of. it's almost like we're saying we would rather have the p51 mustang over the spitfire. no thank you.
cozstuart 1 year ago
@cozstuart We did fly the P-51 Mustang. In fact, the RAF was the first air force to use it. The first P-51's were all British spec. We had over 900 of them.
Difference is we played no part in building the P-51.
That's not going to happen with the F-35. The British ones are all going to be assembled in the UK by BAE Systems, in the same way the BAE Harrier II's were and the Westland Apache AH-1's.
We won't call it the F-35. Here it will most likely be designated the BAE Lightning II FGR1
bryUK 1 year ago
@bryUK also true, but i don't really see it being cost effetctive for us to be pruchasing american military equipment, when we could just upgrade our own. and on the apache subject, i think we wasted our money there too because the tiger eurocopter which france and germany fly would have been cheaper to buy, and far out performs the apache in terms of manueverability.
cozstuart 1 year ago
@cozstuart We could just upgrade the Lynxes forever.
The Apache makes up for its lack of airshow tricks by being more heavily armoured and being able to carry more weapons. Also that rescue operation where Royal Marines rode in on British Army Apache's under heavy fire to recover the body of one of their comrades in Afghanistan couldn't have been done with a Tiger.
We could and did upgrade our Harriers, but we don't have the means to design an actual stealthy replacement. Can't upgrade forever.
bryUK 1 year ago
@cozstuart What reasons do you have for disliking Lockheed Martin? Their Skunk Works have created some of the most cutting-edge aircraft from WW2 up till today.The p-80, Starfighter, Blackbird, F117, F22, and this aircraft. England is contributing greatly to the development of this aircraft. The Harrier was a tremendous acheivement for its time and a great credit to British engineering, but technology marches ever onward and this may be a worthy successor! Only time will tell.
BabyRay55 1 year ago
@BabyRay55 it's not that i dislike them, it's that i would much rather have british technology behind me when i go into combat than american technology. i'm joining the army very soon and it's a very serious thing for me. i trust our equipment much more than american equipment.
cozstuart 1 year ago
@cozstuart Take it from me, there's nothing wrong with the American equipment. My older brother was in the British Army for nearly 20 years, serving on the front lines of both Gulf Wars. The equipment is fine and usually superior. He had no qualms about buying American gear out of his own money because the crap we get given isn't good enough. Like boots that melted in the desert heat.
bryUK 1 year ago
@cozstuart Its only the people using the equipment you have to worry about, the ones who use their trigger fingers before their brains, or the weekend warriors like the National Guard pilots who have no real business being on the front lines.
bryUK 1 year ago
@cozstuart As Jeremy Clarkson put it in regards to the AH-64: "The best attack helicopter in the world now flown by the best pilots in the world, the British Army."
Just think of it that way. Let's be honest, very little of our equipment is actually British now anyway. Even our assault rifles are German.
bryUK 1 year ago
@bryUK SA80 is very British, read up on Royal Ordnance and BAe Systems
Sterlingjob 11 months ago
@Sterlingjob If you know anything about the gun, you should know I was referring to how Heckler&Koch were contracted to upgrade all of them, though its more accurate to say they were re-manufactured into the L85A2.
Just because H&K were owned by Royal Ordnance at the time doesn't stop them being a German company.
bryUK 11 months ago
@bryUK The gun was designed and made in the uk.
Sterlingjob 11 months ago
@Sterlingjob And? I'm still referring to Heckler & Koch redesigning and re-manufacturing them all.
bryUK 11 months ago
@bryUK The gun was modified not remanufactured.
Sterlingjob 11 months ago
@Sterlingjob The modifications were so extensive, they were essentially rebuilt, ie re-manufactured. They even have an HK stamp on them now.
This is going nowhere, so I suggest we'll just have to agree to disagree and leave it. Anyone reading this can make up their own minds.
bryUK 11 months ago
PUTOPUTOPUTOPUTO
15583528 1 year ago
did anyone know that you can fly a harrier jump jet on grand theft auto: san andreas
i have ps2, the cheat for it on ps2 is:TRIANGLE,TRIANGLE,SQUARE,CIRCLE,X,L1,L1,DOWN,UP THIS IS REALLY THE CHEAT!!! it's called a hydra,and not a hairrier
ck5550005551 1 year ago
Is good for 7 kills but is easily down with stinger.
TheQARK 1 year ago
RIP the harriers
tLlXenonFire 1 year ago
i dont like this, but the F-117 Nighthawk :D its beautiful :P
d96669b 1 year ago