Originally Posted by rock45

I think the Mig-21 is in the same same class as far as longevity.

Originally Posted by BritinAfrica

Although a different type, the three that hold that honour (in my opinion) are the DC3 (Dakaota/C47) the C130 and a different type althogether, the B52.

I meant to say Fighter aircraft.

Originally Posted by tomtom22

The only aircraft that comes close to the longevity of the Harrier is the McDonnell/Douglas F-4 Phantom II.

The Hamker Siddeley Buccaneer managed a service length managed 32 years, being retired after the Gulf War, where it did laser targeting for Tornadoes, before they got the TIALD package.

So I guess that the Harrier wins, happy birthday old mate.

We had 4 out in Belize & the Sqn Ldr related that part of their trg was to learn to fly helicoptors. He said it was completely inappropriate as the controls were different, but that it was so much fun all Harrier pilots said that it was the most useful part of the course!! Can't verify the facts, but knowing these guys it is certainly probable.

Originally Posted by Partisan

The Hamker Siddeley Buccaneer managed a service length managed 32 years, being retired after the Gulf War, where it did laser targeting for Tornadoes, before they got the TIALD package.

So I guess that the Harrier wins, happy birthday old mate.

We had 4 out in Belize & the Sqn Ldr related that part of their trg was to learn to fly helicoptors. He said it was completely inappropriate as the controls were different, but that it was so much fun all Harrier pilots said that it was the most useful part of the course!! Can't verify the facts, but knowing these guys it is certainly probable.

We had an RAF Buccaneer come into RAF Luqa in Malta in 1970 smoking like a good'un, we really didnt think she was going to make it. She landed OK, then crash crews swarmed all over her.

Buccaneers are still flying out of Cape Towns Thunder City, along with 2 seater Hawker Hunters and English Electric Lightnings. A few ex Warsaw Pact pilots fly the Lightning and Hunters to see how they would perform in comparison to Soviet aircraft in the event of the East invading the West in Germany.

Perhaps I wasnt too clear Tomtom, I listed the C47 C130 and B52 in addition to the fighter aircraft already mentioned.

Perhaps another aircraft that should be considered for longevity is the Hawker Hunter.

She was introduced in the RAF in 1954.
Two-seat trainer versions of the Hunter, the T.7 and T.8 remained in use for training and secondary roles by the RAF and Royal Navy until the early 1990s

In December 2006, the Hunter re-entered RAF service with two ex-Swiss examples leased from a private operator to act as targets for a surface to air missile program.[They were allocated RAF serials ZZ190 and ZZ191. This was followed by a two-seat aircraft in April 2007, which reverted to its original RAF serial XF995.


The Lebanese Air Force operated Hawker Hunters from 1958. A Lebanese Hawker Hunter shot down an Israeli jet over Kfirmishki in early sixties, its pilot was captured by the LAF [5]. One Lebanese Hawker Hunter was shot down on the first day of the Six-Day War by the Israeli Air Force. They were used infrequently during the Lebanese Civil War, flying their last sorties in a period from 1 September to 15 September 1983.
On 20 August 2007, reports indicated that the Lebanese Armed Forces may restart using them after the conflict with Fatah al Islam militants in the Nahr el-Bared camp north of Tripoli.

Further statements have since been made indicating that Lebanon is currently in the process of returning eight FGA.70 and T.66C Hunters to airworthy condition for operational combat sorties against guerillas.However, the programme has been held up in recent times by lack of certain spares for the aircraft, most notably cartridges for the Martin-Baker ejection seats.

On the 12 November 2008, the Lebanese Air Force succeeded in returning the Hawker Hunter to service after 50 years of service.

Again a very good aircraft.

Breaking into this thread late, and some of you may already know about it, but the LA Times in 2002 (Dec. 15-17) published a 4-part article about the US Marines Harrier jet plane titled "The Vertical Vision".

The article won a Pulitzer Prize. Here it is archived:

http://www.pulitzer.org/works/2003-National-Reporting

The USMAC version of the Harrier was underdeveloped and underfunded and poorly maintained.

The British understood their version of the Harrier much better, developed and maintained it better, and had few problems with the plane.

The USMAC did not, and suffered through a horrendous fatality and loss rate with this airplane. (from this thread, it looks like India did too?)

Sacks and Miller also point out the many flaws of this plane, the tradeoffs in its design to gain the vertical takeoff capability. Chiefly, they were its low payload capability, its instability in flight, and the fact that heat seeking missiles would explode right next to the jet exhausts which were right behind the pilot.

Not a very battle-hardy plane, in other words, all so that it could take off vertically, a feature more spectacular than useful.

Originally Posted by vrmgi

Breaking into this thread late, and some of you may already know about it, but the LA Times in 2002 (Dec. 15-17) published a 4-part article about the US Marines Harrier jet plane titled "The Vertical Vision".

Sacks and Miller also point out the many flaws of this plane, the tradeoffs in its design to gain the vertical takeoff capability. Chiefly, they were its low payload capability, its instability in flight, and the fact that heat seeking missiles would explode right next to the jet exhausts which were right behind the pilot.

Not a very battle-hardy plane, in other words, all so that it could take off vertically, a feature more spectacular than useful.

As far as I am aware the Harrier rarely took off vertically with a full weapons load, usually the Harrier did a rolling take off. The RN Carriers which operated the Harrier had a ramp fitted to the nose of the carrier to aid take off. But despite this, the Harrier still had the capabilty to take off vertically with a full weapons load.

Despite its flaws it did a brilliant job in the Falklands and from what I have heard, during the Gulf War and had the sneaky ability of viffing (discovered by US Pilots), thereby an enemy fighter on a Harriers tail would pass underneath allowing the Harriers air to air systems to be used. The hunted then became the hunter.

Originally Posted by rock45

I think the Mig-21 is in the same same class as far as longevity.

This year the MiG-21 celebrates its 50TH anniversary.

Though the harrier is awesome, incase somebody thought I ment otherwise.

I hope the RAAF does in fact replace its Hornets with F-35's. Australian engineers are / have contributed to its design. They would go very nice with a certain sea going craft we're getting soon Although Australia didn't acquire any, the Harriers deserve the accolades above.

Yes, Harriers really were something and are one of my favorite aircraft.
Funny thing is, the F-35B's STOVL system is based on that of the YAK-141 Freestyle.

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

Yes, Harriers really were something and are one of my favorite aircraft.
Funny thing is, the F-35B's STOVL system is based on that of the YAK-141 Freestyle.

Actually, I think only the Lift-fan is.

Like I said, the F-35B.
Yeah the way the jet exhaust moves in the F-35B is its own thing but the general concept of the F-35B's STOVL capabilities is based on the Yak-141. It was a complete departure from the the way they did it with the Harrier.