F35. The aircraft that brought the western world's defences to its knees.

Without the Harrier the UK would have had to stick with proper carriers with Phantoms and Buccaneers. The would have changed the Falklands War a bit.

Not exactly "World changing" though.:rolleyes:

And Gannets in the AEW role, a very nice to have!

IIRC, the 'proper carriers' and their associated Phantoms, Buccaneers, Gannets, etc, were going regardless, with the Harrier offering the Admiralty a handy way of keeping the fixed-wing combat aviation it was otherwise going to lose.

I'd suggest that without the Harrier, there would have been no UK carrier capability in 1982.

But 'world changing'? Not really.

Hempy, I would definitely put an early Junkers design in the list, but it would be the Junkers J 1 as it was the first aircraft to fly with an all metal airframe.

Other airframes that should be in the list.

George Cayley Glider - First wingborne flight.

Sikorsky’s Russky Vityaz - First large multi engined aircraft.

Well I just watched this weeks episode on the DC-3. Again, well done - following the progression from the Boeing 247 to the DC-1/DC-2 (my memory hasn't failed me yet - the DC-1 was a prototype while the -2 was the production version) and how that lead to the DC-3. Mainly stuff I already knew but still interesting with lots of personal touches (interviews with some of the original "air hostesses" from the 1930's were interesting).
I've found the debates about what "airplanes" (or 'aero planes') belong on the list to be interesting (the title does specify "planes", so while I think the Saturn V was the most impressive engineering feat of my lifetime, I don't think rockets or rotorcraft belong on this list).
Much depends on how one chooses to define the criteria - for example while the Boeing 247 was revolutionary, the DC-2/3 made it work. Similarly (at least in my book), the Comet was revolutionary, but the 707 made it work. Hence the DC-2/3 makes the cut, and I'd rate the 707 above the Comet.

All that being said, the previews indicate next week will be the A380 :confused:

I'll get some popcorn :E

I wouldn't say the A380 is a game-changer. Actually, I find it mildly surprising that it took 30 years or so for either Boeing or Airbus to take the 747 idea and extend the upper deck all the way. It's an ugly mofo too.

I think we're probably 15-20 years from the return of supersonic or even hypersonic travel, and that will be the next game changer. I might just fit a flight in before I shuffle off to the business lounge in the sky.

Not a "plane" but an aircraft. The Bell 47. The first practical battlefield helicopter. A true 3 dimensional Land Rover, simple, reliable and economical. Hell, even I could fly one!

Without the Harrier the UK would have had to stick with proper carriers with Phantoms and Buccaneers. The would have changed the Falklands War a bit.

- Yes it would have changed the war a bit. The war would not have taken place at all. The UK made the decision to not build CVA01, and then not to replace Ark Royal etc prior to knowing that the Sea Harrier was viable. Then the RN basically had to smuggle the Invincibles through the budget process. So no Harrier = no attempt to retake Falklands.

But 'world changing'? Not really.

- Yes it was world changing. It was the point at which the Soviet Union realised that the UK needed to be counted as well as the US, in both military and political terms. That in turn caused them to think again about the resolve of the remainder of the Western allies. On the other side of the equation it led to a renewed confidence in the allies within the USA, most especially and directly between Reagan-Thatcher at a personal level, but running up and down the whole system. That understanding that the allies were in it together was a part of the Reagan approach to ending the Cold War.

So yes, I do argue that the Harrier was world changing. It was a very direct link between what was militarily possible in one conflict, and then politically possible in another. And ending the Cold War definitely changed world. I'm not saying that the Harrier was solely responsible, but I am saying that the Harrier was the crucial enabler for the successful Falklands campaign and that the consequences of that were very significant in the Cold War context.

Regards, pp

I'm sure we'd like to believe that, but I doubt it. The Soviet Union ultimately collapsed because it tried to keep up with the United States in the arms race, and went bust trying. I'd suggest that countering the UK post-the-Falklands had very little to do with it.

Love the Harrier though.

George Cayley Glider - First wingborne flight with the world's first airborne coachman on board. George did not fancy it himself !

Melmoth,

In many ways the Harrier deserves inclusion simply as a technical product. But I think the case is stronger because of the wider political and military results of its existence, that otherwise would not have happened at all. Therefore it's world-changing nature is because of the wider political/strategic consequences. Some quotes are useful:

.........A second major effect was a reaffirmation of the special relationship between the US and UK. .... but the more obvious result was the common alignment of Britain and the USA in a more confrontational foreign policy against the Soviet bloc, sometimes known as the Second Cold War.

.........Militarily, the Falklands conflict remains the largest air-naval combat operation between modern forces since the end of the Second World War.

.......... For the Soviet and Warsaw Pact militaries, the Falklands War forced a re-examination of their estimates of the quality of Western troops, and particularly how well all-volunteer forces compared with conscripted forces. The Soviets became aware that the British relied heavily on the quality and training of its personnel

(from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afterm..._Falklands_War)


For the United States, there were lessons on three distinct levels...

One level was that of grand alliance strategy. Before the war broke out, Americans tended to assume that they led an alliance of completely like-minded governments against the Soviets; all other governments were neutral, leaning one way or another. ...

A second level was political. In 1982, many in the Soviet leadership believed that the West had lost so much of its morale that its end was inevitable, and perhaps even near. The Soviets themselves were in trouble, but they thought they could survive. The Argentinians clearly thought much the same thing about the British.......
British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher didn’t agree. Like U.S. President Ronald Reagan, she did not think the West was dying, let alone dead. ........ In effect, Thatcher saw the Falklands War as the great test: Were the British locked into decline, or did they have a future? .......

The Soviet leadership was shocked. The West was still a serious threat. The Soviets found themselves taking Western initiatives, such as Reagan’s “Star Wars,” very seriously indeed. Thatcher’s was not, of course, the only demonstration of Western resolve; at about the same time, the Russians found it impossible to intimidate NATO governments that had decided to accept the deployment of U.S. Pershing and Tomahawk missiles on their soil. They, in turn, were probably much encouraged by Thatcher’s example.

..The impact on the Soviets cannot be underestimated. In 1982-83, the Soviets were increasingly aware that they had been caught up in a new revolution in military technology based on micro-computers. In the Falklands, the British fleet deployed far more computing power, for example, than the Soviets had in all their fleets. The Soviet problem was that their economy had been contracting for years. It did not have the stretch it needed to compete on these new terms with the West, particularly while continuing to pour out existing types of weapons. Within a few years, a new Soviet leader would be chosen specifically because he promised to clean up computer production: Mikhail Gorbachev. His attempt to solve the Soviet economic problem destroyed the Soviet Union.

...The third level, the one usually emphasized, was tactical. The Falklands War was fascinating because it was a miniature version of the war U.S. naval strategists thought they might have to fight. With their missile-armed strike aircraft and their submarines, the Argentinians were a sort of small-scale version of the threat the Soviets posed against U.S. naval strike forces in the Norwegian Sea. The British task force was a small-scale version of a U.S. striking force trying to go north, to execute the evolving U.S. maritime strategy. The Argentinians had to do much what the Soviets had to do: They had to detect, track, and attack the approaching British task force. Ultimately the British had to land troops in the face of Argentinian air and ground forces.

....If the war actually pitted a miniature U.S. strike fleet against a miniature Soviet force, the success of the British showed that the full-scale strike fleet had an excellent chance of carrying out its mission, a far better chance than critics of the evolving U.S. Maritime Strategy imagined. That mattered. The Maritime Strategy greatly raised the price the Soviets would have had to pay to prepare for a war, at a time when they were badly stretched. The need for a stretch, not just for naval but for other military purposes, forced the Soviets to take measures to change their economy and their political system. It turned out that the system did not have much stretch in it, either – and the edifice collapsed. The Falklands War mattered because in important ways it was the beginning of the end of the Cold War.

from The Falklands War in Retrospect | Defense Media Network

Regards, pp

No doubt the Harrier was a technical marvel PP, but the technology developed for that particular aircraft (and no other) has hardly changed the world, in my opinion.

Your premise for including the Harrier is that it was pivotal in retaking the Falklands, and that consequently the Soviet Union was forced to reconsider its approach to the UK and the other non-US NATO allies at a critical juncture in the Cold War

I don't dispute any of that, but in order for the Harrier to have been a 'world changing' aircraft then none of the post-Falklands history of the world would have happened without it, and we'd still be squaring up to the Soviet Union in a Cold War that never ended.

Sorry, but I don't buy that at all.

Still love the Harrier though.

Ok. World changing effect of the harrier. It allowed nations that couldn't afford proper aircraft carriers to have fixed wing fast jet naval air arms at sea.

And that changed the world, how?

Like the 747 allowed people to go to Barbados instead of Bognor....

Right you are, an aircraft that allowed Spain, India, Italy, and Thailand (no disrespect intended) to fly off the decks of ships for no other reason than they could had the same world changing effect as the passenger aircraft that arguably did more to revolutionise mass transportation than any other.

Dear lord.

Melmoth, quite a lot that happens at sea is important in the affairs of man on land even if landlubbers can't see it, regards, pp

Just applying your theory to the 747 rather than the Harrier.
It may be a great aircraft, but all it did was allow airlines to throw more people in the air at the same time for less cost per head.