Talk:British Aerospace Harrier II/Archive 1

Archive 1

"If you have a source..."

The tag applied to the specifications section states that I should complete the missing specifications "if you have a source." I would assume that means that I should add a citation for where I got the specification when adding it, yet noted that none of the other specifications have citations. So I put the citations (footnotes) in anyway, but wonder if I'm doing it wrong somehow. --Edward Tremel 01:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Mach 1

I just looked and it said that 1,065 is not mach 1, as it is below the speed of sound, so it is wrong to have mach 1 placed there really.

Variants in infobox

I've asked this question on the Infobox aircraft talk page. Should we look up and down the planes development history. To me the Harrier II is in the same relationship to the HS Harrier as Nimrod is to Comet - the one is an outgrowth of the other but I would not describe the Comet as a variant of the Nimrod. I also don't see the Sea Harrier as a variant of the Harrier II. GraemeLeggett 16:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I have been doing some major revisions on the various Harrier article (Hawker Siddeley Harrier, Sea Harrier, AV-8 Harrier II and RAF Harrier II). Only the HS Harrier and Sea Harrier had infoboxes; along with other things, it seems the Harrier II articles were spilt off of the HS Harrier page. So I copied the infoboxes from the HS Harrier page to the Harrier II pages, making the necessary changes (tho the dates still need updating). The HS Harrier page listed all 3 other Harrier articles under "Variants" in the infobox, so I copied this pattern on the Harrier II pages.

While it is true that the Harrier II is a wholly different aircraft than the Harrier I (almost no interchangeable parts, if any), it is the next step in its development. In addition, both the RAF and USMC have designated their Harrier IIs as variants of the earlier plane (AV-8A > AV-8B; Harrier GR.3 > GR.5), rather than giving them new desigations. Both versions of the Harrier are used in the same roles as the earlier models (unlike the Comet/Nimrod), though they are much more capable in those roles.

In addition, when one says "Nimrod", I don't assume one might mean the Comet. Likewise with the P-3 Orion and the Electra. But when someone says Harrier, I think of all versions of the Harrier jump jet, until they specify which one is meant. Note I am not including the immediate predecessors of the Harriers, the P.1127 and the Kestrel, in this list of Variants, as they were not combat aircraft but prototypes/technology demonstrators.

While listing all variants of the Harrier on all the Harrier pages may not be totally consistent with other pages, it is a unique case, because they are all Harriers. Readers who are not familar with the differences between the Harrier/Sea Harrier and the Harrier II may come to one page seeking another variant. Having them all listed in the infoboxes gives them a common place to find the other variants. That said, I will abide by the consensus. -BillCJ 05:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Think the problem is mostly semantic. It IS helpful, I think, to have links to the other 'types' of Harriers and Harrier II's, but the word 'variant' is inaccurate. No big deal, really. Could just change the entry in the infobox to 'similar aircraft' or something. -CaptainVlad November 4, 2006

Your suggestion has been followed. see here for details. -- BillCJ 23:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Designed by who?

"The Aircraft was solely designed and built by British Aerospace" seems to contradict the history section of AV-8 Harrier II.--Mongreilf 08:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

this aircraft was soley designd and built by British Aerospace

the AV-8 harrier 11 is an american aircraft based on the BAE Harrier II

the harrier was designd by british aerospace. Mcdonald dougles in efect have a modified coppy which was "developed" by both mcdonald and BAE. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RichardMathie (talk • contribs).

Try reading the aritcle and its sources. The original Harrier was designed and built solely by Hawker Siddely, that much is true. But in the mid-70s, the British pulled out of a joint project to develop a new Harrier variant, leaving MDonNELL DouglAs to develop it on its own. THe result was the Harrier II, a completely new aircraft based on the original design. In the late70s/early 80s, the British signed back on to the project, with BAE as a partner, and developed the Harrier GR.5 (BAE Harrier II), basically an AV-8B with British avionics and other systems. The Pegasus engine is still a Rolls-Royce product, though it is license-built in the US by Pratt and Whitney. - BillCJ 16:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is basically a load of ****. Having been an engineer in the AV-8B aerodynamics group at McDonnell Douglas in the 1980s, I can assure you that the AV-8B was an American design based, in part (as in the basic configuration, but not much else), on the old British Harrier from the 1960s (which, of course, had been funded in part by those pesky Americans) - a "copy" my a**. We liked to say (quite justifiably) that we took a barely useable airplane and turned it into a real weapons platform. The wing and forward fuselage in particular benefited from American aeronautical engineering expertise, as did the rest of the airframe - of course, we still had the four-poster Pegasus engine built by our buds in Derby. They helped by getting the thrust up, but the real turnaround in performance was due to the large supercritical wing to improve aerodynamics by a mile and half and the extensive use of composites to get the weight down. Oh yeah, that big wing also provided space for lots of fuel so that this thing could now go somewhere, overcoming a common dificiency of British combat aircraft, not just the original Harrier, over the years. On a hot day, the ol' AV-8A could maybe get one bomb off the ground - with the AV-8B, you could get a decent load off and then go somewhere important where you could do some real damage. When the Brits rejoined the party, the only real effect was the addition of the small LERCs at the base of the wings to enhance turning performance for them (they still had delusions of this thing going out and mixing it up with fighters whereas the USMC were happy enough to support their boys hitting the beaches) - I participated in the design and wind tunnel tests of these in 1981 in St. Louis, which I believe is located somewhere in the U.S., so even those were American in origin. By the way, the four-poster British engine was really the bird's achilles heel - with the exhausts located under the wings, Harriers are really susceptible to shoulder-fired IR SAM missiles. A hit by one of those on, say, an F-18 might ruffle the bird's tail feathers (i.e., the VG tailcone of the engine), but she'd keep on flying. A similar hit on a Harrier, and the pilot's walking home because of damage to proximate vital components, like say the wing structure. This can be seen in the very high Harrier losses during Desert Storm a few years later. Unfortunately, we didn't have an American alternative to this powerplant at the time - the F-35 provides a better, yes American, solution to vertical ops while not compromising combat survivability. Speaking of the F-18, it's interesting to note that when I worked on the bird, the AV-8B aerodynamics group consisted of about a dozen engineers. We shared the same floor as the F-18 aerodynamics group, but there must have been a hundred or more of them. The AV-8B was the USMC's first independently run aircraft program and was on a very thin shoestring budget. I remember fighting the other engineers in our group to get access to our one computer terminal to process store sep data - but it was a fun program for a young engineer because I got to do a lot of things and had a lot of responsibility. I did all of the chase around charts for the first AV-8B flight manual for instance. I suspect the Brits used those too - you're welcome. Jmdeur (talk) 20:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

p.s. I bet 10 years from now, I'll be reading the Wiki article on the British version of the F-35 and hearing all bout how the Americans "copied" that design too - just like you go to the ISS article today and see that it's written in British English - what a c**ck! Jmdeur (talk) 20:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, and for verifying my comments. Btw, there are already those who say the F-35 was "copied" from the Yak-41! I do find it odd that the Brits are so quick to claim that Americans copied their designs (M.52 -> X-1, Trident -> 727, and so on, but they are very quick to say the Russians never copided the Concorde, VC.11, Space Shuttle, et al! Very odd. - BillCJ (talk) 23:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Most of us british people aren't aware of the Tu-144 and the Buran but there is a lot of evidence that the russians stole an early design plan for concorde and based the tu-144 on that.

As for the buran the russians even admit to copying it. @ jmdeur the f35 uses the rolls royce lift system not a american one and of course the pegasus os gonna be worse than the f35s engine which was designed over 40 years later! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.50.162 (talk) 18:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if you believe Wiki, the F-35 lift system is based on patented Lockheed Martin technology, which is believed to be a U.S.-based company, so yes it is good ol' American technology as originally noted. Jmdeur (talk) 03:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

This is not a discussion forum. Section closed per WP:NOTAFORUM. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article title

It has been pointed recently on other talk pages (such as Talk:Boeing Chinook (UK variants) that having "RAF" at the beginning of the title make the aircraft seem like it might be a base or something (RAF Cottering, RAF Harrier). The RAF Chinook page was changed to Boeing Chinook (UK variants) for this reason. See the discussions on this page as for why "UK variants" was chosen over other options.

I hereby propose that we rename RAF Harrier II to BAE Harrier II (UK variants), for the following reasons:

1. Most importantly, Harrier GR7/7As are now operated by the Royal Navy, which recently retired its Sea Harriers.
2. BAE over BAE/Boeing or BAE Systems - The title is long enough as it is. While Boeing is the other partner company on the Harrier II, BAE Systems is the prime contactor on the UK versions. Most of this information is given in the text in one form or another. In addition, the original Harrier was a Hawker Siddeley/British Aerospace project. BAE is commonly used for both British Aerospace and BAE Systems.
3. There is no article or redirect page currently titled BAE Harrier II (UK variants), thus it can be moved without any problems.
4. The Harrier GR7 and GR9 are actually Harrier IIs, despite sharing the same designation series with the original Harrier (GR1/GR3). The Harrier II is a new design, though one clearly based on the older model.

However, I believe that BAE Harrier II would also work, as the UK is the only user of the BAE-prime contractor version of the Harrier II. Boeing makes most Chinooks, including those made for the UK. --BillCJ 02:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The last is simplest. GraemeLeggett 10:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. - BillCJ 17:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Difference between the mk7 and 7A (and 9/9A)

The GR7A programme was originally an interim risk-mitigation activity ahead of the GR9 programme (which was tak9ing longer than anticipated to get under contract and get funding allocated). It is true that it was originally intended to modify 40 GR7s to GR7A standard, but it was also a primary requirement that the aircraft be able to swap between "big" and "small" engines to allow the limitted number of big engines to be easily transferred to aircraft that needed them. This produced someting of a fleet management problem, so the usage of the designation is a little strange. An aircraft which has all the required modifications to *accept* a big engine is still a GR7 - it only becomes a GR7A when a big engine is actually installed. If the big engine is removed from a GR7A and small one fitted in its place then the aircraft becomes a GR7 again.

The same is true for the GR9/9A fleet except that (I believe) during the GR7 to GR9 upgrade programme the entire fleet will receive the required modifications to accept the big engine, rather than the GR7 situiation where there is a small "GR7A capable" fleet within the main fleet. There will also be a small number of the twin-seaters which will be modified to accept big engines during the T10 to T12 upgrade programme to allow for installation of big engines for a couple of summer months when high temperatures might reduce the available hover performance during conversion training. These aircraft will NOT be designated "T12A" (even when fitted with a big engine), but are colloquially refered to as "T12(heavy)".

Peter D Rieden 8/7/07

Design / avionics

Doesn't this article need a sub-section on design features including engines, avionics and cockpit? Currently the cockpit is not even mentioned. Wittlessgenstein (talk) 18:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It does as this project is never complete and any reliable sourced notable additions are welcome. MilborneOne (talk) 20:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Specifications

Why is the picture next to the Spec of a GR7, an american AV8B? Anyone got one of a GR7? 80.42.156.228 (talk) 17:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The AV-8B amd GR.5/7/9 use the same basic airframe, which is what the 3-view mainly shows. If someone has a copyright-free 3-view of a GR.7, or a GR.5 or .9, that would be great, but I doubt the average reader will be able to discern any differences in the 2 images. - BilCat (talk) 21:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Found a suitable image. Replaced. - Dienkonig (talk) 20:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Please clarify armaments

Guns: 2× 30 mm (1.18 in) ADEN cannon pods under the fuselage (no longer fitted)

"No longer fitted", does that mean the BAE Harrier II doesn't or never did carry gun pods? If so, why is it listed under armaments? Wolcott (talk) 07:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Seems understandable to me and I did not add it. Most or all Harrier versions can carry the 2 gun pods, but they are no longer being mounted/carried. Considering the UK is retiring their Harrier IIs soon, that note can just be removed soon. -fnlayson (talk) 16:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe that the 30mm ADEN packs were were only ever fitted to the 'tin wing' harrier (GR1-GR3). GR5 onwards were intended to be fitted with 25mm ADEN gun packs but development of these ran into difficulty and was abandoned. RAF GR5 and its successors, therefore were never fitted with guns n service, unlike the AV8B seroes which fielded a gun almst from the start. I propose that the weapons table read '25mm ADEN gun packs proposed- never fitted' (Kitbag (talk) 08:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC))

Retired?

I think it is de-facto retired, since the last ever operational flight has already occurred. Maybe the status needs to be updated? Egh0st (talk) 23:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Although it appears that the ceremony and flypast was the last ever official operational flight have you evidence that none of the aircraft will ever fly again on non-operational flights? MilborneOne (talk) 11:33, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

We can update when there is a retirement date and source for it. No doubt the fleet official retirement will be announced/released. -fnlayson (talk) 13:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Is T.12A really a GR.7A equivalent?

There written (at the moment)

>;T.12A

>:The Harrier T12A is the trainer equivalent of the up-engined GR7A.

Is this correct? GR.9 --> T.12 while GR.7A --> T.12A? Sounds a little strange. I mean, isn't it equivalent in fact to GR.9A? Any citations would be helpful (I was unable to find one on the web).--Dynamicsoar (talk) 10:25, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

It is incorrect in my knowledge; the only different between the A's and non-A's should be the fitting of the uprated engine. I have modified the text to explain this difference and to eliminate the probably-confused reference to the GR7A. Kyteto (talk) 00:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Reference Clarification

Reference 74 ("House of Commons: Defence Committee 2006, pp. 15–16, 41") is used to justify some rather strong and controversial comments. It may just be that I need education in referencing schemes, but I have been unable to fund a Defence Committee report or other publication which supports the claims from which it is referenced. Can someone provide a more effective reference to the document in question? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 20.133.0.13 (talk) 12:43, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I think the Defence Committte produced more than one report in 2006/7 they are all at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmdfence/cmdfence.htm but I dont which one was used so perhaps they should be tagged as unreliable until it is found. MilborneOne (talk) 16:14, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I have spent five minutes and found the relevant report detailing this information: It seems to be correct, although the link should be presented in the article; for reference see http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmdfence/557/557we03.htm Kyteto (talk) 22:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Digitally Manipulated Image

The pick depicting the Harrier cockpit while on the HMS Ark Royal is photoshopped. Should the caption not say something like "an artist's impression of the Inside view of a Harrier cockpit while preparing to take off from the aircraft carrier HMS Ark Royal, 2010." The reader should be aware that the pic has been manipulated to give the impression of what the interior looks like while on the deck of a carrier. Codymr (talk) 04:08, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

We're not told what the digital manipulation actually was. Stating it's an "artist's impression" would be misleading the reader. - BilCat (talk) 04:57, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Then perhaps concept would be better than impression. Are there any Wikipedia guidelines that states we need to know what the manipulation was other than the pic was edited? On most other representations of vehicles or technology on WP, if the image is altered in any way the caption explicitly states that it is an artists concept or impression, even though it does not specifically state how. This is to help with clarity to make the reader aware the image has been edited for effect or to highlight certain aspects relating to the accompanying text. Examples can be found here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_R._Ford-class_aircraft_carrier

Artist's concept of CVN-78.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassini%E2%80%93Huygens

Cassini - Titan flyby radio signal studies (artist concept; June 17, 2014).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth-generation_jet_fighter

Boeing F/A-XX, a sixth-generation air superiority fighter concept.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluto

CRIRES model-based computer-generated impression of the Plutonian surface, with atmospheric haze, and Charon and the Sun in the sky.

In regards to the Harrier pic details, if the reader enlarges the pic, it does say "A digitally manipulated image of a Harrier pilot's view as he prepares to take off from aircraft carrier HMS Ark Royal." This should be made clear, up front, in the caption unless a pic is obviously an illustration. This would be consistent with other photo realistic representations on WP and help with clarity. Anecdotally, I had to look at the pic closely before realizing it was digitally altered, so in my view by not disclosing this within the caption is, as you say, misleading the reader considering WP is supposed to be encyclopaedic and fact based. Codymr (talk) 13:37, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I guess we have differing definitions of what "digitally manipulated image" means. I understand it in this case to mean a existing photo was enhanced in some way digitally to make it more viewable, such a brightening a dark image. The examples you linked to above are not actual photographs of objects that exist, or that exist together, but made-up images or a combination of separate images, hence "artist's impression". But since the source image does not state whether this is a digitally-altered exiting image, images, or not, we can't assume either way. - BilCat (talk) 19:27, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Digital manipulation can be as simple as brightening or darkening, but it can also mean Photoshopped or compiling an image from multiple sources, whether real or from a graphic designer/illustrator. All of the examples I gave above are "digitally manipulated" in some way, some using texture swatches from real world sources. Here is a link that shows various forms of photo manipulation, both digital and analogue, and some pics of objects that actually existed. As you can see, manipulation can be far more than just lightening and darkening of a photo. I think you'll also see why it is important to be clear that what the reader may be looking at may seem photorealistic, but has actually been manipulated. Perhaps not a big deal for pics that are clearly abstract, but it gets more complicated when the image is very close to photoreal. At worst it can give an inaccurate impression, whether intentional or not:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photo_manipulation#Types_of_digital_photo_manipulation

In regards to the Harrier pic, if you look at the area around the HUD, it is clear that the Harrier cockpit image has been photoshopped and is not just a journalistic photo from a flight deck that has been brightened. A good comparison is the link to the CVN78 image in my previous post which is compiled from multiple sources to make an image that is nearly photorealistic, but has also been digitally manipulated/photoshopped to portray the USS Gerald R Ford at sea. In this case, the reader is not deceived unintentionally because the caption is clear about the source image and its intent. In that pic the water and wake are real, but the ship is a digital model that is likely overlaid on a pic of a Nimitz class or another similarly sized ship. The Harrier cockpit image is included in this article for the same reasons, to give the reader the impression of what the interior would look Iike while on a flight deck, but it's not clear that the photo was edited. I only caught it when I looked very closely and noticed several artifacts where parts of the image have been cut and pasted and show other signs of Photoshop or editing with similar photo software.

Anecdotally, I'm currently working on a documentary for a production company about the Harrier and I have been tasked by the director to find good source images and then licence said images for use. In documentary and journalism, photoshopped images are not considered good sources because it may give an unintentional false impression (the same is true for academic sources and encyclopaedias now that I think about it). Other people using this Wikipedia page for school, work or just personal interest should be afforded the courtesy that this particular image is a simulation for the sake of illustration and not from a photojournalistic source.

As you said, it is unclear to what extent the image has been manipulated, so it is better err on the side of caution. As a compromise, I suggest if artist impression or artist concept are not suitable, then the caption should read "Digitally manipulated image of..." as is stated in the image metadata. That way it is clear that the image is included in the article for illustrative purposes, but makes the reader aware that there has been some manipulation. Codymr (talk) 01:42, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

"Digitally manipulated image of..." works for me. No more but no less than the image itself says. - BilCat (talk) 02:13, 19 June 2014 (UTC)