Jump to content

Talk:Harrier jump jet/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Harrier story page idea

Peter, back in January, you noted on the Talk:Hawker-Siddeley Harrier page that we ought to have a single page covering the story of the Harrier - military role and evolution. Harrier Jump Jet is a disambiguation page. What if we expanded it to cover the overall history and evolution, of the P.1127/Kestrel/Harrier/Harrier II family, dealing with the story overall, and parts that really aren't covered by the other Harrier pages. I am considering doing this, but wanted to get your thoughts before putting anything together. Thanks. - BillCJ 23:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Bill, it would be a great project. The name of the aircraft presents difficulties because it has changed so much over the last 40 years, with no definitive name. Harrier Jump Jet is descriptive but colloquial. Maybe the main article should be Harrier V/STOL fighter aircraft with a redirect from Harrier Jump Jet. The main article should be a short overview leading to longer sub articles. The sub articles should link to the main in the first paragraph. The overview would be 'military role and evolution (history)' with maybe a 'current status'. History would cover the development. The Kestrel page could be a sub-sub page (sub page of History).
I think this might be a good case for a 'Wiki Project' but I don't know much about these. It might be worth using Categories to collect the articles into a hierachy.
Your thoughts? PeterGrecian 11:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Peter. I don't know much about setting up Wiki Projects either. I hadn't considered that "Harrier Jump Jet" was colloquial; I have heard it used in both British and American sources, esp print. That page just seemed like a good place to start. "Harrier V/STOL aircraft" might be a better title, given that the Harrier really isn't considered a fighter in all of its incarnations, Sea Harrier and Harrier II Plus being the main "fighter" variants. "Story of the Harrier" might work to, though its a bit unorthodox for most Wiki aircraft titles. We might actually go through several page moves till we get one everyone is satisfied with. Harrier jet, Harrier fighter/attack aircraft, Jump Jet, and Harrier (aircraft) are all redierect pages (to HJJ) that might work also.

Your basic outline sounds good though. In putting it together, I would basically copy relevant section from the other articles, and expand them where needed in the new article. That's how I usually start new articles - I steal from the existing ones :). Once we have it completed, we can then ask for input if we want to redact any repeated material in the other articles.

I'd basically like this article to be an overview, and deal with the history as a whole, the impact the aircraft has had, etc. Some of this is mentioned in the other articles, but usually only briefly. The history definitely needs to start with the P.1127 and the Kestrel (they are both covered in one article right now because there isn't enough material to justify 2 separte ones), and probably even mention the "Flying Bedstead". It can also cover some of the parallel development of the Pegasus and its forebearers, which really made the Harrier a reality. I want to try to make sure we cover enough original material (not original research), esp history, to justfiy retaining the article.

If we can decide on title soon, I'll start on it as I can, and maybe not link to the other pages till we at least get the basic outline done. At first, it will just be a collectin of various paragraphs and pics in somewhat chronological order. We can work on formatting it as we go along, a bit at a time. We may have to fight off "Requests for Deletion", but if I start with a a lot of material from the other orticles, I think we can hold that off. I realize you won't have a lot of time to work on this for no, but feel free to contribute as you can. Make any any edits you feel are necessary, and if I disagree, we can discuss it on the article talk page. It's definitely going to be a work in progress though, going through many changes, especially as others start to contribute. - BillCJ 16:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think this page needs a number of things, which may or may not be appropiate for the sub articles:-

  • A list of users of the aircraft, including when they begun using the type, and which types they use(d)
and any differences in the variety they are using.
  • Also, the proposed sale to Australia of the Sea HArrier would also be quite interesting to include. See[1] for more info.
  • theres plenty of info on this page which should be incorporated, and links needed to be added to each page to that site [2]

Tom of north wales 19:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Main article name

On second thought, I think I'd prefer to use Harrier Jump Jet as the title, because that's what it is known as to the public at large. They see no difference between the Harrier, Sea Harrier, and the various Harrer IIs. I also think it fits in with our idea of giving a basic overview of the Harrier history, and covering the basic differences between the type. There is a disambiguation page at just plain Harrier that covers all "Harrier" meanings, not just the aircraft, though it does have listings of the 4 Harrier articles. So we really don't need two disambiguation pages. I plan to keep some form of the current disambiguation format near the top of the story page, esp if we use the HJJ page. However, if you really feel it's too colloquial, I have no problem using something else that works better. - BillCJ 16:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

You are right. Most readers would expect Harrier Jump Jet. The principle of 'least surprise' applies here. A good set of redirects would solve the many names issue. PeterGrecian 13:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I don't think the colloquial term "Jump Jet" belongs in the title of a Wikipedia article. "Jump Jet" is merely an informal epithet concocted by the popular media, in much the same way as "Concordski" was used to refer to the Tu-144. Letdorf 15:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC).

It may be informal and colloquial, but I do think it fits. THis is an overview article about the Harrier family as a whole, not the particular variants, and to many people, they are all just Harriers or Jump Jets. If you'd like to propose a move, you are of course welcome to do that. This page can go back to being what it was before expansion, just a DAB page to the Harrier articles, if the move is approved. Btw, as much as people may dislike the term "Concordski", it fits perfectly. - BillCJ 16:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Pop culture

Something else I've noticed: The "Pop culture" sections in the Harrier I and II articles both cover the same movies, even tho different versions are used is some movies ("Living daylights" - Harrier I; "True Lies" - Harrier II, etc.). Though I am not a fan of lengthy fancruft, it would be helpful to put the existing sections in one article, with links to that section in the original articles rather than the current lists there. It would definitley keep the anti-fancruft advocates of the regular pages happy. - BillCJ 17:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. We would also need a link from the main article to the fancruft sections. I guess in the 'See Also' section. PeterGrecian 13:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Images

I'd love to find a good public-domain-type picture of both the Harrier I and II together to use as a lead pic for the page. Any 2 varians would do, such as the AV-8A and AV-8B, GR.3 and GR.5, or the Sea Harrier FA2 and GR7. I have seen pics of the latter pair in books, esp from the last 10 years when they cruised together a lot. Just an idea. - BillCJ 23:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I bet there are some works of US government public domain pictures. Let's have a look. I took many close up photos of the Harriers at Brooklands near where I live which would be useful for a 'how it works' section. I'll upload this week if I can. PeterGrecian 13:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
like this one PeterGrecian 14:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

What version of Harrier is that from? The color looks like a Sea Harrier, but I don't want to guess in the caption. Whatever info on the plane should be posted with the pic on its Image page

Will do PeterGrecian 10:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I just "stole" the Controls and handling" section from the HS Harrier article; it has a pic already, but I'm not sure which one I prefer. That one is of a Sea Harrier, so I may move it to that article if we use yours here.

While I think moving the pop culture stuff to Harrier Jump Jet in popular culture (someone renamed it to a lower-case P and C)is a good idea in and of itself, there is a danger: Stand-alone pop culture pages tend to grOW larGER. I'm not going to fight with you about it thouygh; it's not that big an issue. However, the page may get marked for speedy deletion by someone else (won't be me). I happen to think our "Jump Jet" page is a good place for them, at least while the article is still relatively small, and where we can keep the pop culture section relatively small too!

at least the main page won't be spoilt by fan cruft PeterGrecian 11:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I add a hidden in-text not right above the Video Game section that I found on another aircraft page. Maybe it will help. - BillCJ 06:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

good idea PeterGrecian 11:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Harrier Jump Jet in popular culture is, IMHO, a pretty needless page. The information there would be much better off as part of this article. - Aerobird 16:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Anything to keep the mountains of fancruft tripe out of the main page is good, IMHO. Personally, I'd rather do without except in the most significant cases. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 17:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
That's exactly why Peter split it off, as noted above. I really didn't like the idea to begin with, but's noice not having all that cruft in the main Harrier aticles. Personally, I'd Afd the Pop culture page, but then the cruft would come back to the main articles! - BillCJ 17:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Structure ideas

How about

  1. Introduction to the Harrier Family -> History (with main article at some stage)
  2. Development -> Design, that is 'how it works'
    1. vectored thrust
    2. attitude nozzles
    3. Pegasus plumbing (how to get four jets from one engine), counter rotating spools
  3. Controls and handling, shortened with main article, maybe 'Flying the Harrier Jump Jet' maybe 'Operation of ...'
  4. Combat roles
  5. Variants

etc.

Your comments, as always, appreciated. PeterGrecian 11:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I'm not sure, but I think you're suggesting a separate article on "Flying the HJJ". It's a good idea only if this article gets too big. For know, I'd like to see how this article shapes up first.
Also, I think we have a slightly different vision of this page. I want to cover everything in general about the Harrier here, with the variants covered on their pages. You seem to want a short page here that links to various articles covering different aspects of the Harrier, in addition to the variants. That's fine, we all have our points of view. Wikipedia isn't a dictatorship where I can force my view on anyone, and I don't want it to be.
However, we should try to reconcile our visions early on, so we aren't working at cross purposes here. A compromise could be a slightly-longer page than you envision (but shroter that what I have in mind), with a few sub-articles on the longer sub-topics. We really won't know which sub-topics are longer till we're further along on the project, so waiting to split them off till we have most of this completed might be good too.
Anyway, I'm trying to avoid any conflict in the future. Again, make your views known. No one is right or wrong here, but some ideas work better than others, and some ideas seem good in theory, but in practice fall flat. We don't always know which is which till we try. Also, for know, we two are the only ones working on the project. That makes it easier to make decisions, sucha as creating new pages, then later merging them back in if we diecide to do so.
All that said, I think we have the good beginnings of a page here, and it is shaping up well. It stands well on its own, even wtihout everything we imagine for it. So we are making progress here, and I've enjoyed working with you on it so far. Thanks.
- BillCJ 17:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I guess I'd like the article to become a good article or even a featured article. To do this it would need to be quite long. I think you are interested in the military history of the HJJ (it's definition?) and I more in the history of technology (description?). The article needs both in more or less equal amounts. I hope I can contribute a bit more in a few weeks. Thanks Bill. PeterGrecian 11:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I may have misunderstood earlier you to be saying you wanted the description section split off. Actually, I'm fine with both "definition" and " description" sections being here. I moved the "Controls and Handling" section from the HS Harrier article in here last week. As far as the military history goes, I mainly want to deal with the concept as whole, as overview of what led to the Harrier's development and its evolvement since then, stuff that's not really dealt with in the type articles.
Anyway, it does seem we both want it to be long, so at least that's good. HJJ won't be a feature article this week, so we have plenty oftime to get it right. Anyway, I think it will be a great article when its finished, but then, what on Wiki is ever finished? - BillCJ 13:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I made the anonymous edit to the first section, to make the heading "Harrier family overview". Given what it is, and also considering the second paragraph of the "intro" section, which is a thin and redundant intro to the overview, I suggest we kill the heading of "Harrier family overview" and replace the second paragraph, promoting the family discussion to the top, before the ToC. I am going to go ahead with this change, but feel free to revert it. Nwallins (talk) 03:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Harrier London-New York point-to-point record?

Just a bit of trivia that someone may find interesting enough to look into. Back in about 1969 I seem to remember, a Harrier broke the London-New York point-to-point record and as far as I know, still holds it. An RAF Harrier took-off from a coal yard in central London and, flight refuelled, crossed the Atlantic to land in a parking lot in central New York. This was a city-to-city record at the time and I seem to remember it appearing in the Guinness Book of Records in the early 1970s. Ian Dunster 16:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I remember reading that in a source I have too. I'll try to dig it out and see what I can post. - BillCJ 18:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
OK - BTW, I've often wondered what the onlookers at the parking lot thought of all this. Ian Dunster 14:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
There's some video of the London-New York flight on YouTube here: [3] The year was 1969 and it was in May that the Daily Mail Transatlantic Air Race flight took place. The point the pilots had to get from was the Post Office Tower in London to the Empire State Building in New York. One of the Harriers was XV744 flown by Brian Davis, RN, and the other was flown by Sqn Ldr Tom (Lecky) Tompson, RAF. The lift-off point was St Pancras railway station and the landing was on one of the banks of the East River in New York.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result was merge into Harrier Jump Jet. -- BillCJ 17:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Requested merger

Harrier Jump Jet in popular culture → Harrier Jump Jet

(See Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages for detailes on performing meregers.)

Survey

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons.

Survey - Support votes

Survey - Oppose votes

  • Oppose -

Discussion

None.

Decision

No contest. Will merge, and delete the Harrier Jump Jet in popular culture page rather than creating a redirect. - BillCJ 17:10, 7 June 2007 (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.

Concerning the "pop culture" section

Are the flight sims included because they're flight sims, as opposed to the "gamecruft" references to other notable games featuring the Harrier (ie GTA, MGS, etc.)? Wikiproject:Aircraft didn't have an answer for me there. Also, should it not be noted that the Harrier's features are greatly exaggerated in pop culture, as it is oftentimes shown performing maneuvers that, in reality, are impossible?

Overall, my personal feeling is that this section is a messy, jumbled compilation of random appearances of the Harrier and probably the only notable information from the section is the lawsuit. I'm inclined to edit it but I'm afraid my changes may be deleted per some obscure wikirules until I'm clear on what this article's editors believe is relevant or not. -albrozdude 18:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't remeber seing your question aon teh WP:AIR talk pages, but i could have missed it. To you main question: If you think this is messy, take a look at Harrier Jump Jet in popular culture, and view some of the history before it was merged back here, and note what I did not move here! Maybee this section could use some minor clean-up and reformatting, but all the items here have been agreed to as notable at one point or another. (Note: Most of the items retained were already here before the section was split off.) As to flight sims, they are ususally considered as able to be notable (but notable in and of the fact they are flight sims), while games are usualy not, becuase they are usually highly fictionalized, while the sims are more close to reality. Hope this helps. - BillCJ 02:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok, thank you. One thing I would like to do is remove this odd sentence:
"The James Bond movie The Living Daylights, and in the film Battlefield Earth."
And then just condense the rest of the information into a short paragraph, also maybe to note that in many movies and games, the Harrier's abilities and features are greatly exaggerated. -albrozdude 03:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Unqualified statement

I removed the following statement from the text: The Harrier remains to this day the only military aircraft design bought by the United States from a foreign country. First, it is unsourced. Second, as written, it is patently false: The US has had a number foreign design in military service, including the DH.4, Mosquito, Spitfiire, B-57 Canberra, C-23, C-27A and J, T-6 II (PC-9), and T-45 Goshawk. - BillCJ 23:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Corrected Infobox inaccuracy

I have corrected the Infobox Image caption. It said the Harrier was from the RAF, but the Squad markings are clearly 800 NAS, so it is a Royal Navy GR-7. 81.110.254.233 07:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Good catch. Thanks. - BillCJ 16:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Comparison spec table

I add a table to compare the main specs for the main Harrier models. This was BillCJ's idea, btw. A good one I think. I got most of the specs from the Norden book. But it did not cover the Kestrel. So I'm not sure on that data. Its MTOW might be for a vertical takeoff vs. a short takeoff used for the others. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

F-35/F22/A Link?

Shouldn't there be a link to the F-35 & F22/A entries seeing how both these aircrafts thrust vectoring capabilites are based on the harriers innovative design? I have read that the design is more in keeping with the Yak, that however is a sophistry as the Yak was born of a system based on the Pegasus engineTwobells (talk) 09:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Uh, no, not really. Should we link every aircraft ever built that uses wings on the Wright flyer page? The Harrier may have pioneered the use of thrust vectoring, but it's application on other designs doesn't make them related, or worth linking. The F-22's thrust vectoring is solely for manuvering, not vertical lift, and several Russian desings use this too. The F-35B uses a different concept of lift that is older than the Harrier design (lift-fan). The Yak-141 (I assume you didn't mean the Yak-38) has a similar device to vector the rear exhaust as the F-35B, and while LM appears to have consulted Yak on the design's technical details, the idea is also older that too. - BillCJ (talk) 17:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Inconsistent Engine Specs

I know nothing about Harriers, but it doesn't make sense to me that the specs table should list the Pegasus 11 Mk 105 engine as having two different thrust values for the Sea Harrier FA2 and the AV-8B+ Harrier. 70.251.1.149 (talk) 17:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a typo - Sea Harrier FA2 used the Mk 106. Good catch! - BillCJ (talk) 18:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Excessive wikilinks?

Is there any consensus that one unique wikilink per section is enough? Looking at the new intro paragraph, it is very busy with the excessive linking to VTOL, etc. It feels distracting and overdone. I am going to make an edit. The first mention of a linkable term will be be linked. After that, regular text rules apply. Nwallins (talk) 03:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

early development of p1127

two anecdotes i've heard, but cn't quote sources.

During the early drafting processes of the p1127, the UK air ministry had a mathematical simu;ator; they fed in the expected pilot inputs for a vstol aircraft. The simulator said that it needed a two man crew. Hawker were crestfallen - a two man plane would be too expensive. However, the Hawker guys fed into that simu;atr the inputs required a ride a bicycle, and the simulator said that it was impossible for one man to ride a bike!

Secondly, Hawker's only test pilot accredited to fly vtol aircraft broke his leg in aa skiing accident; until he could fly again, progress would be constrained. Finally, he attended the doctor to get his 'fit to fly' certificate; the doctor signed it with the condition 'tethered hovering only'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.64.122.105 (talk) 19:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Harrier jump jet/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

MoRsE: Could need some inline citations and some tidying up

Last edited at 17:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 14:55, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Harrier jet in the film Contact

The 1997 feature film Contact has a brief scene showing what appears to be a Harrier jet landing on a ship off the coast of Japan. The ship is moving forward at a rapid speed, and the jet approaches its landing pad from a direction almost abeam to the ship. In order to maintain its position directly above the moving landing pad, the plane would have to be moving laterally at a speed matching that of the ship. Is that physically possible?

Probably - the Harrier has a pretty good turn of speed both sideways and backwards, see link (commentary in German) [4] so yes it probably could land-on sideways on a fast-ish moving ship — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 18:04, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
The Harrier's maximum safe sideways speed is 30 knots. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.100.193 (talk) 11:42, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Language

You seem to use the English from across the pond, rather than my quaint dialect :). Given that the Harrier is of British origins, we should probably use British English throughout. Although I can read/understand British English fairly well, I don't write it in naturally. So feel free to change any dialect/spelling/grammar you feel is necessary, as you go along. For the most part, we ought to use as neutral a reading as we can.

Anyway, thanks for your input, and the original "germ" of the idea. - BillCJ 16:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Well deduced! I live in Kingston upon Thames where the Harrier was concieved. A pleasure to collaborate over such distance! I'm not going to quibble about spelling! PeterGrecian 13:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
The first generation Harriers are certainly of British origin, but the Harrier II is as much American as it is British. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 16:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Interesting viewpoint. Doesn't change much, though, especially as it's simply not true. Dave420 (talk) 13:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

That's true too. But since the British designed and developed it first, I thought we could default to their rules in case of any conflict. It doesn't seem it's going to be an issue with Peter either way though. We might end up with quite a mix in the article, so I was trying to preclude that beforehand. - BillCJ 17:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

One other thing -- remember that the Harrier project began as a multiservice project (much like JSF), and the U.S. was an equal partner. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 18:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
No, it didn't. The US Marines definitely helped when they made a large order for the aircraft, but to suggest some level of cooperation akin to the JSF is woefully inaccurate. Dave420 (talk) 13:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

the very orgional was a french aircraft which was scrapped, the idea spawned the british to create a V/STOL aircraft. there was limited British government backing so hawker funded it itself.The British government had scrapped so many aircraft before it that it bought i belive 80 aircraft and told hawker it wasnt going to purchase anymore. then the USMC saw the potential of the harrier in comflicts such as vietnam, although it wasnt used their and injected cash and bought the aircraft after the aircraft had been fully developed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markgoodall (talk • contribs) 18:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I am a "yank" who has lived in London, those darn Brits just don't know how to speak English :)

I am happy to say that I did not topple the Marble Arch in 1974!

It was a rainy day in '74 and I was driving around the circle and another motorist cut me off which caused me to swerved my car and did an excellent 360 while traveling around the arch. I stayed on the road and regained my bearing and completed the circle with no casualties.

Of course English on both sides of "the Pond" have taken on their own flavours due to societal evolution, we don't have much differences except in spelling. Americanization has simplified colour to color and flavour to flavor. Brits say lorry and Yanks say truck, Brits say pram and Yanks say carriage. Even within the bounds of the UK and the US, each have their own regional ways of speaking.

I have no problem with the British, English, American and Cockney way of spelling and speaking.

I enjoy our differences.

Markgoodall, excellent contribution, but slow down - use spell cheque :}

The One and Only Worldwise Dave Shaver 21:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Operational History

This section should be in there. AThousandYoung 19:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

A recent Time magazine article, Osprey: A Flying Shame claims that "Since 1971, more than a third of Harriers have crashed, killing 45 Marines in 143 accidents." This would seem to be a fact that if true merits mention in this overview, which is where people like myself will land first; the article implies this, by mentioning the high level of specialized skill required to fly the plane, but doesn't state the resulting consequences of this requirement (an extremely high rate of accidents and fatalities). tvleavitt (talk) 00:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

What I don't understand is why US in comparison with British forces had so many accidents, on average the RAF flew the Harrier far more yet have far fewer accidents, could the failure rate be due to lack of experienced instructers in this particular aircraft? Twobells (talk) 09:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

According to to John Farley, Harrier test pilot, the problem was mainly due to the USMC allocating former helicopter pilots to the Harrier. These pilots had a tendency to allow the Harrier to get ahead of them, i.e., the pilots had difficulty anticipating the aircraft's reaction to their control inputs at the high speeds compared to the helicopters they had been trained on. Although subsonic, the Harrier is still a 'fast jet' and helicopter-trained pilots for the most part don't (or didn't) have the ingrained quick reactions necessary to fly the Harrier safely, especially at low levels. When the Harrier was first introduced the USMC put their best pilots onto flying the aircraft and they had no accidents at all for the first two years. The Harrier is NOT a helicopter - it's a 'fast jet' and needs to be treated like one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.86.52 (talk) 09:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
There's an interesting programme on YouTube entitled The Harrier Story here; [5] - the programme appears to be from around 1980. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 19:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Better quality version here:[6] - BTW, it's a BBC production from 1981 and the proper programme title is Jump Jet. It includes contributions from Stanley Hooker, Bill Bedford, John Farley and others. It includes several FAA Sea Harrier pilots who participated in the 1982 Falklands war a year later.
A later 1988 documentary on the Harrier here: [7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 10:26, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Order of users in info box

Why is the USMC at the top? The RAF should be at the top as R is first alphabetically and it was invented In Britain for the RAF.(Morcus (talk) 02:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC))

The USMC was placed on top because it has used the largest number of all Harrier variants combined. The subject of this article is all the Harrier types, both the Is and IIs. On the page for the Hawker Siddeley Harrier, the first variant, the RAF is listed first. You're welcome to try to build a consensus to change the order. - BillCJ (talk) 02:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for an Explanation as to why. Though i still feel it should be Alphabetical (Morcus (talk) 03:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC))

Well, we could remove one of the other users, like Spain, and add the Italian Navy - that would be first alphabetically :) - BillCJ (talk) 03:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Spain is first Alphabetically by Nation as the RAF is an organ of the UK.

The Indian Navy and Royal Thai Navy are also operators of British-variant Harriers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.0.46 (talk) 11:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Frankly I think the country of origin and its user should be first and then alphabetically for the other nations. the the RAF and the RN should be first. - Marscmd (talk) 00:11, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

and out of RAF and RN being the top two it should be RN at the very top as it is the senior service (Fdsdh1 (talk) 21:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC))

Constant change to title

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was no consensus to move it to the proposed name. —harej (talk) 08:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Harrier Jump Jet family → BAe/McDonnell-Douglas Harrier family — This article seems to be engendered a great deal of confusion as to the title. I believe that the title should be "BAe/McDonnell-Douglas Harrier family" as the "Jump Jet" was never an official designation. It was more akin to a P.R. invention. Keeping the title consistent with all the other daughter articles also makes sense. The move back and forth was the product of a campaign to move a variety of article titles to a particular individual's choice of titles. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC).

Non-consensual unproposed move

"Harrier Jump Jet" is a commone term, and the editors who created the page chose this title specifically for the purpose of making it an overview of the family. To include the manufacturers, the correct title would be Hawker/Hawker Siddeley/British Aerospace/BAE Systems and McDonnell Douglas/Boeing Harrier family. I think the Jump Jet title is much better! For those who disagree, please use the formal move process to propose a move to the new title, and allow a conSensus to be reached on it, as BRD has been invoked. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 19:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

B, see above as this back-and-forth occurred throughout the morning on a number of forums.
(repeat) This article seems to be engendered a great deal of confusion as to the title. I believe that the title should be "BAe/McDonnell-Douglas Harrier family" as the "Jump Jet" was never an official designation. It was more akin to a P.R. invention. Keeping the title consistent with all the other daughter articles also makes sense. The move back and forth was the product of a campaign to move a variety of article titles to a particular individual's choice of titles. FWiW, I refer you to a slew of edit comments and "Jump Jet" phew, show me where that was ever the designation for the aircraft. LOL Bzuk (talk) 19:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC).
As a I stated before this is not an aircraft article. It is an overview page; more of a glorified disambigious page than an aircraft page. So I don't think the aircraft naming convention really applies here. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
What do you think the name should be? Harrier family? Jump Jet family or BAE/McDonnell Douglas Harrier family? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC).
Agree (to Fnlayson) but if it has to change then perhaps Harrier family would be better than trying to add four or five manufacturers into the title. MilborneOne (talk) 19:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I could live with Harrier family? Jump Jet family has connotations of the Jetsons!! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC).

(Unindent) Again, "Harrier Jump Jet" is a common name for the "uninformed", and is regularly used in the popular press. As detailed above, the name was previously a DAB page (which would need to exist anway) for the several articles on the Harrier. Another editor suggested an article for a "Harrier story", and that developed into what we have here today. It is inteded to give an overview of the Harrier for those not familiar with the various incarnations of the Harrier. I really don't see the problem with Harrier Jump Jet being the title for the article, as it's not intended to supplant the regular article. Of course, I will accept the consensus, if there is a clear one. - BillCJ (talk) 20:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

For whatever it is worth, "Harrier Jump Jet", "Harrier Jump Jet family", and "Harrier jet family" are all names I think would be clear and are fine with me. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I'd be fine with the variations also. For what's worth, there are 3 intewiki article listed. The Spanish article is simply entitled es:Harrier, while the Vietnamse article is at vi:Harrier Jump Jet. I cant read Arabic or the script, but it's title appears to be 3 words, and "Harrier Jump Jet" is in the infobox under the Arabic script. In English, Harrier is a DAB page, as theree is no clear primary topic. - BillCJ (talk) 21:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Harrier "Jump Jet" family would even be acceptable but not "Jump Jet" on its own, as I still think this is PR person's golly-gee invention. FWiW, I know we are writing to the great unwashed, but my preference is still for the BAE/McDonnell Douglas Harrier family as it is more encompassing. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC).
Sound's more like something a reporter invented. They're the ones who keep using it anyway. Same differnece anyway as far as aggregate intelligence goes! ;) - BillCJ (talk) 22:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Harrier weakness ?

Noticed no one has a section that the Harrier can't lift off vertically with a full load of bombs.--Ericg33 (talk) 08:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

As far as i am aware it was not designed to lift vertically with a full load of bombs so not really a weakness. MilborneOne (talk) 09:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
No matter how much a Harrier can lift vertically, it would always be able to carry more through a short take-off, as the wings would proved more lift that vertical power alone, up to the airframe's MTOW and its ability to carry the extra weight, available pylons, etc. That's just aerodynamics and physics. - BilCat (talk) 15:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
There was an anecdote (possibly apocryphal) in the 'Straight & Level' column (Uncle Roger) in Flight International around 1973:
A NATO four-star Air Force General was being shown round an RAF Advance Deployment of Harriers somewhere in the-then West Germany, and wishing to show interest he went round asking the personnel questions. To one RAF ground crewman he asked:
'Son, what are your facilities for servicing other NATO aircraft?'
Ground crewman: - "Pardon?"
Four-Star Air Force General: - 'Well, what would you do if, say, a Luftwaffe F-104 came in here and wanted re-fuelling and re-arming - what facilities do you have?'
Ground crewman: - "Sir, you land a Starfighter in here and I'll provide the facilities"
.... there was no runway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.56.182 (talk) 20:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
....original 1974 Straight and Level snippet here; [8] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 18:09, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Supersonic?

The commentary on an archive BBC video here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11996312 clearly states that the Harrier was flown at supersonic speeds. The article states the m,ax speed of the GR3 as just 'transonic' and the later versions as considerably less. The article only indicates that another supersonic version P1150 was planned, but not followed up. Some digging suggests "The sharp lipped harriers are transonic M1.2 at altitude with a usable load but the drag index is too high to effectively use this. " but I can't find reliable evidence for this. Can anyone? The Yowser (talk) 10:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

A supersonic version of the Harrier was trialled, by equiping the engine with a 'Plenum Chamber Burner'. This was the vectored equivalent of an after burner as the burner was placed in the chamber between the two rear (hot) nozzles. It was not regarded as a success, partly because the large engine air intake imposed unacceptable drag. I don't have an independant cite for this either, so can't put this in the article. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 12:28, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
http://www.harrier.org.uk/history/history_p1154.htm and http://www.vectorsite.net/avav8_1.html#m6 cover the P.1150 idea which became the Hawker Siddeley P.1154 (until cancelled while the development aircraft were actually being built in 1965) GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for that. It adds to my recollection. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 12:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
IIRC, all variants of the P.1127/Kestrel/Harrier were transonic, they just didn't have the engine power to reach Mach 1.0 in level flight. They were all, like the Hawk, supersonic in dives. The P.1154 was designed to be supersonic however. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 20:40, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
For some reason Wikipedia has chosen definitions for 'subsonic', 'transonic' and 'supersonic' that vary from the traditional - at least in the UK - aeronautical ones. The Harrier has always been properly described as a 'transonic' design because it can be dived to above Mach 1 without problems. Similarly the Hawker Hunter is also a 'transonic' design, as it too can be dived at above Mach 1 with no problems. Generally, 'subsonic' jet aircraft, such as the Gloster Meteor or Lockheed P-80 Shooting Star, need to be kept away from speeds around Mach 1 as compressibility problems then occur, which usually make the aircraft uncontrollable. A 'transonic' aircraft has no such problems. A 'transonic' aeroplane differs from a 'supersonic' one by not possessing sufficient engine power, i.e., thrust, to reach and exceed Mach 1 in level flight.
BTW, the 'transonic' definition arose because the range of maximum permissible speeds (Vne) straddles the Mach 1.0 region, rather than being under ('sub') or above ('super') it.
If you dive in a subsonic aircraft to Mach 1 then you are in trouble. In a transonic one you just make a loud 'bang'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.220.15 (talk) 11:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Background Edit AND Second Gen harriers

in a TV documentary about for channel five. it had alot of information about the early years of the harrier. for such things as the project was funded by Sydney Cam Hawkers chief designer and did not recieve funding from any one until after it first flight.

Second Gen Harriers

i am a little confused as why does the harrier say "The British Areospace license-built " as BAE systems owns the rights to Harrier it should be the "American license-built AV-8B Harrier " and will people stop refering when talking about the Harrier GR 5 upwards as Harrier II as that is the american Designation not the British One the RAF and RN when refer to the harrier never said Harrier II adn neither do BAE systems

"The BAE Systems/Boeing Harrier II is a modified version of the AV-8B Harrier II that was used by the Royal Air Force (RAF) and the Royal Navy until 2010" no the AV-8B is a modified version of the Harrier GR 5 and the Harrier II Plus is a modified GR 7/9 and could go as far as saying the only thing they have in common is the basic shape and engine and things that arent released to the general public

My information for this comes from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hgso1yUHUy8 - this is a Demand Five you tube thing and i am not sure if america can get it.

and a little question what does AV-8 stand for? Marscmd (talk) 00:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

See the McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II article or this website for more information on the AV-8B/GR5/7/9. The AV-8B project was initiated by McDonnell Douglas, BAe only joined later, as a subcontractor. BAe's own study for a second-generation Harrier (the Harrier GR.5(K) or "Big-Wing Harrier") was quite different, and not proceeded with. Development of the AV-8B later diverged, and the AV-8B+ doesn't really correspond to the GR7/9. AV-8 is a US DoD designation, and essentially means "Attack, VTOL, number 8". Regards, Letdorf (talk) 01:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC).
It is a shame that my grandad was involed in the project and says a different story but as the internet says it i sure it must be correct. Also even if the second gen part of the thing is wrong even though i dont think it is. the documentary i put on there does include the early stages of the harrier with interviews from the creator of the Bristol/Rolls Royce Pegasus engine and the Designer of the Harrier itself or are we going to completly ignore that so can the correct infomation be added or do we keep with the american version of events. Marscmd (talk) 15:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Mike Spick and Bill Gunston were/are noted British aviation writers, and the WP Harrier family articles use much of their printed material as sources. There is also enough similarity between the American and British variants of the Harrier II that the US has purchased 72 GR9/9As as spares. I wouldn't call the GR5 a license built AV-8B, however, as there was shared development and production. But there is no doubt that the Harrier II program was US-led, and developed primarily to USMC requeiremnts for Close Air Support missions, which Gunston has opined against at length in his books on the subject, as have other British writers. - BilCat (talk) 17:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Article not moved, there is a clear consensus not to move the article ~~ GB fan ~~ 09:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Harrier Jump Jet → Harrier (VTOL aircraft) — I know this has been discussed before, but I think it's worth bringing it up again. As has been previously pointed out, "Jump Jet" is merely a nickname invented by the popular press, and hence (IMHO) is not appropriate for an article title. Since several company names have been associated with the Harrier (Hawker Siddeley, British Aerospace, BAE Systems, McDonnell Douglas, Boeing), I would have suggested departing from convention slightly and going with a simple Harrier (aircraft) as an alternative, but, of course, the Hawker Harrier was an aircraft too, so I'm suggesting Harrier (VTOL aircraft) instead. Letdorf (talk) 19:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
The Harrier can do vertical and short takeoffs, so both VTOL and V/STOL apply. -fnlayson (talk) 02:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Harrier (aircraft) isn't enough for DAB purposes, since there are two radically different planes from different eras by this name. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 04:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
right, missed the previous one. -fnlayson (talk) 05:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep Oppose - "Harrier Jump Jet" is a specific term often used in popular media, especially during the 70s and 80s. This started out as a simple DAB page for the popular term, but was expanded to be a basic overview article, as detailed in previous discussions here. Theres no need to move it , as the actual articles on the specific aircraft are properly titled per the WP:AIR/NC naming conventions. Adding "aircraft" or "VTOL aircraft" is just not needed. - BilCat (talk) 06:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose but support move to Harrier (aircraft) and put a hat note on it. I'd agree that "Jump Jet" is not in keeping with an encyclopaedia and it seems clear to me that there is a primary topic for Harrier (aircraft) given that the other Harrier was an experimental aircraft with a production run of one, where as the jump jet was a ground breaking aircraft with a large production run used by several armed forces around the world and with widespread coverage. Additionally Harrier (aircraft) is only getting about 50-100 hits per month suggesting that not that many people search for that term and if they search for Harrier it's immaterial the name of the the two aircraft page as they're just follow the links from that disambiguation page. Dpmuk (talk) 10:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: But by that argument, the Boeing 747 article should be named "Boeing 747 Jumbo Jet" and Tupolev Tu-144 should be "Tupolev Tu-144 Concordski"! There is a balance to be struck, I think, between the "common name" approach and some sense of formality in an encyclopedia. Note also that Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Naming deprecates the use of "nicknames", and I consider this guideline to be relevant here, even though this isn't (as has been noted) an article about a single aircraft type. Regards, Letdorf (talk) 17:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC).
  • Oppose - pages should be easy to find, 'Harrier V[/S]TOL (aircraft)' clearly isn't. For anyone looking for the technical details, the pages already exist and are linked from here. GyroMagician (talk) 22:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is an easily recognisable, and more common name for the overview topic. This will be the phrase more commonly searched for and as such, the change will result in more redirecting than before, which doesn't seem an improvement. It may have arisen informally, but its widespread usage now doesn't mean that is a huge problem, aircraft such as the B-17 Flying Fortress and the F-111 Aardvark both had their names invented after their designation by outside comments and later branded as such officially, this name should be treated in the same manner for the family-wide article. Kyteto (talk) 16:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm ambivalent on the current name, but if we move it, I'd oppose the proposed (VTOL aircraft) I like the suggestion above to move it to Harrier (aircraft) with a hatnote - the biplane is a pretty obscure footnote, and the jet family is clearly the primary topic within the context of aircraft. Shimgray | talk | 01:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Even if the bastard press invented the name "jump jet", it is perfectly descriptive and more widely recognised than anything else proposed here. I see no reason to change it; it does not seem too slangy, and I can be pretty fastidious about language. There is simply nothing wrong with the existing title; leave it. --O'Dea (talk) 17:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:
Previous consensus was for "Harrier Jump Jet". Let this go for a bit. -fnlayson (talk) 02:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Whatever your justification for moving, it's been contested per WP:BRD. The current consesus is for this title, so a discussion is proper now. - BilCat (talk) 06:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
It's a shame SMcCandlish decided to "jump the gun" and not wait for consensus to be established (or not) - "common sense" can be quite a subjective thing sometimes! Muddying the waters further by claiming that the move request was invalid on account of the difference between VTOL and V/STOL didn't really help either. On the other hand Dpmuk gives a reasonable argument for Harrier (aircraft), and I'd settle for that. I'm going to add a {{movenotice}} template to the article to canvas opinions. Regards, Letdorf (talk) 11:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/harrier/
    Triggered by \bairforce-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 12:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Origin [Harrier]

A relevant definition of 'origin' is: the first stage of existence; beginning. That means where the FIRST of something came about, not subsequent variants. For some aircraft (Eurofighter, Jaguar, Aplha jet, etc.) this can reasonably be more than one country. For others (F-16, MiG-29, Harrier) it can't. Is there any way to stop this from being repeatedly mucked around with? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.172.13 (talk) 07:26, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

This article covers both generations of Harriers, and the second generation was a US-led project. As such, the consensus has been to include the United States in the origin field. You're welcome to disagree,but you need other editors to support you in order to change the consensus. Until that happens, please don't keep removing US from origins in the infobox. - BilCat (talk) 07:51, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
In what way can a second generation, of anything, pertain to its origin? That's a contradiction in terms, and of the rest of the article ("Originally developed by UK manufacturer Hawker Siddeley," "approach by the Bristol Engine Company in 1957... ...Hawker Aircraft came up with a design"). In contrast, the second generation "was extensively redeveloped" - note REDEVELOPED, I.e. from an original. By the way, the mere fact that you are implying that I 'keep removing US' suggests that there isn't a consensus, since this is the first time I have removed this! In fact, given that you appear to have reversed this same edit, made by various editors, it could equally be argued that you need other editors to support you in order to reverse a valid edit (?) 80.229.172.13 (talk) 15:26, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Bilcat, was this specific matter discussed before? can you please post a link to it? I am among the seemingly increasing number of editors who over time have tried to change the origin to just 'United Kingdom', only to be systematically reverted. Consensus might be shifting here.
As for the matter itself, "The Harrier Jump Jet was originally developed in the UK", hence its national origin is United Kingdom: how can this be incorrect? Both generations are part of the same family; the AV-8B has unquestionably its roots in the original Hawker Siddley Harrier, even if it was developed by the US; its origin, the single, initial source from where it comes from is therefore the UK. This is just plain English to me. --Deeday-UK (talk) 22:54, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
With UK in your name, of course it's plain "English" - I'd expect nothing else. ;) Seriously though, most of the users making the changes have been drive-by IPs, usually located in the UK, and usually made without any comment whatsoever, so they weren't really contributing to the consensus as such. I can't remember if it was discussed on another page or not, but @Fnlayson: may remember. The closest we've come to the topic of origins on this page is in #Background Edit AND Second Gen harriers, where the US origin of the Second Gen Harrier was questioned and answered, as several British users seemed totally unaware of the Harrier II's origins. That may have been part of the reason we added US to origins in the infobox. Would you be open to breaking it down into first and second gens, and listing US/UK for the second (Harrier II)? - BilCat (talk) 00:57, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
F-16's were build by TAI, KAI, Fokker and SABCA - should Turkey, Korea, Netherlands and Belgium be added to it's National origin? Manufacture, redesign, redevelopment, etc. have nothing to do with origin. There's no ambiguity in the article - right next to the info box, there is a breakdown of the main variants and their producers for anyone interested in the detail, but overall, there is just one origin - no need for complication. This is a plausible reason why some people making this edit didn't leave a comment - they simply didn't think it was controversial/worthy of note/expenditure of effort (the fact that I am in a position to put this time in is a scathing indictment of the state of my life). Also, all the edits were the same; they might not have made a comment, but none of them changed it to UK/Vietnam, so it's not as if there was an doubt/divergence in their thinking. 80.229.172.13 (talk) 04:01, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
TAI, KAI, Fokker and SABCA are merely licensed builders, not developers of new variants. Yet Mitsubishi F-2 states Japan and US as its origin,as it is a developed variant. If the F-2 had a larger production run than the F-16, and if we had a separate overview article on all the variants and derivatives, then it would be appropriate to list Japan for the "second generation". - BilCat (talk) 04:12, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
I'd say the f-16 article serves that overview role fairly aptly, yet Japan isn't listed there. As for the production run - that basically means any aircraft licences built/modified by the US would almost invariably have to be considered to have (co-)originated in the US, since the US would almost invariably build more of them than anyone else. Similarly/eg. the US (maybe Russia/USSR/China, not certain) has probably made/designed more jet engines than anyone else, but that has no bearing on where the jet engine originated. And of course the F-2 states Japan/US, just as the AV-8B states US/UK - both go without saying, and neither have any bearing here. BTW, I only meant that MDC/Being being listed near by should have a bearing on the origin.80.229.172.13 (talk) 07:52, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
At the moment the infobox implies a straight cooperation like Concordes infobox, or SEPECAT Jaguar (though the Jaquar's infobox doesn't give a national origin) GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:19, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Which my proposal addresses, GL. @IP80, if US is removed, how long before more UK-based IPs show up and start removing MDD/Boeing from the manufacturer fields on yhe basis that they aren't British? That's happened before too, even on the AV-8B article, IIRC. The point is, simply because a majority of users keep doing something over and over again doesn't make their edist right, especially if the edits are being made in ignorance of the whole history. And somehow I doubt you'll be around to help fix the situation. - BilCat (talk) 09:48, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
The problems you're describing are perennial in/intrinsic to a wiki; the difference in the cases you've mentioned is that those are incontrovertible/verifiable facts and/therefore can be cited - have you tried doing so? People might be less likely to remove cited information. If they still do, you have every right to reverse their edits, try to contact them on their talk pages, raise the issue on the article's talk page, report them for vandalism, what ever. What you can't do is invoke lack of consensus as justification for reverting an edit, then claim that a majority doing something (which can't be clearly verified as as fallacious) isn't justified. Nor should you imply/move towards taking ownership of a page - if you feel inclined to take stewardship, that is your choice; I don't intend to do so, but will fix anything that I see when I see it (here or elsewhere, usually after trawling through the page history to confirm that it is a valid fix - that's my burden; the point being that you can hardly accuse me of indifference) and must hope that others will do the same. But the solution isn't to leave questionable material in place, in order to 'block' other edits.80.229.172.13 (talk) 20:14, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm well aware of WP's problems, and I have a long, verifiable history of dealing with it. Yes, I do assert stewardship of the article, having been one of the primary creators of it. I'm trying not to assert ownership. Again, I've admitted the current solution is confusing, and made a suggestion in the spirit of compromise that's also inherent in WP that keeps to what was intended in the creation of the article as an overview while clearing up the confusion. Granted, it's expanded a bit beyond that vision, but it still about the Harrier family as a whole. Everything thing in the infobox covers its entire history, and it doesn't make sense to me to restrict one field because of a wooden dictionary definition - especially since I was the one who added the field to the infobox template, and know what I had in mind when I did that. - BilCat (talk) 20:42, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Bilcat, I'm not sure what your solution is: splitting the article, the infobox or else? I don't think it's needed. GraemeLeggett beat me to it: arguably most readers see the UK/US dual origin and think it was a multinational joint venture from the start (like the F-2), which is contradicted by the first line of the article – and I bet that explains at least some of the "drive-by" anonymous edits: they may be not British nationalists, just confused readers.
At the same time there's nothing confusing in listing MDD/Boeing among the manufacturers: it's a family of aircraft that originated in one company and then branched off at other manufacturers abroad (side note: it would be even better if the template allowed 'Manufacturers', plural).
I couldn't care less that it's the UK at the centre of this 'paternity claim' (despite my nickname). I only care about clarity and consistency. --Deeday-UK (talk) 21:44, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

I give up. Facepalm Facepalm "Everything I might possibly say has already been taken down in evidence against me." - BilCat (talk) 22:14, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Name origin

Any chance of linking to the birds that inspired the name? As it's a UK plane, it's either named after a marsh harrier or a hen harrier. An explanation of the name alongside the bird-themed series (kestrel and hawker etc) would be nice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.146.23.96 (talk) 10:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

It was named "Harrier" because it can hover in mid-air like the Harrier (bird), as does the similar Kestrel. Both are small birds of prey that hover in the air before diving down to catch prey on the ground. As for the specific specie of bird, your guess is as good as mine.
The names were actually chosen not by Hawker's but by their customer, the Air Ministry and later MoD, although Hawker's may have recommended the names.
The "Hawker" company name came from Harry Hawker who was a business partner of Thomas Sopwith when the Sopwith Aviation Company was liquidated after WW I. They formed a new company - Hawker Aircraft, later becoming Hawker Siddeley.
BTW, the Bristol Engines 53 engine received the name "Pegasus" because with the four nozzles pointed vertically downwards the four columns of thrust resembled the four legs of the winged horse of the same name. That was why they re-used a name rather than giving the engine a new one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.29.18.221 (talk) 12:34, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Partly. Bristol engines always named their engines after Greek mythological creatures. 86.188.36.150 (talk) 18:34, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Despite

This doesn't make sense. The fact it was subsonic if anything lead to it being a success. Despite implies being subsonic was a further hurdle that t h e harrier overcame. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahahahahahahahahaha (talk • contribs) 10:52, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

The "despite" is because at he time it was developed, it was thought that being supersonic was a desirable trait for a VTOL fighter, and in fact still is. The F-35B is supersonic. - BilCat (talk) 10:56, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

It may well be desisable but that doesn't have a bearing on it being a successful VSTOL design or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.245.161.32 (talk) 11:13, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

This may be a linguistic misunderstanding. "Despite being" means the same as "even though it is" and while perhaps a slightly idiomatic turn of phrase, it is the proper way to state it. Being supersonic is considered desirable in fighter aircraft, and not being supersonic is considered a significant disadvantage. Even though the Harrier had a negative trait that its competition didn't have, it was the only successful V/STOL aircraft of its time. Now, it may be that it should be made clear and cited precisely which aircraft it was in competition with, but the "despite" phrasing definitely makes sense. DIY Editor (talk) 13:09, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
i understand the meaning. But the distinction is like that between saying "he was a good footballer despite having one leg" and he was a good footballer despite having curly hair". The significance of the Harrier is that it was the only successful VSTOL design. Super or subsonic might be desirable attributes, but don't impact on the fact it was the working ability to VSTOL that mark it out as special compared to other. Curly hair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahahahahahahahahaha (talk • contribs) 15:16, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
I strongly disagree. It is much like saying, "He was a good footballer despite having one leg." Not sure how to better explain it. I'm reverting since there don't seem to be any constructive changes being proposed and the current reading is confusing. DIY Editor (talk) 15:20, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

How does being supersonic affect its ability to VSTOL? I'm reverting since the current reading is confusing.

Not being supersonic affects its ability to be a jet fighter. You have already been warned on your talk page not to revert any more (which has a history of you ignoring and deleting warnings). Please see WP:3RR. DIY Editor (talk) 15:44, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

The whole of the first two abstentions ar about VSTOL designs. Not about being a fighter. It's the VSTOL that's significant and super or sub sonic don't effect that. Ahahahahahahahahaha (talk) 15:48, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

It seems like there is a logic or language issue at play here, not sure which. Not sure what you mean by abstention. To use your footballer analogy, the statement is like, "He was the only successful footballer from his home town, despite having one leg." Having one leg isn't relevant to him being from a certain town, it's relevant to him being a footballer. V/STOL is a subset of jet fighters like footballers from a certain town are a subset of footballers in general. DIY Editor (talk) 15:56, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Dodgy autocorrect on the abstention bit, sorry.

Man = subject = harrier Football = Ability = VSTOL

The ability is impacted by the lack of a leg, not the curly hair.

Ability to VSTOL is not impacted by sub or supersonic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.38.31.61 (talk) 16:06, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

It's hard to capture in a short summary the attitudes and prevailing spirit of the time. A great deal of people, from the engineers to government officials to staff of various air forces, considered a subsonic aircraft to be entirely worthless and without merit. During the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s, aircraft had doubled in speed again, and again, and again. Speed was basically overemphasised (perhaps the recent focuses on stealth or maneuverability may too be seen the same way in hindsight), and anything that didn't promise this preference, incorrect or otherwise, struggled to get the backing of necessary parties and often died, not due to faults of their own design, but the suffocating and needless insistences of officials who "knew what they wanted, and this isn't it". The Harrier jumpjet was never supposed to become a production aircraft, it was a mere development stopgap that was pushed forward and accepted as a placeholder almost (to put it in near-offensive terms) as dozens and dozens of supersonic projects, including Hawker's own further development, the supersonic Kestrel, had failed. It was a happy set of circumstances that customers found themselves without any options and begrudgingly accepted it, then later found out that supersonic speeds were rarely if ever a constraint in real-world combat, and found the Harrier to be a reasonable success. Prejudice overrides fact, and a lot of people at the time believe that a subsonic combat aircraft was worthless, VTOL capability or otherwise. And unfortunately, those opinions dominated development and procurement - it was very much a 'drag factor' in the customer's mind. We can scream and bellow in their faces that 'subsonic doesn't matter', but for them, it did, and it nearly condemned the Harrier to being for R&D purposes only. Kyteto (talk) 13:16, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
For what it matters, it was me who introduced that 'despite'. What I had in mind when I made that edit has been eloquently described by DIY Editor, so my edit must make some sense I guess. --Deeday-UK (talk) 22:33, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Ahahahahahahahahaha has been confirmed as a sock at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Orchomen, so I think we can put this discussion to rest. - BilCat (talk) 17:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Despite, continued

The P.1127, and the Kestrel and resulting Harrier, were not designed as fighters so supersonic performance was neither specified nor desired. They were designed as ground-attack close-support aircraft able to be operated from small fields and other very small open areas very close to the front line.

In the scenarios they were designed for there would be very little need for supersonic performance as the airfields needed by the opposing supersonic fighters would have been destroyed by NATO tactical nuclear weapons.

The whole point of the Harrier was that in times of tension the RAF Harrier force would be dispersed to outlying areas, eg., in Germany, where a nuclear first-strike on the RAF Germany airfields would not be able to destroy them. The same mode of operation was intended for the BAC TSR-2, but that was cancelled. Both aircraft were designed to do-away with the need for long and vulnerable concrete runways. Like this: [9]

The Harrier's role can be best thought of as fulfilling the role of the earlier ground attack Hawker Typhoon when it was being operated from the continental Advanced Landing Grounds.

The only Harriers designed as a fighters were the supersonic P.1154 and the Sea Harrier, and that latter design was a compromise as a result of the P.1154 also being cancelled at around the same time as the TSR.2. The cancellation of the P.1154 is why the Royal Navy bought the Phantom II.

So, in the likely (and expected) WW III scenario the only Warsaw Pact aircraft the 600kt Harrier was ever likely to encounter would have been sub-200kt helicopters. One suspects that the RAF Harrier pilots would have coped with them without too many difficulties.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.115.84 (talk) 11:25, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

BTW, the Harrier was unusual in that being capable of vertical take-off its thrust exceeded its weight for much of the time, and this high figure of specific excess power (SEP) gave the Harrier exceptional rates of acceleration, and with the nozzles used for braking, deceleration, far better than any other conventional subsonic jet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.25 (talk) 11:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

The P.1127 was in fact designed as a NATO replacement for the Fiat G.91. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.18.228 (talk) 18:04, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
... as was the VFW VAK 191B. No runways, see. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.18.161 (talk) 09:33, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
An early 1970's Hawker Siddeley publicity film "Harrier - Strike and Survive" here: [10]] - the narrator is Richard Baker. The aircraft are GR.1's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.53.180 (talk) 10:43, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Easy question

So, other than a bunch of Pepsi-cola bottle cap liner points, what was the project/unit cost for this system? 50.64.119.38 (talk) 05:35, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Harrier_jump_jet/Archive_1&oldid=1136787054"