Talk:McDonnell Douglas Phantom in UK service

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on McDonnell Douglas Phantom in UK service. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150714221748/http://www.targetlock.org.uk/seaharrier/service.html to http://www.targetlock.org.uk/seaharrier/service.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

FA collaboration

@Hammersfan: Moving this here from my user talk page: Mark83 (talk) 09:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I've been through your list of recommendations, editing and removing as necessary. Some notes that I've made while doing so:

• The 1964 General Election was in October, while the Defence White Paper was published in February of 1966. This is a fairly standard period of time for such a defence review (the current climate notwithstanding). If I recall correctly, following the 1997 election, the results of the incoming government's subsequent defence review (which. amongst other things, laid the seeds of the Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carrier) were not published until mid 1999. However, I have added more specific dates to this to make it clear the period of time involved.
• Fixed-price contract - the total price had to cover both development and purchase costs, but the government allocated a fixed lump of money to cover this. Because the cost of development was more than anticipated, the subsequent price of each individual aircraft went up (I think in the text it states that each British Phantom was around three-times more expensive than an American one), and so the finite amount of money only allowed the purchase of so many aircraft.
• Ark Royal refit - you mentioned repetition of Ark Royal's refit, but the instances that I found were different. The first is to mention that Eagle and Ark Royal were to receive modifications that would be necessary to successfully operate the Phantom, while the second goes into detail about the modifications Ark Royal actually received. If there is something I've missed in this regard, please let me know.
• I've removed the Ark Royal / Forrestal comparison table, the list of squadron locations and the aircraft replaced table and put them into a separate sub-page hosted on my own page - I have put this as a link in a note next to the relevant sections. As I mentioned, I feel that this is relevant, and did not want to see it simply junked. This way, readers have the choice of whether or not to look at it, but it is no longer in the article itself.

Let me know what you think. Hammersfan (talk) 21:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on this article (both before and after the FAC). Replies to the points above:

• Very good point. Being aware of the SDR I should have known this timeline was right. Sorry.
• Now that you've explained that it makes sense, but I wonder if we can tweak the language - e.g. "in line with government policy, the fixed budget for the Phantom procurement meant that these costs could not be...." (or similiar)?
• Reading it again, it was still a touch confusing. Therefore removed "At the same time, two new aircraft carriers were planned." - as it's repetition.
• There did seem to be a consensus on this in the FAC, so thanks for taking that on board. I'll start a line by line re-read of prose ASAP. Mark83 (talk) 10:23, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

@Mark83: - that all seems fair enough. As regards point 2, I can have a go at coming up with another way of putting it, but if you have an idea of how it might read better, feel free to make that change. I've replied to your points below. Hammersfan (talk) 16:49, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Language tweaked. Mark83 (talk) 19:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

@Mark83: - I've gone through the remaining issues that you've indicated, with responses below. Hammersfan (talk) 16:10, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Comparison tables

Are these needed? I ask because they break up the prose considerably. And the story they tell is the Phantom is more capable than the aircraft it replaced which is intuitive anyway? Mark83 (talk) 10:28, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• Again, I feel that they are important, as they show precisely the advantages that the Phantom had over the Sea Vixen and the Lightning, but now that I have set up a page for this sort of content it is not quite so necessary for them to be in the main page. I can move them across and simply leave a note with a link. The same goes for the basic specs table - what I could do is link the data page to the UK versions compared gallery. Hammersfan (talk) 16:49, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
  • If you feel the comparison tables should stay then let's keep them. If it becomes an issue in the future FAC then we can revisit the issue then. But the specs table can just be merged into the specs section? Mark83 (talk) 18:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
    • I've moved both the specs and comparison tables into the data page - if you think they are redundant, chances are other people will too, and I'm not sure I have the energy to try and justify their inclusion to multiple people, especially when they can happily exist on another page that readers can choose to visit if they wish. Essentially, I'm looking on this 'data' page as almost an equivalent of the publication of open source data sets alongside the journal article that is derived from the data. Some people may want to look at the original data as well as reading the summary of the results and the discussion, whereas others may just want to read the article itself and not worry about all of the data.Hammersfan (talk) 15:49, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Basic specifications table

Can this go? I just don't see the need for it due to the fact that the standard specifications section is at the bottom of the article and this is therefore unnecessary clutter?Mark83 (talk) 10:31, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Minor discussion points

• I raised this in the FAC, still not sure what the Omega means or why it's worthy of mention. I'm sure it is, but this needs explained in the article. "Because of this policy, 892 Naval Air Squadron decorated the tailfins of their aircraft with a capital Omega (Ω) letter, as it was believed they would be the final fixed-wing squadron to be commissioned" Mark83 (talk) 10:34, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
  • The Omega is important because it was a visual representation of the belief that the Phantom would be the last fixed-wing aircraft to enter service in the Royal Navy, Omega being the last letter of the Greek alphabet. Hammersfan (talk) 16:49, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
    • I've reworded this, so hopefully its meaning is clearer. Hammersfan (talk) 16:05, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
• "The Phantom's versatility was such that, in the RAF and Royal Navy, it was the direct replacement in squadron service for a total of four different aircraft types, comprising nine separate variants." - I think this is worthy of further discussion. I think this is original research - i.e. we are making a statement that the number of aircraft it replaced is a measure of the the Phantom's versatility. However an alternative view is that the UK armed forces were operating far too many aircraft types due to the fragmented nature of the aerospace industry and the reduction in types was simply a logical rationalisation in line with the aerospace industry rationalisation; Furthermore this reduction in types may have been possible only due to acceptance of lack of performance against 'ideal' capabilities. We can debate all of that, but the fact remains it is all not currently proven by sources and it's inappropriate for us to lead the reader to a certain conclusion. Mark83 (talk) 10:43, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
  • There's nothing that says this has to be the line. We can simply remove it so that it says "The Phantom was the direct replacement in squadron service for nine different variants of four aircraft, and was directly replaced in squadron service by three aircraft". From this, allied to the quote from Sydney Camm, the reader can then make their own conclusion. Hammersfan (talk) 16:49, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I've removed the start of the sentence, so that it now reads as my amended version. Hammersfan (talk) 15:50, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
• McDonnell Douglas Phantom in UK service#Spey-powered Phantoms is confusing me - should this not just be rolled into the main body? Or if not then it should be renamed (since they were all Spey-powered prior to the F-4J). Mark83 (talk) 13:05, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
  • This section is related to other proposals McDonnell made to the UK for the use of the Phantom. Prior to the actual order being made, McDonnell approached the Royal Navy with ideas to fit the Spey to the Phantom, as they knew that the J79 wasn't powerful enough for use on the smaller British carriers. Therefore, their first plan was for the non-afterburning Mk 101 Spey, which was being developed for the Buccaneer, to be fitted to the F-4B. A later proposal was for an afterburner to be fitted to this engine, while later still was for the engine that was ultimately developed to be fitted to the F-4D. All of these were prior to the eventual selection of the F-4J variant as the basis of the British Phantoms. We can clear up any confusion by renaming this section as "Other Spey proposals", or something similar.Hammersfan (talk) 16:49, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
    • I've renamed this section as "Other proposed Spey-powered Phantoms". Hammersfan (talk) 15:52, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

@Mark83: - I was wondering how you thought this was now, and whether you reckon it's in a good enough state to resubmit for FA consideration? Hammersfan (talk) 15:55, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

@Hammersfan: I've had a thorough re-read and completed a copyedit as a result. Another thought is that there are still to many images. As a result the aircraft infoboxes aren't aligned with the correct text.

I have one major concern, i.e. the repetition/duplication and the lack of logical flow of the article as a result. Examples:

• "However, the planned phasing-out of fixed-wing aviation in the Royal Navy led to the intended refit of Eagle being cancelled" is mentioned in passing in Variants > Prototypes > F-4K Phantom FG.1 > Royal Navy. This begs the question of why/what's the context. This isn't covered until much further down under 'Replacement'.
• Similarly "the increased angle of attack resulting from the extendable nosewheel," is mentioned here and not explained until much further down.
• Deployment in the Falklands repeated. This is understandable from the perspective of different variants, however the text should be tailored to each and not repeat facts (e.g. rationale for procurement of F-4Js)
• Tornado ADV information repeated at different points. As above, the text should be tailored to the section and not repeat facts unnecessarily.
• Licence built version of the Westinghouse AN/AWG-10 repeated.
• UK Phantom vs US Phantom high/low performance characteristics repeated. Mark83 (talk) 10:10, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

RN abbreviation?

And could/should we abbreviate the multiple "Royal Navy"s to "RN"s? Mark83 (talk) 10:11, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Similar sections

In terms of both article content and table of contents, why are there 2 similar sections - Variants and Variations. Surely we can merge these two and that will resolve some of the duplication/flow issues raised above? Mark83 (talk) 16:13, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

@Mark83: - I've taken a look at your list of recommendations, and undertaking the following:

As regards variants / variations - the point was to display the service of each variant of the aircraft in one section, and then how they differ (from each other and from other Phantoms in service elsewhere). Using the word "variants" does not indicate this clearly enough, so I have changed the title of this section to "Operational History". Further, I have attempted to remove as much of the "technical" information as is appropriate from this section, which should also deal with your points about repeated information in different sections.

Where you have indicated a lack of context, I have attempted to remedy this by adding additional text where appropriate, and removing references to the same thing further along, again if appropriate to do so. Where I feel that the explanation is more appropriate further on (such as your example of the "angle of attack"), I have removed the reference completely from the text. In that example for instance, the way the text is written doesn't make it vital to know about the angle of attack of the aircraft on the catapult.

I have split the "Replacement" section into two, with one headed "Tornado" and one headed "Sea Harrier", to clearly differentiate between the two. As part of the second element, I have also removed the references to the phasing out of fixed-wing flying in the Royal Navy, which is now referred to in the F-4K section at the top of the article.

I have added the abbreviation "RN" throughout in place of "Royal Navy".

I have removed a number of images that could be seen as superfluous - the ones retained I feel do add to the content. These are the Phantom on the catapult with full reheat; the comparison images of the grey-green camouflage and air superiority grey colour schemes, and the side by side image of the Royal Navy and US Navy aircraft on the catapult, showing the extended nosewheel.

Let me know how you feel about it. Hammersfan (talk) 16:36, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

@Hammersfan: - Thanks for all the work you have put and are putting into this article. I'll give it a top to bottom read through after all these changes and get back to you. One question in the meantime - do you think "2.5 Phantom bases" could be moved down to before Specifications? It's a great table, but breaks up the article due to its size. I don't think anything will be lost by moving it down? Mark83 (talk) 08:19, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@Mark83: - Done Hammersfan (talk) 13:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Where do you stop?

An edit was reversed with the comment: "I think that's too much detail - where do you stop? The corporate history is on the respective articles for readers if they are interested?"

Well, no, the problem is that there is no encyclopedic entry on Wikipedia regarding the various mergers of the corporate components of the British aerospace industry and its effects (on design teams, on local communities, etc). There should be, given that these mergers were much more complicated than those seen in any other country. The article Aerospace industry in the United Kingdom totally fails to achieve this. I know of no other single place to find this story, and digging for the "corporate history...on the respective articles" is simply inadequate for a reader's time and need for accuracy. So, please accept my edit as a protest for the deplorable condition of this subject. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 01:02, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Also, the question "Where do you stop?" can also be asked of the original text before it was modified. It is just as guilty of the accusation with regards to the subject of this article. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 01:12, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

The corporate history isn't covered properly where it should be, so you’re squeezing it in here as a “protest”? Can I respectfully suggest you improve the appropriate articles rather than making protests in this article?

And I don’t accept your second argument. There is a bit of corporate history here as context. But you are adding yet another layer which is not germane. Mark83 (talk) 06:20, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

No, it was not meant as a protest, simply an enhancement of the existing text. It's the subjective reversion that retroactively converted it into a protest.

Your respectful suggestion is a good one, I agree that a full corporate history (which my edit was not) belongs elsewhere, perhaps in the Aerospace industry in the United Kingdom article. Unfortunately, history has shown me it is likely that I'll get my hand swatted with reversions or worse if I try that too. Still, I'll give it a try someday.

Oh well, just another day at Wikipedia. At least I can thank you for not getting nasty, as some others have in similar circumstances. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 13:41, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Just to explain myself a bit better - I just feel that it goes off on a tangent; this article is about McDonnell Douglas Phantom in UK service, and the manufacturer of the aircraft is important. However the medium to long term heritage of the manufacturer is not that relevant to the subject. For example you added that Vickers-Armstrongs absorbed Supermarine - but that happened in 1928, so what direct relevance is there to aircraft development in the late 1960s? Similarly with the 1935 merger to create Hawker Siddeley Aviation. The Eurofighter Typhoon article mentions BAe but does not go into the background of the BAC/Hawker Siddeley Aviation/Hawker Siddeley Dynamics/Scottish Aviation merger, nor should it.

One thing I'll correct myself on is the quality of the sub-articles. I now agree with you that these should be improved - for example the Supermarine acquisiton isn't covered well at Vickers-Armstrongs.

Sincerely, thanks to you too for your civility. More and more these days people are nasty unnecessarily, both online and face to face and it's exhausting. Mark83 (talk) 08:31, 23 November 2022 (UTC)