Talk:BAE Harrier II
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
BAE Harrier II is part of WikiProject Aircraft, an attempt to better organize articles related to aircraft. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
|
|
|
Contents |
[edit] 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)
[edit] "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)
[edit] 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.
[edit] 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
[edit] 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 aiurcraft 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:
- Most importantly, Harrier GR7/7As are now operated by the Royal Navy, which recently retired its Sea Harriers.
- 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.
- There is no article or redirect page currently titled BAE Harrier II (UK variants), thus it can be moved without any problems.
- 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)
