Talk:BAE Harrier II

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AVIATION This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Aviation Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality 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)


this aircraft was soley designd and built by British Aerospace

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

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

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

[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

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

[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:

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

However, I believe that BAE Harrier II would also work, as the UK is the only user of the BAE-prime contractor version of the Harrier II. Boeing makes most Chinooks, including those made for the UK.

--BillCJ 02:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] The difference between the mk7 and 7A (and 9/9A)

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

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

Peter D Rieden 8/7/07

[edit] Design / avionics

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