Talk:British Aerospace Harrier II

WikiProject Military history

(Rated C-Class)

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 a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale. Additional information... This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (general topics): Military aviation task force Associated task forces (nations and regions): British military history task force

Article title

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Design / avionics

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

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

Specifications

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

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

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

Please clarify armaments

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

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

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

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

Retired?

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

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

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