Jump to content

Talk:Harrier jump jet: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
SineBot (talk | contribs)
Bots
2,553,322 edits
m Signing comment by 95.150.18.228 - "→Despite: Info"
→Despite: More
Line 175: Line 175:


:::The P.1127 was in fact designed as a NATO replacement for the [[Fiat G.91]]. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/95.150.18.228|95.150.18.228]] ([[User talk:95.150.18.228#top|talk]]) 18:04, 28 April 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::The P.1127 was in fact designed as a NATO replacement for the [[Fiat G.91]]. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/95.150.18.228|95.150.18.228]] ([[User talk:95.150.18.228#top|talk]]) 18:04, 28 April 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:::: ... as was the [[VFW VAK 191B]]. No runways, see.

Revision as of 09:33, 15 May 2017

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
right, missed the previous one. -fnlayson (talk) 05:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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).[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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).[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Origin

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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: [1]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
... as was the VFW VAK 191B. No runways, see.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Harrier_jump_jet&oldid=780469873"