Talk:Harrier Jump Jet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Aviation / Aircraft (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the aircraft project.
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
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 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 assessment scale.
WikiProject Technology (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon

Harrier jet in the film Contact[edit]

The 1997 feature film Contact has a brief scene showing what appears to be a Harrier jet landing on a ship off the coast of Japan. The ship is moving forward at a rapid speed, and the jet approaches its landing pad from a direction almost abeam to the ship. In order to maintain its position directly above the moving landing pad, the plane would have to be moving laterally at a speed matching that of the ship. Is that physically possible?

Probably - the Harrier has a pretty good turn of speed both sideways and backwards, see link (commentary in German) [1] so yes it probably could land-on sideways on a fast-ish moving ship — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:04, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
The Harrier's maximum safe sideways speed is 30 knots. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:42, 18 August 2016 (UTC)


You seem to use the English from across the pond, rather than my quaint dialect :). Given that the Harrier is of British origins, we should probably use British English throughout. Although I can read/understand British English fairly well, I don't write it in naturally. So feel free to change any dialect/spelling/grammar you feel is necessary, as you go along. For the most part, we ought to use as neutral a reading as we can.

Anyway, thanks for your input, and the original "germ" of the idea. - BillCJ 16:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Well deduced! I live in Kingston upon Thames where the Harrier was concieved. A pleasure to collaborate over such distance! I'm not going to quibble about spelling! PeterGrecian 13:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
The first generation Harriers are certainly of British origin, but the Harrier II is as much American as it is British. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 16:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Interesting viewpoint. Doesn't change much, though, especially as it's simply not true. Dave420 (talk) 13:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

That's true too. But since the British designed and developed it first, I thought we could default to their rules in case of any conflict. It doesn't seem it's going to be an issue with Peter either way though. We might end up with quite a mix in the article, so I was trying to preclude that beforehand. - BillCJ 17:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

One other thing -- remember that the Harrier project began as a multiservice project (much like JSF), and the U.S. was an equal partner. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 18:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
No, it didn't. The US Marines definitely helped when they made a large order for the aircraft, but to suggest some level of cooperation akin to the JSF is woefully inaccurate. Dave420 (talk) 13:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

the very orgional was a french aircraft which was scrapped, the idea spawned the british to create a V/STOL aircraft. there was limited British government backing so hawker funded it itself.The British government had scrapped so many aircraft before it that it bought i belive 80 aircraft and told hawker it wasnt going to purchase anymore. then the USMC saw the potential of the harrier in comflicts such as vietnam, although it wasnt used their and injected cash and bought the aircraft after the aircraft had been fully developed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markgoodall (talkcontribs) 18:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I am a "yank" who has lived in London, those darn Brits just don't know how to speak English :)

I am happy to say that I did not topple the Marble Arch in 1974!

It was a rainy day in '74 and I was driving around the circle and another motorist cut me off which caused me to swerved my car and did an excellent 360 while traveling around the arch. I stayed on the road and regained my bearing and completed the circle with no casualties.

Of course English on both sides of "the Pond" have taken on their own flavours due to societal evolution, we don't have much differences except in spelling. Americanization has simplified colour to color and flavour to flavor. Brits say lorry and Yanks say truck, Brits say pram and Yanks say carriage. Even within the bounds of the UK and the US, each have their own regional ways of speaking.

I have no problem with the British, English, American and Cockney way of spelling and speaking.

I enjoy our differences.

Markgoodall, excellent contribution, but slow down - use spell cheque :}

The One and Only Worldwise Dave Shaver 21:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Operational History[edit]

This section should be in there. AThousandYoung 19:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

A recent Time magazine article, Osprey: A Flying Shame claims that "Since 1971, more than a third of Harriers have crashed, killing 45 Marines in 143 accidents." This would seem to be a fact that if true merits mention in this overview, which is where people like myself will land first; the article implies this, by mentioning the high level of specialized skill required to fly the plane, but doesn't state the resulting consequences of this requirement (an extremely high rate of accidents and fatalities). tvleavitt (talk) 00:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

What I don't understand is why US in comparison with British forces had so many accidents, on average the RAF flew the Harrier far more yet have far fewer accidents, could the failure rate be due to lack of experienced instructers in this particular aircraft? Twobells (talk) 09:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

According to to John Farley, Harrier test pilot, the problem was mainly due to the USMC allocating former helicopter pilots to the Harrier. These pilots had a tendency to allow the Harrier to get ahead of them, i.e., the pilots had difficulty anticipating the aircraft's reaction to their control inputs at the high speeds compared to the helicopters they had been trained on. Although subsonic, the Harrier is still a 'fast jet' and helicopter-trained pilots for the most part don't (or didn't) have the ingrained quick reactions necessary to fly the Harrier safely, especially at low levels. When the Harrier was first introduced the USMC put their best pilots onto flying the aircraft and they had no accidents at all for the first two years. The Harrier is NOT a helicopter - it's a 'fast jet' and needs to be treated like one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
There's an interesting programme on YouTube entitled The Harrier Story here; [2] - the programme appears to be from around 1980. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Better quality version here:[3] - BTW, it's a BBC production from 1981 and the proper programme title is Jump Jet. It includes contributions from Stanley Hooker, Bill Bedford, John Farley and others. It includes several FAA Sea Harrier pilots who participated in the 1982 Falklands war a year later.
A later 1988 documentary on the Harrier here: [4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:26, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Order of users in info box[edit]

Why is the USMC at the top? The RAF should be at the top as R is first alphabetically and it was invented In Britain for the RAF.(Morcus (talk) 02:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC))

The USMC was placed on top because it has used the largest number of all Harrier variants combined. The subject of this article is all the Harrier types, both the Is and IIs. On the page for the Hawker Siddeley Harrier, the first variant, the RAF is listed first. You're welcome to try to build a consensus to change the order. - BillCJ (talk) 02:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for an Explanation as to why. Though i still feel it should be Alphabetical (Morcus (talk) 03:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC))

Well, we could remove one of the other users, like Spain, and add the Italian Navy - that would be first alphabetically :) - BillCJ (talk) 03:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Spain is first Alphabetically by Nation as the RAF is an organ of the UK.

The Indian Navy and Royal Thai Navy are also operators of British-variant Harriers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Frankly I think the country of origin and its user should be first and then alphabetically for the other nations. the the RAF and the RN should be first. - Marscmd (talk) 00:11, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

and out of RAF and RN being the top two it should be RN at the very top as it is the senior service (Fdsdh1 (talk) 21:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC))

Constant change to title[edit]

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 no consensus to move it to the proposed name. —harej (talk) 08:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Harrier Jump Jet familyBAe/McDonnell-Douglas Harrier family — This article seems to be engendered a great deal of confusion as to the title. I believe that the title should be "BAe/McDonnell-Douglas Harrier family" as the "Jump Jet" was never an official designation. It was more akin to a P.R. invention. Keeping the title consistent with all the other daughter articles also makes sense. The move back and forth was the product of a campaign to move a variety of article titles to a particular individual's choice of titles. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC).

Non-consensual unproposed move[edit]

"Harrier Jump Jet" is a commone term, and the editors who created the page chose this title specifically for the purpose of making it an overview of the family. To include the manufacturers, the correct title would be Hawker/Hawker Siddeley/British Aerospace/BAE Systems and McDonnell Douglas/Boeing Harrier family. I think the Jump Jet title is much better! For those who disagree, please use the formal move process to propose a move to the new title, and allow a conSensus to be reached on it, as BRD has been invoked. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 19:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

B, see above as this back-and-forth occurred throughout the morning on a number of forums.
(repeat) This article seems to be engendered a great deal of confusion as to the title. I believe that the title should be "BAe/McDonnell-Douglas Harrier family" as the "Jump Jet" was never an official designation. It was more akin to a P.R. invention. Keeping the title consistent with all the other daughter articles also makes sense. The move back and forth was the product of a campaign to move a variety of article titles to a particular individual's choice of titles. FWiW, I refer you to a slew of edit comments and "Jump Jet" phew, show me where that was ever the designation for the aircraft. LOL Bzuk (talk) 19:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC).
As a I stated before this is not an aircraft article. It is an overview page; more of a glorified disambigious page than an aircraft page. So I don't think the aircraft naming convention really applies here. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
What do you think the name should be? Harrier family? Jump Jet family or BAE/McDonnell Douglas Harrier family? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC).
Agree (to Fnlayson) but if it has to change then perhaps Harrier family would be better than trying to add four or five manufacturers into the title. MilborneOne (talk) 19:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I could live with Harrier family? Jump Jet family has connotations of the Jetsons!! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC).

(Unindent) Again, "Harrier Jump Jet" is a common name for the "uninformed", and is regularly used in the popular press. As detailed above, the name was previously a DAB page (which would need to exist anway) for the several articles on the Harrier. Another editor suggested an article for a "Harrier story", and that developed into what we have here today. It is inteded to give an overview of the Harrier for those not familiar with the various incarnations of the Harrier. I really don't see the problem with Harrier Jump Jet being the title for the article, as it's not intended to supplant the regular article. Of course, I will accept the consensus, if there is a clear one. - BillCJ (talk) 20:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

For whatever it is worth, "Harrier Jump Jet", "Harrier Jump Jet family", and "Harrier jet family" are all names I think would be clear and are fine with me. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I'd be fine with the variations also. For what's worth, there are 3 intewiki article listed. The Spanish article is simply entitled es:Harrier, while the Vietnamse article is at vi:Harrier Jump Jet. I cant read Arabic or the script, but it's title appears to be 3 words, and "Harrier Jump Jet" is in the infobox under the Arabic script. In English, Harrier is a DAB page, as theree is no clear primary topic. - BillCJ (talk) 21:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Harrier "Jump Jet" family would even be acceptable but not "Jump Jet" on its own, as I still think this is PR person's golly-gee invention. FWiW, I know we are writing to the great unwashed, but my preference is still for the BAE/McDonnell Douglas Harrier family as it is more encompassing. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC).
Sound's more like something a reporter invented. They're the ones who keep using it anyway. Same differnece anyway as far as aggregate intelligence goes! ;) - BillCJ (talk) 22:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
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.

Harrier weakness ?[edit]

Noticed no one has a section that the Harrier can't lift off vertically with a full load of bombs.--Ericg33 (talk) 08:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

As far as i am aware it was not designed to lift vertically with a full load of bombs so not really a weakness. MilborneOne (talk) 09:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
No matter how much a Harrier can lift vertically, it would always be able to carry more through a short take-off, as the wings would proved more lift that vertical power alone, up to the airframe's MTOW and its ability to carry the extra weight, available pylons, etc. That's just aerodynamics and physics. - BilCat (talk) 15:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
There was an anecdote (possibly apocryphal) in the 'Straight & Level' column (Uncle Roger) in Flight International around 1973:
A NATO four-star Air Force General was being shown round an RAF Advance Deployment of Harriers somewhere in the-then West Germany, and wishing to show interest he went round asking the personnel questions. To one RAF ground crewman he asked:
'Son, what are your facilities for servicing other NATO aircraft?'
Ground crewman: - "Pardon?"
Four-Star Air Force General: - 'Well, what would you do if, say, a Luftwaffe F-104 came in here and wanted re-fuelling and re-arming - what facilities do you have?'
Ground crewman: - "Sir, you land a Starfighter in here and I'll provide the facilities"
.... there was no runway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
....original 1974 Straight and Level snippet here; [5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:09, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

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)

Harrier Jump JetHarrier (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)


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.
  • Comment: This isn't a valid move request, since the proposed name is incorrect, per the clearly-sourced information in the article itself, which is about a V/STOL not VTOL aircraft. Marking this thread {{resolved}} and commenting out the WP:RM template. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 00:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
The Harrier can do vertical and short takeoffs, so both VTOL and V/STOL apply. -fnlayson (talk) 02:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Neutral - I'm OK with "Harrier Jump Jet" or "Harrier (VTOL aircraft)". Though "Harrier (aircraft)" would be enough for disambiguation purposes. -fnlayson (talk) 02:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
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 Contribs. 04:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
right, missed the previous one. -fnlayson (talk) 05:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • Oppose; the fact that the name was "invented by the popular press" is not a problem -- in fact, it's evidence that the current title is indeed the common name for this jet. Powers T 12:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
  • 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).
  • Oppose ok as is it is only a bulked up disambiguation page, if you have to change it then Harrier family or similar may be better. But in this context Jump Jet is more common than VTOL aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 17:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose the current title is sufficiently descriptive. A better article title may be possible but I don't think "Harrier (VTOL aircraft)" is it.GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - pages should be easy to find, 'Harrier V[/S]TOL (aircraft)' clearly isn't. For anyone looking for the technical details, the pages already exist and are linked from here. GyroMagician (talk) 22:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Acronyms are best avoided. The current title seems to work given it needs to disambiguate from the Harrier biplane and other Harrier jet family.--Labattblueboy (talk) 23:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)


Any additional comments:
Previous consensus was for "Harrier Jump Jet". Let this go for a bit. -fnlayson (talk) 02:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
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)
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).
  • Harrier Jump Jet is fine with me. But do agree that "Harrier (aircraft)" is a fair alternative with a For note at the top pointing to Hawker Harrier. -fnlayson (talk) 14:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
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.


The commentary on an archive BBC video here: clearly states that the Harrier was flown at supersonic speeds. The article states the m,ax speed of the GR3 as just 'transonic' and the later versions as considerably less. The article only indicates that another supersonic version P1150 was planned, but not followed up. Some digging suggests "The sharp lipped harriers are transonic M1.2 at altitude with a usable load but the drag index is too high to effectively use this. " but I can't find reliable evidence for this. Can anyone? The Yowser (talk) 10:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

A supersonic version of the Harrier was trialled, by equiping the engine with a 'Plenum Chamber Burner'. This was the vectored equivalent of an after burner as the burner was placed in the chamber between the two rear (hot) nozzles. It was not regarded as a success, partly because the large engine air intake imposed unacceptable drag. I don't have an independant cite for this either, so can't put this in the article. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 12:28, 13 February 2011 (UTC) and cover the P.1150 idea which became the Hawker Siddeley P.1154 (until cancelled while the development aircraft were actually being built in 1965) GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for that. It adds to my recollection. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 12:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
IIRC, all variants of the P.1127/Kestrel/Harrier were transonic, they just didn't have the engine power to reach Mach 1.0 in level flight. They were all, like the Hawk, supersonic in dives. The P.1154 was designed to be supersonic however. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:40, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
For some reason Wikipedia has chosen definitions for 'subsonic', 'transonic' and 'supersonic' that vary from the traditional - at least in the UK - aeronautical ones. The Harrier has always been properly described as a 'transonic' design because it can be dived to above Mach 1 without problems. Similarly the Hawker Hunter is also a 'transonic' design, as it too can be dived at above Mach 1 with no problems. Generally, 'subsonic' jet aircraft, such as the Gloster Meteor or Lockheed P-80 Shooting Star, need to be kept away from speeds around Mach 1 as compressibility problems then occur, which usually make the aircraft uncontrollable. A 'transonic' aircraft has no such problems. A 'transonic' aeroplane differs from a 'supersonic' one by not possessing sufficient engine power, i.e., thrust, to reach and exceed Mach 1 in level flight.
BTW, the 'transonic' definition arose because the range of maximum permissible speeds (Vne) straddles the Mach 1.0 region, rather than being under ('sub') or above ('super') it.
If you dive in a subsonic aircraft to Mach 1 then you are in trouble. In a transonic one you just make a loud 'bang'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Background Edit AND Second Gen harriers[edit]

in a TV documentary about for channel five. it had alot of information about the early years of the harrier. for such things as the project was funded by Sydney Cam Hawkers chief designer and did not recieve funding from any one until after it first flight.

Second Gen Harriers

i am a little confused as why does the harrier say "The British Areospace license-built " as BAE systems owns the rights to Harrier it should be the "American license-built AV-8B Harrier " and will people stop refering when talking about the Harrier GR 5 upwards as Harrier II as that is the american Designation not the British One the RAF and RN when refer to the harrier never said Harrier II adn neither do BAE systems

"The BAE Systems/Boeing Harrier II is a modified version of the AV-8B Harrier II that was used by the Royal Air Force (RAF) and the Royal Navy until 2010" no the AV-8B is a modified version of the Harrier GR 5 and the Harrier II Plus is a modified GR 7/9 and could go as far as saying the only thing they have in common is the basic shape and engine and things that arent released to the general public

My information for this comes from - this is a Demand Five you tube thing and i am not sure if america can get it.

and a little question what does AV-8 stand for? Marscmd (talk) 00:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

See the McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II article or this website for more information on the AV-8B/GR5/7/9. The AV-8B project was initiated by McDonnell Douglas, BAe only joined later, as a subcontractor. BAe's own study for a second-generation Harrier (the Harrier GR.5(K) or "Big-Wing Harrier") was quite different, and not proceeded with. Development of the AV-8B later diverged, and the AV-8B+ doesn't really correspond to the GR7/9. AV-8 is a US DoD designation, and essentially means "Attack, VTOL, number 8". Regards, Letdorf (talk) 01:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC).
It is a shame that my grandad was involed in the project and says a different story but as the internet says it i sure it must be correct. Also even if the second gen part of the thing is wrong even though i dont think it is. the documentary i put on there does include the early stages of the harrier with interviews from the creator of the Bristol/Rolls Royce Pegasus engine and the Designer of the Harrier itself or are we going to completly ignore that so can the correct infomation be added or do we keep with the american version of events. Marscmd (talk) 15:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Mike Spick and Bill Gunston were/are noted British aviation writers, and the WP Harrier family articles use much of their printed material as sources. There is also enough similarity between the American and British variants of the Harrier II that the US has purchased 72 GR9/9As as spares. I wouldn't call the GR5 a license built AV-8B, however, as there was shared development and production. But there is no doubt that the Harrier II program was US-led, and developed primarily to USMC requeiremnts for Close Air Support missions, which Gunston has opined against at length in his books on the subject, as have other British writers. - BilCat (talk) 17:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page[edit]

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:

    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)

name origin[edit]

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 (talk) 10:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

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 (talk) 12:34, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


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 (talk) 07:26, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

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)
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 (?) (talk) 15:26, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
  • I don't remember why that was added here, but that is highly likely. And that makes sense with MDC/Boeing being listed nearby. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:14, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
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. (talk) 04:01, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
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)
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. (talk) 07:52, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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. (talk) 20:14, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
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)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── 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)

I give up. Facepalm3.svg Facepalm "Everything I might possibly say has already been taken down in evidence against me." - BilCat (talk) 22:14, 14 May 2016 (UTC)