Talk:McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Boeing is the Prime Contractor

I have listed the manufacturer as Boeing/BAE Systems on the AV-8 Harrier II article, and BAE Systems/Boeing on the RAF Harrier II article.

Boeing (formerly McDonnell Douglas) and BAE Systems (formerly British Aerospace) are partners in the total Harrier II program. Boeing is the prime contractor on US and export versions (Italy and Spain) of the AV-8B; BAE Systems is the secondary partner. However, on the RAF Harrier GR5/GR7/GR9, BAE is the prime contractor. I can provide sources for this if I need to.

Please do not make further changes to the order Boeing/BAE Systems on this article without providing sufficient sources and gaining a concensus to make changes first. Thanks. -BillCJ 21:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry, I didn't notice this before. I added the original manufacturers (MDC/BAe) on 1 line with Boeing/BAE systems on the 2nd line in the Infobox. Similar things are done in other aircraft articles. If that's a problem, you can fix it or I can.. -Fnlayson 00:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Works for me! - BillCJ 01:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Simulation

Do any commercial simulators exist that enable you to fly the harrier? Bastie 15:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a list of computer games involving the Harrier would be of interest? Desert Combat for one has a flyable Harrier, though it's fairly unrealistic and cartoonish. Bastie 12:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Harrier Jump Jet in popular culture Drutt 18:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

AV-8, AV-12, AV-16, BR-549...

I seem to recall seeing AV-16 mentioned in some 'mainstream' publications (years ago regrettably, no idea where now), without any mention of its having been a manufacturer's construct (grr). But I don't see how AV-12 would be 'the proper designation', yet alone the FV-12 'eventually taking it up', as the FV-12 was an early-70s project and Harrier II a late-70s one... - Aerobird 16:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

True, but the AV-8 designation was given in the 60s, before the FV-12. The whole paragraph in the text refers more to the original Harrier, and doesn't discuss what the Harrier II's designation should have been. I do have a source that states the AV-16 was a manufacturer's construct, chosen to indicate twice the capability of the AV-8. - BillCJ 17:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't realised that referred to the AV-8A as opposed to the B, thanks. - Aerobird 22:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Changes

i think you are confused.. the AV-8B Harrier II and the Harrier GR7/GR9 are different aircraft. so why do you state otherwise, this article seems to be flawed in the origins of the American harrier —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RichardMathie (talk • contribs) 16:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

If you have a verifiable source for that, please site it. But to be honest, you are the one who is confused. The AV-8B and the Harrer GR5/GR7 are the same basic airframe, though with some different avionics to suit them for the different roles. The Sea Harrier is a totally British aircraft, and is based on the original Harrier, not the Harrier II. The Sea Harrier FA2 is an upgrade of the Sea Harrier FRS.1, and is also wholly British. If you look at pictures of the Shar FA2 and Harrier II on the RN carriers, you can see there are lots of differences between the two planes. Except for the markings, the GR5 and AV-8B are externally identical, tho the B+ has a different nose for the radar. - BillCJ 17:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Not quite identical. Interesting enough, the AV-8B has MDC's supercritical composite wing and the BAe Harrier II (GR5 and on) have their metal rooptop. BAe's wing allowed higher speed. MDC's wing was lighter and better at low speeds. MDC worked on their new wing before the British really got on board. The Harrier II uses a lot of composites to get more performance with slightly improved Pegasus engine. -Fnlayson 00:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, I think you're referring to the "Big-Wing" Harrier, which was also called a GR.5. THe British governmet didn't want to fund the BWH, so BAe got on board with McDD as a partner, and when the RAF dicided to order the Harrier II, that was the only version availabe (with supercritical composite wing). I just got the Nordeen book today, and in the appendix, it describes the different production variants on pages 183-187, and it doesn't mention a metal wing at all. - BillCJ 01:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• I'm in the middle of that book and I'm sure it said the British used BAe's roopftop wing. It may have been composite. I guess the profile was the main thing. I'll check some more.. -Fnlayson 01:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• You're right. It's explained in Ch. 6. The GR5 with the metal rooftop wing was a study concept against the AV-8B. This GR5 concept was nicknamed the big wing Harrier as you mentioned. The production GR5 was AV-8B modified for the British, including extra hardpoints for Sidewinders and more protection against bird strikes. -Fnlayson 16:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The BAe "big wing" Harrier, which I believe was referred to as the "GR.5(K)" (K for Kingston, where the design work was done) was a completely separate project from the AV-8B/GR.5/7/9. It was much closer to the GR.3 and the new wing was quite different to the AV-8B's. Letdorf 14:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC).

Mid-sentence full stops

Those pesky mid-sentences full stops (British for periods) are the accepted two-letter abbreviation for United States, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (abbreviations). Three letters is "USA", but "U.S." is preferred over US by Wikipedia. For the record, I prefer to use "US", but they didn't ask me! - BillCJ 22:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

• True. Funny how period or not is OK for some common abbreviations (WP:MoS abbreviations). I wish acronyms were treated seperately and without the periods. -Fnlayson 22:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, I see the Harrier GR models written in some places with the periods and some without. Looks like BAE Systems writes them without now.[1] Did they used to use periods? -Fnlayson 22:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The British MoD stopped using the period in designations around 2003. THe informal consensus on most Brtish aircraft pages is to not use the period at all if there are modern designations present, but to use the period on older aircraft which were out of service before the change. I don't think it's been discussed at WT:AIR, but I couldn't find the discussions I remeber on aircraft talk pages, tho I only looked briefly. - BillCJ 23:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

• OK. You summed it up pretty well there. Although it might be confusing on the borderline models. -Fnlayson 23:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Production years

I added production years for the AV-8B and B+. I included the time where planes were remanufactured at the plant. This Nordeen Harrier II book lists 1978-79 for the YAV-8B prototypes, and 1981-2003 for the B/B+ models. Looks like the B+ started in 1992. -Fnlayson 00:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Design / avionics

Doesn't this article need a sub-section on design features including engines, avionics and cockpit? Wittlessgenstein (talk) 18:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Yes and the airframe details too. Its primarily made from composites. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

"rejoined the project"

I removed a sentence from the leader because it was out of context. It was the second or third sentence of the leader and said that BAe "rejoined the project". However nothing up until then had said who was in the project, or when or why BAe left. It than said who had managed the project from 1990 without saying who had managed the project up until then.

I'm not sure the first paragraph is a good place to put sentences about management of the project. Most people will be wanting to know about the plane, not its management team. If we do decide we want to describe changes to the management structure in the first few sentences then we need to give a short but complete summary, not just mention unconnected facts. I'm happy to discuss things we might put there. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, so why not move the sentence instead of simple whole sale removal? In any event, I restored that part and reworked the lead. It could probably use some more tweaking though.. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't think that information on the management of the development belonged that high up in the lead. I also don't know enough to fill in the information that clearly needed to be there. What I was hoping to do was prompt someone who did know that information to write it in a more coherent form. That's exactly what happened, thanks. It's what cooperative editing is all about. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• Just start with the talk page. And try an edit summary when you want to just delete content.. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

End of Life

I'm thinking about the best place for this comment:

"The assumption that AV-8B Harriers will be retired by 2020 is based on data provided by the Navy in November 2008. However, as CBO noted in its May 2009 report Alternatives for Modernizing U.S. Fighter Forces, Harriers could be maintained in the force longer, if necessary, because their scheduled retirement is based on deliveries of F-35Bs rather than structural service-life limitations like those facing the Hornets. In recent testimony before the Congress, the Navy has indicated that it is exploring ways to upgrade Harriers’ capabilities and improve readiness, which could keep those aircraft in the force through at least 2022." http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/112xx/doc11279/05-27-FighterInventories.pdf

At the end of Operational History or a new section? Hcobb (talk) 23:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Widow Maker

Isn't it culturally significant that the Harrier is known by its pilots as a "widow maker"? In reverting my edit mentioning it (with reference), User:BilCat commented that the term is "not a unique nickname in aviation, and therefore not notable to the Harrier." Yet on the widow maker page, only two other planes are listed. And on my Talk page, Dave said that the information is "considered as trivia and are usually ommitted". Yet neither editor has a problem including the trivial information that the "Harrier's unique characteristics have led to it being featured in a number of films and video games." [I wonder if the 'unique characteristics' referred to end up killing its pilots in those films and games.]

I've made another edit on this theme, and submit that the fact that the plane is known by its pilots to kill its pilots is more significant than its image's use in video games; and that the term "widow maker", if indeed in widespread use, remains non-trivial. BruceSwanson (talk) 18:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Your add was uncited and "Widow Maker" was added in the edit before yours. One mention in the Development section is enough for the whole article. -fnlayson (talk) 18:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I was in the act of putting in the reference when I saw your revert. I did indeed miss the earlier mention, although I would prefer a more conspicuous placement. And for those more interested, there is a good external link to the Pulitzer Prize-winning L.A. Times story in 2003. BruceSwanson (talk) 18:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, alright. It was added just a couple minutes before your edit. I have 3-4 books on the Harrier family and don't think any of them mention "Widow Maker" as a nickname. So I think the mention provides reasonable coverage. -fnlayson (talk) 18:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

It may need to be balanced with a view on the USMC training methods which caused a lot of accidents something to do with taking fast jet pilots straight on to the Harrier or it may have been using helicopter pilots. I am sure it is in one of the Harrier books. The RAF learned the lessons early and suffered less accidents. I know I need to find a reference! MilborneOne (talk) 19:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe the Jenkins Harrier book (ISBN 1-58007-014-0) says the Harrier has a high accident rate (per flight hour) due to the higher percentage of time it spends taking off or landing. I probably don't have anything more specific than that. -fnlayson (talk) 20:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Pepsi Points Case (Leonard v. Pepsico, Inc.

Is it worth including anything about the Pepsico Points Case? At least a quick mention and a link to the Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_v._Pepsico,_Inc.)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.138.217.105 (talk) 22:24, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

This was covered at Harrier Jump Jet, but somehow got lost in a move to Aircraft in fiction#Harrier_Jump_Jet about a year ago. So I restored the text in this article with references. -fnlayson (talk) 13:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing

This is a pre-FAC source review and spotcheck. I've got this page watchlisted, so feel free to respond here...and don't expect me to go easy on you ;-). Nikkimaria (talk) 04:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• Not strictly a sourcing point, but a good pre-FAC check can be done using this tool
• Missing bibliographic info for Spick & Gunston 2000
  • The citation was removed, but appears to have been readded?
    • And the book was added to the biblio. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Sorry for removing the Spick book, since I couldn't find a 2000 publication composed jointly by Spick and Gunston. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 23:46, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
• Be consistent in whether shortened citations include both authors or only one
• No citations to Markman & Holder 2000
• Be consistent in whether or not your bibliography entries include harvids (honestly, I wouldn't include them unless you're actually using them, but that's a personal preference)
• Where a source includes info like page numbers, include it in the citation (ex. FN 6)
• FN 38: page?
• Be consistent in whether website names are italicized or not (ex. FN 37 vs 40)
• FN 44: check pagination

• That's what the webpages say. Can't find the original page numbers. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 05:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether you provide retrieval dates for Flight International refs (ex FN 106)
• FN 56: formatting
• Be consistent in how you format multi-author refs
  • Not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:13, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
    •  Done --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
• FN 72: probably a good idea to spell out publisher
• What makes this a high-quality reliable source? This is credited to a blog, so also would need justification. Also, while I would not personally question globalsecurity.org, I am aware of several other reviewers who would

• Addressing your first point. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 05:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC) Done Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 23:46, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• FN 104, 106: check italicization
• FN 111: page(s)? (now 112)
• FN 116: formatting
• Be consistent in whether you provide publisher locations
  • Not done.
• Spell out or link CSIS
• "Conversion of the first remanufactured AB-8B began in April 1994" vs "Conversion of the first aircraft began in August 1994." is a bit close, might want to rephrase; same with "the General Accounting Office said that it would be cheaper to buy the Harrier II Plus outright under a multi-year procurement program" vs "the US Congress says that it would be cheaper to buy new aircraft from MDC under a multi-year procurement scheme"; "Remanufacturing gives existing aircraft greatly-enhanced capabilities, at two-thirds the cost of new-builts" vs "Re-manufacture gives the Harrier greatly improved capabilities and a new service life at about two-thirds the cost of a new Harrier II"
• How many pilots? "The pilots sits"

Spotchecked 5 sources, found some relatively close paraphrasing but no V issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I've largely addressed your points. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 05:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Cool, left some replies/examples above for stuff that wasn't quite down, but it's looking mostly good. I am interested to know, however, how you managed to retrieve FN 105 on a day that doesn't exist :-P. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:13, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Not sure I understood your query, but I typed in Google "AV-8B Operation Unified Protector" before scrolling down to the sixth result. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 23:46, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Another thing... at the moment it looks like all of the Flight International refs have FI as the "publisher" - which it isn't of course. The exception is in the Bibliography, which lists it as a journal. Apart from being a bit confusing, this also makes the italics inconsistent... for example Flight Daily News is not in italics because it's listed as "work", but Flight International (published by the same company) is, because it's listed as "publisher". How to resolve this? Change all the FI refs to "work"? (And if so, should we list the publisher as well?) Or something else? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

(And in fact, regardless of this, the magazine titles should be italicised anyway per WP:ITALICS; maybe we're using the wrong citation template here.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Formatting of citations

There's been some unusual decisions taken in the past for how the sources for this article have been cited and formatted (for reasons that made sense at the time), and there still seems to be a bit of uncertainty in some of it. So I'd like to try get some concensus on how these should be handled, with the aim of achieving some long term stability as well.

Here's a first set of suggestions; please point out the flaws or any better/recommended ways of doing it...

• Flight International refs should use {{Citation template, including as a minimum fields magazine=Flight International, and a title="something" (including the quotes)
  • "Retrieved" is not capitalised. I'm not sure if the changes would make any visible difference, so I think the changes would introduce more problems than solving the current issues. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 05:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure what issue you're raising - that's a problem with the template, surely? Right now, the article has a whole bunch of references where the "publisher" field contains the name of the publication, not anything that could be sensibly described as a publisher. And a substantial proportion of those, still contain a date field as part of the publisher field. It seems to me there's no way it will become an FA unless that's fixed. Is there a different way forward? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• Yes. You can write the references out by hand, without templates. --Eisfbnore • talk 13:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• Heh, I had a feeling someone might say that. Sp33dyphil - and others - is that something you would prefer? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• Flight Daily News refs, for the sake of consistency with FI (from the same publisher) should use {{Citation template, including as a minimum fields magazine=Flight Daily News (I've just created that as a redirect) and a title="something" (including the quotes)
• Federal Computer Week refs, should use {{cite web template, including as a minimum fields publisher=1105 Government Information Group, work=Federal Computer Week, and a title="something" (including the quotes)
• Los Angeles Times refs should use {{Citation template, including as a minimum fields newspaper=Los Angeles Times, and a title="something" (including the quotes). The existing last1, first1, last2 fields should be used for the author names
• Defense Industry Daily - not really sure about this one... any suggestions for consistency with the above?
• Aviation Week refs should use {{Citation template, including as a minimum fields magazine=Aviation Week, and a title="something" (including the quotes)

(Some instances of magazine may be replaced by periodical or journal depending on what is most appropriate, I'd welcome views on this - but Flight Daily News is a publication, not a website.)

If we can get concensus on how to present these, it should be a lot easier to wrap up the reference formatting for the press releases and pure web sources as well. The books mostly look fine already, with a few exceptions as noted above. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Questions about Yugoslavia deployment with USMC

While copy-editing this, I'm having trouble working out the exact meaning of some parts of the third paragraph of McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II#United States Marine Corps. The 24th and 26th were based on Nassau, and the 24th flew combat missions from 14th to 28th April. On 28th April the 24th was relieved by the 26th (implying either the end of the 24th's combat involvement, or at least a pause in it), with the 26th now based on Kearsarge. Did the 26th move from Nassau to Kearsarge at some point during those 14 days? Was the 26th undertaking any combat missions from Nassau before 28th April? (And if not, why are we mentioning their presence on Nassau?) Also, capability rates are mentioned for the 24th's entire six month deployment. Does this imply they were taking part in combat missions again at some point after they were relieved by the 26th - or just that they were available in theatre for the rest of the six months, but were not called upon? (answered off-wiki - they were available in theatre but not in combat) Finally, do we know what the difference is between "mission-capable rate" and "full mission-capable rate", and if so, should we wikilink it or explain it? From here I only get a snippet view of Nordeen's book, so I can't really work any of this out. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:03, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Sp33dyphil has now clarified this so that the Nassau/Kearsange thing makes sense. Any thoughts on the "mission-capable" versus "full mission-capable" question?

As a side note, in the same section I've expanded the text slightly to say that the 85% aircraft availability record was in the Iraq War (Operation Iraqi Freedom), rather than throughout the aircraft's history. Please correct if I've misunderstood this. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Copyediting notes

• "new-build Harriers": wondering if we can make this clearer. How about "new-build (not remanufactured) Harriers"? Or "new-built", one of Fnlayson's suggestions from the recent FAC? - Dank (push to talk) 20:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC) [Done].
• "The technological advances incorporated into the Harrier II, compared with the original Harrier, significantly reduce the workload on the pilot.": I can't tell whether the current text should be revised in light of Fnlayson's point: "The tech advances have been more about making it easier on the pilot to strike a target. The main Harrier versions have a crew of one. Trainer versions are the only 2-crew versions."
• "To prepare for USMC service, the AV-8B underwent rigorous evaluations.": Better would be "the standard rigorous evaluations", "the mandated rigorous evaluations" or "especially rigorous evaluations", whichever is most accurate. [Done]
• "CFB", "MCAS": I don't see any specific advice about acronyms in your style guide. Has WP:AIR come to any conclusions about when to write out acronyms? Are there any books, reference works, style guides or usage guides you like to consult for questions like this? Searching nytimes.com, I get "Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake" and (the) "China Lake Naval Air Weapons Station". [Done]
• "required the AV-8B to provide fighter escort, combat air patrol, and deck-launched intercept missions": I don't usually see "provide ... missions"; you can "fly" fighter escort (and other) missions. - Dank (push to talk) 20:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC) [Done]
• "Models of the Harrier family have been collectively called the "Jump Jet".": I don't understand ... does that mean it's not okay to call a Harrier or Harrier II a "jump jet", but it's okay to use the term referring to ... what exactly? [Done]
• "payload. As a result, Hawker Siddeley and McDonnell Douglas joined forces in 1973 to develop...": See WP:Checklist#because (one of two new points in WP:Checklist). "payload, and in 1973 Hawker Siddeley and McDonnell Douglas jointly developed ..." [or "began joint development of", whichever is more accurate] [Done]
• "a small 60-aircraft requirement by the RAF": I'm not sure what you're saying. In general, if it's possible to substitute the word "order" for "requirement" ... that is, if there's been some kind of written request for that many planes ... then I think a lot more readers will understand the word "order". But you might be saying something else. [Done]
• "a new larger wing, which could be retrofitted to existing operational aircraft": This is a little tricky, but better would be to drop the comma and go with "that" instead of "which". If it helps, think of the sentence as short for: "a new wing large enough to be retrofitted to existing operational aircraft". [Done]
• "the AV-16 development": development of the AV-16 [Done]
• Okay, I hope that covers the lead, the first subsection, and leftover comments from the FAC. Now I'll ask around for a copyeditor to run down the WP:Checklist on the rest. - Dank (push to talk) 20:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Possibly relevant - 72 BaE Harrier IIs to be used as spare parts for AV-8Bs

"UK sells 72 retired Harrier jump jets for $180m to US" - BBC News. Maybe there's a better source for this out there somewhere. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

This has already been added to the UK Harrier II article. I was waiting on the deal being finalized, and need to find a good place to mention it here. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

MilHist A-class review

WP:MilHistory A-class review page

The Military History project A-class review is going now. See transcluded section below. Try to help where you can. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Source #97 inaccurate in its reporting

I'm new to Wikipedia, so I apologize for the earlier unsourced edit in regards to the Harriers flying again. However, I know it to be absolutely true that they will never fly again. The source for the report about them getting in the air again is wrong. That author is reporting factually incorrect (in regards to the GR-9 transfer) rumors in Air Force Monthly. In the interest of keeping the article correct, but being unable to provide a publicly accessible source (in regards to the fact they will never fly again)? What is the recommended course of action?

(The Implementing Arrangement between the United States and United Kingdom specifically forbade the use of the Harriers in a flyable status) Okiordie (talk) 16:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

That's OK. There needs to be a reliable (and accessible) source to make such changes to the cited text. Wait until the news comes out in the media. Maybe something will come out soon. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Here] is a Flightglobal article that appears to confirm that the ex-RAF Harriers will not be flown (according to NAVAIR), explicity mentioning the GR9s although that does give a possible loophole for the T.10s, which might be a more likely aircraft to go back into service.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:37, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• Facepalm, I was suckered... seems that the editor-in-chief for AFM - Gary Parsons has got some serious explaining to do for publishing that in the first place. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 17:43, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

accident rate

The accident rate for the US operated AV-8B's is disturbing. I read somewhere that the Spanish operated Harriers never had a loss. It was suggested that part of the cause may be that US pilots transitioned to the Harrier at 200 flight hours, whereas the Spanish pilots had to have 1000 hours before transitioning. Apparently operating hours were comparable. I haven't confirmed this. If anybody can find out accident rates, trainining times, etc., it would be an interesting addition to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cd195 (talk • contribs) 01:01 am, 29 March 2013‎) (UTC)

Yes, it seems that the USMC had major cutbacks in their senior maintenance staff which resulted in a very large skills gap, unfortunately, senior American USMC officers didn't understand that the Harrier is a complex aircraft, subsequently, most of the accidents can be put down to pilot error and poor maintenance, please see: Harrier II: Validating V/STOL (2014) by Lon Nordeen, Naval Institute Press. Twobells^t@lk 14:36, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

American tweaks/changes

Do these American tweaks really justify their claim that this is an 'Anglo-American' aircraft? It's a British aircraft, with a few extra nozzles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.56.92.211 (talk) 08:14, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't really tweaks, nor just a few extra nozzles - it was an almost complete redesign (wings, intakes as well as nozzles, forward fuselage, cockpit, weapons points) which took place (intermittently) over the course of considerably more than a decade. Also additional developments ("Night Attack" and so on) that took place later.

People from the UK who remember the original Harrier, like myself, will still tend to think of all models of Harrier as being a British aircraft that was also used and adapted by the Americans. However, there's nothing wrong or illogical about having the AV-8B and its descendants/variants in this article, as opposed to dividing the material up some other way; and what's described in this article is indeed an "Anglo-American" aircraft. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:15, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Also, MDC designed a composite wing and forward fuselage to reduce weight. These are not minor changes. The British variant of the AV-8B is covered at British Aerospace Harrier II, btw. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:44, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Preparations for FAC

Does anyone think I should include a section on the accidents and incidents of the AV-8B, which had previously been removed? Also, should I expand the "Operators" section to include the number of aircraft that were operating as of December 2010? --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 05:47, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Kyteto, MilbormeOne, Fnlayson, Ahunt, The Bushranger, BilCat, Quadell, Bzuk, Dank: You're invited to comment, and express any other issues that you feel would need to be addressed before an FAC gets underway. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 05:58, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Accidents and incidents are included in List of Harrier Jump Jet family losses so dont really need to be repeated but a short summary would not do any harm (if it could be referenced). MilborneOne (talk) 08:57, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

First combat use ?

[Moved here from User talk:Fnlayson]

Hi Fnlayson, quick you pls quickly look up Nordeen 2006, p. 81, to see if the AV-8B was actually introduced into combat during the Gulf War? There's a source that says the AV-8B participated in an operation in Liberia in 1990 but I'm not sure if the AV-8B fired any shots.

Also, I hope you have a very happy and productive 2014. Regards, --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 08:54, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

The Nordeen book states VMA-223's AV-8Bs from USS Saigon provided air support in 1990 for "evacuation of personnel from Liberia during Operation Sharp Edge." on page 63. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:47, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

@Fnlayson: Thank you. Still, I'm not sure if the Gulf War was when the AV-8B fired its first shots in anger. Anyhow, I've reworded the article to remove the claim that the AV-8B was introduced into combat in 1991. I'll work Nordeen p. 63 into the article. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 06:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• You're welcome. The Gulf War was its first notable combat at least. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:06, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Reassessed as Start, barely any info on its history and development. Reassessed as mid importance, I'm not sure how this airplane is notable, not nearly as innovative as the first one (Hawker Siddeley Harrier) was

Substituted at 20:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

The Harrier project was not the first VTOL jet

In 1963 I joined Lockheed Aircraft Company in Marietta, GA in their Research and Development division. At this time The US Army had a contract to develop a VTOL Jet. This prototype was named the Hummingbird. Since I don't know how much was secret about this aircraft, I won't go into details. Like all such experimental aircraft, all the bugs were not worked out of it. It was an ongoing project for about another year but the Army shut it down after a fatal crash involving, not the test test pilot, but a young Army Lieutenant who somehow got permission to take it for a test flight. P3aul (talk) 03:51, 28 May 2014 (UTC)p3aul

Actually, the Harrier's direct predecessor, the Hawker Siddeley P.1127, first flew in November 1960. The Lockheed XV-4 Hummingbird first flew in July 1962. - BilCat (talk) 04:15, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

And the Short SC.1 first flew in 1957. The Rolls-Royce TMR first flew in 1954.

Why is it slower?

Does anybody know where it lost those 80 to 100 knots of top speed compared to the AV-8A? --Cancun771 (talk) 17:07, 9 June 2014 (UTC)?

If I recall correctly, it's primarily a result of the supercritical wing used on the AV-8B, which is thicker and has less sweep than the wing of the original Harrier, but I don't understand aerodynamics enough to know why, let alone explain it. The AV-8B was developed primarily for the USMC as a bomb truck, so top speed is not as much of an issue for them in that role. - BilCat (talk) 17:21, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, the wing was not optimized for max speed. Payload and range characteristics were greatly improved with the same basic Pegasus engine, though slightly improved. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

And JFYI a Sea Harrier is around 100 knots faster than the Harrier GR.1/AV-8A. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.18.228 (talk) 17:45, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

TFA

Has any thought been given to nominating this article for WP:TFA?

What sort of anniversary would be most appropriate? Looking quickly, we have;

• 9 November 2014 - 36th anniversary first flight of YAV-8B prototype
• 5 November 2014 - 33rd anniversary first flight of "full scale development aircraft"
• 12 December 2014 - 33rd anniversary delivery of first production aircraft
• 5 December 2014 - 11th anniversary last delivery of a remanufactured aircraft(?)
• 17 January 2015 - 24th anniversary first combat flight, in a conflict which also became the aircraft's main claim to fame

Or, if we really want a round number/precious stone, push it out right until 17 January 2016 for the 25th anniversary of the first combat flight. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

@Demiurge1000: Yep, the 25th anniversary on 17 January 2016 sounds good. Cheers, Sp33dyphil (talk) 02:00, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Cool, I will try to remember to add it to Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/pending in about three months' time. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:38, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Origins - engine diameter

This section says "Although more powerful, the engine's diameter was 2.75 in (70 mm) too large to fit into the Harrier easily" - clearly it is a mistake, 70mm can't possibly be too big to fit in the aircraft. Is it 700mm diameter? (although even that doesn't seem very large) Baska436 (talk) 09:46, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Not 2.75 inches "in diameter", but 2.75 inches larger than whatever the original engine's diameter was. - BilCat (talk) 10:40, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

• Yep, seems pretty clear. The text says the diameter is 2.75 in (70 mm) larger for the enlarged Pegasus engine. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Well it seems that I read a comma (or colon) that wasn't there - my apologies. It wasn't helped by coinciding with a line break. But I have made a minor edit which I hope will make it clearer still. Baska436 (talk) 03:11, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Good article, questions

Great! But from the articles intro: Further down It says it didn t use an improved version of the Pegasus ... ? Accident rate- is there a citation for the reason anywhere? Cheers Jabberwoch

The intro refers to a larger, more powerful Pegasus engine; a slightly improved version of basic engine was used instead. Look through the whole article; "Accidents" is a main section later in article. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:12, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I did mate, but it is a long one, which is why I tried to reduce it. The intro appears to be possibly contradictory with the body, as if left unsynchronized. I suggest "...other structural and aerodynamic refinements and a slightly upgraded version of the Pegasus... [ as just "upgraded" sounds like RR's constant engine development programme.]

• does everyone think that s more precise?

Ta, Fnlayson. I see it s also in the (long) Op. History section, I ll amalgamate the two to avoid confusion Jabberwoch (talk)

• I adjusted the wording on the proposed larger engine in the 2nd paragraph of the Lead to clarify. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Confusion about replacement by F-35 and phase-out date ?

"Expected to become operational in 2015, the F-35B will start to replace the AV-8B in 2016, and continue in service until 2025.". This is saying, literally, that the F-35 will continue in service until 2025. Surely either a misprint or grammatical error ? I suspect the USMC will need at least some AV-8Bs until 2025. Rcbutcher (talk) 08:40, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

@Rcbutcher: I've clarified it. Thanks for spotting it. Regards, --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 09:47, 29 December 2015 (UTC)