Talk:Hawker Siddeley Harrier/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

where was the GR1 developed??

I read here that testing was done in Somerset but I have a very clear recollection of a lot of testing going on at the Royal Aircraft Establishment (RAE) Bedford in 1981/2? (looking out of the school windows at Harriers looping round and round!!)

skijump

perhaps it was the skijump itself rather than the aricraft that was under development? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.8.115.252 (talk • contribs)

Variants

I've started cleaning up the Variants section - it would be really good to have separate sub-articles for each. Idealy the main article should be 'the story of' the Harrier - military role and evolution - and the sub-articles a detailed technical description. I'd like to separate Hawker P.1127 and Hawker Siddeley Kestrel more strictly (the latter is a redirect to the former !) and add Hawker Harrier GR.1 up to Harrier GR.9. We need a consensus as to if it is GR9 or GR.9 - comments please. PeterGrecian 14:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Harrier Jump Jet is a disambiguation page. That page could be expanded to cover the overall history, especially military role and evolution, of the P.1127/Kestrel/Harrier/Harrier II family. -BillCJ 18:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

What about AV-8B? --Mrg3105 03:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• That's a Harrier II. -Fnlayson 03:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Section on Controls and handling - added

Have started a section in this article on the piloting skills, etc, required for this aircraft, based on a few google hits and the one week training course I attended on Royal Navy aircraft some years ago. Not much to go by then; actual pilots or engineers should work on this section. I put this section in the Harrier I article; opinions on whether it should be moved to the article on the newest model are welcomed.--ChrisJMoor 02:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm surprised there's no mention of viffing involved; as far as I knew, all modern variants of any harrier are cleared for these manuevers.JaderVason 16:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

none was lost to enemy aircraft in the Falklands

Would be notice that the enemy planes haven't any capable air-to-air missile and were also on their flight time limit meanwhile the harriers were waiting on station. Spitfires with those AIM-9L perhaps would get the same victories. On the other side, like argentines aircraft, they were very vulnerable to anti aircraft guns and could not destroy the Stanley runway in 74 days, in spite of having all the NATO inventory of air-surface bombs available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jor70 (talk • contribs)

They didn't have every weapon available to them though as it was such a rush to get the task force together different equipment was on different ships sailing at different times. Aswell the argentine pilots were told not to engage the harriers but go straight for the fleet, otherwise the result might have been different.yerkschmerk

Picture

Considering that this article is about the first generation Harriers, is it really appropriate to have a photograph of a second generation Harrier? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.30.147.43 (talk • contribs)

Maybe we should find one of google then (and ask for if we can use it obviously)

Why are Entries being removed?

Why are some people taking it upon themselves to remove factual information concerning the fact that this aircraft featured in the John Travolta film Battlefield Earth, whereas other films and games are being allowed to stay?

I can see no reason for the removal. A fact is a fact, and the film in infamous for it's stupidity.

For details of the entries made by myself, and others, please see the article history.

If it isn't deemed important for this information to remain, then perhaps there shouldn't be anything concerning the aircraft's affect on Popular Culture, or films and computer games whatsoever.

I don't think it is reasonable to include one fact, while deeming another, of equal importance, to be unimportant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RobAnt (talk • contribs)

Alot of weapons have links to seperate entries on the impact in popular culture, such as films and games, mabye thats a good idea, By the way the reason your article may have been removed is because the film used the Harrier II not the original. yerkschmerk

Harrier Jump Jet in popular culture Drutt 18:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Development of VIFFing

In response to a comment on my talk page, I've started researching the origins of the VIFF maneuver. It looks like the British were the first to experiment with it, and the USMC was the first to perform organized experiments with the technique:

[1]

More information and cites are probably necessary, but this might give us a start on an informative VIFF section. SkipSmith (talk) 05:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Basically that means British pilots "played around" with VIFFing on their own, your souce including a mention of a pilot being court martialed for it - hardly worthy of the term "experiment", which is not in your source. I think the line currently in the text, "The air combat technique of vectoring in forward flight, or viffing, was developed by the USMC in the Harrier to outmaneuver a hostile aircraft or other inbound weapons", stands as written, and is supported by your source. Your source also mentions NASA testing VIFFing on the XV-6A Kestrel, which predates the Harrier's service entry.

As to placing a section in the text on VIFFing, I think the best place for that would be the Harrier Jump Jet article. The Controls and handling section there already has a short paragraph on the technique, and expanding it would be a great idea. We can link such a section to the menionig of VIFFing in this article.

I think many people will read "developed" as "invented", and believe that VIFFing was invented by the USMC. The USMC deserves a mention, of course, but then earlier experiments and tests should also be mentioned, which is why I'm proposing creating a separate section for VIFFing. In looking at other sources, I found this [2], which describes the British as the first to "explore" VIFFing techniques, and the first formal studies being done by the USMC. It might be best to move discussion of the development of VIFFing to a separate section, where the entire history can be laid out in detail.

As far as your earlier question about things to rewrite or change, the first sentence in the paragraph we're discussing appears to be a sentence fragment. In fact, that whole paragraph seems out of place in the "Operational History" section. I'll be busy the next few days, but I can attempt a rewrite/cleanup after that. SkipSmith (talk) 07:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Your second source has some good references that would be worth digging into, but the source itself is not reliable by Wikipedia standards. Good catch on that paragraph though, as it is a partial duplicte of the last paragraph in the previous section. Might have been an accidental copy-paste that no one caught beforehand. That was why I asked for specifics, as I had totally missed it! Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 08:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

China

Found this BBC article and it had interesting information in the blue boxes next to the main text. Seems that the 1979 Vietnam invasion got their harrier order blocked. Didn't know China was ever in the Harrier market. I will let you folkd decide how to research and intergrate this tidbit. http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/february/17/newsid_2547000/2547811.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.177.173.158 (talk) 05:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Harriers - 1435 flight??????????????

I wonder why the 1435 Flt. article has no mention of Harriers??????? Could it be that Hardet Stanley became 1453 Flight RAF??????????????Petebutt (talk) 16:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree and element of doubt Roy Sturtivant RAF Flying Training and Support Units since 1912 does have 1435 operating Harriers at Stanley but the dates are not clear and the BARG Falklands The Air War book supports HarDet becoming 1453 in August 1983. Probably some confusion as 1435 did become the Phantom and Tornado unit at Stanley later in the 1980s. MilborneOne (talk) 16:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I was being facetious. The Harrier unit at Stanley was definitely 1453 Flight. I know because I did a tour there in late 1984!Petebutt (talk) 21:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you'll find that 1435 flt was not formed until after the move to Mount Pleasant, and Tornado's certainly didn't operate from Stanley.Petebutt (talk) 21:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal

It's a borderline case of a possible breakout, but I think the article AV-8S Matador would be better off condensed and incorporated into this article. Thoughts? - The Bushranger (talk) 05:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support: Per nom. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 07:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support - Eek! I didn't even know that had been created, though it's only a week old. Good catch! The AV-8S is basically the same aircraft as the AV-8A/C, and they should be covered together. Both of these are also quite similar to the RAF's Harrier GR.1s/3s, though there are some minor differences, especially the GR.3. At this point, this article is small enough that covering all the variants is not a problem. The history section could be expanded grestly, which might make a split betweem the RAF variants, and the USMC/SN/RTN worthwhile in the future. For now, one article is fine. - BilCat (talk) 07:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support -- But I would first like to check this against the source that it was derived from (of which I have a copy buried in the spare room). I'm wondering if the language might be a little too close to the source. --Rlandmann (talk) 07:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

As I suspected, the text was copied almost verbatim from the World Aircraft Information Files, File 148 Sheet 6. I have deleted the page under CSD:G12 — unambiguous copyright infringement. --Rlandmann (talk) 05:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

How many Single seat Harriers for RAF?

The article currently states 118 single seat GR1/1A/3s for RAF - while some Souces (i.e. Jane's All The World's Aircraft 1988–89 and the Paul Jackson World Air Power Journal article referenced back up this claim, with the WAPJ article breaking this down into orders of 60, 1, 17 (GR1/1A), 12, 24 and a final 4 post Falkland war attrition replacements (all GR3s). The two sources I have that give serial number breakdowns, however, i.e. Francis K Mason's Hawker Aircraft since 1920 and Andy Evan's book give 114 broken down as 60 + 1 + 17 + 12 + 24 (i.e. omitting the 4 post-Falkland aircraft). All sources seem to agree on 27 RAF/RN two seaters (i.e. T2/T2A/T4/T4A/T4N).Nigel Ish (talk) 19:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Question answered - Evans does list the four post Falklands aircraft, ZD667-670.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• First contract for 60 GR.1 (XV738-XV762, XV776-XV810)
• One replacement aircraft for XV743 which crashed before delivery (XW630)
• Second contract for 17 GR.1 (XW754-XW770, XW778-XW780) Note XW754-XW762 delivered as XW916 to XW924 due to confusion with XV aircraft)
• 9 x GR.1s (XW916-XW924)
• 12 x GR.3s (XZ128-XZ139)
• 24 x GR.3s (XZ963-XZ973, XZ987-XZ999)
• 4 x GR.3s (ZD667-ZD670)

Which should 60+1+17+12+24+4 = 118 MilborneOne (talk) 19:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry Nigel I hadnt seen your post before I added my totals, strictly speaking the RAF only ever operated 117 if XV743 was never delivered. As far as I can see all the others were used at some point by the RAF. MilborneOne (talk) 19:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

While I am in plane spotter mode:

• 9 RAF T2s (XW264-XW272)
• 3 RAF T2s (XW925-XW927)
• 2 RAF T2s (XW933-XW934)
• 3 RAF T4s (XZ145-XZ147)
• 1 RN T.4A (XZ445)
• 4 RAF T.4A (ZB600-ZB603)
• 3 RN T.4M (ZB604-ZB606)

Totals 25 (21 x RAF, 4 x RN) MilborneOne (talk) 19:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Evans has another 4 trainers (ZD990–993) delivered in 1987, of which two (ZD992 &993 ended up as T.8s).Nigel Ish (talk) 20:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree I missed them, so is that 29! or it might be I cant count. All four ended up with the Navy but I think 990/991 were originally RAF. MilborneOne (talk) 20:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• I doubt if my books cover all the trainer versions. Could someone try to add a little text to the variant entries of the T4A, T4N, and Mk 52 to differentiate them. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Just curious, is this website a good yardstick for referencing UK military aircraft serials? Thoughts, anyone? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 13:14, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if it counts as a reliable source in wiki terms but it is the only website that covers uk military serials. Never had a problem with the serial blocks and allocations they agree with the printed references but some of the aircraft fates are from enthusiast sources but they are probably still the best you can find online. I use it as a quick reference and may be used on stub and start articles as a ref but I would use the number of printed sources available if the article had any chance of climbing the quality ratings. MilborneOne (talk) 18:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

More on numbers

I noticed that the article as it is currently presented at FAC has very little production number information, I offered to research the numbers given in Mason - Hawker Aircraft since 1920 (pages 421 - 432). Listed below is what it says up to 1991, my totals in italics:

Single-seat

• GR1 - Six pre-production aircraft, initial order of 77 for RAF. (83)
• GR1A - No new builds, engine upgrade.
• GR3 - Converted existing GR1 airframes plus two attrition replacement orders of 15 and 24. (39)
• AV8A - 110 built by 1976 for USMC, 10 built for Spain. (120)

Two-seat

• T.2 - Two prototypes, initial order of 12 (last ones built as T.2A), total given as 25. (25)
• Demo aircraft - G-VTOL - One built (1)
• TAV-8A - Eight built (8)
• TAV-8S - Two built (2)

I make the total 278, assuming that I didn't miss anything . Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:09, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, I have now added most of the figures given to the relevant sections, this concern is finally addressed after so many months. Kyteto (talk) 14:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Specifications

The current specs are for the GR1, and don't seem to be fully supported by the reference quoted. Would anyone object if they were changed to the GR.3 which can be referenced from the 1988 Jane's?Nigel Ish (talk) 22:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure. My sources may cover that better also. Will have to check when I get home. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Severe trimming of (uncited) content in Controls and handling section

In order to prepare this article up to the correct quality specifications and referencing requirements, I had to pull a lot of good indepth material from one of the largest and oldest sections. While much of it was likely authentic and legitimate material, it was also impossible to verify half of it, and had been tagged as such since May 2008, nearly three years ago. I've stripped down the section to its bare bones of what is verified as true and what I could manage to cite, but I'd like to request that somebody with greater knowledge and resources on the Harrier take a look through the Article History at today's Chopping, and see if they can salvage some of the material. For instance, I'm sure that the Harrier's water injection info was useful, relevant, and factual, but it could not be saved with my material. Thank you. Kyteto (talk) 15:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Norden or Nordeen?

There are numerous cites of Norden 2006 - should these refer to Nordeen 2006 (i.e. Harrier II, Validating V/STOL?Nigel Ish (talk) 19:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the Lon Nordeen that wrote the Validating V/STOL book. I am trying to fix this now.. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Ulp, this is entirely my fault. I just didn't notice the slip and continued on oblivious... Sorry. Kyteto (talk) 20:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• Ah, I probably started it. This has been corrected here and in the 2 Harrier II articles. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Falklands war wording

The article currently reads "A defining, significant combat experience for the Harrier was the events of the Falklands War, known as Operation Corporate, in which ...". On March 10th my changes to this were reverted (I must disagree, the Harrier's perhaps most famous for its role in this conflict, the wording is justified; the inclusion of Operation names is normal).

I agree (although it's OR) that the Harrier's most famous role was that conflict, but that's not what the article says. I don't understand exactly what "defining, significant" means, it isn't in the cited doc and does it fail WP:WEASEL?

Regarding known as Operation Corporate (OC) - who knows it as that? I used to work with lots of ex-RN officers who'd served in the FW and (despite their fondness for military terminology) I don't think they ever referred to it as OC. The inclusion of the codename as well as the common name when referring to FW is _not_ normal in WP - see for example how many "HMS x", "Westland x" etc articles there are in the respective "What links here"s (and many articles only link to OC because it's in the FW template). I've nothing against OC – for example I did a major edit of VC10 recently, but left logistics activities in North Atlantic linking to OC. DexDor (talk) 07:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The citation is intended to cover the final part of the sentences, which as follows: "...in which ten Harrier GR.3s of No. 1 Squadron RAF operated from the aircraft carrier HMS Hermes." Aircraft numbers, squadrons, and which carrier they were based upon needs citing, and as such is. It was not the intention for the citation to attest to its significance, if it is really necessary an additional citation singing its praises can be linked directly there, but Ithink it can be taken as a given. The citations are really meant to be used for facts and figures, rather than declarations of worth. As the most major conflict the aircraft was involved in, by process of elimination, it is reasonable to take it as a defining moment. I could do a clumsy link to documentaries up on Youtube that would attest to military historians and lecturers proclaiming the significance between the Falklands and the Harrier, but I felt it would look unprofessional and sloppy. It can be added at your insistence.

I'm willing to let Operation Corporate be trimmed out, I would have wanted it included as the inclusion of such codewords seems common on several other aircraft histories with conflicts such as the first Gulf War (Desert Storm is frequently brought up, though technically incorrect). But if it causes heat, it may as well be rejected, as it isn't a particularly developed article anyway; which is a pity as telling the British military operational perspective seperately from the overall picture could be quite useful, but that's an issue aside. Kyteto (talk) 18:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've removed the ref to Corporate, but left "defining, significant". DexDor (talk) 21:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Splitting off the Variants section

The moving of all Harrier variant secrtions to Harrier variants really needs to be discussed first, especially give the extensive discussions elsewhere on whehter or not the Sea Harrier is a mere Harrier I variant or not. I'd prefer splitting off the AV-8s to their own article to allow for a separate specs section for that variant, but there are other options too. - BilCat (talk) 10:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

This seems alright to me, but leaving a shortened/summary list like at McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II#Variants would be preferable to me. Would that be acceptable or what? -Fnlayson (talk) 18:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

That proposal sounds good to me. My initial construction was based on the Hawker Hunter variants page, prompted by the A-class review commentry. Your solution is a good one. Kyteto (talk) 18:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I still don't see the necessity of covering the Harrier family variants on one page. Not that reason the Hunter and Phantom have separate Variants pages is because there is only one article on each type, and the variants section would overwhelm the main articlesif it remained there. We already have the the Harrier Jump Jet page, which includes a brief variants summary and a specs table. None of the Variants sections in the Harrier type articles are any where near long enough to overwhelm the article. However, I'm not going to push the issue too much, as it's not a big deal on the whole scale of things. - BilCat (talk) 22:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay. I was not particularly intrigued with the concept of folding out the variants onto their own page; I'm just running with what suggestions come to me through the review. If it is unwanted, it can be removed, I do not judge it as a necessitity personally. Kyteto (talk) 23:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• I don't think spinning off the Variants section here is critically needed. Replacing the Variants section with the link to Harrier variants only reduced the article size from about 68 Kb to 64 Kb. But I'll work on shortening the variant entries here like I suggested above later tonight. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:22, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

FWIW - I think the shorter Variants section improves this article. DexDor (talk) 19:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Origins

Is there a typo in this section? Was the P.1121 or the P.1127 cancelled in 1957? I suspect the former, but it needs to be confirmed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:43, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Done.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Copyedit May 2011

Hi

A few things came to light during the copyedit that may need attention:

Lead

• The AV-8A was the Harrier Mk. 50 and I have added the info, though it may equally be removed to the United States Marine Corps section
• "The USMC deployed their Harriers as a close air support platform, and as naval aircraft on board amphibious assault ships." - I struggled with the punctuation and meaning of this sentence. I have tried two rewrites:

1. "The USMC deployed their Harriers as both a close air support platform and as a naval aircraft on board amphibious assault ships."
2. "The USMC deployed their Harriers as a close air support platform deployed on board amphibious assault ships."

The problem is that I am unsure as to whether they were always deployed from an AAS and, if not, whether they were a naval aircraft used only from AAS (There is mention of them used on a Commencement bay-class carrier with the experimental air group here, though I suppose this may not be counted).

I've seen clips of USMC Harriers making their way onto the carrier Ark Royal (albiet these were Harrier IIs), and there was the Conventional all-out war emergency plan which would have created dozens, if not hundreds, of converted cargo ships into Ro-Ro platforms for operating the Harrier from. This plan was never enacted, as all-out war never broke out to justify it, but the logistics and kits (and likely the training and trialling to be ready to go) were purchased and planned out to the last detail apparently. In the WW3 scenario, Harriers would have been operating from more than just the AASs available. Perhaps we should change it to typically deployed on board instead? I do also feel we need to preserve that the aircraft had two seperate roles, the last wording might make readers think that it was only as CAS platform at sea, rather than a general CAS platform that can also provided Amphibious support. Kyteto (talk) 20:34, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• British English: Defense -> Defence
• "proved to be flexible and versatile" - perhaps modify to "proved to be flexible and versatile in its role" or similar. As it stands it means the aircraft flexes.

Note that this article has received a lot of copy editing over the past few weeks. The Harrier was used for both, and I reworded that sentence. Yes, Defence is correct spelling here except in titles of US originations. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:59, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Origins

• It seems that a lot of the wording is more speech-like than written text. As the reader does not need to pause to catch their breath I have removed some of the commas and joined the sentence parts together.

Differences between versions

• Moved USMC to the second in the opening sentence as the rest of the para talks about them rather than the RAF (also the RAF is the principle in most of the following paras).
• "were the Lift Improvement Devices" (para2) - What are these?

The source doesn't give any more detail on them. It refers to it, by that exact name, and the paragraph it was sourced from unhelpfully tells us nothing more than it did what it says on the can, a meaningful boost in lift, probably some sort of manipulation of air flow in support of the pre-existing operation. It may be as simple as a gentle change to the shaping of the aircraft's wings/body. Kyteto (talk) 20:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

See here for some more info page 59 Chaosdruid (talk) 21:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Operators

• "No. 4 Squadron RAF converted to Harriers at RAF at RAF Wittering in early 1970" - I suspect that the first base (RAF something and RAF Wittering) has been lost during edits.

General notes

• However Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Semicolon_before_.22however.22 - a lot of these are unnecessary. This is especially so when the second sentence or statement is in fact not a contradiction of the first, nor an additional point implying a problem in the first. For example "cancelled NATO requirement. This ambition was complicated" has no need for a however. The first sentence talks about the cancelled NATO project and the second about the differences between the RAF and RN requirements - I suspect that "further" is more appropriate, I have not added it as I will leave that to the discretion of the usual editors (as well as perhaps needing a qualifier that introduces facts about the first problem, the NATO cancellation and why it was a problem to proceed without this - such as funding etc.).

"...cancelled NATO requirement. This ambition was further complicated.."

• FA normally requires that pics are right aligned at the beginnings of sections.
• "vectorable" - I am unsure as to whether this is appropriate. The thust is vectored by the movable nozzles, they are movable, not vectorable. The thrust is vectorable by the movable nozzles.

OK - finished. I understand that there may be problems with editors from different backgrounds and nationalities using differing variants of English. I would say that this article should be British English throughout. I note that most of the US spelling of "defense" was in the USMC text. Chaosdruid (talk) 18:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Skyhook

Popular Science article This would be a fun little addition to the article, if I could ever figure out where to put it. It doesn't really belong within any section, yet the concept of hooking Harriers right out of the sky and onto small ship-decks seems a noteworthy thought that more than a little engineering time was spent investigating. Kyteto (talk) 16:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• Donkey years ago, I read that article too. Anyway, IMO I think it'd be best for you to create a sub-section in the developement section for this particularly interesting bit of history. Thoughts? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 17:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The skyhook thing seems to go along with using merchant ships to carry them. So maybe a sentence or two with that. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I've also added the rather unusual Battlership-VSTOL carrier the USMC considered, seems pertinent that they at least considered dramatically changing these unique assets to deploy the Harrier from, even if they did reject it in the end (probably due to converted merchant cargo ships being just as effective additional Harrier platforms, with far less expense). Kyteto (talk) 00:53, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

There's the 3 pages on the subject in a 1985 copy of Flight.GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

It's possibly more relevant to the Sea Harrier article - certainly most of the concept art I've seen use the Sea Harrier - and there were new-build warships proposed as well as merchant ship conversions - The Hybrid Warship talks about a Vosper Thorneycraft design for a Skyhook equipped edesign capable of carrying 5 Harriers as well as Frigate armament, together with a rather implausable proposal for a Skyhook equipped submarine!Nigel Ish (talk) 22:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The 'Skyhook' was a solution looking for a problem. It was simpler to just build a helicopter platform on a ship, or strengthen and slightly enlarge a ship's already existing platform, and use that.

A number of additional possible ways of Harrier deployment were not trialled simply because of peacetime regulations on noise, nuisance, and possible blast damage to private property, etc., restrictions that would quickly have disappeared in time of war.

Interesting amateur 1984 cine film of Harriers operating in Germany here: [3] and a 1984 German news report here: [4]

Images

More Harrier images are available on Commons if needed. See Commons:Hawker Siddeley Harrier, Commons:Category:Harrier I, and Commons:Category:AV-8A/C Harrier (US Marine Corps) for those. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:39, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I've done one swap; I'd love to switch some of the ground RAF images with those in flight, but there aren't many of them to begin with. The US is more generous at providing these images for recording history than the arrangements of the MOD regrettably. Kyteto (talk) 00:17, 17 July 2011 (UTC)