Talk:List of Harrier family losses

Unreferenced entries

1960s

• 1 Apil 1965: A Tripartite Evaluation Squadron Kestrel FGA1 caught fire on take-off at RAF West Raynham.

• 21 September 1967: A Tripartite Evaluation Squadron Kestrel FGA1 (XS693) was abandoned 2 miles fom Boscombe Down.

• 27 January 1969: A RAF GR3 (XV743) was abandoned over Dunsfold Aerodrome.

1973

• 26 April 1972: A RAF GR1 (XV749) abandoned over sea off Lincolnshie following bird strike.

• 6 September 1973: A RAF GR3 (XV750) abandoned over Germany after engine cut.

• 24 September 1973: A RAF GR1 (XV739) of 1 Squadron was abandoned over Cyprus.

• 19 January 1976: Two RAF GR3(XV745 and XV754) collided and crashed in Cheshire, England.

• 12 March 1976: A RAF GR3 (XV746) flew into mountain in Norway.

• 21 September 1979: Two RAF GR3s (XV756 and XZ128) collided over Cambridgeshire.

• 8 November 1979: A RAF GR3 (XV756) abandoned after being hit by ricochet over Holbeach ranges.

1980s

• 28 October 1980 : A RAF GR3 (XV761) abandoned over Germany following bird strike.

• 28 October 1983 : A RAF GR3 (XV742) of 233 Operational Conversion Unit flew into the sea on Holbeach range.

• 19 November 1983: A RAF GR3 (XV762) flew into high ground in Falkland Islands.

--TheFEARgod (Ч) 11:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• My fault I should have put an in-use tag on as I had not finished, a polite request to add refs rather than a revert would perhaps have been better. MilborneOne (talk) 12:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• The little roundels were just naff and did not really enhance the article just added for decoration and not really the right for an encyclopedia, perhaps it should be brought up at the aircraft project. MilborneOne (talk) 12:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The roundels are OK since this very good article uses them: List of C-130 Hercules crashes. It's a good visibility for someone who, for example, looks just for USAF ones.. Please put them back or at least to those where I have added. It was hard work pasting them line-per-line, please have respect for that--TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I would rather wait the outcome of the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft#Roundels_and_accidents before adding the roundels back (or not). MilborneOne (talk) 13:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Abandoned

I would prefer use of crashed --TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

OK it has a particularly meaning in that the pilot ejected the aircraft and left it to its own devices, but I dont have a problem if you want to change it to make it clearer. MilborneOne (talk) 13:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

In every abandoned case/event the pilot was OK?--TheFEARgod (Ч) 22:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe so, but I am not 100% sure may need some more research. MilborneOne (talk) 11:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

"Abandoned" is an odd choice of word, sounds like the aircraft was left somewhere! Pilots eject, aircraft crash, and "abandoning" was something that happened in the pre-ejection seat era. Dan100 (Talk) 07:57, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Shot down in the Falklands War

Have there been such events? --TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Dont understand your question - the article makes no mention of a Falklands War. MilborneOne (talk) 13:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Have Argentinians shot down any harrier during the war?--TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

OK understood, six Sea Harriers and 4 GR3s were lost I will add details to the aticle later. MilborneOne (talk) 17:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

No Argentian aircraft shot down a single Harrier, however, the RN did lose a few aircraft to accidents and AA. Twobells^t@lk 14:15, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

"A" or "An" RAF aircraft?

Reading through the list I find it slightly disturbing to read "A RAF ..."; my natural instinct is to use "An RAF ..." in this context. Is it just me? Would anyone object to this change?--TraceyR (talk) 17:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Might be better not to use either and just remove the A! MilborneOne (talk) 18:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Sensible suggestion, that man!--TraceyR (talk) 06:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

It's quite simple. For the full wording it's A Royal Air Force ... and for the abbreviated version it's: An RAF ... It's also the same for the Royal Navy, A Royal Navy ... and again for the full version: An RN ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.250.73 (talk) 20:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Reason for USMC losses

According to John Farley (Harrier test pilot) most of the US Harrier losses are due to the USMC allocating Harriers to pilots trained on helicopters. He say that most of the accidents involve them flying into the sides of hills at around 550kt. There's a link to a YouTube video with him speaking about this here; [1] (at around the 4-minute mark). He says that when they first got the Harrier they put their best pilots on them and had no accidents at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.254.27 (talk) 22:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there was a new book out last year which puts an entirely different slant to the USMC accidents, it seems that they didn't realise that the aircraft was complex, subsequently, nearly all accidents can be put down to cutbacks in maintenance staff and pilot error, please see Harrier II: Validating V/STOL (2014) Section: Harrier II support and safety issues, Lon Nordeen, Naval Institute Press.Twobells^t@lk 14:19, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the people classifying the Harrier as 'dangerous' are trying to compare apples with oranges. How many accidents to other fast jets happen at 90 to 0-knots airspeed. A more credible comparison would be to include their helicopter losses in with the statistics. Comparing the Harrier losses with the conventional fixed-wing jets is completely missing the point.

And many of the RAF losses were due to the low-level the Harrier is used at, bird strikes, etc., and to the weather here in the UK and Germany. And the RAF used the original Martin-Baker seat developed for the Harrier. The aircraft was developed via the P.1127/Kestrel as a replacement for the Hawker Hunter in the ground-attack ("Strike") role, the intended mode of operation off of improvised air strips close to the Front line being similar to that used by the Hawker Typhoons of the Second Tactical Air Force on the Continent after D-Day in WW II. That's why the majority of RAF Harrier exercises throughout the 1970s-80s were from West German fields and forest clearings.

I think the criticisms say more about the people making them than they do about the aircraft.

The 550-knot Harrier replaces a 150-knot helicopter. Which would they prefer.

BTW, several of the criticisms quote an 8-hour time for an engine change. The RAF/RN usually managed it in four. But then again there's a knack to removing/replacing the wing. Perhaps they never told anyone else this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.100.255 (talk) 08:39, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. MkativerataCCI (talk) 19:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Any shot down other than in the falklands war?

Just to clarify, have any Harriers been lost to hostile fire, other than in the falklands war? 121.217.17.125 (talk) 12:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Harriers only suffered a few accidents and one or two anti-air activity in the Falklands War, none were lost to enemy aircraft, essentially the Harrier dominated the battlespace. Twobells^t@lk 14:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Highly likely that some USMC AV-8s were lost in Desert Storm, just that nobody has added them yet. MilborneOne (talk) 13:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

UK Harrier Kandahar Crash Post 2000

Someone either vandalised the entry or mistakenly entered that the landing gear was fully extended, it wasn't and was the cause of the crash, the actual cite clearly states that, subsequently I have corrected it Twobells (talk) 14:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The reference states 'The cause of the crash is not known but it is thought the Harrier's undercarriage may have failed to lower.'. How you read that as clearly stating it was not down I don't know. I have read the accident report and there was no malfunction. It was pilot error causing a too steep approach and subsequent failure to recognise that and correct the rate of descent. Unfortunately the report doesn't seem to be online anywhere. This video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HB5CXlEALJ0 clearly shows the U/C is down (obviously can't see if it's locked), observe the rate of descent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.161.173 (talk) 22:12, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Noteworthy?

Why is this noteworthy? No other modern military jet aircraft as such an article, why the harrier? I think perhaps we should work the details into the main articles and delete this. Twobells^t@lk 14:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

No, it's very interesting, i'd say. Many more aircrafts should deserve the same attention (i.e. F-16, Tornado, F-18).

About USMC losses

BEWARE. The losses reported in this article are only the ones in which someone died. 29 AV-8A/C were listed as lost, but they are the only ones with a deadly result. Of course, there were also accidents in which the pilot managed to escape (just happened many times with RAF units). The overall tally was, for AV-8A/C, around 40 airframes W/O. At the beginnings, every USMC squadron did have 20 Harriers, but soon they were reduced to 15 units (=45 first line machines), and only when the OCU unit was fully established the accident rate dropped. Cheers.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Harrier Jump Jet family losses. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719173230/http://www.ordersofbattle.darkscape.net/site/agtwopen/iraq_equipment_losses.html to http://www.ordersofbattle.darkscape.net/site/agtwopen/iraq_equipment_losses.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:38, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Harrier Jump Jet family losses. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110105084744/http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/research/documents/Journal%2035A%20-%20Seminar%20-%20the%20RAF%20Harrier%20Story.pdf to http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/research/documents/Journal%2035A%20-%20Seminar%20-%20the%20RAF%20Harrier%20Story.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.harrierlist.co.uk/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:22, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Named Reference "Pulitzer3A":

Hi, I'd like to get the below-listed edits made to what is currently citation #11, the "named reference" Pulitzer3A. The URL does not lead to the citation, it leads to a search database from which the actual article cannot be retrieved. This is a link that is broken across multiple articles. I was able to locate the actual article, which is listed below. The title is missing from the citation (also listed below).

URL should be: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2002-dec-17-na-wall17-story.html MISSING TITLE should be "More Than a Few Good Men" Klgeels (talk) 01:39, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Recognition of the Fallen

Hi - It looks as if a conscious decision has been made to leave out the identity of the fallen pilots. Is there some other place or method by which the identity can be included with the mishap description? The reason I ask this is because Captain Manuel Rivera, Jr. (USMC) is listed on this page by incident (Jan. 22, 1991, Persian Gulf), however not by his name.

His wiki-article page was recently deleted (January 2021), and I am wondering if there is some place/mechanism by which his name can be remembered/recognized and/or acknowledged in the public domain.

Thank you, Klgeels (talk) 02:06, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but Wikipedia is not a memorial. BilCat (talk) 04:56, 31 January 2021 (UTC)