(Redirected from
Talk:Harrier Jump Jet)
| This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Harrier jump jet article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1 |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg)
 | On 18 October 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved from Harrier Jump Jet to Harrier jump jet. The result of the discussion was moved. |
Hello to all. I was disappointed to see that, except for a brief mention of the use of the Harrier and Sea Harrier during the Falklands war, there is nothing about the operational career of the Harrier family (deployments to Germany during the cold war, Falklands War of course but also Gulf War and probably also former Yougoslavia and Kosovo). I haven't got enough material for references but maybe one of the article's contributors could help? Best regards, -- Domenjod ( talk) 08:55, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
- This article is meant to be an overview of all the Harrier variants, not an in-depth history. The specific details of each variant's operational history should already be in those articles. I really wouldn't want to see much more added to this article, as it would be redundant to those other articles. That said, perhaps we could add some direct links to the relevant Harrier articles that cover the various conflicts. - BilCat ( talk) 09:06, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for the quick answer. OK I should have checked elsewhere before posting (in fact I did afterwards but you answered before I could post)...There is (of course) more info in many articles, including Hawker Siddeley Harrier. But maybe a summary in this article would be useful as well. Since this is a general article, maybe in a short paragraph also adressing the key question of the real value of VSTOL in a ground war where the amount of fuel, munitions, spare parts etc. needed is so large that a real runway is needed in order to keep the supplies coming. Otherwise the suggested links sound like a good idea to me. Rgds, -- Domenjod ( talk) 09:19, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
- No worries. We often think of things after the fact - I do it all the time myself! As to addressing the shortcomings of VTOL, this probably isn't the article do to that. - BilCat ( talk) 23:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
- Interesting comment about the pros and cons (and shortcomings) of VTOL. The article VTOL is good but doesn't expand on this topic either. In my opinion, a short paragraph on the pros and cons (maybe based on my comment above but better written and with suitable references) rightly belongs in both articles. VTOL "took off" (if I may) in the western world because of the success of the Harrier and its limitations are better known because of the various Harrier engagements. The soviet experiments are also very interesting but less well documented. So I still think a paragraph on the topic is not out of place in the Harrier Jump Jet "overview" article. My 2 cents. -- Domenjod ( talk) 09:09, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- Such a paragraph would need to be Harrier-specific, focusing on the Harrier's limitations only. As.to.your comment, "real" runways take longer to build, and are easy targets when close to the battlefield. The
Hawker Siddeley Harrier#United States Marine Corps has an interesting paragraph:
"The Marines Corps' concept for deploying the Harriers in a land-based expeditionary role focused on aggressive speed. Harrier forward bases and light maintenance facilities were to be set up in under 24 hours on any prospective battle area. The forward bases, containing one to four aircraft, were to be located 20 miles (32 km) from the forward edge of battle (FEBA), while a more established permanent airbase would be located around 50 miles (80 km) from the FEBA.[119][N 14] The close proximity of forward bases allowed for a far greater sortie rate and reduced fuel consumption.[119]"
While this is for the first-generation Harrier, I believe the Marines utilized the Harrier II in the same way, and probably intend to use the F-35 in such a way too. Of course, both newer aircraft are much more capable, so they can be used in other roles too. - BilCat ( talk) 15:28, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- Such a paragraph would need to be Harrier-specific, focusing on the Harrier's limitations only. As.to.your comment, "real" runways take longer to build, and are easy targets when close to the battlefield. The
Hawker Siddeley Harrier#United States Marine Corps has an interesting paragraph:
Shouldn't the SC.1 be mentioned in the development section, as the Harrier owes a much to its development? -- 82.21.97.70 ( talk) 04:23, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- No. The Short SC.1 is not in the direct development of the Harrier family, which is all this article is concerned with. BilCat ( talk) 05:20, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: moved. Favonian ( talk) 19:38, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Harrier Jump Jet → Harrier jump jet – This "informal" name, as the article calls it, is not a "proper name". It's most often lowercase in sources. Per WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS, we shouldn't be capping. Dicklyon ( talk) 19:57, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
- Support per nom. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 19:59, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Carguychris ( talk) 23:05, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
- Support This is a descriptive informal name and not intrinsically a proper name. The ngram evidence indicates that it does not rise to the threshold that we might consider it a proper name per MOS:CAPS and WP:NCCAPS. Cinderella157 ( talk) 10:31, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
- Support and a minor
WP:TROUT to
BilCat for reverting a move which is clearly supported by guidelines and the evidence (which I of course checked before enacting the
WP:RM/TR on this). Of course, everyone deserves their day in the court of RM if they want it, but personally I see no reason why this should be controversial. Cheers —
Amakuru (
talk)
10:54, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
- Um, no clear WP:RS type evidence had been presented here until today with User Cinderella157's post above. BilCat's reverts on the name change were done yesterday.
-Fnlayson (
talk)
14:24, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
- I had linked that same n-gram evidence (in the RM proposal above) that Cinderalla later linked. I didn't do so at the RMTR, as one doesn't usually do such for uncontroversial cases that are so easily checked. Should I link such evidence there in future cases? Dicklyon ( talk) 05:29, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, but why revert and label it "controversial" without checking the facts first? That's why I called it a "minor trout". The letter of the guidelines allows anyone to revert a bold move on sight, but it would be nice to have at least some reason as to why it was reverted in the edit summary.... Cheers —
Amakuru (
talk)
14:30, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
- OK, but he also said this should be discussed first, which seems fair. Name issues should be settled so there is no back and forth changes happen, imo.
-Fnlayson (
talk)
14:42, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
- In general, obvious cases to conform with guidelines based on evidence in sources should not be discussed unless someone objects. Otherwise we'd be hopelessly bogged down. That is, WP:BRD applies, even to moves. Dicklyon ( talk) 05:29, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
- OK, but he also said this should be discussed first, which seems fair. Name issues should be settled so there is no back and forth changes happen, imo.
-Fnlayson (
talk)
14:42, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
- Um, no clear WP:RS type evidence had been presented here until today with User Cinderella157's post above. BilCat's reverts on the name change were done yesterday.
-Fnlayson (
talk)
14:24, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
- Note – I just noticed that BilCat also reverted my case correction on List of Harrier Jump Jet family losses. I presume we'll fix that to follow the decision here. Or just take Jump Jet out of the title. Comment on that alternative if you care. Dicklyon ( talk) 05:25, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
- Support per nom and Cinderella157. This is a descriptive informal name. Renaming the family losses article also seems uncontroversial. —
BarrelProof (
talk)
08:34, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
- I just took the Jump Jet out of that other title. Didn't need that kind of disambiguation there like we do here. Dicklyon ( talk) 06:15, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should this merge or redirect with the Hawker Siddeley Harrier page
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawker_Siddeley_Harrier 2A00:23C7:2A2A:4E01:1F4:C23F:CA5C:5C82 ( talk) 21:40, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- No, neither. This article is intended to be an overview of all Harrier variants, while Hawker Siddeley Harrier only covers the first combat-capable generation of Harriers, and even excludes the Sea Harrier. BilCat ( talk) 22:28, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
SRVL is not the preferred technique for USMC operations, where LHA/D landings are always VL. Preferred technique on shore is FNSL, with PNB (suggest add a mention of PNB when discussing nozzles' ability to rotate to 98 degrees). SRVL appears to be UK/EU-specific.
Sources: VMAT-203 Flight Syllabus Guide and NAVAIR 00-80T-111 113.41.178.130 ( talk) 02:56, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Categories:
- C-Class aviation articles
- C-Class aircraft articles
- WikiProject Aircraft articles
- WikiProject Aviation articles
- C-Class military history articles
- C-Class military aviation articles
- Military aviation task force articles
- C-Class military science, technology, and theory articles
- Military science, technology, and theory task force articles
- C-Class British military history articles
- British military history task force articles
- C-Class European military history articles
- European military history task force articles
- C-Class North American military history articles
- North American military history task force articles
- C-Class United States military history articles
- United States military history task force articles
- C-Class Cold War articles
- Cold War task force articles
- C-Class Technology articles
- WikiProject Technology articles
(Redirected from
Talk:Harrier Jump Jet)
| This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Harrier jump jet article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1 |
|
| This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| On 18 October 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved from Harrier Jump Jet to Harrier jump jet. The result of the discussion was moved. |
Hello to all. I was disappointed to see that, except for a brief mention of the use of the Harrier and Sea Harrier during the Falklands war, there is nothing about the operational career of the Harrier family (deployments to Germany during the cold war, Falklands War of course but also Gulf War and probably also former Yougoslavia and Kosovo). I haven't got enough material for references but maybe one of the article's contributors could help? Best regards, -- Domenjod ( talk) 08:55, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
- This article is meant to be an overview of all the Harrier variants, not an in-depth history. The specific details of each variant's operational history should already be in those articles. I really wouldn't want to see much more added to this article, as it would be redundant to those other articles. That said, perhaps we could add some direct links to the relevant Harrier articles that cover the various conflicts. - BilCat ( talk) 09:06, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for the quick answer. OK I should have checked elsewhere before posting (in fact I did afterwards but you answered before I could post)...There is (of course) more info in many articles, including Hawker Siddeley Harrier. But maybe a summary in this article would be useful as well. Since this is a general article, maybe in a short paragraph also adressing the key question of the real value of VSTOL in a ground war where the amount of fuel, munitions, spare parts etc. needed is so large that a real runway is needed in order to keep the supplies coming. Otherwise the suggested links sound like a good idea to me. Rgds, -- Domenjod ( talk) 09:19, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
- No worries. We often think of things after the fact - I do it all the time myself! As to addressing the shortcomings of VTOL, this probably isn't the article do to that. - BilCat ( talk) 23:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
- Interesting comment about the pros and cons (and shortcomings) of VTOL. The article VTOL is good but doesn't expand on this topic either. In my opinion, a short paragraph on the pros and cons (maybe based on my comment above but better written and with suitable references) rightly belongs in both articles. VTOL "took off" (if I may) in the western world because of the success of the Harrier and its limitations are better known because of the various Harrier engagements. The soviet experiments are also very interesting but less well documented. So I still think a paragraph on the topic is not out of place in the Harrier Jump Jet "overview" article. My 2 cents. -- Domenjod ( talk) 09:09, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- Such a paragraph would need to be Harrier-specific, focusing on the Harrier's limitations only. As.to.your comment, "real" runways take longer to build, and are easy targets when close to the battlefield. The
Hawker Siddeley Harrier#United States Marine Corps has an interesting paragraph:
"The Marines Corps' concept for deploying the Harriers in a land-based expeditionary role focused on aggressive speed. Harrier forward bases and light maintenance facilities were to be set up in under 24 hours on any prospective battle area. The forward bases, containing one to four aircraft, were to be located 20 miles (32 km) from the forward edge of battle (FEBA), while a more established permanent airbase would be located around 50 miles (80 km) from the FEBA.[119][N 14] The close proximity of forward bases allowed for a far greater sortie rate and reduced fuel consumption.[119]"
While this is for the first-generation Harrier, I believe the Marines utilized the Harrier II in the same way, and probably intend to use the F-35 in such a way too. Of course, both newer aircraft are much more capable, so they can be used in other roles too. - BilCat ( talk) 15:28, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- Such a paragraph would need to be Harrier-specific, focusing on the Harrier's limitations only. As.to.your comment, "real" runways take longer to build, and are easy targets when close to the battlefield. The
Hawker Siddeley Harrier#United States Marine Corps has an interesting paragraph:
Shouldn't the SC.1 be mentioned in the development section, as the Harrier owes a much to its development? -- 82.21.97.70 ( talk) 04:23, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- No. The Short SC.1 is not in the direct development of the Harrier family, which is all this article is concerned with. BilCat ( talk) 05:20, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: moved. Favonian ( talk) 19:38, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Harrier Jump Jet → Harrier jump jet – This "informal" name, as the article calls it, is not a "proper name". It's most often lowercase in sources. Per WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS, we shouldn't be capping. Dicklyon ( talk) 19:57, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
- Support per nom. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 19:59, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Carguychris ( talk) 23:05, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
- Support This is a descriptive informal name and not intrinsically a proper name. The ngram evidence indicates that it does not rise to the threshold that we might consider it a proper name per MOS:CAPS and WP:NCCAPS. Cinderella157 ( talk) 10:31, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
- Support and a minor
WP:TROUT to
BilCat for reverting a move which is clearly supported by guidelines and the evidence (which I of course checked before enacting the
WP:RM/TR on this). Of course, everyone deserves their day in the court of RM if they want it, but personally I see no reason why this should be controversial. Cheers —
Amakuru (
talk)
10:54, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
- Um, no clear WP:RS type evidence had been presented here until today with User Cinderella157's post above. BilCat's reverts on the name change were done yesterday.
-Fnlayson (
talk)
14:24, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
- I had linked that same n-gram evidence (in the RM proposal above) that Cinderalla later linked. I didn't do so at the RMTR, as one doesn't usually do such for uncontroversial cases that are so easily checked. Should I link such evidence there in future cases? Dicklyon ( talk) 05:29, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, but why revert and label it "controversial" without checking the facts first? That's why I called it a "minor trout". The letter of the guidelines allows anyone to revert a bold move on sight, but it would be nice to have at least some reason as to why it was reverted in the edit summary.... Cheers —
Amakuru (
talk)
14:30, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
- OK, but he also said this should be discussed first, which seems fair. Name issues should be settled so there is no back and forth changes happen, imo.
-Fnlayson (
talk)
14:42, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
- In general, obvious cases to conform with guidelines based on evidence in sources should not be discussed unless someone objects. Otherwise we'd be hopelessly bogged down. That is, WP:BRD applies, even to moves. Dicklyon ( talk) 05:29, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
- OK, but he also said this should be discussed first, which seems fair. Name issues should be settled so there is no back and forth changes happen, imo.
-Fnlayson (
talk)
14:42, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
- Um, no clear WP:RS type evidence had been presented here until today with User Cinderella157's post above. BilCat's reverts on the name change were done yesterday.
-Fnlayson (
talk)
14:24, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
- Note – I just noticed that BilCat also reverted my case correction on List of Harrier Jump Jet family losses. I presume we'll fix that to follow the decision here. Or just take Jump Jet out of the title. Comment on that alternative if you care. Dicklyon ( talk) 05:25, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
- Support per nom and Cinderella157. This is a descriptive informal name. Renaming the family losses article also seems uncontroversial. —
BarrelProof (
talk)
08:34, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
- I just took the Jump Jet out of that other title. Didn't need that kind of disambiguation there like we do here. Dicklyon ( talk) 06:15, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should this merge or redirect with the Hawker Siddeley Harrier page
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawker_Siddeley_Harrier 2A00:23C7:2A2A:4E01:1F4:C23F:CA5C:5C82 ( talk) 21:40, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- No, neither. This article is intended to be an overview of all Harrier variants, while Hawker Siddeley Harrier only covers the first combat-capable generation of Harriers, and even excludes the Sea Harrier. BilCat ( talk) 22:28, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
SRVL is not the preferred technique for USMC operations, where LHA/D landings are always VL. Preferred technique on shore is FNSL, with PNB (suggest add a mention of PNB when discussing nozzles' ability to rotate to 98 degrees). SRVL appears to be UK/EU-specific.
Sources: VMAT-203 Flight Syllabus Guide and NAVAIR 00-80T-111 113.41.178.130 ( talk) 02:56, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Categories:
- C-Class aviation articles
- C-Class aircraft articles
- WikiProject Aircraft articles
- WikiProject Aviation articles
- C-Class military history articles
- C-Class military aviation articles
- Military aviation task force articles
- C-Class military science, technology, and theory articles
- Military science, technology, and theory task force articles
- C-Class British military history articles
- British military history task force articles
- C-Class European military history articles
- European military history task force articles
- C-Class North American military history articles
- North American military history task force articles
- C-Class United States military history articles
- United States military history task force articles
- C-Class Cold War articles
- Cold War task force articles
- C-Class Technology articles
- WikiProject Technology articles