Jump to content

Talk:British Aerospace Sea Harrier: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
Archiving posts over 12 months old to Talk:British Aerospace Sea Harrier/Archive 2, delete bot notices as advised
Tag: Replaced
 
(69 intermediate revisions by 29 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talk header}}
{{WPAVIATION|class=B|Aircraft-project=yes|nested=no}}
{{ArticleHistory
{{WPMILHIST|class=start|Aviation=yes|British=yes|nested=no}}
| action1 = GAN
{{talkheader}}
| action1date = 07:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
| action1link = Talk:British Aerospace Sea Harrier/GA1
| action1result = listed
| action1oldid = 358554558


| currentstatus = GA
== Inaccuracies/Biases ==
| topic =War

}}
It is incorrect to say that Argentinian aircraft lack mid-air refuelling capability. The A4 squadrons that did so much damage to the British naval task force had inflight refuelling probes used in conjuction with C-130 based tankers. A few badly shot up Argentinian aircraft were saved by plugging themselves into tankers and flying back to base in tandem.
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|1=

{{WikiProject Military history|class=GA |Aviation=yes |British=yes}}
+++++
{{WikiProject Aviation|Aircraft=yes}}
No losses for Harriers in the Falklands war? Not according to [[Air forces in the Falklands War]] article. I`ve also heared that the British eventually admitted the loss of several (I think 5) Harriers during the war (not specified to what causes).
}}

On a separate issue I`ve heared a story that one Harrier was shot down by the Army of Republika Srpska during the war in Bosnia, being hit by Strela 2M man-portable SAM and that the pilot was killed. Any confirmations or denials?

Veljko Stevanovich 18. 2. 2006. 22:10 UTC+1

*The losses listed there may have been of aircraft lost on vessels that were sunk. I'm pretty sure the ''Atlantic Conveyor'' was transporting Harriers at one point, though I think they were offloaded before she was sunk. On the other hand, the article may be plain wrong. In either case, some research should be done and the appropriate changes made. --[[User:Scott Wilson|Scott Wilson]] 22:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


''Atlantic Conveyor'' carried whole Harriers? News to me. Here`s what I`ve found about her cargo:

"Atlantic Conveyor was carrying tents for 5,000 men, at least ten helicopters (three Chinooks HC.1 of 18 Squadron RAF, six Wessexs HU.5 of 848 Squadron RN, and one Lynx HAS.2 of t815 Squadron RN), spare engines and pieces for the Harriers, a plant to make sea water drinkable, and the materials to build a mobile runway for the Sea Harriers." [http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Falklands/Exocet.html]

I don`t think spare engines count as lost aircraft (or am I wrong?)

I`ve since found that nine Harriers were lost during the war (None in air to air combat)
[http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Falklands/brit-aircraftlosses.htm]. Note that it is the British account. I`m naturally a little reserved when a country is speaking of it`s own losses (but I`m much more reserved when it`s speaking of the losses it had inflicted).

Veljko Stevanovich 22. 2. 2006. 16:20 UTC+1

:Don't forget the context of the article is the RN Sea Harrier and not the RAF's Harrier.[[User:GraemeLeggett|GraemeLeggett]] 16:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

::True, but the source I`ve given for the Harrier losses lists more than two (six) Sea Harriers lost (the ones this article is about). The rest are GR3 s

::Veljko Stevanovich 22. 2. 2006. 23:30 UTC+1

Atlantic Conveyor did indeed carry whole Sea Harriers and flew them off. You can see photos here http://www.btinternet.com/~philipbparker/acl_history.htm . None were on board when she was lost however. Gordon Smith's excellent book / website (here http://www.naval-history.net/F63braircraftlost.htm ) lists the Sea Harrier losses as;

* Tuesday 4th May - Sea Harrier of No.800 NAS, HMS Hermes shot down over Goose Green by radar-controlled, 35mm Oerlikon fire (1.10 pm). Lt Taylor RN killed.
* Thursday 6th May - Two Sea Harriers of No.801 NAS, HMS Invincible lost in bad weather, presumably by collision, south east of Falklands (9.00 am). Lt Curtiss and Lt Cdr Eyton-Jones RN lost.
* Sunday 23rd May - Sea Harrier of No.800 NAS, HMS Hermes crashes into sea north east of Falklands shortly after take-off and explodes (7.55 pm). Lt Cdr Batt RN killed.
* Saturday 29th May - Sea Harrier of No.801 NAS, HMS Invincible ready for take-off, slides off the deck as the carrier turns into wind to the east of Falklands (3.50 pm). Lt Cdr Broadwater RN ejects and is safely picked up.
* Tuesday 1st June - Sea Harrier of No.801 NAS, HMS Invincible shot down south of Stanley by Roland SAM (2.40 pm). Flt Lt Mortimer RAF ejects and is later rescued from the sea.

That would give 6 losses, 1 to gunfire, 1 to a missile and 4 in accidents. If you can find documented evidence for any other losses then the article would require correction, as it is, any additional losses are merely unfounded speculation. [[User:Emoscopes|Emoscopes]] 21:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

:It`s OK now, somebody has corrected the article since I had written my first comment.

:Veljko Stevanovich 03. feb. 2006. 10:45 UTC+1

== Designation ==

Is it FA2 or FA.2, has the period been dropped from the British designation system? [[User:Emoscopes|Emoscopes]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Emoscopes|Talk]]</sup> 20:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
:MoD, RAF and RN/FAA websites seem to quote all designations without the period or an Mk. now. I have modified the article accordingly as it was effectively using three different designation systems. I've left FRS.1 / Mk.1 as is however, as I'm not sure when the period was dropped and it would seem inappropriate to retrospectively apply it to older models. [[User:Emoscopes|Emoscopes]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Emoscopes|Talk]]</sup> 19:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

== Withdrawal ==

Please see my comments [[Talk:Royal Navy]] about the imminent withdrawal of the Sea Harrier, it is relevant for changing this article in the next month when the official withdrawal date is (can't find the actual date for the life of me on the MoD or RN websites, what a surprise ¬_¬ [[User:Emoscopes|Emoscopes]] 21:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
::I think this article '''HAS''' to emphasise that the major difference between the FA2 and GR9, i.e. FA2 was an air superiority fighter with AI radar and AMRAAM missle and GR9 had an optional ability to carry AIM9 missiles and relies on other aircraft to ensure its safety. [[User:Emoscopes|Emoscopes]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Emoscopes|Talk]]</sup> 03:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The retirement of the last Royal Navy Sea Harrier was marked by flypast and parade at Royal Naval Air Station Yeovilton in Somerset on the 28th March 2006. The disbandment of No 801 Naval Air Squadron brought to a close 26 years of Sea Harrier operations at the base and through out the world. Royal Navy’s last six Sea Harrier FA Mk 2s and two Harrier T Mk 8s are now headed for storage at RAF Shawbury pending disposal.

The Indian Navy is currently interested in acquiring up to eight aircraft in order to maintain their Sea Harrier fleet. If the deal goes through it will be for the aircraft less the Blue Vixen radar, the RWR and the AMRRAM capability along with the deletion of certain US sourced software.

One Sea Harrier has been acquired by a US Warbird operator and has been shipped to the US where it will join the US Air Show Circuit, a number of airframes are beginning to appear in Museums on static displays and one has made its way in to the beer garden of the Snipe Pub in Dukenfield near Manchester
[[User:86.9.236.109|86.9.236.109]] 17:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)Dave Bllinge[[User:86.9.236.109|86.9.236.109]] 17:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC).

== Ark Royal [[NPOV]] ==

The claim that recapturing the Falklands would have been easier with a full aircraft carrier is not a claim I've seen cited elsewhere, so it would be good if a source for this assertion could be found. --[[User:Dvavasour|Dunstan]] 14:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

:The assertion is that the operations around the FI would have been easier if the Task Force had Airborne Early warning aircraft. If the RN had kept the ''Ark Royal'', then they could have operated something like the Gannet. That's not the same as recapturing would be easier. [[User:GraemeLeggett|GraemeLeggett]] 14:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

:Two F-4 Phantom CAPs with their long range and the full AIM-9L/Sparrow AAMs combination stationed over West Falkland and supported by the Gannet would eliminate almost all Argentine raids and the Buccaneers would represent a high threat for any Argentine target not only at the islands but the continent and made the Vulcan flights not necessary. [[User:Jor70|Jor70]] 15:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

::But is this a citable source, or your personal opinion? I do not wish to argue with the statement itself, but all the reading that I have done criticises the lack of AEW cover rather than the lack of the ''Ark Royal'' herself. [[User:Emoscopes|Emoscopes]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Emoscopes|Talk]]</sup> 19:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

::: Just one, but you can find it on any serious analysis of the War, a [http://www.nwc.navy.mil/press/Review/2001/Summer/art5-su1.htm british source] on a US Navy site : ''Four years after Ark Royal was retired, Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands. The only way to recover the Falklands was through an amphibious operation, and the Ark Royal would have proved invaluable. Although by comparison to a U.S. carrier air wing Ark Royal’s aircraft complement was small, a fixed-wing carrier would have provided the task force with strike aircraft, air defence fighters with a beyond-visual-range (BVR) missile capability, and, crucially, airborne early warning (AEW) aircraft. As the conflict progressed, it was clear that all were desirable.'' [[User:Jor70|Jor70]] 20:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I dont know if is me or what but the page has gone offline! you can check it from [http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2004-50,GGLD:en&q=cache:http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nwc.navy.mil%2Fpress%2FReview%2F2001%2FSummer%2Fart5-su1.htm google cache]

:::The AEW cover is inextricably linked to the ''Ark Royal'', and if you have her then you get the others or similar. I don't know if a Sea Harrier would be more fuel efficient at take off using a long stretch of ''Ark''s flight deck than using the ski-jump. [[User:GraemeLeggett|GraemeLeggett]] 12:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

:::: I still don't undestand how could be a npov on the fact that with a conventional aircraft the whole operation would be easier. Just check any analysis done after the war or if you want we can change it to: who want the Sea Harrier if the ''Ark Royal'' was still in service ? [[User:Jor70|Jor70]] 17:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

::::*It's not so much a matter of [[WP:NPOV|NPOV]], it's a matter of [[WP:V|verifiability]]. We just need a good source to confirm this, and it can stay in. --[[User:Scott Wilson|Scott Wilson]] 19:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

::::: Ok, let do a quick [[Google]] search! : [[User:Jor70|Jor70]] 22:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
* from [[HMS Ark Royal (R09)]] :-)) ->'' Ironically the Falklands War took place only two years after the Ark Royal was scrapped; had the carrier still been in service for the conflict the Argentine Air Force would have had a considerably tougher time launching attacks on the Royal Navy.''
* from [http://www.navyleague.org/sea_power/march_02_16.php] -> ''The British experience affirmed "defense-in-depth" principles that had served as the foundation of U.S. Navy doctrine since World War II. The White Paper and the Summary Report both faulted the British for their lack of a well-rounded carrier wing--complete with early warning aircraft and long-range fighters--and for lacking the close-in air-defense weapons that might have prevented at least some of the warship losses. Two decades later, the British are constructing a large conventional aircraft carrier capable of hosting an air wing such as that recommended.''
::::::Which is why I find it so terribly ironic that the government is prepared to spend a number of years without the Sea Harrier, in a situation little better (if not worse) than 1982 :) To cut to the point, I too agree it should be in, it was just a matter of verification. [[User:Emoscopes|Emoscopes]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Emoscopes|Talk]]</sup> 03:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

== Cost ==

I've added a unit cost figure of about £12m in 1990; this is derived from Alan Clark's 1989 defence review, which gave the price of ten extra Sea Harriers as c.£120m. If anyone has a better figure, please feel free to give it, but better this than nothing [[User:Shimgray|Shimgray]] | [[User talk:Shimgray|talk]] | 23:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

== Nickname "shar" ==

Is this meant to indicate [[Shah]] or [[Shar Pei]]? - [[User:Samsara|{{{2|Samsara}}}]] ([[User talk:Samsara|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Samsara|contribs]]) 09:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

*I think it's merely a contraction of '''S'''ea '''Har'''rier. --[[User:Scott Wilson|Scott Wilson]] 22:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
**That's what I understand also. [[User:Mark83|Mark83]] 22:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
***okay, thnx. - [[User:Samsara|{{{2|Samsara}}}]] ([[User talk:Samsara|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Samsara|contribs]]) 07:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

== Indian order quantity ==

I've changed the quantities of FRS.51 orders for India to twenty-three as per {{cite book | author=Jim Winchester (Ed.) | title=The Encyclopedia of Modern Aircraft| publisher=Grange Books | year=2006 | id=ISBN 1-84013-908-0 }} and {{cite book | author=Paul Eden (Ed.) | title=The Encyclopedia of Modern Military Aircraft| publisher=Amber Books | year=2004 | id=ISBN 1-904687-84-9 }}. Unfortunately, neither agrees on how many T.60s were ordered. The former says six, while the latter says four. Can anyone shed some more light on this? --[[User:Scott Wilson|Scott Wilson]] 14:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The Indian Navy said it would not after all be acquiring 8 second-hand Sea Harrier FA 2 fighters from the RN saying they were not as cost effective as originally thouight because of the exclusion of radar and other components. According to a report in the October issue of the defence magazine India Strategic, the eight Harriers, which were also the last to serve the Royal Navy, were on offer but without some vital components like missiles and the Blue Vixen fire control radar. The prime consideration was to use them to train pilots and to fill in the gaps caused by the loss of six Harriers in the Indian Navy due to accidents spread over more than 20 years.
Published reports indicate that India has 22 Sea Harriers, 16 of them being the FRS.51 fighter version. They are to be gradually replaced by MiG-29K aircraft, some 40 to 50 of which are likely to be acquired from Russia.

India has already contracted to buy 16 MiG-29Ks as part of the deal with Russia to acquire the aircraft carrier Admiral Gorshkov, renamed INS Vikramaditya, but more such aircraft would be needed as the Indian Navy grows to its required size and capability.The Indian Navy plans to use the Sea Harriers till around 2020.

Engines for Indian Sea Harriers were supplied by Rolls Royce while the aircraft have been maintained and upgraded - as prime contractor - by the Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL).
http://www.india-defence.com/reports/2605

Their original Sea Harriers are being retrofitted with Elta EL/M-2032 multimode fire-control radar, Rafael Derby air-to-air missiles and a helmet-mounted sight.
[[User:81.86.144.210|81.86.144.210]] 07:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

==Book information==
There's a book "Sea Harrier Over the Falklands", by "Sharkey Ward", CO 801 Squadron (HMS Invincible). From my memory of the book:

1) The Royal Navy set off with 20 Sea Harriers ... presumably all the planes in service ... 12 on HMS Hermes and 8 on HMS Invincible
2) Later, 8 RAF Harriers were sent out on the Atlantic Conveyor, 4 going to each carrier. They were flown off before the Atlantic Conveyor was sunk.
3) Two Harriers from Invincible on patrol together in fog went missing, with no information about what happened. The only explanation anyone could think of was they had collided
4) I recall at least one Sea Harrier from Invincible was shot down over the Falklands. The carrier Captain discussed with Ward whether the pilot (Mortimer, I believe) should face a court martial as he was not supposed to be flying in the area where he was shot down. The court martial did not take place.
5) One Harrier slid off the deck of HMS Invincible while the ship was carrying out evasive action in heavy weather. One of the pilots was reported as remarking to the captain "That'll teach you to chuck your ship about like a speedboat, sir."
6) I seem to recall the runways at Port Stanley were not long enough for Argentinian jet aircraft
7) According to the author, the Vulcan raids were a total waste of time; as I recall, seven raids were carried out. One was aborted when the Vulcan lost power in one engine, the crew causing some embarrassment by diverting, fully armed, to an airfield in South America. Another was aborted due to loss of cabin pressure - which, when the plane return to Ascension Island, was found to be due to an open cockpit window. Five aircraft got to the Falklands, dropping 105 bombs, 104 of which missed the runways. One bomb managed to hit one corner of one runway. (Not mentioned in the book, but I believe these were cluster munitions; so perhaps the nuisance caused to the ARgentinians was greater than the author suggested.)
8) According to the book, it transpired after the war that Argentinian pilots had been under orders not to engage in air-to-air combat with Harriers.
9) According to the book, HMS Hermes' Harrier pilots were ordered by the flagship not to use their Blue Fox radar. The author - who has quite an axe to grind - blames this and other stupidities for the amount of damage done to Royal Navy ships. He says there was no single incidence of an Argentinian air attack being pressed home when there were Harriers from Invincible in low-level defensive positions operating their radar.

Tim

:I too have read this book and while it makes a good read, Ward definitely has an agenda. The usefullness of the [[Operation Black Buck | Vulcan raids]] has been well argued and probably will be for a long time. The bomb that cratered the runway was a 1000lb GP bomb, not a cluster bomb (the only clusters used in theatre were the BL755). It would be good to have some more detail on the Shars that were lost, but we need a better reference than Ward's book, there must be a report published somewhere? [[User:Mumby|Mumby]] 08:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Try hardback book, authors unknown ,"Falklands:The Air War-"serial nos of all UK and Argentine aircraft involved are included.

'''Argentinian pilots had been under orders not to engage in air-to-air combat ''' Do you mean facing cannons vs AIM-9L ?? the only real air combats occurs on the first day (May 1) when Mirage III and Daggers go low to intercept the SHarrs: A Dagger (Lt Ardiles) was shot down with a 9lima from out of their shafrir range whilst the Mirages, one was blow out too while the other escapes but runs out of fuel to return to the mainland so attempts to land at Stanley where its was shot down by friendly fire. After that, the Mirage III (the only real fighter group) were the only to carry AAM (R530 and R550) continue to escort the strike aircraft up to the last day but flying high altitude (if they go down they could not return) where the SHarrs wisely do not care of them. [[User:Jor70|Jor70]] 11:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

==ARA SeaHarrs==
There is no mention of the tests performed by the Argentine Navy of a Harrier from the 25 de Mayo carrier (there is a well known photograph). ARA was looking for the replacement for their A-4Q which finally led in the Super Etendards [[User:Jor70|Jor70]] 14:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

:I'll see if I can find a good source in my books, or online. Thanks. - [[User:BillCJ|BillCJ]] 16:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I actually found that was Sept '69, during the voyage of the recently bought 25 de Mayo in the Netherlands, Hawker Siddeley demostrated their Harrier GR1 onboard the carrier. The Argentines bought refurbished A-4B (as A-4Q) in the US instead --[[User:Jor70|Jor70]] 18:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

:Considering that's about the same time that Spain bought their AV-8Ss, Argentina probably would have purchased GR.1s Spain bought their Harriers as AV-8As through the US because Britain wouldn't sell directly to the fascist government of Spain (but presumably approved of it anyway, or I doubt the US could have sold them.) I don't think Argentina had any problems with the British government at that time, so they probably would have bought GR1s directly from Britian. It would have been very interesting had Argentina purchased Harriers, as they would most likely have faced off with the Sea Harriers during the war. - [[User:BillCJ|BillCJ]] 18:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
:: One of the problems seems to be the fact that the Harriers would be delivered w/o AAM, A-4Q came with AIM-9B instead but ironically all american hardware suffered the spare part problem at the ends 70s due the Carter/Humphrey embargo while the British not. --[[User:Jor70|Jor70]] 19:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

== Art Nalls’ Harrier was once used by the British Royal Navy ==

GERALD MARTINEAU/The Washington Post Ex-test pilot Art Nalls’ Harrier was once used by the British Royal Navy. Once, after an emergency landing, he had it towed on St. Mary's County, Md., roads, riding in the cockpit dressed as Santa Claus.
By JENNA JOHNSON
The Washington Post
January 04, 2008 6:00 AM
http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080104/LIFE/801040307

St. Mary's County Regional Airport in Maryland is home to a fleet of single-engine Cessnas, many of them owned by amateur pilots and parked in tidy rows just off the runway. But in a hangar at the edge of the grounds sits a Harrier, a hulking jet that takes off and lands vertically, cruises at speeds in excess of 600 mph and is similar to the Marines' primary attack aircraft.

...

[[User:Royzee|Royzee]] ([[User talk:Royzee|talk]]) 10:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

* Copying the entire article is a copyright violation. I cut out most of it. People can read it at the link you provided. -[[User:Fnlayson|Fnlayson]] ([[User talk:Fnlayson|talk]]) 14:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

== AIM-7/Sky Flash ==

Was the Sea Harrier ever fitted for Sky Flash or AIM-7 MRAAM operation? Doing so would have given the aircraft an improved ability to defend the fleet. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/63.226.104.225|63.226.104.225]] ([[User talk:63.226.104.225|talk]]) 20:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Why couldn't the normal version of the Harrier be used on ships? ==

Why couldn't the normal version of the Harrier be used on ships? <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/80.127.14.37|80.127.14.37]] ([[User talk:80.127.14.37|talk]]) 16:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Cockpit, avionics, etc etc ==

Well apologies, [[User:Fnlayson]], it was only meant as a start and as an encouragement to other contributors, but it seems a day is too long to wait. The little bits and pieces currently given in "Design and development" didn't seem to amount to much and I thought a basic description on which variants could be built might give more weight. Remove the same start in Hawk if it gives you the same pain. But a plea for contributions here. Thanks. [[User:Wittlessgenstein|Wittlessgenstein]] ([[User talk:Wittlessgenstein|talk]]) 22:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
: OK, you're right. I didn't give it much of a chance. But this article does not get that much attention, unfortunately. What about splitting off a separate Design section? Add an expand-section tag there. I've got a book or two with Sea Harrier info. Not sure what to add with this being a derivative of the Harrier I though. I generally only watch the Hawk article. ;) -[[User:Fnlayson|Fnlayson]] ([[User talk:Fnlayson|talk]]) 23:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
:: OK many thanks. Although as you hint. Harrier itself might be a better starting place. Yes a separate design section would seem very sensible and could contain coockpit stuff. [[User:Wittlessgenstein|Wittlessgenstein]] ([[User talk:Wittlessgenstein|talk]]) 10:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
::* I'll try to add some basic design info to the Harrier article. Chances are parts of it can be used in this and other Harrier family articles. Add some cockpit and other info where you can. Thanks. -[[User:Fnlayson|Fnlayson]] ([[User talk:Fnlayson|talk]]) 20:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 17:23, 19 April 2024

Good articleBritish Aerospace Sea Harrier has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 27, 2010Good article nomineeListed
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:British_Aerospace_Sea_Harrier&oldid=1219760335"