Editing Hawker Siddeley Harrier (section)

===Overview===
The Harrier was typically used as a ground attack aircraft, though its manoeuvrability also allows it to effectively engage other aircraft at short ranges.<ref name= Brown_71>Brown 1970, p. 71.</ref> The Harrier is powered by a single [[Rolls-Royce Pegasus|Pegasus]] [[turbofan]] engine mounted in the fuselage. The engine is fitted with two air intakes and four vectoring nozzles for directing the thrust generated: two for the bypass flow and two for the jet exhaust. Several small reaction nozzles are also fitted, in the nose, tail and wingtips, for the purpose of balancing during vertical flight.<ref name= Brown_81>Brown 1970, p. 81.</ref> It has two landing gear units on the fuselage and two outrigger landing gear units, one near each wing tip.<ref name= Brown_80>Brown 1970, p. 80.</ref> The Harrier is equipped with four wing and three fuselage pylons for carrying a variety of weapons and external fuel tanks.<ref name=spick_364>Spick 2000, pp. 364–371.</ref>

[[File:AV-8A VMA-513 NAN2-71.jpg|thumb|An RAF Harrier GR.1, on loan to the USMC, displaying its underside with a full load of bombs|alt=A Harrier in flight, with large weapons loadout underneath]]
The Kestrel and the Harrier were similar in appearance, though approximately 90 per cent of the Kestrel's airframe was redesigned for the Harrier.<ref name="Mason harrier p75">Mason 1986, p. 75.</ref> The Harrier was powered by the more powerful Pegasus 6 engine; new air intakes with auxiliary blow-in doors were added to produce the required airflow at low speed. Its wing was modified to increase area and the landing gear was strengthened. Several [[hardpoint]]s were installed, two under each wing and one underneath the fuselage; two {{convert|30|mm|in|sigfig=2|abbr=on}} [[ADEN cannon]] [[gun pod]]s could also be fitted to the underside of the fuselage. The Harrier was outfitted with updated avionics to replace the basic systems used in the Kestrel;{{refn|Some avionics systems used in the Harrier had been carried over from the cancelled [[BAC TSR-2]], such as the Weapon Aiming Computer.<ref name= 'Jefford 48'>Jefford 2006, p. 48.</ref>|group=N}} a navigational-attack system incorporating an [[inertial navigation system]], originally for the P.1154, was installed and information was presented to the pilot by a [[head-up display]] and a moving map display.<ref name="Mason Harrier p73-6">Mason 1986, pp. 73–76.</ref><ref name="Evans p14,6">Evans 1998, pp. 14, 16.</ref>

The Harrier's VTOL abilities allowed it to be deployed from very small prepared clearings or helipads as well as normal airfields.{{refn|The area needed for a Harrier to comfortably take off was said to be less than a tennis court, while the majority of aircraft required a two-mile-long runway.<ref name= Brown_82>Brown 1970, p. 82.</ref>|group=N}} It was believed that, in a high-intensity conflict, air bases would be vulnerable and likely to be quickly knocked out.{{refn|Experience from the Second World War had made this vulnerability abundantly clear to many Air Force officers around the world; this perception of vulnerability contributed heavily to the interest in and development of VTOL aircraft like the Harrier.<ref name= Jefford_9>Jefford 2005, p. 9.</ref>|group=N}} The capability to scatter Harrier squadrons to dozens of small "alert pads" on the front lines was highly prized by military strategists and the USMC procured the aircraft because of this ability.<ref>Brown 1970, pp. 82–83.</ref>{{refn|Some officers went so far as to deride conventional aircraft, unfavourably comparing to the [[Maginot Line]], as static and highly vulnerable.<ref>Taylor, P.W. [http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1977/nov-dec/taylor.html "The Impact of V/STOL on Tactical Air Warfare".] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100815021047/http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1977/nov-dec/taylor.html |date=15 August 2010 }} ''Air University Review'', November–December 1977. Retrieved 31 July 2011.</ref>|group=N}} Hawker Siddeley noted that STOL operation provided additional benefits over VTOL operation, saving fuel and allowing the aircraft to carry more ordnance.<ref name= Brown_83>Brown 1970, p. 83.</ref>

{{blockquote|I still don't believe the Harrier. Think of the millions that have been spent on VTO in America and Russia, and quite a bit in Europe, and yet the only vertical take-off aircraft which you can call a success is the Harrier. When I saw the Harrier hovering and flying backwards under control, I reckoned I'd seen everything. And it's not difficult to fly.|[[Thomas Sopwith]]<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1979/1979%20-%200033.html|title=camel – harrier – anthony fokker – 1979 – 0033 – Flight Archive}}</ref>}}

The Harrier, while serving for many decades in various forms, has been criticised on multiple issues; in particular a [[List of Harrier jump jet family losses|high accident rate]], though Nordeen notes that several conventional single-engine strike aircraft like the [[Douglas A-4 Skyhawk]] and [[LTV A-7 Corsair II]] had worse accident rates.<ref name= Nordeen_155>Nordeen 2006, p. 155.</ref> The ''[[Los Angeles Times]]'' reported in 2003 that the Harrier "...has amassed the highest major accident rate of any military plane now in service. Forty-five Marines have died in 148 noncombat accidents".<ref>Alan C. Miller and Sack, Kevin. [https://www.latimes.com/la-na-harrier11dec11-story.html "Harrier Crash Renews Calls for an Inquiry."] ''Los Angeles Times'', 11 December 2003. Retrieved 31 July 2011.</ref> Colonel Lee Buland of the USMC declared the maintenance of a Harrier to be a "challenge"; the need to remove the wings before performing most work upon the engine, including engine replacements, meant the Harrier required considerable man-hours in maintenance, more than most aircraft. Buland noted however that the maintenance difficulties were unavoidable in order to create a V/STOL aircraft.<ref name= Nordeen_118>Nordeen 2006, p. 118.</ref>