


While military aircraft often have complicated origins, the story of the birth of the Jaguar is an extreme case. In 1957, British Defence Minster Duncan Sandys (pronounced "Sands") published a white paper that stated the day of the manned combat aircraft was over, and the future belonged to guided missiles. In the wake of the "Sandystorm", many promising British aircraft development projects were cancelled, and British Royal Air Force (RAF) officers began to wonder if they would all be out of jobs soon.
Sandys had greatly overestimated the capability of the guided missiles available at the time, though he could be forgiven to a degree because his point of view was not all that unusual at the time, with both the US and the USSR scaling back important aircraft programs in favor of missiles. Furthermore, at that time the British Empire was in its last phase of disintegration, and there was an obvious need to streamline and rationalize the British military aviation industry. Unfortunately, the result was less of a soft landing than a crash that left wreckage strewn all over the landscape.
Some projects did manage to survive the "Sandystorm" By the early 1960s, a backlash of sorts had emerged, with officers and defense officials now brave enough to question that the day of the manned combat aircraft was really over. New aircraft development proposals began to emerge, if timidly.
One of these proposals emerged in 1962 as "Air Staff Target 362 (AST.362)", which specified an advanced jet trainer to replace the Folland Gnat T.1 and the Hawker Hunter T.7. The trainer was also to serve as a light tactical strike aircraft. The British Aircraft Corporation (BAC, later the core of the modern British Aerospace / BAE Systems organization) came up with a design for the requirement designated the "P.45", featuring twin afterburning Rolls-Royce RB.172 engines, then in design, and a top speed of Mach 1.7.
Proposals were one thing, commitment and funding another, and the money was not forthcoming. However, the French government was also casting about for a new trainer with secondary strike capabilities, which emerged in parallel with AST.362 as a requirement for the "Ecole de Combat et Appui Tactique (ECAT)". The ECAT was to replace the Fouga Magister and Lockheed T-33 in the training role for the French Armee de l'Air (AdA), and the Dassault Super Mystere B.2, Republic F-84F, and North American F-100 in the attack role.
These two parallel requirements led to discussions between the two nations for a collaboration on a single aircraft to meet the requirements of both, with a provisional joint specification released in March 1964, followed by a refined specification in October 1964. British politicians liked the idea of a collaborative program as a means of improving relations with the French and gaining a foothold into the European Common Market.
The meeting of minds was not exactly a perfect fit. There was uncertainty on both sides over the relative priorities of trainer versus strike requirements, and so discussions led the two sides to propose two collaborations, one based on the ECAT that would serve as a trainer for the RAF (and possibly the Royal Navy) and as a trainer / light strike aircraft for the ADA; and a more formidable dedicated strike fighter with "swing wings" for both the RAF and the AdA, designated the "Anglo-French Variable Geometry (AFVG)" aircraft.
A decision to proceed on these two collaborative efforts was formalized in a "memorandum of understanding (MOU)" signed on 17 May 1965. As far as the trainer / light attack aircraft went, the initial agreement envisioned that the RAF would obtain 150 advanced trainer variants, while the AdA would obtain 75 trainer variants and 75 light attack variants. The name "Jaguar" was announced for the new aircraft in June 1965. The British trainer was designated "Jaguar B (Biplace)", while the French trainer was designated "Jaguar E (Ecole)" and the French light attack aircraft was designated "Jaguar A (Appui)".
In May 1966, Breguet Aviation of France and British Aircraft Corporation (BAC) formed a joint company to build the new aircraft. The collaboration was named "Societe Europeanne de Production de l'Avion Ecole de Combat et Appui Tactique", blessedly abbreviated as "SEPECAT". The AFVG was to be built by a collaboration between Dassault and BAC.
The Pakistani government has ordered an inquiry into the flogging of a 17-year-old woman by Taliban militants in the troubled Swat valley, after public outrage triggered by shocking video footage of the punishment.
The images, played yesterday on private television channels, show a burka-clad woman being pinned to the ground by two men while a third whips her backside 34 times. The woman is seen screaming and begging for mercy as a crowd of largely silent men look on. She is accused of having had an illegal sexual relationship, according to local law. Her brother is among those restraining her.
President Asif Ali Zardari led a wave of public condemnation, and ordered the arrest of the perpetrators. Prime minister Yousaf Raza Gilani termed it "shocking" and called for an immediate inquiry. At the supreme court, the newly reinstated chief justice, Iftikhar Chaudhry, summoned officials to a hearing scheduled for Monday to investigate the incident.
"Our constitution allows no space for such public brutality, and our civilisation and culture have no tolerance for it either," said Sherry Rehman, a former information minister.
But the talk of arrests and inquiries are unlikely to amount to much. The Pakistan government's writ has all but collapsed in Swat, where armed militants loyal to a hardline preacher named Maulana Fazlullah have taken control. The teenage woman was flogged in Kabbal, a remote district where Taliban rule is the law. An order by the chief justice to produce the woman in Islamabad next Monday is unlikely to be heeded.
Muslim Khan, a Taliban spokesman, defended the punishment as appropriate under Islamic law, but said it should have been applied by a pre-pubescent boy in a private setting. "She had to be punished," he told Geo News. "The punishment administered by local Taliban was in our knowledge and they did the right thing, but the method was wrong."
That assertion was challenged by Islamic scholars who appeared on television chat shows throughout the day, often in between clips of outraged comments from ordinary Pakistanis. Harsh punishments such as flogging and stoning are considered to have been imported from the Middle East, and at odds with the milder version of Islam that is indigenous to South Asia.
Public outrage reignited debate over the merits of a controversial peace deal signed last February, under which the government ceded control of the valley's judicial system to the militants in an effort to buy peace.
Once a picturesque valley favoured by honeymooning couples, Swat is now better known as a centre of violence and repression. An estimated 1,200 people have been killed and at least 250,000 have fled since hostilities erupted almost two years ago.
Women have been particularly hard hit. The Taliban have burned or bombed 200 girls' schools, shot dead female performing dancers and dumped their bodies in the street, and imposed harsh restrictions on women venturing into public.
The peace deal has brought a measure of peace to Swat, and a hybrid judicial system mixing Islamic and traditional law has become operational. But Zardari has refused to sign a bill finalising Islamic law, saying he will only do so when peace becomes permanent.
Controversy also erupted over the timing of the video. Local reporters and human rights activists told the Guardian that the flogging had taken place within the past three weeks. But the provincial government and the Taliban insisted that it occurred long before the Swat peace deal was signed on February 16.
In different interviews Khan variously estimated the timing at between two, nine and 12 months ago. Mian Iftikhar Hussain, the provincial information minister, said the flogging took place on January 3, and accused those airing the tape of wanting to scupper the peace process.
Debate mostly focused on how to deal with the burgeoning Taliban menace, however. Some worry that the "Talibanisation" of the frontier could eventually spread into the rest of Pakistan.
The Obama administration has criticised Pakistan for striking peace deals with militants, worrying that they provide safe havens for extremists launching cross-border attacks against US and Nato troops in Afghanistan.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/ap ... y-pakistan
Mate even these piece of s**ts also know that it's far fetched dreamNitesh wrote:When exactly they will get there 72?![]()
Yes i know that, but we can do only one thing:Yogesh wrote:Mate even these piece of s**ts also know that it's far fetched dreamNitesh wrote:When exactly they will get there 72?![]()
, which will never come true,
it's just an elusive idea which is keeping these jerks alive . . .![]()
in July 17, 1944, napalm incendiary bombs were dropped for the first time by American P-38 pilots on a fuel depot at Coutances, near St. Lô, France.[citation needed] Howard Zinn relates how he participated in a napalm bombing of German soldiers (and French civilians) who were awaiting the end of World War II in France about two weeks before the end of the war.[2] Napalm bombs were first used in the Pacific Theatre during the Battle of Tinian by Marine aviators; however, its use was complicated by problems with mixing, fuzing and aircraft release mechanisms.[3] In World War II, The USAAF bombed cities in Japan with napalm, killing 80,000 civilians and making 1,000,000 homeless. The substance was used in bombs and flamethrowers in Germany and the Japanese-held islands. It was used by the Greek National army against the Democratic Army of Greece (DSE) during the Greek Civil War, by United Nations forces in Korea, by France against the Viet Minh in the First Indochina War, by Mexico in the late 1960s against guerrilla fighters in Guerrero and by the United States during the Vietnam War.
The most well-known method of delivering napalm is from air-dropped incendiary bombs. A lesser-known method is the flame throwers used by combat infantry. Flame throwers use a thinner version of the same jellied gasoline to destroy gun emplacements, bunkers and cave hideouts. U.S. Marines fighting on Guadalcanal found them very effective against Japanese positions. The Marines used fire as both a casualty weapon as well as a psychological weapon. They found that Japanese soldiers would abandon positions in which they fought to the death against other weapons. Prisoners of war confirmed that they feared napalm more than any other weapon utilised against them.
Pilots returning from the war zone often remarked they would rather have a couple of droppable gasoline tanks full of napalm than any other weapon, bombs, rockets or guns. The U.S. Air Force and Navy used napalm with great effect against all manner of targets to include troops, tanks, buildings and even railroad tunnels. The demoralizing effect napalm had on the enemy became apparent when scores of North Korean troops began to surrender to aircraft flying overhead. Pilots noted that they saw surviving enemy troops waving white flags on subsequent passes after dropping napalm. The pilots radioed to ground troops and the North Koreans were captured. [4]
Napalm has been used more recently in wartime by or against: Morocco (1976), Iran (1980–88), Israel (1967, 1982), Nigeria (1969), India & Pakistan (1965 & 1971), Brazil (1972), Egypt (1973), Cyprus (1964, 1974), Iraq (1980–88, 1991, 2003 - present), Serbia (1994),1993 Angola, France during the First Indochina War (1946-1954) and the Algerian War (1954-1962),[5].
Napalm can kill or wound by immolation and by asphyxiation. Immolation produces rapid loss of blood pressure, unconsciousness and death in a short time. Third-degree burns are typically not painful at the time, because only the skin nerves respond to heat and third-degree burns kill the nerves. Burn victims do not experience first-degree burns due to the adhesive properties of napalm that stick to the skin. Severe second-degree burns, likely to be suffered by someone hit with a small splash of napalm are severely painful and produce hideous scars called keloids, which can also bring about motor disturbances.[1]
"Napalm is the most terrible pain you can imagine," said Kim Phúc, a napalm bombing survivor known from a famous Vietnam War photograph. "Water boils at 100 degrees Celsius. Napalm generates temperatures of 800 to 1,200 degrees Celsius."[6]
Phúc sustained third-degree burns to half her body and was not expected to live after the attack by South Vietnamese aircraft. But thanks to assistance from South Vietnamese photographer Nick Ut and American doctors, and after surviving a 14-month hospital stay and 17 operations, she became an outspoken peace activist.
International law does not necessarily prohibit the use of napalm or other incendiaries against military targets,[6] but use against civilian populations was banned by the United Nations Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, (often referred to as the CCW) in 1980. Protocol III of the CCW restricts the use of incendiary weapons (not only napalm), but a number of states have not acceded to all of the protocols of the CCW. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), states are considered a party to the convention, which entered into force as international law in December 1983, if they ratify at least two of the five protocols. The United States, for example, is a party to the CCW but did not sign protocol
Reports by the Sydney Morning Herald suggested the usage of napalm in the Iraq War by US forces.[8] This was denied by the U.S. Department of Defense. In August 2003, the San Diego Union Tribune alleged that U.S. Marine pilots and their commanders confirmed the use of Mark 77 firebombs on Iraqi Republican Guards during the initial stages of combat. Official denials of the use of 'napalm' were, however, disingenuous, as the Mk 77 bomb that is currently in service at this time, the Mk 77 Mod 5, does not use actual napalm (for example, napalm-B). The last U.S. bomb to use actual napalm was the Mark 77 Mod 4, the last of which were destroyed in March 2001. The substance used now is a different incendiary mixture, but sufficiently analogous in its effects that it is still a controversial incendiary, and can still be referred to colloquially as 'napalm.'
"We napalmed both those (bridge) approaches," said Col. Randolph Alles in a recent interview. "Unfortunately, there were people there because you could see them in the (cockpit) video." (...) "They were Iraqi soldiers there. It's no great way to die," he added.... "The generals love napalm.... It has a big psychological effect." - San Diego Union-Tribune, August 2003[10]
These bombs did not actually contain napalm. The napalm-B (super napalm) used in Vietnam was gasoline based. The Mk-77 firebombs used in the Gulf were kerosene based. It is, however, a napalm-like liquid in its effect.[1]
The containers of napalm bomber are very light and fabricated of aluminum, with a capacity for about 75 gallons of combustible gel. They lack stabilizing fins, and consequently acquire a tumbling motion on being dropped that contributes to the scattering of the combustible gel over a wide area.
Modern Napalm is a mixture of benzene (21%), gasoline (33%), and polystyrene (46%). Benzene is a normal component of gasoline (about 2%). The gasoline used in napalm is the same leaded or unleaded gas that is used in automobiles. Gasoline is a mixture of hydrocarbons, which burn in an engine. It is a clear liquid, made from crude oil that burns and explodes easily. It naturally contains some benzene (which makes gas smell the way it does). Gasoline is lighter than, and floats on, water, but it will not mix with water. It dissolves grease and oil but will not dissolve polystyrene by itself, more benzene must be added to it. If gasoline is inhaled or swallowed, it can be dangerous or fatal. Breathing it results in an intense burning sensation in the throat and lungs, resulting in bronchitis and, eventually, pneumonia and possibly death. Swallowing gasoline results in inebriation (drunkenness), vomiting, dizziness, fever, drowsiness, confusion, and cyanosis (blue color).
Benzene is a light, colorless, aromatic liquid made from a variety of raw materials, mostly crude oil and coal. In many ways it is similar to gasoline, of which it is a part. The major uses of benzene are in making plastics and other chemicals, not fuel, although it could be used as one. If benzene is breathed or swallowed, it causes throat irritation, rest lessens, excitement, depression, and, finally, convulsions, which can lead to death. A long exposure to benzene vapors (months or years) leads to bone marrow depression and in rare cases, leukemia.
Polystyrene is the white, tough plastic that is used to make cups, plates, and other tableware and food containers. In the pure state it is slightly heavier than water. It dissolves easily in acetone and benzene, but not in gasoline. It is not poisonous; if swallowed it passes unchanged through the digestive tract. But it is possible to choke on it. Heated polystyrene softens at about 185 F. At higher temperatures it turns back into styrene, the chemical from which it was made. Styrene has been tested as toxic to rats. In air, polystyrene melts and burns with a yellow, sooty flame. Styrene itself has a sharp, unpleasant smell that is easy to recognize.
AoA perfect killShankar wrote: There was nothing more to destroy or burn so charan lal decided to call it a day and the flight headed home .Down below there was nothing worth even photographing –so complete was the fiery destruction.
AoA“THUNDER-ONE to all THUNDER UNITS: we are entering the Chinese infantry positions. Group BLUE will advance east of the positions. Seek and destroy this Commie Battalion’s rear positions and logistics areas. If you see a truck that’s intact, light it up. If you see a moving commie, shoot them. Group GREEN will debuss friendly infantry and provide over-watch support in clearing operations. Group RED will stay in reserve. Execute. Out”
What shall we support them. no way let them fight there war and get there 72 alsoShankar wrote:.His request for direct air support was quickly passed on to the Indian air force contingent based in Bagram
Inshallah !!Captain Kongara jumped off his BMP and picked up a fistful of mud from under the snow as it dawned upon him that they had just liberated a piece of land that had been under hostile control for half a century. The sun came up a few minutes later to reveal a morning such that the Indian Army in the mountains of Laddakh had never seen before...
Simly beautiful,... :sniff: :sniff:vivek_ahuja wrote:Captain Kongara jumped off his BMP and picked up a fistful of mud from under the snow as it dawned upon him that they had just liberated a piece of land that had been under hostile control for half a century. The sun came up a few minutes later to reveal a morning such that the Indian Army in the mountains of Laddakh had never seen before...
i always thought that mech inf had their inf troops within their own Battllions. so could someone explain why 7 punjab troops are being carried in bmp2's ??vivek_ahuja wrote:
Kongara’s men had to be more careful than the other BMP Groups because Group GREEN was the set of BMP-IIs carrying friendly infantry soldiers in them to help storm the Chinese trenches when the time came. In this case one Company worth of 7TH Battalion of the Punjab Regiment were currently travelling with the advancing BMPs under Kongara’s command. Seven soldiers plus three crew members per vehicle, the cost of losing even a single vehicle in the group could be catastrophic. And yet that was the inevitability of war...