text:
Kingship and kingdom of God

The concept of the kingship of God appears in all Abrahamic religions, where in some cases the terms kingdom of God and kingdom of Heaven are also used. The notion of God's kingship goes back to the Hebrew Bible, which refers to "his kingdom" but does not include the term "Kingdom of God".

The "Kingdom of God" and its equivalent form "Kingdom of Heaven" in the Gospel of Matthew is one of the key elements of the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament. The Gospel of Mark indicates that the gospel is the good news about the Kingdom of God. The term pertains to the kingship of Christ over all creation. Kingdom of "heaven" appears in Matthew's gospel due primarily to Jewish sensibilities about uttering the "name" (God). Jesus did not teach the kingdom of God per se so much as the return of that kingdom. The notion of God's kingdom (as it had been under Moses) returning became an agitation in "knaan," modern Israel, Palestine, and Lebanon, 60 years before Jesus was born, and continued to be a force for nearly a hundred years after his death. Drawing on Old Testament teachings, the Christian characterization of the relationship between God and humanity inherently involves the notion of the "Kingship of God".

The Quran does not include the term "kingdom of God", but includes the Throne Verse which talks about the throne of God encompassing the heavens and the Earth. The Quran also refers to Abraham seeing the "Kingdom of the heavens". Writings of the Baháʼí Faith also use the term "kingdom of God".

Hebrew Bible
The term "kingdom of the LORD" appears twice in the Hebrew Bible, in and. In addition, "his kingdom" and "your kingdom" are sometimes used when referring to God. "Yours is the kingdom, O Lord" is used in and "His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom" in  ( in the verse numbering used in Christian Bibles) for example. There are also verses like that show how Israel, as God's chosen people, are considered to be a kingdom, mirroring some Christian interpretations that view God's kingdom as Christendom.

"The Hebrew word malkuth [...] refers first to a reign, dominion, or rule and only secondarily to the realm over which a reign is exercised. [...] When malkuth is used of God, it almost always refers to his authority or to his rule as the heavenly King." The "enthronement psalms" (Psalms 45, 93, 96, 97–99) provide a background for this view with the exclamation "The Lord is King".

, Isaiah 6, Ezekiel 1 and all speak of the Throne of God, although some philosophers such as Saadia Gaon and Maimonides interpreted such mention of a "throne" as allegory.

Intertestamental period
The phrase the Kingdom of God is not common in intertestamental literature. Where it does occur, such as in the Psalms of Solomon and the Wisdom of Solomon, it usually refers to "God's reign, not to the realm over which he reigns, nor to the new age, [nor to ...] the messianic order to be established by the Lord's Anointed".

The term does occasionally, however, denote "an eschatological event", such as in the Assumption of Moses and the Sibylline Oracles. In these works, "God's Kingdom is not the new age but the effective manifestation of his rule in all the world so that the eschatological order is established." Along these lines was the more "national" view in which the awaited messiah was seen as a liberator and the founder of a new state of Israel.

New Testament
The Gospel of Luke records Jesus' description of the Kingdom of God, "The kingdom of God does not come with observation; neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you."

In the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus speaks frequently of God's kingdom. However within the New Testament, nowhere does Jesus appear to clearly define the concept. Within the Synoptic Gospel accounts, the assumption appears to have been made that, "this was a concept so familiar that it did not require definition." Karen Wenell wrote, "Mark's Gospel provides for us a significant place of transformation for the space of the Kingdom of God, precisely because it can be understood as a kind of birthplace for the Kingdom of God, the beginning of its construction ...".

John's Gospel refers to the Kingdom of God in Jesus' dialogue with Nicodemus in chapter 3. Constantin von Tischendorf's text is exceptional in referring to "the kingdom of heaven" in John 3:5, on evidence which Heinrich Meyer describes as "ancient but yet inadequate".

Within the non-canonical, yet contemporary Gnostic Gospel of Thomas, Jesus is quoted as saying, "If those who lead you say to you: ‘Look, the kingdom is in the sky!’ then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you: ‘It is in the sea,’ then the fishes will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is inside of you and outside of you. When you come to know yourselves, then you will be known, and you will realize that you are the children of the living Father." This same Gospel of Thomas further describes Jesus as implying that the Kingdom of God is already present, saying, "The kingdom of the Father is spread out upon the earth, and people do not see it.”

The Apostle Paul described the Kingdom of God in his letter to the church in Rome: "For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit." The Kingdom of God (and its possibly equivalent form Kingdom of Heaven in the Gospel of Matthew) is one of the key elements of the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament. Drawing on Old Testament teachings, the Christian characterization of the relationship between God and humanity inherently involves the notion of the "Kingship of God".

Most of the uses of the Greek word, basileia (kingdom), in the New Testament involve Kingdom of God (or Kingdom of Heaven). Matthew is likely to have instead used the term heaven because the background of his Jewish audience imposed restrictions on the frequent use of the name of God. However, Dr. Chuck Missler asserts that Matthew intentionally differentiated between the kingdoms of God and Heaven: "Most commentators presume that these terms are synonymous. However, Matthew uses Kingdom of Heaven 33 times, but also uses Kingdom of God five times, even in adjacent verses, which indicates that these are not synonymous: he is using a more denotative term." Kingdom of God is translated to Latin as Regnum Dei and Kingdom of Heaven as Regnum caelorum.

Christianity

The Old Testament refers to "God the Judge of all" and the notion that all humans will eventually be judged is an essential element of Christian teachings. Building on a number of New Testament passages, the Nicene Creed indicates that the task of judgment is assigned to Jesus.

No overall agreement on the theological interpretation of "Kingdom of God" has emerged among scholars. While a number of theological interpretations of the term Kingdom of God have appeared in its eschatological context, e.g. apocalyptic, realized or Inaugurated eschatologies, no consensus has emerged among scholars.

R. T. France points out that while the concept of "Kingdom of God" has an intuitive meaning to lay Christians, there is hardly any agreement among scholars about its meaning in the New Testament. Some scholars see it as a Christian lifestyle, some as a method of world evangelization, some as the rediscovery of charismatic gifts, others relate it to no present or future situation, but the world to come. France states that the phrase Kingdom of God is often interpreted in many ways to fit the theological agenda of those interpreting it.

In the New Testament, the Throne of God is alluded to in several forms. Among these are Heaven as the Throne of God, The Throne of David, The Throne of Glory, The Throne of Grace and many more. The New Testament continues Jewish identification of heaven itself as the "throne of God", but also locates the throne of God as "in heaven" and having a second subordinate seat at the Right Hand of God for the Session of Christ.

Islam
The term "kingdom of God" does not occur in the Quran. The modern Arabic word for kingdom is mamlaka (المملكة), but in the Quran mul'kan (مُّلْكًا), refers to Heaven, e.g. in 4:54 "Or do they envy mankind for what Allah hath given them of his bounty? but We had already given the people of Abraham the Book and Wisdom, and conferred upon them a great kingdom" and 6:75 "Thus did We show Abraham the kingdom of the heavens and the earth." The variant Maalik (Owner, etmologically similar to Malik (king)) occurs in 1:4 "[Allah is] The owner of the Day of Judgement".

Bahá'í Faith
The term "kingdom of God" appears in the writings of the Baháʼí Faith, including the religious works of Bahá'u'lláh, the founder of the religion, and his son `Abdu'l-Bahá. In the Baháʼí teachings, the kingdom of God is seen both as a state of individual being, and the state of the world. Bahá'u'lláh claimed that the scriptures of the world's religions foretell a coming messianic figure that will bring a golden age of humanity, the kingdom of God on earth. He claimed to be that figure, and that his teachings would bring about the kingdom of God; he also noted that the prophecies relating to the end times and the arrival of the kingdom of God were symbolic and referred to spiritual upheaval and renewal. The Baháʼí teachings also state as people worship and serve humanity they become closer to God and develop spiritually, so that they can attain eternal life and enter the kingdom of God while alive.

title: Kingship and kingdom of God


text:
Stealth aircraft

Stealth aircraft are designed to avoid detection using a variety of technologies that reduce reflection/emission of radar, infrared, visible light, radio frequency (RF) spectrum, and audio, all collectively known as stealth technology. The F-117 Nighthawk was the first operational aircraft explicitly designed around stealth technology. Other examples of stealth aircraft include the B-2 Spirit, the B-21 Raider, the F-22 Raptor, the F-35 Lightning II, the Chengdu J-20, and the Sukhoi Su-57.

While no aircraft is completely invisible to radar, stealth aircraft make it more difficult for conventional radar to detect or track the aircraft effectively, increasing the odds of an aircraft avoiding detection by enemy radar and/or avoiding being successfully targeted by radar guided weapons. Stealth is a combination of passive low observable (LO) features and active emitters such as low-probability-of-intercept radars, radios and laser designators. These are typically combined with operational measures such as carefully planning mission maneuvers to minimize the aircraft's radar cross-section, since common hard turns or opening bomb bay doors can more than double an otherwise stealthy aircraft's radar return. Stealth is accomplished by using a complex design philosophy to reduce the ability of an opponent's sensors to detect, track, or attack the stealth aircraft. This philosophy takes into account the heat, sound, and other emissions of the aircraft which can also be used to locate it. Sensors are made to reduce the impact of low observable technologies and others have been proposed such as IRST (infrared search and track) systems to detect even reduced heat emissions, long wavelength radars to counter stealth shaping and RAM focused on shorter wavelength radar, or radar setups with multiple emitters to counter stealth shaping. However these have disadvantages compared to traditional radar against non-stealthy aircraft.

Full-size stealth combat aircraft demonstrators have been flown by the United States (in 1977), Russia (in 2000) and China (in 2011). , the only combat-ready stealth aircraft in service are the Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit (1997), the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor (2005), the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II (2015), the Chengdu J-20 (2017), and the Sukhoi Su-57 (2020), with a number of other countries developing their own designs. There are also various aircraft with reduced detectability, either unintentionally or as a secondary feature.

In the 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia two stealth aircraft were used by the United States, the veteran F-117 Nighthawk, and the newly introduced B-2 Spirit strategic stealth bomber. The F-117 performed its usual role of striking precision high-value targets and performed well, although one F-117 was shot down by a Serbian Isayev S-125 'Neva-M' missile brigade commanded by Colonel Zoltán Dani.

Design principles
Besides all the usual demands of flight, the design of a stealth or low-observability aircraft aims to reduce radar and infrared (thermal) detection, including:

 * Reduce thermal infra-red emission from the engine and its exhaust wake
 * Reduce radar reflection back to a hostile receiver by shaping the airframe
 * Reduce radar reflections from the airframe by the use of radar-absorbent materials (RAM) or radar-transparent materials such as plastics.
 * Reduce radar detection from exposed internal surfaces such as the cockpit, weapons bay and engine intake ducting.
 * Reduce infra-red and radar detection during adverse weather conditions

Rotorcraft introduce a particular design challenge, due not only to their multiple wing surfaces and articulated joints, but also to the constantly-changing relationship of these to the main airframe surfaces. The Boeing–Sikorsky RAH-66 Comanche was one of the first attempts at a stealth helicopter.

Instability of design
Early stealth aircraft were designed with a focus on minimal radar cross section (RCS) rather than aerodynamic performance. Highly stealthy aircraft like the F-117 Nighthawk are aerodynamically unstable in all three axes and require constant flight corrections from a fly-by-wire (FBW) flight system to maintain controlled flight. As for the B-2 Spirit, which was based on the development of the flying wing aircraft by Jack Northrop in 1940, this design allowed for a stable aircraft with sufficient yaw control, even without vertical surfaces such as rudders.

Aerodynamic limitations
Earlier stealth aircraft (such as the F-117 and B-2) lack afterburners, because the hot exhaust would increase their infrared footprint, and flying faster than the speed of sound would produce an obvious sonic boom, as well as surface heating of the aircraft skin, which also increases the infrared footprint. As a result, their performance in air combat maneuvering required in a dogfight would never match that of a dedicated fighter aircraft. This was unimportant in the case of these two aircraft since both were designed to be bombers. More recent design techniques allow for stealthy designs such as the F-22 without compromising aerodynamic performance. Newer stealth aircraft, like the F-22, F-35 and the Su-57, have performance characteristics that meet or exceed those of current front-line jet fighters due to advances in other technologies such as flight control systems, engines, airframe construction and materials.

Electromagnetic emissions
The high level of computerization and large amount of electronic equipment found inside stealth aircraft are often claimed to make them vulnerable to passive detection. This is highly unlikely and certainly systems such as Tamara and Kolchuga, which are often described as counter-stealth radars, are not designed to detect stray electromagnetic fields of this type. Such systems are designed to detect intentional, higher power emissions such as radar and communication signals. Stealth aircraft are deliberately operated to avoid or reduce such emissions.

Current Radar Warning Receivers look for the regular pings of energy from mechanically swept radars while fifth generation jet fighters use Low Probability of Intercept Radars with no regular repeat pattern.

Vulnerable modes of flight
Stealth aircraft are still vulnerable to detection while and immediately after using their weaponry. Since stealth payload (reduced RCS bombs and cruise missiles) is not yet generally available, and ordnance mount points create a significant radar return, stealth aircraft carry all armaments internally. As soon as weapons bay doors are opened, the plane's RCS will be multiplied and even older generation radar systems will be able to locate the stealth aircraft. While the aircraft will reacquire its stealth as soon as the bay doors are closed, a fast response defensive weapons system has a short opportunity to engage the aircraft.

This vulnerability is addressed by operating in a manner that reduces the risk and consequences of temporary acquisition. The B-2's operational altitude imposes a flight time for defensive weapons that makes it virtually impossible to engage the aircraft during its weapons deployment. New stealth aircraft designs such as the F-22 and F-35 can open their bays, release munitions and return to stealthy flight in less than a second.

Some weapons require that the weapon's guidance system acquire the target while the weapon is still attached to the aircraft. This forces relatively extended operations with the bay doors open.

Such aircraft as the F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter can also carry additional weapons and fuel on hardpoints below their wings. When operating in this mode the planes will not be nearly as stealthy, as the hardpoints and the weapons mounted on those hardpoints will show up on radar systems. This option therefore represents a trade off between stealth or range and payload. External stores allow those aircraft to attack more targets further away, but will not allow for stealth during that mission as compared to a shorter range mission flying on just internal fuel and using only the more limited space of the internal weapon bays for armaments.

Reduced payload

Fully stealth aircraft carry all fuel and armament internally, which limits the payload. By way of comparison, the F-117 carries only two laser- or GPS-guided bombs, while a non-stealth attack aircraft can carry several times more. This requires the deployment of additional aircraft to engage targets that would normally require a single non-stealth attack aircraft. This apparent disadvantage however is offset by the reduction in fewer supporting aircraft that are required to provide air cover, air-defense suppression and electronic counter measures, making stealth aircraft "force multipliers".

Sensitive skin
Stealth aircraft often have skins made with radiation-absorbent materials (RAMs). Some of these contain carbon black particles, while some contain tiny iron spheres. There are many materials used in RAMs, and some are classified, particularly the materials that specific aircraft use.

Cost of operations
Stealth aircraft are typically more expensive to develop and manufacture. An example is the B-2 Spirit that is many times more expensive to manufacture and support than conventional bomber aircraft. The B-2 program cost the U.S. Air Force almost $45 billion.

Reflected waves
Passive (multistatic) radar, bistatic radar and especially multistatic radar systems detect some stealth aircraft better than conventional monostatic radars, since first-generation stealth technology (such as the F-117) reflects energy away from the transmitter's line of sight, effectively increasing the radar cross section (RCS) in other directions, which the passive radars monitor. Such a system typically uses either low frequency broadcast TV and FM radio signals (at which frequencies controlling the aircraft's signature is more difficult).

Researchers at the University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign with support of DARPA, have shown that it is possible to build a synthetic aperture radar image of an aircraft target using passive multistatic radar, possibly detailed enough to enable automatic target recognition.

In December 2007, SAAB researchers revealed details for a system called Associative Aperture Synthesis Radar (AASR) that would employ a large array of inexpensive and redundant transmitters and receivers that could detect targets when they directly pass between the receivers/transmitters and create a shadow. The system was originally designed to detect stealthy cruise missiles and should be just as effective against low-flying stealth aircraft. That the array could contain a large amount of inexpensive equipment could potentially offer some "protection" against attacks by expensive anti-radiation missiles (ARMs).

Infrared (heat)
Some analysts claim Infra-red search and track systems (IRSTs) can be deployed against stealth aircraft, because any aircraft surface heats up due to air friction and with a two channel IRST is a (4.3 μm absorption maxima) detection possible, through difference comparing between the low and high channel. These analysts point to the resurgence in such systems in Russian designs in the 1980s, such as those fitted to the MiG-29 and Su-27. The latest version of the MiG-29, the MiG-35, is equipped with a new Optical Locator System that includes more advanced IRST capabilities. The French Rafale, the British/German/Italian/Spanish Eurofighter and the Swedish Gripen also make extensive use of IRST.

In air combat, the optronic suite allows:
 * Detection of non-afterburning targets at 45 km range and more;
 * Identification of those targets at 8 to 10 km range; and
 * Estimates of aerial target range at up to 15 km.

For ground targets, the suite allows:
 * A tank-effective detection range up to 15 km, and aircraft carrier detection at 60 to 80 km;
 * Identification of the tank type on the 8 to 10 km range, and of an aircraft carrier at 40 to 60 km; and
 * Estimates of ground target range of up to 20 km.

Longer wavelength radar
VHF radar systems have wavelengths comparable to aircraft feature sizes and should exhibit scattering in the resonance region rather than the optical region, allowing most stealth aircraft to be detected. This has prompted Nizhny Novgorod Research Institute of Radio Engineering (NNIIRT) to develop VHF AESAs such as the NEBO SVU, which is capable of performing target acquisition for Surface-to-air missile batteries. Despite the advantages offered by VHF radar, their longer wavelengths result in poor resolution compared to comparably sized X band radar array. As a result, these systems must be very large before they can have the resolution for an engagement radar. An example of a ground-based VHF radar with counter-stealth capability is the P-18 radar.

The Dutch company Thales Nederland, formerly known as Holland Signaal, developed a naval phased-array radar called SMART-L, which is operated at L Band and has counter-stealth. All ships of the Royal Dutch Navy's De Zeven Provinciën class carry, among others, the SMART-L radar.

OTH radar (over-the-horizon radar)
Over-the-horizon radar is a concept increasing radar's effective range over conventional radar. The Australian JORN Jindalee Operational Radar Network can overcome certain stealth characteristics. It is claimed that the HF frequency used and the method of bouncing radar from ionosphere overcomes the stealth characteristics of the F-117A. In other words, stealth aircraft are optimized for defeating much higher-frequency radar from front-on rather than low-frequency radars from above.

World War I and World War II

During World War I, the Germans experimented with the use of Cellon (Cellulose acetate), a transparent covering material, in an attempt to reduce the visibility of military aircraft. Single examples of the Fokker E.III Eindecker fighter monoplane, the Albatros C.I two-seat observation biplane, and the Linke-Hofmann R.I prototype heavy bomber were covered with Cellon. However, it proved ineffective, and even counterproductive, as sunlight glinting from the covering made the aircraft even more visible. The material was also found to be quickly degraded both by sunlight and in-flight temperature changes, so the attempt to make transparent aircraft was not proceeded with.

In 1916, the British modified a small SS class airship for the purpose of night-time aerial reconnaissance over German lines on the Western Front. Fitted with a silenced engine and a black gas bag, the craft was both invisible and inaudible from the ground, but several night-time flights over German-held territory produced little useful intelligence, and the idea was dropped.

Nearly three decades later, the Horten Ho 229 flying wing fighter-bomber was developed in Nazi Germany during the last years of World War II. In 1983, its designer Reimar Horten claimed that he planned to add charcoal to the adhesive layers of the plywood skin of the production model to render it invisible to radar. This claim was investigated, as the Ho 229's lack of vertical surfaces, an inherent feature of all flying wing aircraft, is also a key characteristic of all stealth aircraft. Tests were performed in 2008 by the Northrop-Grumman Corporation to establish if the aircraft's shape would have avoided detection by top-end HF-band, 20–30 MHz primary signals of Britain's Chain Home early warning radar, if the aircraft was traveling at high speed (approximately 550 mph) at extremely low altitude – 50 - 100 ft. The testing did not find any evidence that charcoal was used, and confirmed that it would have been a poor absorber if used, concluding that the Ho 229 did not have stealth characteristics and was never intended to be a stealth aircraft.

Modern origins
Modern stealth aircraft first became possible when Denys Overholser, a mathematician working for Lockheed Aircraft during the 1970s, adopted a mathematical model developed by Petr Ufimtsev, a Soviet scientist, to develop a computer program called Echo 1. Echo made it possible to predict the radar signature of an aircraft made with flat panels, called facets. In 1975, engineers at Lockheed Skunk Works found that an aircraft made with faceted surfaces could have a very low radar signature because the surfaces would radiate almost all of the radar energy away from the receiver. Under a 1977 contract from DARPA, Lockheed built a proof of concept demonstrator aircraft, the Lockheed Have Blue, nicknamed "the Hopeless Diamond", a reference to the famous Hope Diamond and the design's shape and predicted instability. Because advanced computers were available to control the flight of an aircraft that was designed for stealth but aerodynamically unstable such as the Have Blue, for the first time designers realized that it might be possible to make an aircraft that was virtually invisible to radar. Lockheed soon developed the Have Blue into F-117.

Reduced radar cross section is only one of five factors the designers addressed to create a truly stealthy design such as the F-22. The F-22 has also been designed to disguise its infrared emissions to make it harder to detect by infrared homing ("heat seeking") surface-to-air or air-to-air missiles. Designers also addressed making the aircraft less visible to the naked eye, controlling radio transmissions, and noise abatement.

Modern operations
The first combat use of purpose-designed stealth aircraft was in December 1989 during Operation Just Cause in Panama. On 20 December 1989, two United States Air Force F-117s bombed a Panamanian Defense Force barracks in Rio Hato, Panama. In 1991, F-117s were tasked with attacking the most heavily fortified targets in Iraq in the opening phase of Operation Desert Storm and were the only jets allowed to operate inside Baghdad's city limits.

The U.S, UK, and Israel are the only countries to have used stealth aircraft in combat. These deployments include the United States invasion of Panama, the first Gulf War, the Kosovo Conflict, the War in Afghanistan, the War in Iraq and the 2011 military intervention in Libya. The first use of stealth aircraft was in the U.S. invasion of Panama, where F-117 Nighthawk stealth attack aircraft were used to drop bombs on enemy airfields and positions while evading enemy radar.

In 1990 the F-117 Nighthawk was used in the First Gulf War, where F-117s flew 1,300 sorties and scored direct hits on 1,600 high-value targets in Iraq while accumulating 6,905 flight hours. Only 2.5% of the American aircraft in Iraq were F-117s, yet they struck 40% of the strategic targets, dropping 2,000 tons of precision-guided munitions and striking their targets with an 80% success rate.

In the 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia two stealth aircraft were used by the United States: the veteran F-117 Nighthawk, and the newly introduced B-2 Spirit strategic stealth bomber. The F-117 performed its usual role of striking precision high-value targets and performed well, although one F-117 was shot down by a Serbian Isayev S-125 'Neva-M' missile commanded by Colonel Zoltán Dani. The then-new B-2 Spirit was highly successful, destroying 33% of selected Serbian bombing targets in the first eight weeks of U.S. involvement in the War. During this war, B-2s flew non-stop to Kosovo from their home base in Missouri and back.

In the 2003 invasion of Iraq, F-117 Nighthawks and B-2 Spirits were used, and this was the last time the F-117 would see combat. F-117s dropped satellite-guided strike munitions on selected targets, with high success. B-2 Spirits conducted 49 sorties in the invasion, releasing 1.5 million pounds of munitions.

During the May 2011 operation to kill Osama bin Laden, one of the helicopters used to clandestinely insert U.S. troops into Pakistan crashed in the bin Laden compound. From the wreckage it was revealed this helicopter had stealth characteristics, making this the first publicly known operational use of a stealth helicopter.

Stealth aircraft were used in the 2011 military intervention in Libya, where B-2 Spirits dropped 40 bombs on a Libyan airfield with concentrated air defenses in support of the UN no-fly zone.

Stealth aircraft will continue to play a valuable role in air combat with the United States using the F-22 Raptor, B-2 Spirit, and the F-35 Lightning II to perform a variety of operations. The F-22 made its combat debut over Syria in September 2014 as part of the US-led coalition to defeat ISIS.

From February 2018, Su-57s performed the first international flight as they were spotted landing at the Russian Khmeimim Air Base in Syria. These Su-57s were deployed along with four Sukhoi Su-35 fighters, four Sukhoi Su-25s, and one Beriev A-50 AEW&C aircraft. It is believed that at least 4 Su-57 are deployed in Syria and that they have likely been armed with cruise missiles in combat.

In 2018, a report surfaced noting that Israeli F-35I stealth fighters conducted a number of missions in Syria and even infiltrated Iranian airspace without detection. In May 2018, Major General Amikam Norkin of IAF reported that Israeli Air Force F-35I stealth fighters carried out the first-ever F-35 strike in combat over Syria.

The People's Republic of China started flight testing its Chengdu J-20 stealth multirole fighter around in 2011 and made its first public appearance at Airshow China 2016. The aircraft entered service with the People's Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) in March 2017. Another fifth-generation stealth multirole fighter from China, the Shenyang FC-31 is also under flight testing.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Stealth aircraft


text:
Fujita Airlines

Fujita Airlines (藤田航空) was an airline in Japan, formerly known as Nippon Yuran Airlines. Founded in 1956, it operated various types of propeller aircraft, including the Cessna 170, de Havilland Dove and Fokker F27. In 1963, the company merged with All Nippon Airways.

Incidents and accidents

 * On August 17, 1963, a Fujita Airlines de Havilland Heron 1B (registration JA6155) struck a mountain near Hachijo Island shortly after takeoff due to possible engine failure, killing all 19 passengers and crew on board.

title: Fujita Airlines


text:
SPP

SPP or spp may refer to:

Businesses
from Latin America, Africa and Asia
 * ShowBiz Pizza Place, a former chain of pizza restaurants
 * Sigmund Pulsometer Pumps, a British engineering company
 * Símbolo de Pequeños Productores, a Mexican network of small organic producers
 * Slovenský plynárenský priemysel, a Slovak natural gas company
 * Sucker Punch Productions, an American video game developer
 * Sumitomo Precision Products, an aerospace and sensor manufacturer

Gaming

 * Sucker Punch Productions, an American video game developer
 * SuperPoke! Pets, an online game app
 * Super Princess Peach, a 2006 video game

Government bodies

 * Saskatchewan Pension Plan, a government-run pension plan in Canada
 * Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, between Canada, Mexico and the United States
 * Protection and Guard Service (Serviciul de Protecţie şi Pază), Romania

Learned societies

 * Paris Psychoanalytic Society, France
 * Society for Philosophy and Psychology, North America

Political parties

 * Justice and Reconciliation Party (Stranka pravde i pomirenja), a political party in Serbia and Montenegro
 * Party of Justice and Trust (Stranka pravde i povjerenja), Bosnia and Herzegovina
 * Singapore People's Party, Singapore
 * Swaziland Progressive Party, Eswatini
 * Swedish People's Party of Finland, Finland

Other organizations

 * Southwest Power Pool, an American power-grid non-profit
 * Stowarzyszenie Pisarzy Polskich, a Polish cultural institute for writers

Policies, protocols, processes, and programs

 * Screening Partnership Program, a program where airports in the United States can use private screening agencies instead of the TSA
 * Share Purchase Plan, a means of buying shares in a company
 * Specific physical preparedness, the status of being prepared for the movements in a specific activity
 * State Partnership Program, protocol used by the National Guard of the United States
 * Street Performer Protocol, a way of encouraging the creation of creative works in the public domain

Computing and networking

 * Sequenced Packet Protocol, a network transport-layer protocol promulgated by Xerox
 * Serial Port Profile, a Bluetooth wireless-interface profile
 * Software Protection Platform, a Microsoft Windows license-validation module

Physics

 * Self-propelled particles, a concept used in statistical physics to describe swarm behaviour
 * Spiral Phase Plate, regarding angular momentum and light
 * Surface plasmon polariton, a type of polariton from strong coupling of plasmons to electromagnetic waves

Other uses in science and technology

 * Science Power Platform, a planned Russian module of the International Space Station
 * spp. (from species pluralis), in biological taxonomy
 * Single Point Positioning is a method used in GPS systems

Other uses

 * Steyr SPP, a model of pistol
 * Sam Powell-Pepper, an Australian rules football player

title: SPP


text:
EGP

EGP may refer to:

Organizations

 * Edinburgh Global Partnerships, a student-run charity
 * Guerrilla Army of the Poor (Ejército Guerrillero de los Pobres), in Guatemala
 * European Green Party, a political party

Technology

 * Experimental Geodetic Payload, Japanese satellite
 * Exploration Gateway Platform, 2012 Boeing-NASA discussion for a space station
 * Exterior gateway protocol, a class of routing protocols used between Autonomous Systems
 * Exterior Gateway Protocol, a specific protocol formerly used on the Internet

Other uses

 * Eagle Pass Municipal Airport
 * Eastern Gas Pipeline, in Australia
 * Egyptian pound, the currency of Egypt
 * Enel Green Power, an Italian energy company
 * Engineered Glass Products, an American manufacturing company

title: EGP


text:
EPL

EPL may refer to:

Computing

 * Easy Programming Language
 * Eclipse Public License
 * Eltron Programming Language, a control language for various computer printers
 * Ethernet Powerlink, an Ethernet protocol
 * Early PL/I, a PL/I subset dialect used to write Multics

Apata

Education

 * École polytechnique de Louvain, faculty of engineering science at the University of Louvain (UCLouvain), Belgium

Libraries

 * Edmonton Public Library, in Alberta, Canada
 * Euclid Public Library, in, Ohio, United States
 * Evanston Public Library, in Illinois, United States
 * Everett Public Library, in Washington, United States

Publications

 * EPL (journal), a scientific journal
 * Eesti Päevaleht, an Estonian newspaper

Sports

 * Egyptian Premier League
 * English Premier League
 * ESL Pro League, a professional Counter-Strike: Global Offensive league
 * Everest Premier League, a Nepali cricket league

Other uses

 * Edinburgh Partners, a Scottish investment firm
 * El Pollo Loco, an American restaurant chain
 * Employment practices liability
 * Employment protection legislation
 * Escola Portuguesa de Luanda, a Portuguese international school in Angola
 * Popular Liberation Army (Spanish: Ejército Popular de Liberación), a Colombian guerrilla group

title: EPL


text: Talk:Worldwide Pants

title: Talk:Worldwide Pants


text:
Talk:Hermit

Anchorite
I removed the circular wiki on anchorite, as it simply rdirected to this page. If someone wants to help define the distinctions on this page, that would be great. JHCC 14:04, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * It ought to be kept, because it is a subject it its own right, cf. the medieval anchoresses who lived in bricked up cells adjoining a church with just a small opening to listen to Holy Mass and receive Holy Communion. Someone may get round to writing it up. 20:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Heraclitus
I have a strong feeling that the Greek philosopher Heraclitus was not only a hermit, but a very influential pre-Socratic philosopher. Being my favorite western philosopher, I probably couldn't describe him with NPOV, but I think someone should. Just a thought. Rokenrol 20:45, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Diogenes
What is Diogenes doing here? Even if an ascetic and cynic (in the classical) sense, he was hardly a hermit. -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 05:41, Dec 16, 2003 (UTC)

NPOV?
"John Chrysostom examplifies a misogynous hermit; he said that it was preferable to remain single than to have to bear the burden of a woman (among other contemptuous concepts on women)"

Can't say I agree with many of John Chrysostom views, but describing his views as "contemptuous" seems to break NPOV.

Aecarol 20:12, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I think perhaps the author of that statement meant to say "views that hold women in contempt." However, I also have to say that this is the first time that I have seen being a hermit treated exclusively as a psychological illness. As far as I know, the term hermit is not most commonly used among people to refer to someone suffering from a psychological illness! The article seems to be based almost exclusively on the thought of Richard Freiherr von Krafft-Ebing, and I think it may be NPOV for the reason that it does not reflect a plurality of even commonly held viewpoints or really provides much description of hermits or their motivations for being hermits outside of a diagnosis of their "mental illness." I think most of the content present in the current article should be subordinated to other information in a new article, which describes objectively what a hermit is and expresses the viewpoints presented in this article along with others in the body of the description.

Of course, it is always easier to express the work that has to be done but much more difficult to actually do it, so guess what I'm not going to do :P ? Sorry, but I probably am not qualified anyways to do it. --Conwiktion 14:42, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There's some confusion here between "hermit" and ascetic. A hermit (in the religious context) is an ascetic who retreats into solitude to escape the temptations that come with contact with other people. On the other hand, it is possible to live a life of ascetiscm either in community with other ascetics (as in a large monastery) or as part of society as a whole. While John Chrysostom was certainly ascetic, he was by no means a hermit (hard to do if you are the bishop of the capital of the eastern Roman Empire!); Anthony the Great was definitely a hermit, at least until disciples started gathering around him. JHCC 21:26, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Agree with JHCC's point. Also, I don't understand the assertion that being a hermit is described in the article as being a "mental illness". It seems to me that the author who wrote that is reading too much into the article. Perhaps it's been changed since that comment, but the current article in no way equates being a hermit with suffering from a form of mental illness.

 * Look into the history of this article, especially before & after Cnp8's edits. Before she/he made the changes, the article clearly suggested that hermits were either sex perverts or psychotics, and quoted von Krafft-Ebing that religious feeling was a form of hysteria (which I doubt is included in DSM-IV, at least how von Krafft-Ebing appears to use the term). It was clearly POV, & is much less so now. Perhaps the label can now be removed?

 * (P.S., could people please sign their comments? Thanks.) -- llywrch 04:41, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What about Thoreau?
Does anyone agree with me that Thoreau should be mentioned? I didn't see him in there. He wasn't entirely a hermit or ascetic but he was deffinitally kind of secluded and obstained from alot of things, such as consumerism and all that nifty stuff... I mean c'mon, he lived in the woods in a cabin he made himself and grew beans all year round. Sounds kinda hermit-ish if you ask me!

"Perhaps sparked by Thoureau, it was modish in the 1800s among landed New Englanders to have a hermit living on their estate. Somebody might want to explore that topic. -KJJ"

 * I don't think Thoreau should be here. He lived along the main path to Walden Pond, had many visitors from the path, went into town often to visit with friends, and ate at his mother's house on the weekends.  I don't think this qualifies as a hermit, "a person who lives to some greater or lesser degree in seclusion and/or isolation from society."  I do believe he was an ascetic, but I don't think he belongs here. 70.105.124.205 17:27, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Thoreau was definitely a hermit by even liberal definitions. During his experiment he spent most of his time isolated from people at Walden Pond but like most hermits was never really able to be completely shut off from society (many hermits said this was not necessarily a bad thing (ie. the Desert Fathers.)  Also of some significance is that Peter France in his book Hermits features Thoreau.  I don't think any collection of hermits would be complete without him.  172.148.70.46 17:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Systemic Bias
It seems to me that this page nearly violates NPOV, though unintentionally through a systemic bias, because it only gives comprehensive coverage to the Christian religious hermetic tradition. Secular hermetic history abounds and a secular context constitutes the vast majority of modern usage of the term, but it is treated as a secondary subject here.VanTucky 19:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I totally agree. I am hardly ignorant, but I have never heard of a "religous" hermit. So why should what is to most people a secondary meaning dominate a whole page, not once mentioning any real "modern-day" hermits, certainly not the cave dwellers that the mention of the word brings to mind. Liamoliver 21:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I would say rather that to downplay the Christian heremitic tradition -- which is, after all, the source of the word -- would be to bias the article toward a US-centric POV. In other parts of the world, the Christian meaning is the primary meaning.

 * In any event, these are two distinct meanings of the word. That this article covers the Christian meaning as primary is a consequence of editors with an interest in that meaning getting here first. Hermit (disambiguation) has a line for the sense you want covered, but it just points to here for some reason. I suggest making Hermit the disambiguation page, with Hermit (religious) containing the bulk of the content here, and Hermit (social) covering the subject you feel is inadequately addressed. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * US-centric point of view? I've always been strongly opposed to "US-centric" points of view on Wikipedia, but I live eight time zones away and I can tell you that hermit's religous definition is hardly prevelant. I wouldn't imagine any people think of this definition when they hear the word. Liamoliver 20:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It becomes very difficult to follow a thread when posts are split, so I moved your comment.

 * When I think of a hermit, I think of the religious meaning first and I find it astonishing that you've never encountered it before. I did propose a compromise, so what do you think? TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

 * TCC, having just tried to clarify certain matters in this article, I support your suggestion of splitting the subject into "Hermits (religious)" and "Hermits (social)". But that's not all that's needed. For example, the article on religious hermits would benefit from further competent contributions. In addition, under the Christian heading, sub-dividing according to denominations may also be helpful, as there are some technical aspects (e.g. Canon Law) that presumably do not apply to all Christian denominations. 10:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Must add my weight to the view that this page is christian centric. Until I read it I had never associated the word 'hermit' with any religion but the article implies that hermit is a state specific to christianity.  Maybe the page should be forked into Hermit_Christian and Hermit_Solitary pages. I disagree with the US centric comments, I think that 'US' is being used as a synonym for christian in these comments. Mtpaley (talk) 21:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I definitely agree this article is Christian centric. China has the longest hermit tradition in the world, dating back to its shamanism days circa 3000 BCE, yet there is no mention of it at all Karma Chakra (talk) 02:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There is an obvious Christian bias to this article. 98% of the page is about Christainity and 2% on "other religions". In pretty much every eastern religion I can think of the concept of a hermit is more important than it is in the Abraham religions (Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, etc.) In any case, the word hermit is a characteristically secular term. There are, as previous comments have said, plenty of examples of secular hermits. Clearly, this subject needs separation (for example "Hermits in X Religion" and "Hermit (secular)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ration (talk • contribs) 09:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Yep. Still no better. This really should be improved, especially w/r/t Taoist immortals and Confucian junzi who 'withdraw from the world'. Alternatively, fork the Christian bit to Hermit (Christianity) and leave a terser overview here to avoid all the current  issues. Csernica's comments above speak explicitly to the default bias many s will have and it's doing them a disservice to treat this topic in the current way. — Llywelyn II   08:27, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

"Stafford historian James Johnson"
The present link provides no clue why "Stafford historian James Johnson" merits to be mentioned in this article. 10:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

hermit vs. eremite
I believe the term, hermit, doesn't apply specifically to religious "loners" (for lack of a better term). I believe the specific word for a religious "loner" is "eremite". This article should be re-titled "eremite" and linked to a real article on "hermits" in general; or listed in the "hermit" disambiguation article. JimScott (talk) 00:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

 * After re-reading some of the eremite definitions, I see the word "Christian" coming up a lot. Perhaps we should re-title this article "anchorite" which seems to have a more generic sense to it with regard to religion; with a section devoted to "eremites" and re-direct "eremite" to this article/section. JimScott (talk) 01:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Latinisation vs. Romanisation
About : I prefer "Latinisation". "Romanisation" is normally used to refer to a mapping merely on the writing system level. "Latinisation", no matter if it's used with proper names or other words, refers to an adaptation on the level of the grammatical form, as for instance from Gr. -itēs to Lat. -ita. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response. Your answer highlights the inadequacy of the wiki page on "Romanization" (there is no independent page on "Latinisation"). Maybe you could add your distinction to "Romanization". 206.54.220.113 (talk) 01:13, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

What?
humans are, as I understand it, a social animal/being -there needs to be some interaction with the rest of 'society' -even if it's just a platform to moan about that said society - jung speculated that when a mind was completely isolated then it would compensate for the lack of social stimulus by halucinations which, I suspect, is what happened to these religious types who went off 'in the wilderness' - but I will stand corrected — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thetiesthatbind (talk • contribs) 22:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Just for the Record
I realize that no one has taken an interest in this page for a long time, so maybe I am writing for the dakinis, but. . . .I have made a few edits to this article and I will make more because I am a religious hermit and nun of the Episcopal Church and have lived the life for 35 years. I also am a Tibetan Buddhist nun of the Nyingmapa tradition who has spent significant time in solitude. I earned my BA in Comparative Religion at Barnard, and did my master's and doctoral work in theology at Notre Dame. Finally, I am a writer of several books and more articles than I can even remember. All that said, my history and $2 will buy me a cup of coffee at the local diner, so don't think this is ego.

I have no religious or--G-d forbid!--denominational ax to grind here; however, IMHO this article is very superficial, pulled from the old (Roman) Catholic Encyclopedia, with few additions of any depth from other editors. The section on the eremitical tradition in Orthodoxy, which is an incredibly rich one, is so sketchy as to be useless. Nothing was included about solitaries in the Anglican Communion. Unconventional contemporary religious hermits of old Celtic and other traditions were also omitted. The few additions of hermits in Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, etc., were pitiful, and they do not fit any common interreligious understanding of the hermit life, whether spontaneously undertaken or entered into via the authority structure of a religion. I made a decision that, since the original meaning of "hermit" (the life, not the etymological meaning) has always been a spiritual one, it was time to move the secular and comic strip references to the disambiguation page. I wasn't as ruthless as I intend to be, but all of you out there who actually KNOW something about the eremitical milieu, why don't you ADD some useful information? SisterScrounge (talk) 03:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC) aka Sister Elias Freeman/Ani Rigdzin Chodon

Ornamental Hermits
I don't think you can say that ornamental hermits are just from popular culture. These were people living as hermits, just not religious ones. More information needs to be added about this type of hermit and it won't happen if it is squeezed into another section. 92.20.124.245 (talk) 10:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You put the material in the "In other religions" section, where it oes not it. It's not important enough to have it's own section, so putting it in the "In popular culture" section is the best fit for it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

bullshit?
An unnamed hermit of over 500 years old in the mountains of China taught Li Ching-Yuen the art of Baguazhang and a set Qigong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.198.0.142 (talk) 06:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Miscellaneous
Sounds like me Lin Rongxiang 14:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronggy (talk • contribs)

Etymology
It doesn't mention where the h- comes from. I vaguely recollect it was a hypercorrection; the article should mention when and where that happened.

Imbalance of Christian examples instead of other religions - a new page?
This was addressed in the talk page back in 2011 (see above) but it looks like the article has not been fixed since then. "Hermit" is a generic term, but the Christian examples here are the majority of the article. I'll go ahead and see if the information here can be rearranged to be more balanced, but I suspect we will need to make a new page for Christian hermits. Bagabondo (talk) 05:35, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Hermit (Christian) but—as above—yes please. The current weight and  presents a deeply off portrait of this as part of the human condition, esp. w/r/t both Taoist sages and Confucian officials in China over a span of 3000+ years. Similarly the Indian mystics at least as far back as the Buddha. —  Llywelyn II   08:30, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Is it okay to place Hikikomori in the see also section?
Is it okay to place the link Hikikomori in the see also section? Helper201 (talk) 20:58, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Close RfC because consensus should be sought first per WP:RFCBEFORE. There's been no discussion of this topic on the talk page yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voorts (talk • contribs) 03:36, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I've pulled the RfC tag. Not only is there a total lack of RFCBEFORE, there is no need to go all the way to a full-blown thirty-day formal RfC for such a minor matter., just discuss in the normal manner, or even simply WP:BEBOLD. -- Red rose64 🌹 (talk) 07:13, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I tried the "BE BOLD" approach but kept getting reverted so was seeking third-party views as myself and the opposing editor weren’t coming to an agreement. I'm open to discussing the matter here with you. Helper201 (talk) 12:16, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * So, per WP:BRD, the next step is discussion. State your case for why Hikikomori should be added; "Is it okay" isn't a very convincing argument. -- Red rose64 🌹 (talk) 21:02, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

 * Hikikomori shouldn't be indicated under See also. The article has nothing at all to do with the topic of (pious) hermits as a form of the religious life in different Christian denominations. Furthermore, the introduction of the article describes Hikikomori as "severe social withdrawal" for which there are treatment programs. Pious hermits, on the other hand, are not people with "severe social withdrawal", they choose this way of life for spiritual reasons and of course do not need any treatment.--Medusahead (talk) 08:08, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Hermit


text:
USS Atlanta (CL-51)

USS Atlanta (CL-51) of the United States Navy was the lead ship of the Atlanta-class cruiser of eight light cruisers. She was the third Navy ship named after the city of Atlanta, Georgia. Designed to provide anti-aircraft protection for US naval task groups, Atlanta served in this capacity in the naval battles Midway and the Eastern Solomons. Atlanta was heavily damaged by Japanese and friendly gunfire in a night surface action on 13 November 1942 during the Naval Battle of Guadalcanal. The cruiser was sunk on her captain's orders in the afternoon of the same day.

Atlanta, in some works, is designated CLAA-51 because of her primary armament as an anti-aircraft cruiser. Hence, all of the Atlanta-class ships are sometimes designated as CLAA. However, her entire battery of 5 in guns were dual-purpose (DP) guns, and were capable of being used against both air and surface targets, able to fire anti-aircraft, high-explosive and armor-piercing shells.

The Atlanta-class ships were lightly armored, making them poor surface combatants compared to a typical light cruiser. In terms of armament, the Atlanta-class was closer to a destroyer, being armed with 5-inch guns, than a light cruiser, which were generally equipped with 6-inch guns; but at well over 500 ft in length, and combined with their large battery of sixteen 5 in guns (reduced to twelve in number for later ships of the class), they were designated as light cruisers. The unusual features of the Atlanta-class is a result of the class originally being intended to be a destroyer leader. A destroyer leader is larger than its destroyer counterparts to accommodate command staff and resources as well as other general utilities to support the destroyers that they would be paired with. In-line with this intended role the ship was given a complement of torpedoes and relatively thin armor compared to other contemporary light cruisers. Later, the dimensions and tonnage of the ship resulted in a change in designation of the Atlanta-class from a destroyer leader to a light cruiser. Despite this change in designation the Atlanta-class of ships maintained their destroyer leader features, including their destroyer-caliber guns (albeit while mounting significantly more 5 in guns than most contemporary destroyers).

Construction and commissioning
The first of the new class of ships was laid down on 22 April 1940 at Kearny, New Jersey, by the Federal Shipbuilding and Drydock Co., launched on 6 September 1941, sponsored by Margaret Mitchell (author of Gone with the Wind), and commissioned at the New York Navy Yard on 24 December 1941, Captain Samuel P. Jenkins in command.

Armament
Atlanta was fitted with eight twin 5-inch gun mounts, placed in a unique configuration. She had three forward mounts and three aft mounts, mounted inline and increasing in height toward the midships, giving her a symmetrical appearance, with a "gap" in the middle superstructure. In addition, the aft battery also had one "wing-mounted" mount on each side, for a total of 16 five-inch guns. The firing arcs of the forward and aft batteries intersected at a very limited angle, giving her an arc of 60° in which she could fire all of her guns broadside (excluding the wing mounts). Because Atlanta was able to bring all her guns to bear only within that narrow arc, her ability to engage surface targets was limited. Her firing arcs were ideally suited to bringing her guns to bear on an aircraft, however, with a minimum of six guns available from any angle.

Service history
After fitting out, Atlanta conducted shakedown training until 13 March 1942, first in Chesapeake Bay and then in Maine's Casco Bay, after which she returned to the New York Navy Yard for post-shakedown repairs and alterations. Adjudged to be "ready for distant service" on 31 March, the new cruiser departed New York for the Panama Canal Zone on 5 April. She reached Cristobal on 8 April. After transiting the isthmian waterway, Atlanta then cleared Balboa on 12 April with orders to reconnoiter Clipperton Island, a tiny barren, uninhabited atoll about 670 mi (1,080 km) southwest of Acapulco, Mexico, in the course of her voyage to the Hawaiian Islands, for any signs of enemy activity. Finding none, she ultimately reached Pearl Harbor on 23 April.

Battle of Midway
Punctuating her brief stay in Hawaiian waters with an antiaircraft practice off Oahu on 3 May, Atlanta, in company with USS McCall (DD-400), sailed on 10 May as escort for USS Rainier (AE-5) and USS Kaskaskia (AO-27), bound for Nouméa, New Caledonia. On 16 May, she joined Vice Admiral William F. Halsey's Task Force 16 (TF 16), formed around the aircraft carriers USS Enterprise (CV-6) and USS Hornet (CV-8), as it steamed back to Pearl Harbor, having been summoned back to Hawaiian waters in response to an imminent Japanese thrust in the direction of Midway Atoll. TF 16 arrived at Pearl on 26 May.

Atlanta again sailed with TF 16 on the morning of 28 May. Over the days that followed, she screened the carriers as they operated northeast of Midway in anticipation of the enemy's arrival. At the report of Japanese ships to the southwest, on the morning of 4 June, Atlanta cleared for action as she screened Hornet. Squadrons from the American carriers sought out the Japanese, and during that day, planes from USS Yorktown (CV-5) and Enterprise inflicted mortal damage on four irreplaceable enemy aircraft carriers. Japanese planes twice hit TF 17, and it took the brunt of the enemy attacks. Over the days that followed the Battle of Midway, Atlanta remained in the screen of TF 16 until 11 June, when the task force received orders to return to Pearl Harbor.

Reaching her destination on 13 June, Atlanta, outside brief periods of antiaircraft practice on 21 and 25–26 June, remained in port, taking on stores and provisions and standing on 24-hour and then 48-hour alert into July 1942. Drydocked on 1–2 July so that her bottom could be scraped, cleaned and painted, the cruiser completed her availability on 6 July and then resumed a busy schedule of gunnery practice with drone targets, high-speed sleds, and in shore bombardment in the Hawaiian operating area.

On 15 July 1942, Atlanta, again in TF 16, sailed for Tongatapu. Anchoring at Nukuʻalofa, Tonga on 24 July, where she fueled USS Maury (DD-401) and then took on fuel from Mobilube, the light cruiser pushed on later the same day and overtook TF 16. On 29 July, as all preparations proceeded for the invasion of Guadalcanal, Atlanta was assigned to TF 61.

Screening the carriers as they launched air strikes to support the initial landings on 7–8 August, Atlanta remained there until the withdrawal of the carrier task forces on 9 August. For the next several days, she remained at sea, replenishing when necessary while the task force operated near the Solomons.

Battle of the Eastern Solomons
As the Americans consolidated their gains on Guadalcanal, the critical need for reinforcements prompted Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto to send the Combined Fleet south to cover a large troop convoy. American scout planes spotted the Japanese forces on the morning of 23 August. With the enemy reported to the northwest, Enterprise and USS Saratoga (CV-3) launched search and attack planes, but they failed to make contact because of deteriorating weather and the fact that the Japanese, knowing that they had been spotted, reversed course.

Throughout the day on 24 August, Atlanta received enemy contact reports and screened Enterprise as she launched a strike group to attack the Japanese carriers. The sighting of an enemy "snooper" at 1328 sent Atlanta's sailors to general quarters, where they remained for the next 5$1/2$ hours. At 1530, the cruiser worked up to 20 kn as TF 16 stood roughly north-northwestward "to close [the] reported enemy carrier group." At 1637, with unidentified planes approaching, Atlanta went to 25 kn. Enterprise then launched a strike group shortly thereafter, completing the evolution at 1706.

In the meantime, the incoming enemy bombers and fighter aircraft from JAPANESE AIRCRAFT CARRIER Shōkaku and JAPANESE AIRCRAFT CARRIER Zuikaku prompted the task force to increase speed to 27 kn. Shortly after Enterprise completed launching her own aircraft, the Japanese raid, estimated by Captain Jenkins to consist of at least 18 Aichi D3A1 "Val" dive bombers, came in from the north northwest at 1710. Over the next 11 minutes, Atlantas 5 in, 1.1 in and 20 mm batteries contributed to the barrage over Enterprise, as the light cruiser conformed to Enterprises every move as she maneuvered violently to avoid the dive bombers.

Despite the heavy antiaircraft fire, Enterprise took one hit and suffered some shrapnel damage from an estimated five near hits. Captain Jenkins later reported that his ship may have shot down five of the attackers. Atlanta was not damaged in the engagement.

Reporting to TF 11 for duty the following day, Atlanta operated with that force, redesignated TF 61 on 30 August, over the next few days. When JAPANESE SUBMARINE I-26 torpedoed Saratoga on 31 August, the light cruiser screened the stricken flagship as USS Minneapolis (CA-36) rigged a towline and began taking her out of danger. The force ultimately put into Tongatapu on 6 September, where Atlanta provisioned ship, fueled from USS New Orleans (CA-32), and enjoyed a period of upkeep.

Underway on 13 September, the light cruiser escorted USS Lassen (AE-3) and USS Hammondsport (APV-2) on 15 September. After seeing her charges safely to their destination at Dumbea Bay, Nouméa, on 19 September, Atlanta fueled, took on stores and ammunition, and sailed on 21 September as part of Task Group 66.4 (TG 66.4). Becoming part of TF 17 on 23 September, the light cruiser was detached the following day to proceed in company with USS Washington (BB-56), USS Walke (DD-416) and USS Benham (DD-397) to Tongatapu, which she reached on 26 September.

Underway with those same ships on 7 October, Atlanta briefly escorted Guadalcanal-bound transports from 11 to 14 October, before putting into Espiritu Santo for fuel on the afternoon of the 15th. Assigned then to Rear Admiral Willis A. Lee's TF 64, the ship sailed after dark that same day to resume operations covering the ongoing efforts to secure Guadalcanal. Returning briefly to Espiritu Santo for fuel, stores and provisions, the warship stood out from Segond Channel on the afternoon of 23 October.

Two days later, with a Japanese Army offensive having failed to eject the Americans from Guadalcanal, Admiral Yamamoto sent the Combined Fleet south in an attempt to annihilate the American naval forces doggedly supporting the marines. Atlanta operated in TF 64, along with Washington, USS San Francisco (CA-38), USS Helena (CL-50) and two destroyers, as the opposing forces engaged in the Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands on 26 October. That day, Atlanta patrolled astern of the fueling group supporting the two American carrier task forces. On 27 October, when JAPANESE SUBMARINE I-15 attacked TF 64, the force maneuvered at high speed to clear the area.

On the morning of 28 October, Atlanta brought on board Rear Admiral Norman Scott from San Francisco, and became the flagship of the newly designated TG 64.2. After fueling from Washington, Atlanta, screened by four destroyers, headed northwest to shell Japanese positions on Guadalcanal. Reaching the waters off Lunga Point on the morning of 30 October, Atlanta embarked Marine liaison officers at 0550, and then steamed west, commencing her bombardment of Point Cruz at 0629 while the destroyers formed a column astern. Provoking no return fire, TG 64.2 accomplished its mission and returned to Lunga Point, where Atlanta disembarked the liaison officers. She then proceeded, in company with her screen, to Espiritu Santo, where she arrived on the afternoon of 31 October.

Convoy escort
Atlanta served as Admiral Scott's flagship as the light cruiser, accompanied by four destroyers, escorted USS Zeilin (AP-9), USS Libra (AK-53) and USS Betelgeuse (AK-28) to Guadalcanal. The cruiser and her consorts continued to screen those ships, designated TG 62.4, as they lay off Lunga Point on 12 November unloading supplies and disembarking troops.

At 0905, the task group received a report that nine bombers and 12 fighters were approaching from the northwest, and would reach their vicinity at about 0930. At about 0920, Atlanta led the three auxiliaries to the north in column, with the destroyers spaced in a circle around them. 15 minutes later, nine "Vals" from JAPANESE AIRCRAFT CARRIER Hiyō emerged from the clouds over Henderson Field, the American airstrip on Guadalcanal. The American ships opened fire soon after, putting up a barrage that downed "several" planes. Fortunately, none of the primary targets of the attack, Zeilin, Libra and Betelgeuse, suffered more than minor damage from several close calls, though Zeilin sustained some flooding. The three auxiliaries returned to the waters off Lunga Point as soon as the attack ended and resumed working cargo and disembarking troops.

A little over an hour later, at 1050, Atlanta received word of another incoming Japanese air raid. 15 minutes later, Atlanta led the three auxiliaries north with the destroyers in a circle around the disposition. The "bogeys", 27 Mitsubishi G4M "Bettys" from Rabaul, closed, sighted bearing west by north, approaching from over Cape Esperance in a very loose "V" formation. Although the destroyers opened fire, the planes proved to be out of range and the ships checked fire. The "Bettys", for their part, ignored the ships and continued on to bomb Henderson Field. Upon the disappearance of the planes, TG 62.4 resumed unloading off Lunga Point.

On 12 November, Atlanta was still off Lunga Point, screening the unloading, as part of TF 67 under Rear Admiral Daniel J. Callaghan in San Francisco. At about 1310, Atlanta received a warning that 25 enemy planes were headed for Guadalcanal, slated to arrive within 50 minutes. The light cruiser went to general quarters at 1318 and received the signal "prepare to repel air attack...."

Within six minutes, Atlanta and the other combatants of the support group formed a screen around the transport group (TG 67.1), and the two groups steamed north together at 15 kn. At about 1410, the Americans sighted the incoming raid, consisting of what appeared to be 25 twin-engined bombers ("Bettys") which broke up into two groups after clearing Florida Island, and came in at altitudes that ranged from 25 to 50 ft. USS Juneau (CL-52) opened fire at 1412. Atlanta did so a minute later, training her guns at planes headed for the gap in the screen between San Francisco and USS Buchanan (DD-484). Atlanta claimed to have shot down two "Bettys", just after they dropped their torpedoes, at about 1415, only three minutes before the attack ended. Once the last Japanese plane had been splashed, the work of unloading the transports and cargo ships resumed. One "Betty", crippled by antiaircraft fire, crashed into the after superstructure of San Francisco, inflicting the only damage on the force.

Night attack
The abrupt end of the air attack gave Atlanta and her colleagues only a brief respite, however, for trouble approached from yet another quarter. A Japanese surface force, made up of two battleships, one cruiser and six destroyers, was detected steaming south toward Guadalcanal to shell Henderson Field. Admiral Callaghan's support group was to "cover [the retiring transports and cargo vessels] against enemy attack." TG 67.4 departed Lunga Point about 1800 and steamed eastward through Sealark Channel, covering the withdrawal of TG 67.1. An hour before midnight, Callaghan's ships reversed course and headed westward.

Helena's radar picked up the first contact at a range of 26000 yd. As the range closed, Atlanta's surface search radar, followed by her gunnery radars, picked up a contact on the enemy ships.

Admiral Callaghan's order for a course change caused problems almost at once, as Atlanta had to turn to port (left) immediately to avoid a collision with one of the four destroyers in the van, the latter having apparently executed a "ships left" rather than "column left" movement. As Atlanta began moving to resume her station ahead of San Francisco, the JAPANESE DESTROYER Akatsuki illuminated the light cruiser. Atlanta shifted her main battery to fire at the enemy destroyer, opening fire at a range of about 1600 yd and, along with other US ships that concentrated on Akatsuki's searchlights, overwhelmed the destroyer.

As two other Japanese destroyers crossed her line, Atlanta engaged both with her forward 5 in mounts, while her aft mounts continued to blast away at the illuminated ship. An additional, unidentified assailant also opened up on the light cruiser from the northeast. At about that time, at least one torpedo plowed into Atlantas forward engine room from the port side, fired almost certainly by either JAPANESE DESTROYER Inazuma or JAPANESE DESTROYER Ikazuchi (Akatsukis destroyer consorts). Atlanta lost all but auxiliary diesel power, suffered the interruption of her gunfire, and had to shift steering control to the steering engine room aft. Meanwhile, Akatsuki drifted out of the action and soon sank with heavy loss of life. Michiharu Shinya, Akatsuki's Chief Torpedo Officer, one of her few survivors, was rescued the next day by US forces and spent the rest of the war in a New Zealand prisoner of war camp. He later stated unequivocally that Akatsuki had not been able to fire any torpedoes that night before being overwhelmed by gunfire.

Soon after being torpedoed, Atlanta was then hit by an estimated nineteen 8-inch (203 mm) shells when San Francisco, "in the urgency of battle, darkness, and confused intermingling of friend or foe", fired into her. Though almost all of the shells passed through the thin skin of the ship without detonating, scattering green dye, fragments from their impact killed many men, including Admiral Scott and members of his staff. Atlanta prepared to return fire on her new assailant, but San Francisco's own gun flashes disclosed a distinctly "non-Japanese hull profile" that resulted in a suspension of those efforts. San Francisco's shells, which passed high through Atlanta's superstructure, may have been intended for a Japanese target further beyond her from San Francisco's perspective.

After the 8 in fire ceased, Atlanta's Captain Jenkins took stock of the situation, and, having only a minor foot wound, made his way aft to Battle II. His ship was badly battered, largely powerless, down by the head and listing slightly to port, and a third of his crew was dead or missing. As the battle continued, the light cruiser's men began clearing debris, jettisoning topside weight to correct the list, reducing the volume of sea water in the ship, and succoring the many wounded.

Sinking
Daylight revealed the presence nearby of three burning American destroyers, the disabled Portland, and the abandoned hulk of JAPANESE DESTROYER Yūdachi, which Portland summarily dispatched with three salvoes. Atlanta, drifting toward the enemy-held shore east of Cape Esperance, dropped her starboard anchor, and her captain sent a message to Portland explaining the light cruiser's condition. Boats from Guadalcanal came out to take her most critically wounded. By mid-morning, all of those had been taken off the ship.

USS Bobolink (AM-20) arrived at 09:30 on 13 November, took Atlanta under tow, made harder by the cruiser's still lowered anchor, and headed toward Lunga Point. During the voyage, a "Betty" bomber neared the disposition, and one of the two surviving 5 in mounts—which was powered by a diesel generator—fired and drove it off. The other manually-rotated mount could not be trained on the target in time.

Atlanta reached Kukum about 14:00, at which point Captain Jenkins conferred with his remaining officers. As Jenkins, who was later awarded a Navy Cross for his heroism during the battle, later wrote, "It was by now apparent that efforts to save the ship were useless, and that the water was gaining steadily." Even had sufficient salvage facilities been available, he allowed, the severe damage she had taken would have made it difficult to save the ship. Authorized by Commander, South Pacific Forces, to act at his own discretion regarding the destruction of the ship, Jenkins ordered that Atlanta be abandoned and sunk with a demolition charge.

Accordingly, all remaining men except the captain and a demolition party boarded Higgins boats sent out from Guadalcanal for the purpose. After the charge had been set and exploded, the last men left the battered ship. Ultimately, at 20:15 on 13 November 1942, Atlanta sank 3 nmi west of Lunga Point in about 400 ft (120 m) of water. Her name was struck from the Naval Vessel Register on 13 January 1943. One hundred seventy of her men were killed and 103 were wounded.

Exploration of the wreck
The wreck of USS Atlanta was discovered in 1992 by an expedition led by Dr. Robert Ballard using a remotely operated underwater vehicle, (ROV). Dr. Ballard was famous for leading the expeditions that discovered RMS Titanic and the GERMAN BATTLESHIP Bismarck. Unfortunately, strong ocean currents and poor visibility prevented the expedition from thoroughly exploring Atlanta. In 1994, two Australian technical divers Rob Cason and Kevin Denlay traveled to Solomon Islands with the intention of being the first scuba divers to dive Atlanta but this was unsuccessful because of the lack of a suitable surface support vessel and strong surface currents; this was also the first mixed gas scuba diving expedition to Guadalcanal. However, they did manage to dive one of the two other deepest diveable wrecks; the Japanese transport Azumasan Maru, which is almost 90 m deep at the stern. Many other World War II wrecks discovered by Dr. Ballard in Iron Bottom Sound are beyond the current technical limit for scuba and are only accessible by ROVs or submersibles. Dr Ballard gives an account of this in his book The Lost Ships of Guadalcanal. In 1995 Denlay returned with American Terrance Tysall - with the specific intention of diving USS Atlanta - and one of their 'work-up dives' was on the Sasako Maru, one of the other  deepest diveable wrecks at the time, which is over 90 m in the collapsed debris field of the bridge. They then went on to make the first successful scuba dive on USS Atlanta, which was at the time the deepest wreck dive by free swimming divers in the southern hemisphere.

In the following years, Denlay and Tysall mounted several larger expeditions to survey Atlanta, exploring and videoing the wreck in detail to a depth of 130 m at the bow. The civil unrest in Solomon Islands from late 1998 prevented further diving around Guadalcanal for several years. However, on the final expedition that year, the then deepest wreck dive by a woman was made by Kevin's wife, Mirja, on Atlanta. Denlay's last visit to the wreck was in 2002 using a closed circuit rebreather or CCR, the first CCR dive on Atlanta. Since then, very few dives have been conducted on Atlanta, although in May 2011 a very experienced deep diving team from Global Underwater Explorers successfully videoed the wreck for documentary purposes, the first survey of the wreck since Denlay's expeditions up to 1998. A dive conducted in April 2024 by Bruce Clulow and Peter Taw found the hull and bow of the Atlanta had completely collapsed just forward of the number one 5 inch gun.

Awards
Atlanta was awarded five battle stars for her World War II service and a Presidential Unit Citation for her "heroic example of invincible fighting spirit" in the battle off Guadalcanal on 13 November 1942.

title: USS Atlanta (CL-51)


text:
Dramatic

Dramatic may refer to:

 * Drama, a way in which someone behaves. "Darren is way too dramatic the way he flips out over every operation on every car. He is such a drama queen."
 * Drama, a literary form involving parts for actors
 * Dramatic, a voice type classification in European classical music, describing a specific vocal weight and range at the lower end of a given voice part
 * Dramatic soprano, a strong voice which can be heard over an orchestra
 * Dramatic (album), an album by Casiopea
 * The Dramatics, 1960s American soul music vocal group
 * "Dramatic", a 2019 song by the South Korean girl group Bvndit

title: Dramatic