text:
Astor family

The Astor family achieved prominence in business, society, and politics in the United States and the United Kingdom during the 19th and 20th centuries. With German roots, some of their ancestry goes back to the Italian and Swiss Alps, the Astors settled in Germany, first appearing in North America in the 18th century with John Jacob Astor, one of the wealthiest people in history.

Founding family members
John Jacob Astor (born Johann Jakob Astor) was the youngest of four sons born to Johann Jacob Astor (1724–1816) and Maria Magdalena vom Berg (1730–1764).

The Astor family can trace their ancestry back to Giovan Asdour (1595–1668) and Gretta Ursula Asdour (1589–?). Giovan was born in Chiavenna, Italy, and died in Zürich, Switzerland. Their son, Hans Pieter Asdor, was born in Switzerland and died in Nußloch.

John Jacob and his brother George, born in Walldorf left Germany and moved to London in 1778. There, they established a flute making company. In 1783, John Jacob left for Baltimore, Maryland, leaving his brother in charge of the London business, and was active first as a dealer in woodwind instruments, then in New York as a merchant in opium, furs, pianos, and real estate. After moving to New York, John met and married Sarah Cox Todd (1762–1842). She worked alongside her husband as a consultant, and was accused of witchcraft after her success with the company in 1817. The accusations never led to legal action. They had eight children, including John Jacob Astor Jr. (1791–1869) and real estate businessman William Backhouse Astor Sr. (1792–1875).

John Jacob's fur trading company established a Columbia River trading post at Fort Astoria in 1811, the first United States community on the Pacific coast. He financed the overland Astor Expedition in 1810–1812 to reach the outpost, which was in the then-disputed Oregon Country. Control of Fort Astoria played a key role in English and American territorial claims on the region.

John and George's brother Henry (born Heinrich) (1754–1833) also emigrated to America. Henry was a horse racing enthusiast, and purchased a thoroughbred named Messenger, who had been brought from England to America in 1788. The horse became the founding sire of all Standardbred horses in the United States today.

The third brother Melchior remained in Germany.

During the 19th century, the Astors became one of the wealthiest families in the United States. Toward the end of that century, some of the family moved to England and achieved high prominence there. During the 20th century, the number of American Astors began to decline, but their legacy lives on in their many public works including the New York Public Library. English descendants of the Astors hold two hereditary peerages: Viscount Astor and Baron Astor of Hever.

While many Astor family members joined the Episcopal Church, John Jacob Astor remained a member of a Reformed congregation to his death.

Family namesake places
For many years, the members of the Astor family were known as "the landlords of New York". Their New York City namesakes are the famous Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, an Astor Row, Astor Court, Astor Place, and Astor Avenue in the Bronx, where the Astors stabled horses. The neighborhood of Astoria, Queens, was renamed to incite John Jacob Astor to invest there.

Beyond New York City, the Astor family name is imprinted in a great deal of United States history and geography. Astor Street, in Chicago's landmark Gold Coast district, is named after John Jacob Astor. There are towns of Astor in the states of Florida, Georgia, Iowa, and Kansas and there are Astorias in Illinois, Missouri, and Oregon. In Astoria, Oregon, the primary elementary school, a filming location for the 1990 film Kindergarten Cop, is called John Jacob Astor Elementary. The city is also home to the Astoria Column.

In Maidstone, Kent, United Kingdom, there was a secondary state school named Astor of Hever School. It was located within Oakwood Park, a former residence of the Astor family, which the family gifted to the Borough of Maidstone to be used for educational purposes. Whilst the Astor of Hever School changed its name in the early 2010s, it is still located on the Oakwood Park Estate, along with a Grammar School, a Catholic Secondary school and the Maidstone campus of Mid-Kent College. At one time the Oakwood Park Estate also contained an educational farm attached to the Astor of Hever School.

There is a neighborhood called Astor Park just south of downtown Green Bay, Wisconsin. At the heart of this neighborhood is a park (also called "Astor Park"); the Astor family donated this land for the building of a trade school.

The Astors were also prominent on Mackinac Island, Michigan, and Newport, Rhode Island, with their summer house, Beechwood. At Grand Hotel on Mackinac Island, there are the Lord and Lady Astor Suites; the hotel salon is called Astor's. There is even a Hostel in York, England called The Astor. In addition, a dormitory at St. George's School in Newport, Rhode Island, bears Astor's name.

The Danubius Hotel Astoria in the center of Pest, Budapest, Hungary, opened in 1914, was given its name by the original hotel owners and Mihály Gellér, the first General Manager of the hotel, who formerly worked for the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in New York. In Shanghai, China there is the Astor House Hotel in the Bund.

Mount Astor in Antarctica was named after Vincent Astor by the explorer Richard Evelyn Byrd.

Astor family tree

 * John Jacob Astor Sr. (1763–1848)
 * Magdalena Astor (1788–1832)
 * Charles Astor Bristed Sr. (1820–1874)
 * William Backhouse Astor Sr. (1792–1875)
 * Emily Astor (1819–1841)
 * Margaret Astor "Maddie" Ward (1838–1875)
 * John Armstrong Chaloner (1862–1935)
 * Winthrop Astor Chanler (1863–1926)
 * Theodore Chanler (1902–1961)
 * William Astor "Willie" Chanler Sr. (1867–1934)
 * Lewis Stuyvesant Chanler Sr. (1869–1942)
 * Margaret Chanler Aldrich (1870–1963)
 * Robert Winthrop Chanler (1872–1930)
 * John Jacob Astor III (1822–1890)
 * William Waldorf Astor I (1848–1919)
 * Waldorf Astor (1879–1952)
 * William Waldorf "Bill" Astor II (1907–1966)
 * William Waldorf Astor III (born 1951)
 * Flora Katherine Astor (born 1976)
 * William Waldorf "Will" Astor IV (born 1979)
 * James Jacob Astor (born 1981)
 * Nancy Phyllis Louise Astor, Countess of Ancaster (1909–1975)
 * Jane Heathcote-Drummond-Willoughby, 28th Baroness Willoughby de Eresby (born 1938)
 * Francis David Langhorne Astor (1912–2001)
 * Michael Langhorne Astor (1916–1980)
 * John Jacob "Jakie" Astor VII (1918–2000)
 * The Hon. Pauline Astor (1880–1972)
 * Rachel Pauline Spender-Clay, Lady Bowes-Lyon (1907–1996)
 * Davina Katherine Bowes-Lyon, Countess of Stair (1930–2017)
 * John Dalrymple, 14th Earl of Stair (born 1961)
 * Simon Bowes-Lyon (born 1932)
 * John Jacob Astor V (1886–1971)
 * Gavin Astor (1918–1984)
 * John Jacob "Johnny" Astor VIII (born 1946)
 * John Astor (1923–1987)
 * Mary Alida Astor (1826–1881)
 * Margaret Laura Astor Carey (1853–1911)
 * Louis Zborowski (1895–1924)
 * William Backhouse Astor Jr. (1829–1892)
 * Emily Astor (1854–1881)
 * James Laurens Van Alen (1878–1927)
 * Jimmy Van Alen (1902–1991)
 * Louise Astor Van Alen (1910–1997)
 * Helen Schermerhorn Astor (1855–1893)
 * James Roosevelt "Tadd" Roosevelt Jr. (1879–1958)
 * Carrie Astor Wilson (1861–1948)
 * Marshall Orme Wilson Jr. (1885–1966)
 * John Jacob "Jack" Astor IV (1864–1912)
 * William Vincent Astor (1891–1959)
 * Ava Alice Muriel Astor (1902–1956)
 * Prince Ivan Sergeyevich Obolensky (1925–2019)
 * Marina Ivanovna Obolensky (born 1951)
 * Ivan Ivanovich Obolensky (born 1952)
 * David Ivanovich Obolensky (born 1953)
 * Natalya Elizabeth Davidovna Obolensky (born 1984)
 * Octavia Willing Davidovna Obolensky (born 1989)
 * Sergei Ivanovich Obolensky (born 1960)
 * Alexander Vasily Sergeyevich Obolensky (born 1994)
 * Christopher Chapman Sergeyevich Obolensky (born 1999)
 * Sylvia Sergeyevna Obolensky (1931–1997)
 * John Jacob "Jakey" Astor VI (1912–1992)
 * Mary Jacqueline Astor (born 1949)
 * Nicholas Astor Drexel (born 1987)
 * Dorothea Astor 1795–1874)
 * Eliza Astor Langdon (1818–1896)
 * Matthew Astor Wilks (1844–1926)
 * Louisa Dorothea Langdon (1820–1894)
 * DeLancey Astor Kane (1844–1915)
 * S. Nicholson Kane (1846–1906)
 * John Innes Kane (1850–1913)
 * Emily Astor Kane (1854–1932)
 * Peter Augustus Jay (1877–1933)
 * Susan Mary Jay (1918–2004)
 * Sybil Kent Kane (1856–1946)
 * Woodbury Kane (1859–1905)

Members by birth order

 * 1) John Jacob Astor Sr. (1763–1848)
 * 2) William Backhouse Astor Sr. (1792–1875)
 * 3) Charles Astor Bristed Sr. (1820–1874)
 * 4) John Jacob Astor III (1822–1890)
 * 5) William Backhouse Astor Jr. (1829–1892)
 * 6) Matthew Astor Wilks (1844–1926)
 * 7) DeLancey Astor Kane (1844–1915)
 * 8) S. Nicholson Kane (1846–1906)
 * 9) William Waldorf Astor I (1848–1919)
 * 10) John Innes Kane (1850–1913)
 * 11) Sybil Kent Kane (1856–1946)
 * 12) Woodbury Kane (1859–1905)
 * 13) Carrie Astor Wilson (1861–1948)
 * 14) John Armstrong Chaloner (1862–1935)
 * 15) Winthrop Astor Chanler (1863–1926)
 * 16) John Jacob "Jack" Astor IV (1864–1912, died in the sinking of the Titanic)
 * 17) William Astor "Willie" Chanler Sr. (1867–1934)
 * 18) Lewis Stuyvesant Chanler Sr. (1869–1942)
 * 19) Margaret Chanler Aldrich (1870–1963)
 * 20) Robert Winthrop Chanler (1872–1930)
 * 21) Peter Augustus Jay (1877–1933)
 * 22) Waldorf Astor (1879–1952)
 * 23) James Roosevelt "Tadd" Roosevelt Jr. (1879–1958)
 * 24) Marshall Orme Wilson Jr. (1885–1966)
 * 25) John Jacob Astor V (1886–1971)
 * 26) William Vincent Astor (1891–1959)
 * 27) Louis Zborowski (1895–1924)
 * 28) Theodore Chanler (1902–1961)
 * 29) Ava Alice Muriel Astor (1902–1956)
 * 30) Jimmy Van Alen (1902–1991)
 * 31) William Waldorf "Bill" Astor II (1907–1966)
 * 32) Francis David Langhorne Astor (1912–2001)
 * 33) John Jacob "Jakey" Astor VI (1912–1992)
 * 34) Michael Langhorne Astor (1916–1980)
 * 35) Susan Mary Jay (1918–2004)
 * 36) John Jacob "Jakie" Astor VII (1918–2000)
 * 37) Gavin Astor (1918–1984)
 * 38) John Astor (1923–1987)
 * 39) Prince Ivan Sergeyevich Obolensky (1925–2019)
 * 40) Princess Sylvia Sergeyevna Obolensky (1931–1997)
 * 41) Simon Bowes-Lyon (born 1932)
 * 42) Jane Heathcote-Drummond-Willoughby, 28th Baroness Willoughby de Eresby (born 1938)
 * 43) John Jacob "Johnny" Astor VIII (born 1946)
 * 44) William Waldorf Astor III (born 1951)
 * 45) John Dalrymple, 14th Earl of Stair (born 1961)

Spouses by birth order

 * 1) Vincent Rumpff (1789–1867): husband of Eliza Astor
 * 2) Franklin Hughes Delano (1813–1893): husband of Laura Eugenia Astor
 * 3) Samuel Cutler "Sam" Ward (1814–1884): husband of Emily Astor
 * 4) John Winthrop Chanler (1826–1877): husband and widower of Margaret Astor Ward
 * 5) Caroline Webster Schermerhorn (1830–1908): widow of William Backhouse Astor Jr.
 * 6) James John Van Alen (1848–1923): husband and widower of Emily Astor
 * 7) Augustus Jay (1850–1919): husband of Emily Astor Kane
 * 8) James Roosevelt "Rosey" Roosevelt Sr. (1854–1927): husband and widower of Helen Schermerhorn Astor
 * 9) Count William Eliot Morris Zborowski (1858–1903): 2nd husband of Margaret Laura Astor Carey
 * 10) Marshall Orme Wilson (1860–1926): husband of Caroline Schermerhorn Astor
 * 11) John Jay Chapman (1862–1933): husband of Elizabeth Astor Winthrop Chanler
 * 12) Richard Aldrich (1863–1937): husband of Margaret Livingston Chanler
 * 13) Amélie Louise Rives (1863–1945): wife of John Armstrong Chaloner
 * 14) Ava Lowle Willing (1868–1958): 1st wife of John Jacob "Jack" Astor IV
 * 15) Harriet Sylvia Ann Howland Green(1871–1951): wife and widow of Matthew Astor Wilks
 * 16) Natalina Cavalieri (1874–1944): 2nd wife of Robert Winthrop Chanler
 * 17) Herbert Henry Spender-Clay (1875–1937): husband of Pauline Astor
 * 18) Margaret Louise Post (1876–1969): wife and widow of James Laurens Van Alen
 * 19) Robert Joseph Collier (1876–1918): husband of Sarah Steward Van Alen
 * 20) Nancy Witcher Langhorne (1879–1964): widow of Waldorf Astor, first female British MP to sit in the house of commons.
 * 21) Minnie W. Collins (1880–1946): widow of William Astor "Willie" Chanler
 * 22) Julia Lynch Olin (1882–1961): 2nd wife and widow of Lewis Stuyvesant Chanler
 * 23) Theodore Douglas Robinson (1883–1934): husband of Helen Rebecca Roosevelt
 * 24) Lawrence Grant White (1887–1956): husband of Laura Astor Chanler
 * 25) Violet Mary Elliot-Murray-Kynynmound (1889–1965): wife of John Jacob Astor V
 * 26) Prince Sergei Platonovich Obolensky Neledinsky-Meletzky (1890–1978), 1st husband of Ava Alice Muriel Astor
 * 27) Helen Dinsmore Huntington (1893–1976): 1st wife and widow of William Vincent Astor
 * 28) Madeleine Talmage Force (1893–1940): 2nd wife and widow of John Jacob "Jack" Astor IV
 * 29) Louis Bancel LaFarge (1900–1989): husband and widower of Hester Alida Emmet
 * 30) Roberta Brooke Russell (1902–2007): 3rd wife and widow of William Vincent Astor
 * 31) The Hon. Sir David Bowes Lyon (1902–1961): husband of Rachel Pauline Spender-Clay
 * 32) Mary Benedict "Minnie" Cushing (1906–1978): 2nd wife of William Vincent Astor
 * 33) John Aylmer Dalrymple, 13th Earl of Stair (1906-1996): husband of Davina Katherine Bowes-Lyon
 * 34) Gilbert James Heathcote-Drummond-Willoughby, 3rd Earl of Ancaster (1907–1983): husband and widower of Nancy Phyllis Louise Astor
 * 35) Joseph Wright Alsop V (1910–1989): 2nd husband of Susan Mary Jay
 * 36) Irene Violet Freesia Janet Augusta Haig (1919–2001): widow of Gavin Astor
 * 37) Hon. Sarah Kathleen Elinor Norton (1920–2013): 1st wife of William Waldorf "Bill" Astor II
 * 38) Janet Bronwen Alun Pugh (1930–2017): 3rd wife and widow of William Waldorf "Bill" Astor II
 * 39) Roderick McEwen (1932–1982): husband of Romana von Hofmannsthal
 * 40) Annabel Lucy Veronica Jones (born 1948): wife of William Waldorf Astor III, mother-in-law of British PM David Cameron
 * 41) Elizabeth Constance "Liz" Mackintosh (born 1950): 2nd wife of John Jacob "Johnny" Astor VIII
 * 42) Jools Miles Holland (born 1958): 2nd husband of Christabel Mary McEwen
 * 43) Charles Henry Gordon-Lennox, 11th Duke of Richmond (born 1955): husband of Janet Elizabeth Astor
 * 44) Edward Richard Lambton, 7th Earl of Durham (born 1961): 1st husband of Christabel Mary McEwen
 * 45) Laura Rose Parker Bowles (born 1978): wife of Harry Marcus George Lopes

Lines of succession to the family titles
Both in the Peerage of the United Kingdom, the titles Viscount Astor, of Hever Castle in the County of Kent (1917), with subsidiary title Baron Astor, of Hever Castle in the County of Kent (1916), and  Baron Astor of Hever, of Hever Castle in the County of Kent (1956), were granted with the standard remainder to the legitimate male heirs of the bodies of the original grantees.

Both of the current titleholders continue to sit in the House of Lords following the expulsion of the majority of the hereditary peers by the House of Lords Act 1999.

 * Coronet of a British Viscount.svg The Right Hon. William Waldorf Astor, 1st Viscount Astor (1848–1919)
 * Coronet of a British Viscount.svg The Right Hon. Waldorf Astor, 2nd Viscount Astor, DL (1879–1952)
 * Coronet of a British Viscount.svg The Right Hon. William Waldorf Astor, 3rd Viscount Astor (1907–1966)
 * Coronet of a British Viscount.svg The Right Hon. William Waldorf Astor, 4th Viscount Astor (born 1951)
 * (1) The Hon. William Waldorf Astor (b. 1979)
 * (2) William Waldorf Astor (b. 2012)
 * (3) Conrad Charles Astor (b. 2016)
 * (4) The Hon. James Jacob Astor (b. 1981)
 * The Hon. Francis David Langhorne Astor, CH (1912–2001)
 * (5) Richard David Langhorne Astor (b. 1955)
 * (6) Thomas Robert Langhorne Astor (b. 1962)
 * The Hon. Michael Langhorne Astor (1916–1980)
 * (7) David Waldorf Astor (b. 1943)
 * (8) Henry Waldorf Astor (b. 1969)
 * (9) George Astor (b. 1998)
 * (10) Jakie Astor (b. 2003)
 * (11) Charles Edgar Spence Astor (b. 2007)
 * (12) Michael Allstar Astor (b. 2009)
 * (13) Thomas Ludovic David Astor (b. 1972)
 * (14) Frederick Michael Astor (b. 2003)
 * (15) Vincent David Astor (b. 2009)
 * (16) James Colonsay Langhorne Astor (b. 1945)
 * (17) Tobias Michael de Chazal Astor (b. 1980)
 * (18) Griffith Charles William Astor (b. 2016)
 * Major The Hon. Sir John Jacob Astor, MBE, ERD (1918–2000)
 * (19) Michael Ramon Langhorne Astor (b. 1946)
 * (20) James Edward Astor (b. 1976)
 * Coronet of a British Baron.svg The Right Hon. Lt-Col John Jacob Astor, 1st Baron Astor of Hever, DL (1886–1971)
 * Coronet of a British Baron.svg The Right Hon. Gavin Astor, 2nd Baron Astor of Hever (1918–1984)
 * (21) Coronet of a British Baron.svg The Right Hon. John Jacob Astor, 3rd Baron Astor of Hever, PC, DL (b. 1946)
 * (1, 22) The Hon. Charles Gavin John Astor (b. 1990)
 * (2, 23) The Hon. Philip Douglas Paul Astor (b. 1959)
 * Lt-Col The Hon. Hugh Waldorf Astor (1920–1999)
 * (3, 24) Robert Hugh Astor (b. 1958)
 * (4, 25) Nicholas Louis Robert Astor (b. 1996)
 * (5, 26) Jonathan Hugh Astor (b. 1997)
 * (6, 27) James Alexander Waldorf Astor (b. 1965)
 * (7, 28) Alexander Richard Astor (b. 2000)
 * The Hon. John Astor (1923–1987)
 * John Richard Astor (1953–2016)
 * (8, 29) Charles John Astor (b. 1982)
 * (9, 30) George David Astor (b. 1958)
 * (10, 31) Thomas David Astor (b. 1987)

Associates
The following is a list of figures closely aligned with or subordinate to the Astor family.

 * James J. Van Alen
 * George Boldt
 * Richard E. Byrd
 * William Francis Casey
 * Geoffrey Dawson
 * Albert Gallatin
 * William Haley
 * Lord Frederick Spencer Hamilton
 * W. Averell Harriman
 * Wilson Price Hunt
 * Washington Irving
 * Joseph LaBarge
 * Alexander MacKay
 * Ward McAllister
 * Duncan McDougall
 * Donald McKenzie
 * Charles A. Platt
 * Robert Stuart

Businesses
The following is a list of companies in which the Astor family have held a controlling or otherwise substantial interest.

 * American Fur Company
 * Astor Estate
 * Astor Court Apartment
 * Bull's Head Tavern
 * Gallatin National Bank
 * Hotel New Netherland
 * Manhattan Company
 * Mohawk & Hudson Railroad
 * Newsweek
 * The Observer
 * OKA Direct
 * Pall Mall Gazette
 * Park Hotel
 * Silvergate Media
 * South West Company
 * St. Regis Hotel
 * The Times of London
 * Waldorf-Astoria (1893–1929)
 * Waldorf Hotel

Philanthropy and non-profit organizations

 * Astor of Hever Trust
 * Astor Court
 * Astor Home for Children
 * Astor Library
 * Astor, Florida
 * Brooke Astor Fund for New York City Education
 * Cliveden Set
 * Ferncliff Forest
 * Florida Yacht Club
 * Koestler Trust
 * New York Cancer Hospital
 * Rothermere American Institute
 * St. Margaret's Home
 * Saint Nicholas Society of the City of New York
 * Vincent Astor Foundation

Estates and historic sites

 * 130 East 80th Street House
 * The Apthorp
 * Astor Fur Warehouse
 * Astor Row
 * Beaulieu House
 * Beechwood
 * Cliveden
 * Ferncliff Farm
 * Ferry Reach
 * Ginge Manor
 * Graham Court
 * Hatley Park
 * Hellgate
 * Hever Castle
 * Knickerbocker Building
 * Manor House (Sutton Courtenay)
 * Mrs. William B. Astor House
 * Nuits (Irvington, New York)
 * Rokeby (Barrytown, New York)
 * Steen Valetje
 * Two Temple Place

title: Astor family


text:
LRN

LRN may refer to:

 * Laboratory Response Network, a collaborative effort of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Association of Public Health Laboratories
 * Land Rights News, the longest-running Aboriginal Australian newspaper, published by the Central and Northern Land Councils
 * Lateral reticular nucleus, a nucleus of the medulla oblongata involved with co-ordinating baroreceptor signals to control arterial blood pressure
 * Lead round nose, a type of bullet
 * Legislative route number, a designation for a highway defined by laws passed in a state legislature
 * Location Routing Number, a ten digit phone number used to route phone calls between two telephone exchanges
 * LORAN, a terrestrial radio navigation system originally known as LRN for Loomis Radio Navigation
 * LRN (company), an ethics compliance and education company
 * Luminous red nova, a stellar explosion thought to be caused by the merger of two stars

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

title: LRN


text:
Air supremacy

Aerial supremacy (also known as air superiority) is the degree to which a side in a conflict holds control of air power over opposing forces. There are levels of control of the air in aerial warfare. Control of the air is the aerial equivalent of command of the sea.

Air power has increasingly become a powerful element of military campaigns; military planners view having an environment of at least air superiority as a necessity. Air supremacy allows increased bombing efforts, tactical air support for ground forces, paratroop assaults, airdrops and simple cargo plane transfers, which can move ground forces and supplies. Air power is a function of the degree of air superiority and numbers or types of aircraft, but it represents a situation that defies black-and-white characterization. The degree of a force's air control is a zero-sum game with its opponent's; increasing control by one corresponds to decreasing control by the other. Air forces unable to contest for air superiority or air parity can strive for air denial, where they maintain an operations level conceding air superiority to the other side, but preventing it from achieving air supremacy.

The achievement of aerial supremacy does not guarantee a low loss rate of friendly aircraft, as hostile forces are often able to adopt unconventional tactics or identify weaknesses. For example, NATO forces which held aerial superiority over Kosovo still lost a stealth strike aircraft to a Serbian ground-based air defense system, despite it being considered "obsolete". Several engagements have occurred in asymmetrical conflicts in which relatively poorly-equipped ground forces have been able to achieve aircraft kills despite working against overwhelming aerial supremacy. During both the Iraq War and the War in Afghanistan, insurgents found a greater degree of success in attacking coalition aircraft on the ground than when they were operating above them in the skies.

Levels

 * Air supremacy is the highest level, where a side holds complete control of the skies. It is defined by NATO and the United States Department of Defense as the "degree of air superiority wherein the opposing air force is incapable of effective interference".
 * Air superiority is the second level, where a side is in a more favorable position than the opponent. It is defined in the NATO glossary as the "degree of dominance in [an] air battle ... that permits the conduct of operations by [one side] and its related land, sea and air forces at a given time and place without prohibitive interference by opposing air forces."
 * Favorable air situation is defined as "an air situation in which the extent of air effort applied by the enemy air forces is insufficient to prejudice the success of friendly land, sea or air operations."
 * Air parity is the lowest level of control, where no side holds any level of control of skies.

Methods
Although the destruction of enemy aircraft in air-to-air combat is the most obvious aspect of air superiority, it is not the only method of obtaining air superiority. Historically, the most effective method of gaining air superiority is the destruction of enemy aircraft on the ground and the destruction of the means and infrastructure by which an opponent may mount air operations (such as destroying fuel supplies, cratering runways with anti-runway penetration bombs and the sowing of air-fields with area denial weapons). A historical example of this is Operation Focus in which the outnumbered Israeli Air Force dealt a crippling blow to the Egyptian, Jordanian and Syrian Air Forces and airfields at the start of the Six-Day War, achieving Israeli air supremacy.

Disruption can be carried out through ground and air attack. The main role for which the British Special Air Service was formed was to conduct raids on German aircraft and airfields. During operations in the Western Desert the SAS are reckoned to have destroyed more than 400 enemy aircraft. On 6 December 1944, the Imperial Japanese Army Air Force Raiding Group Teishin Shudan destroyed B-29 aircraft on Leyte. During the Cold War, the Soviet Union claimed it could achieve air superiority despite the inferiority of its fighters, by over-running NATO airfields and parking their tanks on the runways, similar to what they have done during Tatsinskaya Raid during the Battle of Stalingrad (note the Germans used parts of their autobahn motorways as airfields during the last war). The Soviet Union planned to use its Spetsnaz special forces in attacks on NATO airfields in the event of conflict.

Attacks by special forces have been seen by some commanders as a way to level the playing field when faced by superior numbers or technology. Given the disparity in effectiveness between their own and South Korean and US fighters, North Korea maintains a large force of infiltration troops; in the event of a war, they would be tasked, among other missions, with attacking coalition airfields with mortar, machine gun and sniper fire, possibly after insertion by some 300 An-2 low radar-observable biplanes. This strategy has been practiced in active conflicts even in recent decades; during the asymmetrical warfare of the War in Afghanistan, 15 fedayeen destroyed or severely damaged eight United States Marine Corps Harrier jump jets in the September 2012 Camp Bastion raid, one result of which being pilots fighting as infantry for the first time in 70 years. Similarly, during the Iraqi War, four Apaches were destroyed on the ground in 2007 by insurgents armed with mortar, which were unintentionally aided by web-published geotagged photographs taken by coalition soldiers.

First World War
The First World War saw many firsts in the field of aerial warfare, including the deployment of aircraft armed with machine guns, the first successful engagement involving synchronisation-gun-armed aircraft on the afternoon of 1 July 1915. Throughout the conflict, air superiority on the Western Front changed hands between the German Empire and the Allies several times. It became recognised that the worst losses was amongst new pilots, many of whom lasted just a day or two. The emergence of specialised fighter units, which were typically led by highly experienced pilots, some of them survivors of the Fokker Scourge period, greatly increased the effectiveness of fighter units.

Early on, the Allies gained a lead over the Germans by introducing machine-gun armed types such as the Vickers F.B.5 Gunbus fighter and the Morane-Saulnier L. In response, Germany bolstered its own aerial development efforts; a major achievement of the era was the Stangensteuerung (push rod controller), a genuine synchronisation gear, developed by the Fokker company. The device was fitted to the most suitable Fokker type, the Fokker M.5K (military designation Fokker A.III), of which A.16/15, assigned to Otto Parschau, became the prototype of the Fokker Eindecker series of fighter designs. This subsequently contributed to a period of German air superiority known as the Fokker Scourge, lasting between late 1915 and early 1916. A briefer period of German aerial dominance occurred in the Bloody April of April 1917; paradoxically, the Germans were disadvantaged on paper during Bloody April in terms of numerical inferiority; their effectiveness was increased by confining themselves to mainly operating over friendly territory, both reducing the possibility of pilots being captured and increasing the amount of time they could stay in the air. Moreover, German pilots could choose when and how they would engage, effectively dictating the terms of combat.

The Italian Corpo Aeronautico Militare established air superiority over the Austro-Hungarian Imperial and Royal Aviation Troops at the Battle of Vittorio Veneto in late October 1918. The Allies operated roughly 600 aircraft (93 Anglo-French, including four RAF squadrons) to gain complete air superiority in this final offensive. The defeat suffered by Austria-Hungary at Vittorio Veneto has been attributed with causing the dissolution of the empire. In turn, the surrender of Germany's primary ally was another major factor in the German Empire's decision that the conflict was no longer viable and needed to end.

Interwar period
In 1921, Italian aerial warfare theorist Giulio Douhet published The Command of the Air, a book positing that future wars would be decided in the skies. At the time, mainstream military theory did not see air power as a war-winning tactic. Douhet's idea was that air power could be a decisive force and be used to avoid the long and costly War of Attrition. In The War of 19, Douhet theorized that a future war between Germany and France would be settled in a matter of days, as the winner would be the one to gain air supremacy and destroy a few enemy cities with aerial bombs. He speculated that, while the targets would be announced ahead of time and all the population evacuated, but that the event would terrorize citizens into pressuring their government into immediate surrender. At the beginning of the Second World War, Douhet's ideas were dismissed by some, but it became apparent that his theories on the importance of aircraft were supported by events as the war continued.

In 1925, the Royal Air Force (RAF) tested the ability of air supremacy in isolation from other warfare forms during their first independent action in Waziristan. The operation, that later came to be known as Pink's War after Wing Commander Richard Pink in charge, used only air warfare in a combination of air attack and air blockade over 54 days to force militant tribes to surrender. The campaign was successful in defeating the tribes with two deaths for the RAF, but contemporary critics were not entirely convinced of its use in isolation; Commander-in-Chief, India General Sir Claud Jacob stated that "satisfactory ... the results of these operations have been, I am of [the] opinion that a combination of land and air action would have brought about the desired result in a shorter space of time, and next time action has to be taken, I trust that it will be possible to employ the two forces in combination".

American general Billy Mitchell was another influential air power theorist of the inter-war period. After the First World War I, then-Assistant Chief of Air Service in the United States Army Air Service under Chief Mason Patrick, Mitchell arranged live fire exercises that proved that aircraft could sink battleships (the largest and most heavily armed class of warships). The first of these was Project B in 1921, in which the captured First World War-era German battleship, SMS Ostfriesland, was sunk by a flight of bombers in 22 minutes.

Mitchell's ideas were not popular, with his outspoken opposition to Army and Navy resistance resulting in a court-martial that precipitated his resignation, but he would prove prescient; his 1924 inspection tour of Hawaii and Asia culminated in a report (published in 1925 as the book Winged Defense) that predicted future war with Japan, including the attack on Pearl Harbor. He would also go on to influence air power advocates such as Russian-American Alexander P. de Seversky, whose 1942 New York Times bestselling book, Victory Through Air Power, was made into a 1943 Walt Disney animated film that opened with a quote from Mitchell; the film is reported to have been influentially shown by Winston Churchill to Franklin D. Roosevelt in support of long-range bombing.

Seeking to influence the outcome of the Spanish Civil War, various international powers tried to influence the conflict via a heavy reliance on air power. The French government provided aircraft to the Republicans covertly, such as the Potez 540 bomber aircraft (nicknamed the "Flying Coffin" by Spanish Republican pilots), Dewoitine aircraft, and Loire 46 fighter aircraft being sent to the Republican forces, along with a group of trained fighter pilots and engineers to aid the Republicans. Also, until 8 September 1936, aircraft could freely pass from France into Spain if they were bought in other countries. The Soviet Union also covertly aided Republicans, between 634 and 806 aircraft were supplied alongside various other armaments. Both Italy and Nazi Germany supplied large numbers of aircraft to the Nationalists while also deploying their own units, such as the Condor Legion and the Aviazione Legionaria, to bolster the Nationalist's forces with their own. While the Soviet aircraft were in current service with their own forces, they proved inferior to those supplied by Germany by the end of the conflict. The use of aircraft, particularly by the Nationalists to continually pressure Republican forces and compel multiple withdrawals during the Aragon Offensive, allegedly informed both the Germans and Soviets of the value of using aircraft to support infantry.

Second World War
At the beginning of the Second World War, the opposing sides developed different views on the importance of air power. Nazi Germany viewed it as a helpful tool to support the German Army, the approach being dubbed "flying artillery". The Allies saw it, specifically long-range strategic bombing, as being a more important part of warfare which they believed capable of crippling Germany's industrial centers.

After the Battle of France, the Luftwaffe (Germany's air force) achieved air supremacy over Western Europe. The Battle of Britain represented a concerted attempt by Germany to establish air superiority over Great Britain, which it never achieved. Through home-territory advantage and Germany's failure to push home its strategy of targeting Britain's air defenses, Britain was able to establish air superiority over the territory – a superiority that it never lost. It denied the German military air superiority over the English Channel, making a seaborne invasion (planned as Operation Sea Lion) impossible in the face of Britain's naval power. Strategically, the overall situation at home and abroad at the end of the battle might be considered air parity between Britain and Germany. After the air battle, known as the Battle of Britain, the Germans switched to a strategy of night bombing raids, which Britain echoed with raids over Germany.

During Operation Barbarossa, the Luftwaffe initially achieved air supremacy over the Soviet Union. As the war dragged on, the United States joined the fight and the combined Allied air forces gained air superiority and eventually supremacy in the West. (For example, the Luftwaffe mustered 391 aircraft to oppose over 9,000 allied aircraft on D-day.) Russia did the same on the Eastern Front, meaning the Luftwaffe could not effectively interfere with Allied land operations. Achieving allowed the Allies to carry out ever-greater strategic bombing raids on Germany's industrial and civilian centers (including the Ruhr and Dresden), and to prosecute the land war successfully on both the Eastern and Western fronts. Following the Big Week attacks in late February 1944, the new 8th Air Force commander Jimmy Doolittle permitted P-51 Mustangs to fly far ahead of the bomber formations instead of closely escorting them starting in March 1944. This commenced in March 1944 and was part of a massive "fighter sweep" tactic to clear German skies of Luftwaffe fighters. Allied planes went after the German fighters wherever they could be found and substantially lowered bomber losses for their side for the rest of the war over Western Europe.

The element of air superiority has been the driving force behind the development of aircraft carriers, which allow aircraft to operate in the absence of designated air bases. For example, the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was carried out by aircraft operating from carriers thousands of miles away from the nearest Japanese air base.

Some fighter aircraft specialized in combating other fighters, while interceptors were originally designed to counter bombers. Germany's most important air superiority fighters were the Messerschmitt Bf 109 and Focke-Wulf Fw 190, while the Supermarine Spitfire and Hawker Hurricane were the primary ones on the British side. Performance and range made the P-51 Mustang the outstanding escort fighter which permitted American bombers to operate over Germany during daylight hours. They shot down 5,954 aircraft, more than any other American fighter in Europe. In the Pacific Theater, the A6M Zero gave Japan air superiority for much of the early part of the war, but suffered against newer naval fighters such as the F6F Hellcat and F4U Corsair which exceeded the Zero in performance and durability. The Hellcat shot down 5,168 enemy aircraft (the second highest number), while the land-based Lockheed P-38 was third, shooting down 3,785 in all theaters.

Superpower rivalry
During the Cold War, between 1946 and 1991, the US, UK, and NATO allies faced the Soviet Union, the Warsaw Pact, and its allies. Both sides engaged in an arms race of improving radar and fighter intercept capability versus the threat of intercontinental strategic bombers carrying nuclear weapons. Initially, high altitude, later combined with high supersonic speeds, was hoped to keep nuclear bombers out of range of fighters and later surface to air missiles, both of which were sometimes equipped with nuclear warheads. In the 1960 U-2 incident an American very high altitude spy plane was shot down over the USSR with a S-75 Dvina(SA-2) long range high altitude surface to air missile largely refuting the concept of high altitude as a refuge for high-performance bomber aircraft. US training changed to low altitude flight of bombers and unpiloted cruise missiles in the hopes of avoiding ground-based air defense radar networks by hiding in with ground clutter and terrain, thwarting attempts at air supremacy over the enemy landmass. Ballistic missiles were also introduced and were very difficult and expensive to intercept even with nuclear-armed defensive missiles.

Airborne early warning and control flying radar aircraft as well as look down shoot down radar in fighter and interceptor aircraft allowed engaging low flying invaders again tipping the balance though this was partly ameliorated by succeeding generations of electronic countermeasures. Ultimately the US led the way in first applying stealth technology to small strike aircraft like the F-117 and stealthy nuclear cruise missiles carried in conventional bombers for standoff release before the air defenses got too thick. The Soviet Union invested heavily in expensive to defeat intermediate and intercontinental range nuclear missiles and less on expensive to maintain patrol bombers, though they had to spend heavily on interceptors and surface to air missiles as well as radar sites to cover the huge landmass of the Soviet Union. The US joined with Canada to organize defense of the area of Alaska, Canada, and the continental United States with North American Aerospace Defense Command or NORAD using both interceptors, some armed with the nuclear AIR-2 Genie, and a surface to air missile component, which was at one point partly nuclearized. Development for the B-2 stealth bomber was intended for, and in anticipation of, a nuclear war and it was the first fully mature stealth aircraft to enter service. The F-22 Advanced Tactical Fighter was a stealth fighter and interceptor aircraft designed during the Cold War as a medium altitude air superiority fighter which was intended to destroy Warsaw Pact aircraft without ever being detected or engaged; both were introduced after the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War.

Air superiority in the feared Cold War era WW-III European theater would include fighters intercepting or diverting nuclear and conventionally armed strike aircraft and ground-based air defences, some of which were developed into mobile systems which could accompany and protect armored and mechanized formations. While the Cold War never went hot directly between NATO and Warsaw Pact alliances, the US was engaged in two major limited air wars aiding allies who faced Soviet-supported enemies, with both sides using weaponry designed to fight such a conflict; the Korean and Vietnam wars.

Korean War
The Korean War represented a major turning point for aerial warfare, being the first conflict in which jet aircraft played the central role in combat. Once-formidable fighters such as the P-51 Mustang, F4U Corsair, and Hawker Sea Fury—all piston-engined, propeller-driven, and designed during the Second World War—relinquished their air superiority roles to a new generation of faster, jet-powered fighters arriving in the theater. In the initial months of fighting, the P-80 Shooting Star, F9F Panther, Gloster Meteor and other jets under the UN flag dominated the Korean People's Air Force (KPAF) propeller-driven Soviet Yakovlev Yak-9 and Lavochkin La-9s. By early August 1950, the KPAF was reduced to only about 20 planes.

However, with the Chinese intervention in late October 1950, the KPAF begun receiving the MiG-15, which was one of the world's most advanced jet fighters at that time. Equipped with not only jet propulsion but also a swept wing, the MiG-15 quickly outclassed the straight-wing United Nations fighters. In response, the United States dispatched three squadrons of its own swept-wing fighter, the F-86 Sabre, which arrived in the theatre in December 1950. The Sabre reportedly claimed kill ratios as high as 10 to 1 against the MiGs, allegedly shooting down 792 MiG-15s and 108 other aircraft in exchange for 78 Sabres that were lost to enemy fire. Meanwhile, the Grumman F9F Panther, a straight-wing carrier-based jet, became the mainstay of the USN during the period and had a relatively good showing, possessing a 7:2 kill ratio against the more powerful MiG-15.

Vietnam War
During the Vietnam war the US side, especially over the north, had restrictive rules of engagement often requiring visual identification nullifying the advantage they would have had using beyond visual range missiles though possibly avoiding friendly fire due to IFF systems not being ubiquitous on US strike aircraft. In the 1950s, the United States Navy tasked the F-8 Crusader, known affectionately as the "Last Gun Fighter" as their close-in air superiority fighter. This role would be taken over by the F-4 Phantom, which was designed as a missile armed interceptor. The USAF had developed the F-100 and F-104 as air superiority fighters, though by the Vietnam war had already phased out the F-100 from all but air support missions and the fast but slow turning F-104 allegedly deterred attacks and despite losses scored no victories in air combat but in the USAF was also replaced by the F-4 by 1967. Especially under the rules of engagement imposed on them the 'Century Series" aircraft initially specifically designed for intercepting heavy nuclear bombers or delivering tactical nuclear weapons were found to be wanting when they were engaged by the very agile fighters Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-17 and Shenyang J-6 provided to the VPAF by the USSR and PRC; the Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21 while less agile was formidable against the F-4 and traded range for very high performance. This imbalance lead to the USAF ordering variants of the F-4 with an internal 20mm gun, and both the USAF and USN sometimes flying with centerline gun pods on aircraft not equipped with an internal gun.

In the 1960s, the limited agility of American fighters in dogfights over Vietnam led to a revival of dedicated air superiority fighters, which led the development of the "Teen Series" F-14, F-15, F-16 and F/A-18. All of them made close-combat manoeuvrability a top priority, and were equipped with guns absent from early Phantoms. The heavy F-14 and F-15 were assigned the primary air superiority mission, because of their longer range radars and capability to carry more missiles of longer range than lightweight fighters.

Arab–Israeli wars
From 1948, when Israel reestablished independence from a protective League of Nations mandatory regime managed by the UK, the neighbouring countries have, to varying degrees, disputed the legitimacy of a Jewish state in a majority Arab region. Some neighbouring states have in the last few decades recognized and signed peace treaties; all have ceased large scale conventional warfare to overrun Israel in large part due to an increasing ability to impose Israeli air supremacy over the region's airspace when required.

1948 war
The Israeli Air Force formed in 1948 with the formation of the modern State of Israel. Israel was involved in the 1948 Arab–Israeli War immediately after the end of the British mandate in Palestine. The air force initially consisted of mainly donated civil aircraft, a variety of obsolete and surplus ex-World War II combat-aircraft were quickly sourced by various means to supplement this fleet. Creativity and resourcefulness were the early foundations of Israeli military success in the air, rather than technology which, at the inception of the IAF, was generally inferior to that used by Israel's adversaries. In light of the complete Arab theater air supremacy, and the bombing and shelling of existing airbases, the first Israeli military-grade fighters operated from a hastily constructed makeshift airbase around the current Herzliya Airport, with fighters dispersed between the trees of an orange orchard. As the war progressed, more and more Czechoslovak, American, and British surplus WWII-era aircraft were procured, leading to a shift in the balance of power.

1956 war
In 1956, Israel, France, and the United Kingdom occupied the Sinai Peninsula after Egypt closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli ships, sparking the Suez Crisis. Israel's new French-made Dassault Mystere IV jet fighters provided air cover for the paratroop transport aircraft. The Egyptian tactic was to use their new Soviet-made MiG-15 jets as fighter escorts, while their older jets conducted strikes against Israeli troops and vehicles. In air combat, Israeli aircraft shot down between seven and nine Egyptian jets with the loss of one plane, but Egyptian strikes against the ground forces continued through to 1 November. After several sorties were launched by French and British aircraft, President Gamal Abdel Nasser ordered his pilots to withdraw to bases in Southern Egypt. The Israeli Air Force was then free to strike Egyptian ground forces at will.

1967 war
In 1967, the Straits of Tiran were again closed and international peacekeepers were ejected by Egypt. Israel then initiated Operation Focus. Israel sent nearly every capable combat aircraft out against the vastly larger Egyptian Air Force, holding only four for protection. Egyptian airfields were destroyed with anti-runway penetration bombs and the aircraft were mostly destroyed on the ground; Syria and Jordan also had their air forces destroyed when they entered the conflict. This is one of the preeminent examples of a smaller force seizing air supremacy where Israel had complete control of the skies above the entire conflict area.

War of Attrition
Following the Six-Day War, from 1967 to 1970, there were small scale incursions into the Israeli-held Sinai desert as Egypt rearmed. This evolved into large-scale artillery and air incursions in 1969, with Soviet pilots and SAM crews arriving to assist in January 1970. The strategy was to engage Israeli aircraft in surprise fighter encounters near the Suez Canal where Egyptian SAMs could be used to assist fighters. Syrian, North Korean, and Cuban pilots assisting also suffered losses in this period. In August 1970, a cease-fire was agreed on.

1973 war
The first few days of the 1973 Yom Kippur War saw major Arab ground breakthroughs, surprising Israel who, after its lopsided 1967 victory, considered its air supremacy sufficient to blunt or dissuade any conventional attack. Despite Egypt and Syria having rebuilt their air forces since 1967, Israel continued to deny them the airspace over the battle area; however, these Arab forces were able to control losses and shoot down Israeli air support aircraft by employing mobile surface to air weaponry which travelled along with invading units. Most of Israel's air power in the first few days was directed to reinforce the badly mismatched garrison overlooking the besieged Golan Heights which was under attack by Syria. After weakening the Arab SAM cover with airstrikes, commando raids, and armored cavalry, the Arab armored units outran their mobile SAM cover and Israeli aircraft began to take greater control of Egyptian skies, permitting Israeli landings and establishing a beachhead on the west bank of the Suez canal. When Egyptian fighter aircraft were sent into the area of the Israeli bridgehead, SAM sites were offlined which allowed Israeli air power to more safely engage and destroy many Egyptian fighters though taking some losses.

1978 Lebanon conflict
The 1978 South Lebanon conflict was an invasion of Lebanon up to the Litani River, carried out by the Israel Defense Forces in 1978 in response to the Coastal Road massacre. Israel had complete air supremacy.

1982 Lebanon invasion
In the 1982 Lebanon War where Israel invaded up to Beirut, Syria intervened on the side of Lebanon and the PLO forces residing there. Israeli jets shot down between 82 and 86 Syrian aircraft in aerial combat, without losses. A single Israeli A-4 Skyhawk and two helicopters were shot down by anti-aircraft fire and SAM missiles. This was the largest aerial combat battle of the jet age with over 150 fighters from both sides engaged. Syrian claims of aerial victories were met with skepticism even from their Soviet allies. The Soviets were so shaken by the staggering losses sustained by their allies that they dispatched the deputy head of their air defense force to Syria to examine how the Israelis had been so dominant.

The Israelis have upheld substantial air superiority for most of this time with Israel able to operate almost unopposed; Israel held near air supremacy against targets anywhere within range in the Middle East and North Africa until today. Regarding aircraft procurement, Israel started with British and French designs, then transitioning to indigenous production and then also design before moving again to purchasing to American designs. The Arabs directly participating in these battles against Israel except for Jordan and, to some extent, Iraq have commonly used Soviet designs.

Falklands War
In the Falklands War (2 April–20 June 1982), the British deployed Harrier jets as air superiority fighters against Argentina's Mach-capable  Dassault Mirage IIIEA fighters and subsonic Douglas A-4 Skyhawk jets. Despite the Sea Harrier's numerical and performance disadvantages, the British Harrier force suffered no air-to-air losses for over twenty Argentine aircraft shot down in aerial combat. Argentine airpower targeted Royal Navy ships during the landings at San Carlos Bay, numerous British vessels were lost or moderately damaged. However, many British ships escaped being sunk due to the Argentine pilots releasing their bombs at very low altitude, and hence those bomb fuzes did not have sufficient time to arm before impact and thus many never exploded. The pilots would have been aware of this—but released at such low altitudes due to the high concentration of British SAMs, Anti-Aircraft Artillery (AAA), and Sea Harriers, many failed to climb to the necessary release point. The Argentine forces solved the problem by fitting improvised retarding devices, allowing the pilots to effectively employ low-level bombing attacks on 8 June.

Gulf War
The Iraqi Air Force suffered almost complete obliteration in the opening stages of the Persian Gulf War (2 August 1990 – 28 February 1991). It lost most of its aircraft, as well as command-and-control capability, to precise Coalition strikes or when Iraqi personnel flew their aircraft to Iran. Iraqi Anti-aircraft defenses, including shoulder-launched surface-to-air missiles, were surprisingly ineffective against coalition aircraft, suffering only 75 aircraft losses in over 100,000 sorties, of which 42 of these were the result of Iraqi action while the other 33 were reportedly lost to accidents. In particular, RAF and US Navy aircraft which flew at low altitudes to avoid radar were particularly vulnerable, though this changed when the aircrews were ordered to fly above the AAA.

Post Cold War
During the 1980s, the United States commenced work on a new fighter capable of gaining air superiority without being detected by an opposing force, approving the Advanced Tactical Fighter program to develop a replacement for the United States Air Force's (USAF) aging F-15 fleet. The YF-23 and the YF-22 were chosen as the finalists in the competition. During 2005, the F-22 Raptor, the subsequent result of the program, became operational. USAF officials have promoted the F-22 as being a critical component of the service's tactical air power. Its combination of stealth, aerodynamic performance, and avionics systems is said to enable unprecedented air combat capabilities.

Anthony Cordesman wrote of NATO's theater air supremacy during its 1999 intervention in the Kosovo War of 1998–1999. According to several reports, including reports by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists that quote Russian sources, the Russian Federation has in recent decades formulated explicit strategies for using tactical nuclear weapons. These new strategies have in part resulted from the assumption of obtaining air supremacy and use by the U.S. Air Force of precision munitions with little collateral damage in the Kosovo conflict in what amounted to quick mass destruction of military assets once only possible with nuclear weapons or massive bombing against fellow Slavic Serbians; it also assumed that Russia and its allies do not have the strategic economic capacity of current NATO and allied nations to meet this threat with conventional weapons. In response Vladimir Putin, then secretary of the Security Council of Russia, developed a concept of using both tactical and strategic nuclear threats and strikes to de-escalate or cause an enemy to disengage from a conventional conflict threatening what Russia considered a strategic interest. This concept was formalized when Putin took power in Russia in the following year.

Throughout the Syrian Civil War of the 2010s, Israel was reportedly able to hold a general stance of air superiority over the Syrian forces, enabling offensive operations with relative impunity. However, this was challenged during 2018 by the deployment of a Russian-supplied S-400 missile battery to the Syrian theatre. During the February 2018 Israel–Syria incident, despite the loss of an aircraft, Israel has demonstrated their capability to operate without effective interference within the Syrian theater. On 22 May 2018, Israeli Air Force chief Amikam Norkin said that the service had employed their F-35Is in two attacks on two battle fronts, marking the first combat operation of an F-35 by any country.

title: Air supremacy


text:
Kane quantum computer

The Kane quantum computer is a proposal for a scalable quantum computer proposed by Bruce Kane in 1998, who was then at the University of New South Wales. Often thought of as a hybrid between quantum dot and nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) quantum computers, the Kane computer is based on an array of individual phosphorus donor atoms embedded in a pure silicon lattice. Both the nuclear spins of the donors and the spins of the donor electrons participate in the computation.

Unlike many quantum computation schemes, the Kane quantum computer is in principle scalable to an arbitrary number of qubits. This is possible because qubits may be individually addressed by electrical means.

Description
The original proposal calls for phosphorus donors to be placed in an array with a spacing of 20 nm, approximately 20 nm below the surface. An insulating oxide layer is grown on top of the silicon. Metal A gates are deposited on the oxide above each donor, and J gates between adjacent donors.

The phosphorus donors are isotopically pure 31P, which have a nuclear spin of 1/2. The silicon substrate is isotopically pure 28Si which has nuclear spin 0. Using the nuclear spin of the P donors as a method to encode qubits has two major advantages. Firstly, the state has an extremely long decoherence time, perhaps on the order of 1018 seconds at millikelvin temperatures. Secondly, the qubits may be manipulated by applying an oscillating magnetic field, as in typical NMR proposals. By altering the voltage on the A gates, it should be possible to alter the Larmor frequency of individual donors. This allows them to be addressed individually, by bringing specific donors into resonance with the applied oscillating magnetic field.

Nuclear spins alone will not interact significantly with other nuclear spins 20 nm away. Nuclear spin is useful to perform single-qubit operations, but to make a quantum computer, two-qubit operations are also required. This is the role of electron spin in this design. Under A-gate control, the spin is transferred from the nucleus to the donor electron. Then, a potential is applied to the J gate, drawing adjacent donor electrons into a common region, greatly enhancing the interaction between the neighbouring spins. By controlling the J gate voltage, two-qubit operations are possible.

Kane's proposal for readout was to apply an electric field to encourage spin-dependent tunneling of an electron to transform two neutral donors to a D+–D– state, that is, one where two electrons associate with the same donor. The charge excess is then detected using a single-electron transistor. This method has two major difficulties. Firstly, the D– state has strong coupling with the environment and hence a short decoherence time. Secondly and perhaps more importantly, it's not clear that the D– state has a sufficiently long lifetime to allow for readout—the electron tunnels into the conduction band.

Development
Since Kane's proposal, under the guidance of Robert Clark and now Michelle Simmons, pursuing realisation of the Kane quantum computer has become the primary quantum computing effort in Australia. Theorists have put forward a number of proposals for improved readout. Experimentally, atomic-precision deposition of phosphorus atoms has been achieved using a scanning tunneling microscope (STM) technique in 2003. Detection of the movement of single electrons between small, dense clusters of phosphorus donors has also been achieved. The group remains optimistic that a practical large-scale quantum computer can be built. Other groups believe that the idea needs to be modified.

In 2020, Andrea Morello and others demonstrated that an antimony nucleus (with eight spin states) embedded in silicon could be controlled using an electric field, rather than a magnetic field.

title: Kane quantum computer


text:
Building code

A building code (also building control or building regulations) is a set of rules that specify the standards for construction objects such as buildings and non-building structures. Buildings must conform to the code to obtain planning permission, usually from a local council. The main purpose of building codes is to protect public health, safety and general welfare as they relate to the construction and occupancy of buildings and structures—for example, the building codes in many countries require engineers to consider the effects of soil liquefaction in the design of new buildings. The building code becomes law of a particular jurisdiction when formally enacted by the appropriate governmental or private authority.

Building codes are generally intended to be applied by architects, engineers, interior designers, constructors and regulators but are also used for various purposes by safety inspectors, environmental scientists, real estate developers, subcontractors, manufacturers of building products and materials, insurance companies, facility managers, tenants, and others. Codes regulate the design and construction of structures where adopted into law.

Examples of building codes began in ancient times. In the USA the main codes are the International Building Code or International Residential Code [IBC/IRC], electrical codes and plumbing, mechanical codes. Fifty states and the District of Columbia have adopted the I-Codes at the state or jurisdictional level. In Canada, national model codes are published by the National Research Council of Canada. In the United Kingdom, compliance with Building Regulations is monitored by building control bodies, either Approved Inspectors or Local Authority Building Control departments. Building Control regularisation charges apply in case work is undertaken which should have had been inspected at the time of the work if this was not done.

Types
The practice of developing, approving, and enforcing building codes varies considerably among nations. In some countries building codes are developed by the government agencies or quasi-governmental standards organizations and then enforced across the country by the central government. Such codes are known as the national building codes (in a sense they enjoy a mandatory nationwide application).

In other countries, where the power of regulating construction and fire safety is vested in local authorities, a system of model building codes is used. Model building codes have no legal status unless adopted or adapted by an authority having jurisdiction. The developers of model codes urge public authorities to reference model codes in their laws, ordinances, regulations, and administrative orders. When referenced in any of these legal instruments, a particular model code becomes law. This practice is known as 'adoption by reference'. When an adopting authority decides to delete, add, or revise any portions of the model code adopted, it is usually required by the model code developer to follow a formal adoption procedure in which those modifications can be documented for legal purposes.

There are instances when some local jurisdictions choose to develop their own building codes. At some point in time all major cities in the United States had their own building codes. However, due to ever increasing complexity and cost of developing building regulations, virtually all municipalities in the country have chosen to adopt model codes instead. For example, in 2008 New York City abandoned its proprietary 1968 New York City Building Code in favor of a customized version of the International Building Code. The City of Chicago remains the only municipality in America that continues to use a building code the city developed on its own as part of the Municipal Code of Chicago.

In Europe, the Eurocode: Basis of structural design, is a pan-European building code that has superseded the older national building codes. Each country now has National Annexes to localize the contents of the Eurocodes.

Similarly, in India, each municipality and urban development authority has its own building code, which is mandatory for all construction within their jurisdiction. All these local building codes are variants of a National Building Code, which serves as model code proving guidelines for regulating building construction activity.

Antiquity
Building codes have a long history. The earliest known written building code is included in the Code of Hammurabi, which dates from circa 1772 BC.

The book of Deuteronomy in the Hebrew Bible stipulated that parapets must be constructed on all houses to prevent people from falling off.

In the Chinese book of rites it mentions that ancestral temples and houses should be a certain standard length in ancient China they measured land in the chu or well field system so it was important to be precise though most of the actual lengths are lost or obscure.

In ancient Japan a certain official destroyed a courtiers house because the size was above his rank.

France
In Paris, under the reconstruction of much of the city under the Second Empire (1852–70), great blocks of apartments were erected and the height of buildings was limited by law to five or six stories at most.

United Kingdom
After the Great Fire of London in 1666, which had been able to spread so rapidly through the densely built timber housing of the city, the Rebuilding of London Act was passed in the same year as the first significant building regulation. Drawn up by Sir Matthew Hale, the Act regulated the rebuilding of the city, required housing to have some fire resistance capacity and authorised the City of London Corporation to reopen and widen roads. The Laws of the Indies were passed in the 1680s by the Spanish Crown to regulate the urban planning for colonies throughout Spain's worldwide imperial possessions.

The first systematic national building standard was established with the London Building Act of 1844. Among the provisions, builders were required to give the district surveyor two days' notice before building, regulations regarding the thickness of walls, height of rooms, the materials used in repairs, the dividing of existing buildings and the placing and design of chimneys, fireplaces and drains were to be enforced and streets had to be built to minimum requirements.

The Metropolitan Buildings Office was formed to regulate the construction and use of buildings throughout London. Surveyors were empowered to enforce building regulations, which sought to improve the standard of houses and business premises, and to regulate activities that might threaten public health. In 1855 the assets, powers and responsibilities of the office passed to the Metropolitan Board of Works.

United States
The City of Baltimore passed its first building code in 1891. The Great Baltimore Fire occurred in February 1904. Subsequent changes were made that matched other cities. In 1904, a Handbook of the Baltimore City Building Laws was published. It served as the building code for four years. Very soon, a formal building code was drafted and eventually adopted in 1908.

The structural failure of the tank that caused the Great Molasses Flood of 1919 prompted the Boston Building Department to require engineering and architectural calculations be filed and signed. U.S. cities and states soon began requiring sign-off by registered professional engineers for the plans of major buildings.

Australia
Australia uses the National Construction Code.

Scope
The purpose of building codes is to provide minimum standards for safety, health, and general welfare including structural integrity, mechanical integrity (including sanitation, water supply, light, and ventilation), means of egress, fire prevention and control, and energy conservation. Building codes generally include:
 * Standards for structure, placement, size, usage, wall assemblies, fenestration size/locations, egress rules, size/location of rooms, foundations, floor assemblies, roof structures/assemblies, energy efficiency, stairs and halls, mechanical, electrical, plumbing, site drainage & storage, appliance, lighting, fixtures standards, occupancy rules, and swimming pool regulations
 * Rules regarding parking and traffic impact
 * Fire code rules to minimize the risk of a fire and to ensure safe evacuation in the event of such an emergency
 * Requirements for earthquake (seismic code), hurricane, flood, and tsunami resistance, especially in disaster prone areas or for very large buildings where a failure would be catastrophic
 * Requirements for specific building uses (for example, storage of flammable substances, or housing a large number of people)
 * Energy provisions and consumption
 * Grandfather clauses: Unless the building is being renovated, the building code usually does not apply to existing buildings.
 * Specifications on components
 * Allowable installation methodologies
 * Minimum and maximum room ceiling heights, exit sizes and location
 * Qualification of individuals or corporations doing the work
 * For high structures, anti-collision markers for the benefit of aircraft

Building codes are generally separate from zoning ordinances, but exterior restrictions (such as setbacks) may fall into either category.

Designers use building code standards out of substantial reference books during design. Building departments review plans submitted to them before construction, issue permits [or not] and inspectors verify compliance to these standards at the site during construction.

There are often additional codes or sections of the same building code that have more specific requirements that apply to dwellings or places of business and special construction objects such as canopies, signs, pedestrian walkways, parking lots, and radio and television antennas.

Current energy codes in the United States
The energy codes of the United States are adopted at the state and municipal levels and are based on the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC). Previously, they were based on the Model Energy Code (MEC).

As of March 2017, the following residential codes have been partially or fully adopted by states:

 * 2015 IECC or equivalent (California, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Vermont, Washington)
 * 2012 IECC or equivalent (Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Iowa, Minnesota, Nevada, Rhode Island, Texas)
 * 2009 IECC or equivalent (Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin)
 * 2006 IECC or equivalent (Utah)
 * <2006 IECC or no statewide code (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming)

2005
As of September 2005, the following residential energy codes had been partially or fully adopted by states:

 * 2003-2004 IECC or equivalent (Alaska, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Idaho, Kansas, Nebraska, Maryland, Montana, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Utah, Virginia, Washington)
 * 1998-2001 IECC or equivalent (Alabama, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Texas, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin)
 * <1998 IECC (Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, North Dakota, Tennessee)
 * No statewide code / weaker (Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Wyoming)

2004
As of January 2004, the following residential energy codes had been partially or fully adopted by states:

 * 2003 IECC or IRC (Kansas, New Mexico, Utah)
 * 2000 IECC or IRC or equivalent (Alabama, California, Idaho, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin)
 * 1998 IECC (Oklahoma)
 * 1995 MEC or equivalent (Alaska, Connecticut, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Louisiana, Minnesota, New Jersey, Vermont)
 * 1993 MEC or equivalent (Delaware, Montana, North Dakota)
 * 1992 MEC or equivalent (Arkansas, Indiana, Iowa, Tennessee)
 * No code or code not EPAct compliant (Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, South Dakota, Wyoming)

2000
As of Fall 2000, the following residential energy codes had been partially or fully adopted by states:

 * 2000 IECC rule making (Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, South Carolina)
 * 1995 MEC or equivalent (Alaska, California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, Wyoming)
 * 1993 MEC or equivalent (Alabama, Delaware, Kansas, Montana, North Dakota)
 * 1992 MEC or equivalent (Arkansas, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, New Mexico, Tennessee)
 * No code or code not EPAct compliant (Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Illinois, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, South Dakota, Texas, West Virginia)

1998
As of 1998, three states (Ohio, Michigan, and Virginia) had adopted the 1993 MEC residential energy code. The remaining states had adopted either: a state-written code; a regional code; a prior version of the MEC or American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers standards; or no code at all.

title: Building code


text: User talk:152.163.252.37

title: User talk:152.163.252.37


text:
University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science

The University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science (UMCES) is a multi-university scientific research center within the University System of Maryland dedicated to environmental science, estuarine studies, and marine science.

Its origins are found in a 1925 research station on Solomons Island. In 1973 it became the Center for Environmental and Estuarine Studies and in 1997 it assumed its current name.

The center provides a unified focus for environmental research and education in Maryland, United States, with special attention to problems of the Chesapeake Bay, and includes climate research. Research programs are undertaken across the US and globally. Its educational opportunities include graduate studies and undergraduate research internships. The center has about 60 faculty and 110 graduate students. Dr. Donald Boesch served as the institution's president from 1990 until 2017, and has been succeeded by Dr. Peter Goodwin.

UMCES programs are conducted at five constituent research locations:

 * Appalachian Laboratory (Frostburg, Maryland) in cooperation with Frostburg State University.
 * Chesapeake Biological Laboratory (Solomons, Maryland)
 * Horn Point Laboratory (Cambridge, Maryland)
 * Institute of Marine and Environmental Technology (Baltimore, Maryland) in cooperation with the University of Maryland, Baltimore and the University of Maryland, Baltimore County.
 * Maryland Sea Grant College (College Park, Maryland) in cooperation with the University of Maryland, College Park - UMD College of Agriculture and Natural Resources and the  National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

The Center also administers the Integration and Application Network, which provides scientific data, reports and visualization tools for researchers, students and the general public.


text:
Pride Park

Pride Park is a business park on the outskirts of the city centre of Derby, England. Developed in the 1990s, It covers 80 hectares of former industrial land between the River Derwent and railway lines. Pride Park Stadium and Derby Arena are both located in Pride Park.

History
The site was formerly part of the Derby Works railway yards, and was derelict for many years. It was the original site of Derby's railway manufacturing industry, but land here had also been used for gas- and coke works, gravel abstraction and landfill. These uses left behind large amounts of industrial contaminants, including tars, phenols, heavy metals, ammonia and boron. Extensive redevelopment took place over 10 years to reclaim the brownfield site, including the building of a new access road to open the area up. Part of the site has been transformed into a nature reserve called The Sanctuary, in conjunction with Derby City Council.

Occupants

 * It has been home of Derby County F.C.'s Pride Park Stadium since 1997, when they relocated from the Baseball Ground in the Normanton district.
 * Derby Arena is a multi-purpose sports and events venue adjacent to Pride Park Stadium, which opened in 2015.
 * A Park & Ride car park for access to Derby city centre is located next to the stadium.
 * Internet bank Egg plc had its headquarters and call centre in the business park until 2011, when it was taken over by Barclaycard, and closed. The building was subsequently occupied by HEROtsc, retaining its function as a call centre.
 * The business park also houses a Holiday Inn Express hotel and several car dealerships.
 * The sports goods retailer JJB Sports has offices on the Park.
 * UTC Derby Pride Park (formerly Derby Manufacturing UTC), a university technical college, opened in September 2015.

Expansion Plan
Derby County Football Club are proposed to expand facilities on offer around the football stadium with a £20 million development plan. This is despite the club being unsuccessful in their bid to include the stadium as a venue in England's bid to host the 2018 FIFA World Cup.

On 3 October 2011, Derby County Football Club announced that it had submitted plans to Derby City Council for a £7 million development of land outside Pride Park Stadium, which the club named "The Plaza @ Pride Park".

These plans included five cafes/restaurants, two convenience stores and 2,000 square metres of office space. The plans were scaled down from the planned £20 million pound development proposed in 2007. Derby County CEO Tom Glick, said that these plans would help the club deal with the new Financial Fair Play regulations which will be introduced in the Football League from 2012, as revenue from the Plaza will be reinvested back into the club.

This planned development also coincided with a plan from the City Council to build a multi-use sports arena on the same site as the proposed Plaza.

title: Pride Park


text:
Talk:Procedural programming languages

while most OO languages are also procedural, wouldn't it be better to keep those elsewhere? Kim Bruning 16:37, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

title: Talk:Procedural programming languages


text:
Antonov An-72

The Antonov An-72 (NATO reporting name: Coaler) is a Soviet transport aircraft, developed by Antonov. It was designed as a STOL transport and intended as a replacement for the Antonov An-26, but variants have found success as commercial freighters.

The An-72 and the related An-74 get their nickname, Cheburashka, from the large engine intake ducts, which resemble the oversized ears of the popular Soviet animated character of the same name.

Design and development

The An-72 first flew on and was likely developed as a response to the never-manufactured USAF Advanced Medium STOL Transport (AMST) initiated ten years earlier. Produced in tandem with the An-72, the An-74 variant adds the ability to operate in harsh weather conditions in polar regions, because it can be fitted with wheel-skis landing gear, de-icing equipment, and a number of other upgrades, allowing the aircraft to support operations in Arctic or Antarctic environments. Other An-72 versions include the An-72S VIP transport and An-72P maritime patrol aircraft.

Its first flight was made on, but production started in the late 1980s. The powerplant used is the Lotarev D-36 turbofan engine. The An-72 resembles the unsuccessful Boeing YC-14, a prototype design from the early 1970s (design submitted to the United States Air Force in February 1972,) which had also used overwing engines and the Coandă effect.

The rear fuselage of the aircraft has a hinged loading ramp with a rear fairing that slides backwards and up to clear the opening. Up to 7.5 t can be airdropped while it has folding side seats for 52 passengers.

In 2018, six An-72 aircraft were reported to be upgraded for the Russian Aerospace Forces and Navy to carry more fuel and payload for Arctic operations.

Operation
The An-72 has STOL capabilities; its take-off roll is 620 m and its landing run is 420 m. This aircraft was designed to be used on unprepared surfaces; its robust undercarriage and high-flotation tyres allow operations on sand, grass, or other unpaved surfaces.

Variants

 * An-71 "Madcap": Prototype AWACS aircraft developed from the An-72.
 * An-72 "Coaler-A": Preproduction aircraft. Two flying prototypes, one static test airframe and eight preproduction machines.
 * An-72A "Coaler-C": Initial production STOL transport with a longer fuselage and increased wingspan.
 * An-72AT – "Coaler-C": Freight version of the An-72A compatible with standard international shipping containers.
 * An-72S – "Coaler-C": Executive VIP transport fitted with a galley in a front cabin, work and rest areas in a central cabin, and 24 armchairs in a rear cabin, can also be reconfigured for transporting freight or 38 passengers or as an air ambulance carrying eight stretchers.
 * An-72P: Patrol aircraft. Armed with one 23 mm GSh-23L cannon plus bombs and/or rockets.
 * An-72R (also known as An-72BR): Prototype electronic intelligence (ELINT) aircraft, with conformal antenna fairings running up each side of the fuselage. Known as 'Aircraft 88' during development and erroneously known as An-88.
 * An-72-100: Demilitarized An-72.
 * An-72-100D: Demilitarized An-72S.
 * An-74: Arctic/Antarctic support model with room for five crew, increased fuel capacity, larger radar in bulged nose radome, improved navigation equipment, better de-icing equipment, and can be fitted with wheel-skis landing gear.

Civilian operators
In August 2006, in total, 51 An-72 and Antonov An-74 aircraft were in airline service. The major operators included Badr Airlines (three), and Shar Ink (eight). Some 17 other airlines operated this aircraft. Current civil operators:
 * Motor Sich Airlines: 1
 * Motor Sich Airlines: 1

Military operators
As of December 2021, 45 aircraft are in military service:
 * Angolan Air Force: 6
 * Air Force of the Democratic Republic of the Congo: 1
 * Kazakhstan Air Force: 1
 * Libyan Air Force: 1
 * Russian Aerospace Forces: 31
 * Russian Navy: 5
 * Ukrainian National Guard: At least 2
 * Libyan Air Force: 1
 * Russian Aerospace Forces: 31
 * Russian Navy: 5
 * Ukrainian National Guard: At least 2
 * Ukrainian National Guard: At least 2
 * Ukrainian National Guard: At least 2

Former military operators

 * Armenian Air Force
 * Armed Forces of Equatorial Guinea
 * Georgian Air Force
 * undefined
 * Libyan Air Force
 * Moldovan Air Force: 2
 * Peruvian Air Force: 2 (operated until late 1990s and sold to civilian market)
 * Soviet Union
 * Soviet Air Force
 * Moldovan Air Force: 2
 * Peruvian Air Force: 2 (operated until late 1990s and sold to civilian market)
 * Soviet Union
 * Soviet Air Force
 * Soviet Air Force

Accidents and incidents
, there have been 24 known accidents and incidents involving the An-72 or An-74; of these, the following involved fatalities:
 * CCCP-74002 attempted to take off from Lensk Airport overloaded with fish. All 13 human occupants died when it crashed 4 km from the airport.
 * An Antonov An-72 chase plane had a mid-air collision while following the Antonov An-70 prototype aircraft during a test flight. The collision caused the An-70 to crash into a forested area, killing all seven An-70 crew members. The An-72 lost a right wing flap, but it was able to return to base safely.
 * ER-ACF, an Antonov An-72 disappeared on a cargo flight from Port Bouet Airport, Côte d'Ivoire to Rundu Airport, Namibia. The aircraft and its five crew members disappeared without a trace over the South Atlantic. The cause of the incident remains undetermined.
 * UR-74038 carrying food aid to Chad from Libya crashed in Cameroon, killing all 6 crew.
 * An Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Air Force An-72 crashed after takeoff from Mehrabad International Airport in Tehran, killing 37 of the 38 aboard.
 * An An-72 carrying Kazakhstani border patrol officials crashed in Shymkent, killing all 27 people on board.
 * An An-72 operated for the DRC Air Force with 4 crew and 4 passengers crashed in Congo; none survived.

title: Antonov An-72


text:
Talk:General Joseph Henry Pendleton

Text from Possible copyright infringement:

March 6

 * General Joseph Henry Pendleton and Joseph Henry Pendleton, from - Seth Ilys 15:52, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Site says that the information may be distributed and copyied. Small letters in the end of the welcome page. Muriel 19:03, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * The site says "Unless otherwise indicated, all information on this system is considered public information and may be distributed or copied." I am not sure if this is compatible with wikipedia and the GFDL, since the information isn't only being distributed and copied, but also editing and relicensed. Maximus Rex 22:33, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * OK. I must have missed that notice. Whoever restores them should make a note of the original source and its copyright status on the talk page. -- Seth Ilys 16:36, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Signature removed from article: "By Mark J. Denger California Center for Military History, State Military Reserve"

title: Talk:General Joseph Henry Pendleton


text:
Newton County

Newton County is the name of six counties in the United States. All except for Arkansas (and perhaps Mississippi) are named for Sgt. John Newton, a soldier of the American Revolutionary War who became a fictionalized hero. Many counties share a boundary with a Jasper County, named after Sgt. William Jasper, a similarly distinguished soldier.

The following counties are called Newton County:

title: Newton County


text: User talk:204.234.242.198

title: User talk:204.234.242.198


text:
Indian reserve

In Canada, an Indian reserve (reserve indienne) is defined by the Indian Act as a "tract of land, the legal title to which is vested in Her Majesty, that has been set apart by Her Majesty for the use and benefit of a band." Reserves are areas set aside for First Nations, one of the major groupings of Indigenous peoples in Canada, after a contract with the Canadian state ("the Crown"), and are not to be confused with Indigenous peoples' claims to ancestral lands under Aboriginal title.

Demographics
A single "band" (First Nations government) may control one reserve or several, while other reserves are shared between multiple bands. In 2003, the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs stated there were 2,300 reserves in Canada, comprising 28000 km2. According to Statistics Canada in 2011, there are more than 600 First Nations/Indian bands in Canada and 3,100 Indian reserves across Canada. Examples include the Driftpile First Nation, which like many bands, has only one reserve, Driftpile River 150. The Bear River First Nation, who govern Bear River 6, Bear River 6A and Bear River 6B, are one of many examples where a single government is responsible for more than one reserve.

In 2003, 60 percent of status Indians lived on reserves. Of the 637,660 First Nations people who reported being Registered Indians, nearly one-half (49.3%) lived on an Indian reserve. This proportion varies across the country.

Many reserves have no resident population; typically they are small, remote, non-contiguous pieces of land, a fact which has led many to be abandoned, or used only seasonally (as a trapping territory, for example). Statistics Canada counts only those reserves which are populated (or potentially populated) as "subdivisions" for the purpose of the national census. For the 2011 census, of the more than 3,100 Indian reserves across Canada, there were only 961 Indian reserves classified as census subdivisions (including the six reserves added for 2011). Some reserves that were originally rural were gradually surrounded by urban development. Montreal, Vancouver and Calgary are examples of cities with urban Indian reserves.

Governance
One band Chief and Council commonly administer more than one reserve, such as the Beaver Lake Cree Nation with two reserves or the Lenape people (in Canada incorporated as the Munsee-Delaware Nation), who occupy Munsee-Delaware Nation Indian Reserve No. 1. This consists of three non-contiguous parcels of land totalling 1054 ha within the Chippewas of the Thames First Nation 42 near Muncey, Ontario, which was formerly shared between them and the Chippewas of the Thames First Nation as a single parcel of land. Some reserves are shared by multiple bands, whether as fishing camps or educational facilities such as Pekw'Xe:yles, a reserve on the Fraser River used by 21 Indian bands that was formerly St. Mary's Indian Residential School and is an example of a reserve created in modern times. Another multi-band reserve of the Sto:lo peoples is Grass Indian Reserve No. 15, which is located in the City of Chilliwack and is shared by nine bands.

Treaties and reserves, 1763–1867
After the Royal Proclamation of 1763 but before Confederation in 1867, the Upper Canada Treaties (1764–1862 Ontario) and the Douglas Treaties (1850–1854 British Columbia) were signed. "Some of these pre-confederation and post-confederation treaties addressed reserve lands, hunting, fishing, trapping rights, annuities and other benefits." Governor James Douglas of British Columbia, which formally became a colony in 1858, also worked to establish many reserves on the mainland during his tenure, though most of these were overturned by successor colonial governments and later royal commissions once the province joined Confederation in 1871.

Constitution Act 1867
In 1867, legislative jurisdiction over "Indians and Lands reserved for the Indians" was assigned to the Parliament of Canada through the Constitution Act, 1867, a major part of Canada's Constitution (originally known as the British North America Act), which acknowledged that First Nations had special status. Separate powers covered "status and civil rights on the one hand and Indian lands on the other."

In 1870, the newly formed Dominion government acquired Rupert's Land, a vast territory in British North America consisting mostly of the Hudson Bay drainage basin that had been controlled by the Hudson's Bay Company under its Charter with the British Crown from 1670 to 1870. Numerous aboriginal groups lived in the same territory and disputed the sovereignty of the area. The Dominion of Canada promised Britain to honour the provisions of the Royal Proclamation of 1763 to "negotiate with its Amerindians for the extinguishment of their title and the setting aside of reserves for their exclusive use." This promise led to the Numbered Treaties.

Numbered treaties, 1871–1921
Between 1871 and 1921, through Numbered Treaties with First Nations, the Canadian government gained large areas of land for settlers and for industry in Northwestern Ontario, Northern Canada and in the Prairies. The treaties were also called the Land Cession or Post-Confederation Treaties. Treaty 1 is an agreement established August 3, 1871, between the Crown and various First Nations in southeastern Manitoba, including the Anishinaabe and the Swampy Cree tribes. Treaty 1 First Nations comprise the Brokenhead Ojibway Nation, Fort Alexander (Sagkeeng First Nation), Long Plain First Nation, Peguis First Nation, Roseau River Anishinabe First Nation, Sandy Bay First Nation and Swan Lake First Nation.

The Indian Act 1876
The rights and freedoms of Canada's First Nations people have been governed by the Indian Act since its enactment in 1876 by the Parliament of Canada. The provisions of Section 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867, provided Canada's federal government exclusive authority to legislate in relation to "Indians and Lands Reserved for Indians".

Wikwemikong Unceded Reserve on Manitoulin Island is subject to the Indian Act provisions governing reserves even though its lands were never ceded to the Crown by treaty.

Indian Act
The Indian Act gives the Minister of Crown–Indigenous Relations the right to "determine whether any purpose for which lands in a reserve are used is for the use and benefit of the band." Title to land within the reserve may be transferred to only the band or to individual band members. Reserve lands may not be seized legally, nor is the personal property of a band or a band member living on a reserve subject to "charge, pledge, mortgage, attachment, levy, seizure distress or execution in favour or at the instance of any person other than an Indian or a band".

Housing loans
While the act was intended to protect the Indian holdings, the limitations make it difficult for the reserves and their residents to obtain financing for development and construction, or renovation. To answer this need, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) has created an on-reserve housing loan program. Members of bands may enter into a trust agreement with CMHC, and lenders can receive loans to build or repair houses. In other programs, loans to residents of reserves are guaranteed by the federal government.

Provinces and municipalities may expropriate reserve land if specifically authorized by a provincial or federal law. Few reserves have any economic advantages, such as resource revenues. The revenues of those reserves that do are held in trust by the minister of Crown–Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada. Reserve lands and the personal property of bands and resident band members are exempt from all forms of taxation except local taxation.

Corporations owned by members of First Nations are not exempt, however. This exemption has allowed band members operating in proprietorships or partnerships to sell heavily taxed goods, such as cigarettes, on their reserves at prices considerably lower than those at stores off the reserves. Most reserves are self-governed, within the limits already described, under guidelines established by the Indian Act.

Due to treaty settlements, some Indian reserves are now incorporated as villages, such as Gitlaxt'aamiks, British Columbia, which like other Nisga'a reserves was relieved of that status by the Nisga'a Treaty. Similarly, the Indian reserves of the Sechelt Indian Band are now Indian government districts.

Public policy
Indian reserves play a very important role in public policy stakeholder consultations, particularly when reserves are located in areas that have valuable natural resources with potential for economic development. Beginning in the 1970s, First Nations gained "recognition of their constitutionally protected rights." First Nations' rights are protected by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. By 2002, (Valiente) First Nations had already "finalised 14 comprehensive land claims and self-government agreements, with numerous others, primarily in northern Canada and British Columbia, at different stages of negotiations." Land claims and self-government agreements are "modern treaties" and therefore hold constitutional status.

CEPA 1999
The Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA), "places aboriginal participation on par with federal ministers and the provinces in the National Advisory Committee." Among other things, CEPA clarified the term "aboriginal land" in 3 (1): "The definitions in this subsection apply in this Act. "aboriginal land" means (a) reserves, surrendered lands and any other lands that are set apart for the use and benefit of a band and that are subject to the Indian Act." Under sections 46–50 of the CEPA, Environment and Climate Change Canada's National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI) was initiated. NPRI is the inventory of "pollutants released, disposed of and sent for recycling by facilities across the country". The NPRI is used by First Nation administrations on reserves, along with other research tools, to monitor pollution. For example, NPRI data showed the Aamjiwnaang First Nation in Sarnia, Ontario, was "ground zero for Ontario's heaviest load of air pollution."

Water quality
By December 21, 2017, there were 67 long-term boil-water advisories that had been in effect for longer than a year. These are "public water systems managed by the federal government". There were also 18 communities that had "water issues for between two and 12 months."

According to statistics gathered by Health Canada and the First Nations Health Authority, in 2015, there were "162 drinking water advisories in 118 First Nation communities". In October 2015, Neskantaga First Nation reported that its "20-year boil-water advisory" was "the longest running drinking water advisory in Canada." Shoal Lake 40 First Nation was under an 18-year boil water advisory.

By 2006, nearly 100 Indian reserves had boil-water advisories and many others had substandard water. Ḵwiḵwa̱sut'inux̱w Ha̱xwa'mis First Nation, on Vancouver Island, had a boil-water advisory beginning in 1997. In October 2005, "high E. coli levels were found in the Kashechewan First Nation reserve's drinking water and chlorine levels had to be increased to 'shock' levels, causing skin problems and eventually resulting in an evacuation of hundreds of people from the reserve and costing approximately $16 million."

title: Indian reserve