text:
Talk:Mootness

Needed
Needed: what states allow appeals by prosecution after an acquittal in a criminal case? Ellsworth 21:29, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Moot point
Can we have the term 'Moot Point' link to this?

 * No, because it has different meanings in different parts of the world. --Concrete Cowboy 13:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone have a history of the word Moot? It sounds too funny to be a proper word. Like Bonkers.
 * try Wiktionary at link above, just added. --Concrete Cowboy 13:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, added now. --Concrete Cowboy 12:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 'Moot' has the same etymology as 'Meet' like a "meeting". The word 'Moot' was the anglo-saxon form of the old Germanic pre-christian word for a tribal or religious assembly. Nagelfar 04:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain why you added "moot point" to the lede? It does not seem right to me. When I read your edit summary, "→top: rather than revert the IP editor's GF edit, just add "moot point" to the opening sentence. Debold second instance of word "moot".", I spent a while trying to find a prior edit about "moot point" in the lede, before I understood that this was in response to this edit removing the boldface from the "Moot point" section of the article. But the article is not about "moot points," it's about "moot" and "mootness." Sure, that's one common way the word is used, and it has its own section, but it's not what the whole article is about. I do not think, editorially, it belongs in the lede. Especially not to solve a style question about how to style an individual section, rather than on its own merits. It seems like it was put there as a compromise, but not a proper one? jhawkinson (talk) 13:02, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was a bold edit: if you disagree you can revert and discuss per WP:BRD but thank you for asking questions first and shooting later.
 * I did it for a few reasons: first, moot point redirects here and so should be listed early, not lost in the body for the IP editor to misread it as an error; second, per WP:LEAD, the lead should summarise the main points of the body: we have a whole section on "moot point" so it should certainly be in the lead; third, the distinction between en-US and en-UK usage is a critical one for this topic and is probably one of the main reasons that people from this side of "the pond" visit this article and the text should provide an early response to that interest.
 * In response to your the article is not about "moot points," it's about "moot" and "mootness.", I disagree. Or to put it better, "moot point" is entirely on topic for "moot" and "mootness", indeed to me it is inseparable. If I had added something about moot halls or entmoot, you would be right to challenge, but "moot point" is an essential aspect of the concepts described in this article. Well it is in the UK, maybe not in the US.
 * Is that enough? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:01, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Mootness
The page is a good one and a valuable addition to WP. However, I take issue with the title. The word "mootness" is a neologism that has been back-formed from the notion of a "moot point", i.e. the idea (in law) that any further action would be entirely hypothetical, and therefore irrelevant. Finally, the phrase "moot court" is commonly used and understood in U.S. (as well as British) legal jargon. The verb form "to moot an idea", while correct in U.S. English, is quite uncommon.

While the word "mootness" does occur (e.g.) in Arizonans for Official English et al. v. Arizona et al. (520 U.S. 43 (1997)) (how ironic) written by Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg, and other cases (e.g.) Hicklin v. Orbeck (437 U.S. 518 (1978)) misuse the verb form of "moot", that does not establish the correctness of the word "mootness". If we go this direction, soon we'll have "mootfull", "mootitude", and "mootilicious".

I would suggest the page be renamed "Moot (Legal Jargon)" or "Moot Case (Legal)". You can then do a #REDIRECT from "mootness" and (?) everyone will be happy. -- Gnetwerker 18:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

 * I disagree. "Mootness" appears in 450+ Supreme Court opinions and thousands of circuit court opinions. 250,000+ Google hits. At some point, a new word just becomes a word. Mootness is there. Amcfreely 18:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Given the several-month lag time between my posting and your comments, I would say the resounding Wikipedia consensus is "don't care", which defaults to leaving it as it is. I would argue with you, however, that a word in the jargon of a field (whether legal or computing) stays jargon unless and until it enters the language more generally.  I don't think "mootness" has done so, unlike blog (e.g.). -- Gnetwerker 19:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

 * All News file on lexis: 1998 hits. I disagree that a word is jargon just because it's specialized. You would never hear "polymerize" in conversation, but that doesn't make a neologism. Amcfreely 02:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

 * A neologism is not the same as jargon. Neologisms last for decades or even centuries within their specialist domain without breaking into the general lexicon.  If I say "that problem is Order 'n'", that is computer science jargon, and has not broken into the general language, whereas (e.g.) "he's a black hole for information" is an example of a jargon word that crossed over.  I don't know what the test one way or the other would be, but I am sure that 2000 google hits isn't it. -- Gnetwerker 05:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

 * There were 250,000 Google hits. The 1,998 hits was the number of times "mootness" had been used in published news sources in the Lexis All News database. Amcfreely 06:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

My Federal Courts textbook has a chapter titled "mootness". Sure, you can argue it's "jargon", but there are lots of article in this encyclopedia on jargon - e.g. creampie. bd2412 T 07:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I have lost track of what we are arguing about. I am no longer proposing the page be renamed. Whether the word is or is not legal jargon is probably unimportant, though my Webster's does not consider it a word at all, even a jargon one. Have a mootiful, mootilicious afternoon. -- Gnetwerker 19:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

 * What a chutzpah, Gnet. I did coin the word "mootylicious"—and you not only use it freely, but you even misspell it... --JackLumber 22:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC) Mootness is found only in Webster's 3rd (the big, fat, unabridged one), defined as "the quality or state of being moot—used of an issue, question, or case before a court."

 * Aaarrggh -- a Jack Attack (tm)! My most humble obeisance, I stand in awe of your most impressively big ... dictionary :-) -- Gnetwerker 00:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the References
This article cites several examples. The examples, are in proper legal citation form; however, they do not tell a non-lawyer how to find the material other than by referring one to another Wikipedia article, which is not in accordance with the Verifiability Policy, in particular Self-Published Sources: "Articles and posts on Wikipedia or other open wikis should never be used as third-party sources." Further, they do not stand for the proposition, but only for examples of it. Supporting a Wikipedia article is far different from supporting a legal argument and using example cases smacks of Original Research, in particular Synthesis and possibly even citing oneself. Citation to law treatises would be more appropriate for Wikipedia than citation to an example case. Further, many items have no citation whatsoever. For example: In the U.S. federal judicial system, a moot case must be dismissed. The reason for this is that Article Three of the United States Constitution limits the jurisdiction of all federal courts to "cases and controversies". Thus, a civil action or appeal in which the court's decision will not affect the rights of the parties is beyond the power of the court to decide. I stand by my unreferencedtag.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 01:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

mute not a malapropism
The article currently claims, Due to the relatively uncommon usage of the word moot, this is sometimes rendered as the malapropism "mute point".

I don't think this is properly a malapropism. To the extent that "mute" and "moot" are homophones, it seems clearly not. Malapropisms are primarily about speech and so the substitution of an incorrect word has to be more than just spelling the word wrong.

If we say that "mute" and "moot" are pronounced differently (arguably), they still seem too close to each other to qualify as malapropisms. It's not like "electrical" vs. "electoral" or "reprehend" for "apprehend." It'd be my intention to remove the malapropism claim. jhawkinson (talk) 17:56, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree that it is not a malapropism, but there must be a name for this kind of faux pas. Rather than just delete it, could you be persuaded to do a word search and then replace it? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:20, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is a name, it's just wrong. This particular error does not occur in English very often. One could call them "misplaced homophones" or "improper homophones" or even "errant heterographs" but none of these terms is standardized. jhawkinson (talk) 18:57, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ jhawkinson (talk) 17:20, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

A malapropism is "the mistaken use of a word in place of a similar-sounding one." The use of the word mute in place of moot is by clear definition a malapropism, in the exact the same way that the use of "squash" in place of "quash" is a malapropism in a disturbingly increasing number of Internet news articles about legal proceedings. (In any case, I have never heard the word mute [MYOOT] pronounced the same as the word moot [MOOT.]) RyokoMocha FOR I AM NYARLATHOTEP, THE CRAWLING CHAOS!! 21:54, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Inappropriate page move.
A move like this should have been discussed prior to doing it, it is not uncontroversial. Yes, the concept of "mootness" has a particular meaning in US law that is not (afik) used in any other jurisdiction. In fact the term is very little used outside the US. The effect of this move is to change a simple name to a complicated one for the large majority of users, mostly in the US. While (as a British editor) I regularly challenge US assumptions being made on en.wiki, this one goes to the opposite extreme. I really don't see any justification for this change and believe that it should be reverted. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:01, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * My intention was instead of rewriting the article to globalize it, we just declare that the U.S. version and create a new article for the general term. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  18:27, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * yes, I had guessed as much. But had you proposed your planned change here first, you might have been advised that the term is very little used outside the USA and that there is no need for change. Look in the article, the amount of non-US material is very limited. So there was really no need to create a fork just for US readers who you would now deprive of awareness of how the rest of the world understands the term. IMO, the article was already proportionately globalised: most of the article reflected US practice because that is where the term is most used. Sufficient and appropriate recognition was given to usages elsewhere. I suggest strongly that you should revert this move. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:59, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Mootness


text:
Talk:Timeline of liberal parties in the Netherlands

I deleted the remarks on the Green Left. I read remarks by Femke Halsema on the leftist liberal position of her party, and her liberalism is certainly close to my liberalism, but there is not yet a sign that it is a position shared by most of the party, considering its socialist roots. Let's wait a while. --Gangulf 21:29, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As an active member of Green Left, I've been closely involved in this ideological discussion within the party. I think chances are good that it will set trough; there certainly is wide support for Halsema's remarks. It is all right with me to wait, though. Djadek 23:39, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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


text:
Emulation

Emulation may refer to:
 * Emulation (computing), imitation of behavior of a computer or other electronic system with the help of another type of system
 * Video game console emulator, software which emulates video game consoles

 * Gaussian process emulator, a special case of the Gaussian process in statistics
 * Surrogate model, a model which imitates or emulates a more complicated (usually in terms of computer simulation time) model.

 * ASC Emulation, a football club in Martinique
 * Emulation (observational learning), a theory of comparative psychology
 * Emulation Lodge of Improvement, a masonic lodge whose aim is to preserve masonic ritual as closely as is possible to that which was formally accepted
 * Socialist emulation, a form of competition that was practiced in the Soviet Union
 * Whole brain emulation, aiming at mind uploading

title: Emulation


text:
HMCS Chicoutimi

Several Canadian naval units have been named HMCS Chicoutimi.

 * HMCS Chicoutimi (K156) (I) was a Flower-class corvette that served with the Royal Canadian Navy during the Second World War; commissioned in 1940 and retired in 1945.
 * HMCS Chicoutimi (SSK 879) (II) is a Victoria-class submarine serving in the Canadian Forces since 1998; originally commissioned as HMS Upholder (S40).

Battle honours

 * Atlantic, 1941–44.

title: HMCS Chicoutimi


text:
Bodø Main Air Station

Bodø Air Station (Bodø hovedflystasjon) is a military air base of the Royal Norwegian Air Force (RNoAF) located in the town of Bodø in Bodø Municipality, Nordland county, Norway. It is home to the General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcons of the 331 and 332 Squadrons and a detachment of Westland Sea King search and rescue (SAR) helicopters of the 330 Squadron. Air defense is provided using NASAMS and RBS 70, with the battalion based at Bodin. About 1,000 employees work at the air station, of which 450 are conscripts. Operations at the air station are organized as the 132nd Air Wing, which includes the Norwegian Joint Headquarters at Reitan and a detachment of Sea Kings at Station Group Banak. Bodø serves as the main air station for Northern Norway and shares its 3394 m runway with Bodø Airport.

The first airfield was a simple wooden runway built in May 1940 by Allied forces during the Norwegian Campaign of World War II. The airfield was quickly bombed by the Luftwaffe, who chose to build a new airport in the same location. It remained in German use until 1945, when it was taken over by the RNoAF. Upgrading to North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) standards started in 1950, and fighters have been stationed at Bodø since 1955. Aircraft previously stationed are the F-84 Thunderjet, the F-86 Sabre and the F-104 Starfighter. The air station will be closed with the delivery of the F-35 Lightning II, and only the SAR detachment will remain.

World War II
The first military aircraft to land in Bodø was a Hansa-Brandenburg aircraft of the Royal Norwegian Navy Air Service which landed in July 1922. From the mid-1930s, regular seaplane flights were started from Bodø to Southern Norway. Two military Tiger Moth aircraft were sent from Trøndelag to scout the Bodø area for a possible site to land aircraft, and landed at Rønvikjordene. From 1935 additional aircraft missions were carried out to the area. In 1939 a plan for establishing airports in Nordland was made, which included a main air station at Bardufoss and five other smaller airport, including Rønvik. At the time of the break-out of World War II in Norway in April 1940, construction had yet to start. At the time both Germany and the United Kingdom believed that there was an airport in Bodø.

During the Norwegian Campaign the German troops were isolated in Narvik and the Allies decided to build an airport in the yet unoccupied Bodø area to allow air raids against German troops in a flanking maneuver in combination with Bardufoss Air Station. A 540 by airstrip made of peat and nets was built at Hernes in the course of twelve days in May. During construction German aircraft practice landing on the strip, flying just 10 m above. A detachment of the Royal Air Force's 263 Squadron with sixteen Gloster Gladiator aircraft was stationed at Bodø from 21 May and 46 Squadron with eight Hawker Hurricane. The aircraft were used for raids on German aircraft in Saltdalen and evacuate Allied soldiers in Rognan on 26 May. The following day, ten German Junkers Ju 87, escorted by four Messerschmitt Bf 110, bombed the airport. In the evening the Luftwaffe bombed not only the rest of the airport, but also the town.

German forces captured Bodø on 1 June and immediately started preparing for a new airstrip. By August a 900 m runway was finished and the work was completed by April 1941 with a 1200 by runway, in addition to various buildings. The need for the airport was both to counteract Allied raids and to allow reinforcements for a planned attack on the Soviet Union. At first fighters and reconnaissance aircraft were stationed at Bodø, but later also bombers. From January to April 1942 the Luftwaffe dispatched the 7th Squadron of the Jagdgeschwader 5 to Bodø, consisting of fifteen Messerschmitt Bf 109.

New squadrons, largely of Ju 87s, were stationed in Bodø. However, there were no Allied raids, so the aircraft were sent to the Murmansk Front. Throughout the war the Wehrmacht built "Festung Bodø", consisting of army, navy and air force installations, including starting work on a concrete runway to replace the wooden runway. From the fall of 1944, Bodø again received an increasing number of aircraft, as Germany moved their fleet northwards following Finnish capitulation. Up to forty fighters plus other aircraft were stationed at the airport. When Germany capitulated on 8 May 1945 there were thirty aircraft at the airport.

Reestablishment
Upon the German capitulation, the airport was taken over by the Norwegian Armed Forces. At first the airport was manned by Germans, but operations were quickly taken over by Norwegians. All but a few Fiesler Storch aircraft were destroyed by the RAF. The Air Force decided to keep the airport operational and stationed thirty men for its operation. It was mostly used as a layover for aircraft flying between Bardufoss and Værnes Air Station. During this period, the airport consisted of an officers' mess, two barracks, three hangars, a fire station, an air traffic control building and some smaller buildings. Some of the wood was used for reconstruction, and by 1948 the runway was 1000 by.

After the war, there was military agreement that Bardufoss should be the main air station for Northern Norway, and Bodø would not station any aircraft. The Air Force saw the strategic advantage of a second air station in Northern Norway, although it was at first the civilian needs for an airport that were most interested in an upgrade of Bodø. By 1949, internal notes within the Air Force were discussing the possibilities of moving the command center for the Air Force in Northern Norway to Bodø. During 1948, following incidents such as the Czechoslovak coup d'état of 1948, the Berlin Blockade and increased Soviet pressure on Finland, the Norwegian government increased military spending, and Norway became a founding member of NATO the following year.

Norway thus shifted its military strategy towards holding the country until allied forces could be dispatched. Northern Norway became a central part of this strategy because of NATO's north flank in the Norway–Soviet Union border, and Norway planned to have two fighter squadrons and one reconnaissance squadron in the north. The Ministry of Defense awarded NOK 3.7 million in 1950 to expand Bodø's runway to 2700 m, with construction starting in October. The rest of the air station was designed through a main plan which was completed on 30 July 1951. The civilian sector was placed north of the runway, on the town side, while the military sector was placed south.

The military expropriated the entire peninsula south of the runway. The location of the airport was at the time controversial, mostly because of expropriation of agricultural land. Alternative locations were considered such as at Straumøya and Fauskemyrene, but Bodø was preferred by civilian authorities because of its proximity to the town. Later, two other major concerns, which were not evident at the time, would arise. First, the air station's occupation of the central location meant that Bodø would spread out west-east, giving a less compact cityscape. Second, introduction of new aircraft would create significant noise pollution.

Funding was increased further from 1951, as it was considered as an advance on common alliance infrastructure, resulting in a further NOK 5.5 million for Bodø. The following year the government decided to acquire the F-84 Thunderjet, which required a 120 m longer runway than was being installed. Civilian traffic commenced on 12 May 1952. The first detachment of aircraft were stationed during the exercise Main Brace from 13 to 25 September, before the base was completed. Parliament decided in 1952 that Bodø would become the main air station for Northern Norway and that Air Force Command for Northern Norway would move from Bardufoss on 1 July 1953. The first aircraft to be stationed at Bodø was a Bell 47 in May 1954, and two new de Havilland Canada DHC-3 Otters from July. Bodø was found ready to host squadrons in 1955, and was allocated the 331 and 334 Squadrons of F-84Gs previously based at Sola Air Station. The 334 moved to Bodø in mid July, while 331 moved in late August. A ground-controlled approach system was installed at Bodø in 1955.

Parallel to the construction of the air station, air defense batteries were built at nine locations, including 88 mm batteries at Skipsholmen, Geitvågen, Landbruksskolen, Hernesskagen and Bestemorsenga. Several of these were upgrades of existing German installations. The air defense was completed in 1953. It became part of the Air Force in 1958, and L70 batteries were installed. Construction of a base at Bodin was completed in July 1954, which was used for training. From 1959, a troop of M24 Chaffee tanks were stationed at Bodin to strengthen the air defense. Housing for enlisted crew and their families was secured through prefabricated fourplexes which were built in town. Later, additional housing was constructed, in part through housing cooperatives. A network of radar stations was built throughout Northern Norway in the late 1950s. These were from 1956 headquartered at Hernes, which included one of two command and reporting centers for the region.

Cold War
The F-84s were replaced by the F-86 Sabre in mid and late 1958. During two periods in 1958 and 1959 the runway was extended further, and the aircraft were for these periods stationed at Bardufoss and Andøya Air Station. A support wing was transferred from Skattøra in 1959 and consisted of two Bell 47, two Sikorsky H-19 and five Otters. From 20 August 1960, the 334 Squadron replaced its F-86F with F-86K, which included radar and were thus better suited for reconnaissance. As there was need for additional fighters in Bodø, the 339 Squadron of F-86Ks was transferred from Gardermoen Air Station in September. With these realignments, the air station was rebuilt and expanded to handle more aircraft.

In case a war broke out between NATO and the Soviet Union, the fighter aircraft stationed in Bodø were to support NATO's Atomic Strike Plan, which would see US Strategic Air Command (SAC) bomber aircraft drop nuclear warheads over the base of the Soviet Northern Fleet. Norwegian fighter pilots trained on techniques for dropping nuclear bombs, but the battle plans called for them to be used for reconnaissance and precision bombing of radar and communications targets with conventional bombs. With the introduction of intercontinental ballistic missiles, SAC's interest for Bodø dwindled from 1959.

Norway agreed in 1955 that both US and UK reconnaissance flights could operate out of Bodø and other northern airports, given they not violate Soviet air space. American U-2 aircraft, used for high-altitude reconnaissance over Soviet territory, were first operated out of Bodø in 1958. The U-2 shoot-down on 1 May 1960, where the aircraft was heading for Bodø, had a severe negative impact on Norway's relations both with the Soviet Union and the United States. In the aftermath, Soviet First Secretary Nikita Khrushchev threatened to bomb Bodø Main Air Station as he regarded it as a strategic target. This was the first Soviet threat of targeting Norway with nuclear weapons.

SAC was given thirty days to withdraw its communications personnel from Bodø and prohibited allies from using Norwegian airports for flights in international airspace east of the 24th meridian east. Minister of Defense Gudmund Harlem withdrew on 18 February 1961, largely because of his lack of control over Colonel Vilhelm Evang at Bodø and his liberal permissions to US reconnaissance missions. Evang on his side had given permission largely because of misleading information from the Central Intelligence Agency regarding the nature of their missions.

The 332 Squadron switched to F-86K in 1962 and relocated a substantial portion of the Bodø aircraft. Squadrons 334 and 339 were merged in April 1963, with 334 responsible for operations and 339 for the technical aspects. 339 was closed later in 1963. On 7 August, the first thirteen F-104 Starfighters were delivered to Bodø. The increased noise, especially from use of afterburners during take-off, resulted in significantly more noise pollution in town and became a major concern among the residents. As the Sabres were used for interception, the Starfighters were at first used as fighter-bombers.

Bodø received a split strategic role during the 1960s. From Norway's point of view it was largely used to control the air space and intercept Soviet aircraft in Norway air space. Because of the Sabres' limited range, they were often deployed at Banak Air Station. For NATO, Bodø was largely a site for exercises and reinforcements in case of war. The 719 Squadron was created on 1 January 1966 and consisted of the four helicopters and five Otters which had previously been designated as the 7193 Support Wing. The newly created squadron received its first Bell UH-1 helicopter in late 1966 and the first de Havilland Canada DHC-6 Twin Otter in mid 1967. The Sabres were replaced by the F-5 Freedom Fighters from 1967. This involved a swap of roles, whereby the Starfighters took on the role as interception aircraft, and the Freedom Fighters, which lacked radar and advanced navigation equipment, took on the role as fighter-bombers.

The central command for Northern Norway was unified at Bodin from 1967, and moved into a new operations' center at Reita outside Bodø in 1971. International exercises and squadron exchanges became increasingly common throughout the late 1960s, with annual exercises in Bodø. A nearly annual visitor was the Royal Netherlands Air Force 314 Squadron as part of Allied Command Europe Mobile Force to protect NATO's northern flank. Most exercises were carried out during the fall and winter and was important for the air station to practice reception of allied reinforcements and flexible use of area. These included the Supreme Allied Commander Atlantic-organized land and amphibian Team-Work every fourth years from 1964, the annual Express under the Supreme Allied Commander Europe, Northern Wedding every fourth year from 1970, and Ocean Safari every other year from 1975.

The Ministry of Justice started the process of establishing a search and rescue service in the late 1960s. The plans to order ten Westland Sea Kings were passed by Parliament in 1970. The 330 Squadron was recreated on 25 April 1973 and based at Bodø. Three detachments were created, at Sola, Ørland and Banak. This allowed any part of the coast to be reached within ninety minutes. From the 1970s, NATO became increasingly concerned about protecting grounded aircraft for nuclear warfare and sixteen underground hangars were built between 1973 and 1975.

In an effort to rationalize operations and renew the fighter inventory, Norway took delivery of twenty-two used CF-104 Starfighters from the Royal Canadian Air Force. These were stationed with the 334 Squadron in order to exploit commonality with the F-104s already stationed in Bodø. Unlike the F-104, the CF-104 was built as a fighter-bomber, but radar was retrofitting before entering Norwegian service. The aircraft's primary role was naval bombardment. During larger exercises, the 334 Squadron would routinely relocate to Bardufoss. Bodø became one of nine co-located operating bases (COB), following an agreement between the Norwegian Armed Forces and the USAF in May 1974. This involved permanent storage of ammunition, parts and equipment, as well as a tighter organizational cooperation, with the USAF.

The Soviet Union built a steadily increasing military presence on the Kola Peninsula during the 1970s, leading to both a Norwegian and a NATO interest in strengthening Bodø. Soviet aircraft would routinely operate westward in international airspace in the Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea. The fighters at Bodø were therefore frequently scrambled to reconnaissance and intercept such aircraft, and were occasionally the first NATO aircraft to photograph new Soviet aircraft. Norway did not allow allied aircraft to carry out identification missions.

Norway chose to purchase the F-16 Fighting Falcon in 1975, with two of the four squadrons to be stationed in Bodø. The first F-16 was delivered to Bodø in February 1982 and the last CF-104 was retired on 22 April 1983. Bodø experienced an acute lack of pilots during the early in 1980s, and in 1984 there were more fighters than pilots. This was balanced with a lack of technicians. The deployment as COB was completed in 1985. The air force had originally planned during the 1970s to upgrade to the Roland II air defense system, but chose to install six I-Hawk batteries between 1985 1987. During the 1980s, both U-2 and SR-71 Blackbirds used Bodø as a reserve airport.

Later history
With an increasing allied presence on the northern flank, Bodø was set for a large NATO-financed upgrade starting in late 1989. Costing NOK 670 million, it included new underground hangars, 2000 m new taxiways, an extension of the parallel taxiway to 4000 m, a 1.8 ha apron, a new 1800 m parallel taxiway north of the runway, and filling in 40 ha of sea west of the airfield. The upgrades also included 43 underground hangars and a new fire station. The upgrades were completed in 1993 and were largely funded by NATO.

From 1990, the 719 Squadron replaced its helicopters with Bell 412. However, these were later moved to the 330 Squadron, with the 719 becoming a pure Twin Otter operator. Passenger transport was reorganized from 25 October 1992, whereby the military's charter flights were terminated and the military instead bought tickets with scheduled flights. As part of this reorganization, the military air terminal was closed and the service moved to the civilian terminal. In 1996 and 1997, the Hawk system was replaced with the Norwegian Adapted Surface-to-Air Missile System (NASAMS).

Following the 2008 decision to purchase the F-35 Lightning II, the Norwegian Armed Forces carried out an analysis of its air base structure. The military wanted to reduce the number of bases for the F-35 to one, with Bardufoss, Bodø, Evenes and Ørland being the prime candidates. Ørland, with an advanced base at Evenes, was selected because of its location centrally in Norway and its existing squadron of F-16s. The increased noise levels of the F-35 became a major concern during the evaluation of Bodø, as the air station's proximity to the town would create even higher levels of noise pollution. This would have required the runway to be moved southwestwards, incurring high costs. At the same time, Bodø lacked proper training areas and would give less flexibility in a forty-year perspective. This will cause Bodø Main Air Station to be closed, although the 330 Squadron detachment will remain.

Operations
The 330 Squadron has a detachment with three Westland Sea King Mk 43B helicopters at Bodø. They are part of the Norwegian Air Ambulance service, organized by the four regional health authorities. Medical personnel is provided by Nordland Hospital Trust, while the remaining personnel are military. The detachment flew 367 missions and 840 hours in 2009. The Sea Kings' primary role is for search and rescue (SAR) mission, with a portfolio northwards to central Troms and southward throughout Nordland. In SAR missions, the squadron operates under the management of the Joint Rescue Coordination Centre of Northern Norway located in downtown Bodø. The detachment's secondary responsibility is as an air ambulance, in which it is under management of Nordland Central Hospital.

Civilian sector

The Norwegian Aviation Museum is located on the premises of Bodø Airport. Bodø is also home to the Civil Aviation Authority of Norway and Bodø Air Traffic Control Center.

title: Bodø Main Air Station


text:
HMCS Chicoutimi (SSK 879)

HMCS Chicoutimi is a Victoria-class long-range hunter-killer (SSK) submarine of the Royal Canadian Navy, originally built and operated by the Royal Navy as HMS Upholder. Shortly after being handed over by the United Kingdom to Canada she was involved in a partial flooding incident which resulted in a fire at sea. The incident sparked a fierce debate over the value of the purchase of this group of second-hand vessels, as well as the handover inspection process. The subsequent investigation "determined the fire was caused by human, technical and operational factors, [and] the board cleared the commanding officer and crew of any blame." The submarine was repaired and entered Canadian service in 2015.

Design and description
As built the Upholder/Victoria class was designed as a replacement for the Oberon-class submarine for use as hunter-killer and training subs. The submarines, which have a single-skinned, teardrop-shaped hull, displace 2220 LT surfaced and 2455 LT submerged. They are 230 ft long overall with a beam of 25 ft and a draught of 17 ft.

The submarines are powered by a one shaft diesel-electric system. They are equipped with two Paxman Valenta 1600 RPS SZ diesel engines each driving a 1.4 MW GEC electric alternator with two 120-cell chloride batteries. The batteries have a 90-hour endurance at 3 kn. The ship is propelled by a 4.028 MW GEC dual armature electric motor turning a seven-blade fixed pitch propeller. They have a 200 LT diesel capacity. This gives the subs a maximum speed of 12 kn on the surface and 20 kn submerged. They have a range of 8000 nmi at 8 kn and 10000 nmi at snorting depth. The class has a reported dive depth of over 650 ft.

The Upholder/Victoria class are armed with six 21 in torpedo tubes. In British service, the submarines were equipped with 14 Tigerfish Mk 24 Mod 2 torpedoes and four UGM-84 Sub-Harpoon missiles. They could also be adapted for use as a minelayer. The submarines have Type 1007 radar and Type 2040, Type 2019, Type 2007 and Type 2046 sonar installed. The hull is fitted with elastomeric acoustic tiles to reduce acoustic signature. In British service the vessels had a complement of 7 officers and 40 ratings.

Refits and Canadian alterations
During the refit for Canadian service, the Sub-Harpoon and mine capabilities were removed and the submarines were equipped with the Lockheed Martin Librascope Submarine fire-control system (SFCS) to meet the operational requirements of the Canadian Navy. Components from the fire control system of the Oberon-class submarines were installed. This gave the submarines the ability to fire the Gould Mk 48 Mod 4 torpedo. In 2014, the Government of Canada purchased 12 upgrade kits that will allow the submarines to fire the Mk 48 Mod 7AT torpedoes.

These radar and sonar systems were later upgraded with the installation of the BAE Type 2007 array and the Type 2046 towed array. The Canadian Towed Array Sonar (CANTASS) has been integrated into the towed sonar suite. The Upholder-class submarines were equipped with the CK035 electro-optical search periscope and the CH085 optronic attack periscope, originally supplied by Pilkington Optronics. After the Canadian refit, the submarines were equipped with Canadian communication equipment and electronic support measures (ESM). This included two SSE decoy launchers and the AR 900 ESM.

Construction and career
The submarine was built for the Royal Navy as HMS Upholder (S40), the lead ship of the Upholder (2400) class of submarines, the second vessel to bear the name in the Royal Navy. The submarine was laid down by Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Ltd (VSEL) in February 1983 and launched on 2 December 1986. During construction, work on the submarine was delayed due to a labour strike. Upholder commissioned into the Royal Navy on 7 December 1990. Her commissioning was delayed due to a problem with the operation of the torpedo tubes, which had to be welded closed to prevent sea water entering the submarine.

Upholder was decommissioned on 29 April 1994 as a financial measure, following the end of the Cold-War and subsequent cancellation of the programme and amidst some controversy. The entire class was declared surplus to requirements in 1994.

Royal Canadian Navy
The British government was looking to discontinue the operation of diesel-electric boats and offered to sell Upholder and her sister submarines to Canada in 1993. The offer was accepted in 1998. The four boats were leased to Canada for US$427 million (plus US$98 million for upgrades and alteration to Canadian standards), with the lease to run for eight years; after this, the submarines would be sold for £1.

Problems were discovered with the piping welds on all four submarines, which delayed the reactivation of Upholder and her three sisters. Upholder was the last to be restored. When work commenced on the submarine, internal steelwork was found to be corroded, hull valves were cracked, air turbine pumps were defective, and equipment was missing that had been used to refit sister boat HMCS Corner Brook (ex-Ursula).

Upholder was renamed HMCS Chicoutimi, in honour of the city of Chicoutimi, Quebec (now a borough of the city of Saguenay).

October 2004 fire
Chicoutimi was the last of the newly renamed Victoria-class vessels to complete the refit and was handed over to Maritime Command on 2 October 2004 at Faslane Naval Base. Two days later, Chicoutimi set sail for her new home port at CFB Halifax in Nova Scotia.

On 5 October, Chicoutimi was running on the surface, through heavy seas 100 mi north-west of County Mayo, Ireland. Both hatches in the bridge fin lock-out chamber were left open and an estimated 2,000 litre of seawater entered the vessel. The seawater caused an electrical panel to short out, which in turn started a major fire and caused all power to cut out, leaving the submarine adrift. Nine crewmembers were affected by smoke inhalation and the submarine was left drifting without power in heavy seas.

The RNLI lifeboat Sam and Ada Moody, stationed on Achill Island, County Mayo was put on standby to assist, but was later stood down. An Irish Navy ship, LÉ Róisín, responded to the submarine's mayday signal and set out to assist it, but was seriously damaged by the rough seas and forced to return to harbour. The only other Irish Navy ships available to help, LÉ Aoife and LÉ Niamh were patrolling off Ireland's southern coast. At 2 p.m. local time, the Royal Navy frigate HMS Montrose (F236) and the auxiliary vessel RFA Wave Knight reached the crippled Chicoutimi, with an additional three British ships en route. LÉ Aoife later reached the area and took over coordination of the rescue and salvage efforts. Other British ships dispatched to assist the submarine were HMS Marlborough (F233) and RFA Argus, as well as a number of specialist vessels to handle the situation. The rough conditions in the North Atlantic were impeding efforts to rescue the surfaced Chicoutimi, and a former Canadian naval officer said of Chicoutimi that "[it's] not [a] good surface rider at all. It's by no means unsafe; it's just very uncomfortable."

Three of the crew were airlifted by a Royal Navy helicopter for medical treatment after their condition deteriorated. Its original destination was Derry, Northern Ireland, but the helicopter diverted to Sligo, Ireland after one crewman, Lieutenant (Navy) Chris Saunders, 32, became severely ill. The three crewmen were taken to Sligo General Hospital, where Saunders was pronounced dead. The other two were admitted to the hospital, where one was listed in "critical" condition and placed in the intensive care unit, while another was reported as being in a "stable" condition.

By the evening of 7 October, the weather had abated, and Chicoutimi was taken in tow by the HM Coastguard tugboat Anglian Prince to return to Faslane Naval Base in Scotland. The tow was later taken over by the United States Submarine Support Vessel MV Carolyn Chouest, which was able to increase the towing speed from 3 kn to 8 or, and reached Faslane on the evening of 10 October. Chicoutimi was escorted into the Royal Navy base by HMCS St. John's, a Canadian frigate which rushed across the Atlantic after the navy learned of the fire.

Following claims made in the Canadian media about the cause of the fire, blaming the United Kingdom for supplying an unsafe vessel, the situation was further exacerbated by controversial comments made by the UK's Secretary of State for Defence, Geoff Hoon. Hoon accompanied his condolences for Saunders with a proposal that the Royal Navy would charge Canada for the cost of the rescue while also stating that Canada as the buyer had to beware. In Canada, many Second World War veterans were outraged by his comments. As well as promoting speculation regarding problems with the Victoria class, the incident also sparked debate in Ireland over the country's lack of a rescue tug at that time.

After some repairs were made at Faslane, the Department of National Defence contracted Eide Marine Services to transport Chicoutimi aboard the submersible heavy lift ship Eide Transporter to Halifax. She departed Faslane on 13 January 2005 and arrived in Halifax on 1 February, where she was dry docked at HMC Dockyard for further work.

A year after the incident, a Canadian board of inquiry found that Chicoutimi was traveling on the surface with two hatches open so that crewmembers could repair an air vent on the submarine's conning tower, an issue that had not been addressed during the British refit of the vessel. An unexpected rogue wave arrived during this time and sent water down the open hatches. This partially flooded two compartments and created a short circuit in electrical connectors that the British had only applied one layer of waterproof sealant to, rather than the recommended three. The board of inquiry concluded that "a combination of human, technical and operational factors ... led to a tragic death", in the words of the-then Chief of the Maritime Staff Bruce MacLean, and that Chicoutimi's captain Luc Pelletier was not at fault. Sailors who fought the fire aboard the submarine suffered higher levels of post-traumatic stress syndrome and asthma in the years following the incident.

2009 transfer to Victoria
In April 2006 the Department of National Defence announced that repairs to Chicoutimi would be deferred until 2010 when the submarine was to undergo a previously scheduled two-year Extended Docking Work Period (refit).

From 2006 to 2008 the Department of Public Works and Government Services worked with the Department of National Defence (DND) to issue a Request for Proposal for the Victoria Class In-Service Support Contract Project (VISSC). The result of this RFP saw the VISSC awarded in June 2008 to the Canadian Submarine Maintenance Group (CSMG), a private-sector consortium led by Babcock Marine and Weir Canada Inc. The initial five-year contract for the VISSC will see CSMG establish a submarine maintenance and repair facility at DND's graving dock at CFB Esquimalt near Victoria, British Columbia. The DND graving dock is operated by Washington Marine Group as Victoria Shipyards Inc.

Under the terms of the VISSC, CSMG contracted Dockwise USA Inc to transport Chicoutimi from Halifax to Esquimalt. On 1 April 2009 Chicoutimi was loaded aboard the submersible heavy lift ship Tern in Bedford Basin. Tern departed Halifax on 5 April 2009 and arrived in Esquimalt on 29 April 2009 where Chicoutimi was transferred to the CSMG facility.

In January 2014 it was announced that Chicoutimi was repaired and was being prepared to be handed back over to the navy. However, the boat would be limited to shallow-water diving for the foreseeable future. It was announced on 28 September 2014 that the submarine began sea trials that would take seven-to-eight weeks to complete. On 7 December 2014 the Ottawa Citizen reported that HMCS Chicoutimi had completed her sea trials and was handed over to the Royal Canadian Navy on 3 December 2014. The boat was officially commissioned into the Royal Canadian Navy on 3 September 2015.

Operational service
In October 2015, Chicoutimi, along with HMCS Calgary (FFH 335) and HMCS Vancouver (FFH 331), participated in the United States Navy's Task Group Exercise, a naval exercise held off southern California. In 2015, problems with welds were discovered aboard Chicoutimi and sister boat Victoria. Both submarines were docked to undergo repairs and Chicoutimi began training exercises in December 2016.

In May 2017, Chicoutimi returned to port after problems arose with the main battery while conducting operations at sea. On 15 June 2017, while Chicoutimi was docked at CFB Esquimalt, the Orca-class patrol vessel Cougar struck the submarine as it was exiting the dockyard. The initial inspection following the collision showed only superficial damage to the protective gear around the submarine. To deal with the ongoing battery issues aboard Chicoutimi, the main battery was transferred from sister boat Victoria. On 7 October 2017, CBC News reported that Chicoutimi had been sent on a first-ever operational patrol to Asia. Chicoutimi made a port visit to Yokosuka, Japan while deployed to Asia, marking the first time in 50 years a Canadian submarine has visited the country. The submarine was deployed off the coast of North Korea recording airport departures and arrivals and monitoring sea traffic. The submarine returned to CFB Esquimalt on 21 March 2018.

HMS Upholder (S40)
The precursor of Upholder (S40) was HMS Upholder (P37). In 1941 Upholder (P37) was granted a badge which contained a caryatid. The ship's captain, Lieutenant Commander Malcolm Wanklyn, described the badge as "an armless Greek bint standing in a dustbin"; and designed his own unofficial badge for the ship. Upholder (S40) originally sailed under the earlier Upholder's official badge, yet was allowed to sail under the badge designed by Wanklyn.

HMCS Chicoutimi (SSK 879)

The badge's blue and white "V" is in reference to the Victoria-class submarines and the colours of Quebec. The bear represents the bears which are indigenous to the Chicoutimi area. The bear protects a fleur-de-lis and stands upon waves; representing the lakes and rivers in the Chicoutimi region as well as the maritime environment in which the submarine operates.

The badge of Chicoutimi is blazoned: "Azure in front of a pile argent bordered throughout by a letter 'V' also argent fimbriated azure surmounting three bars wavy in base argent a bear rampant sable holding in the forepaws a fleur-de-lis azure."

The colours of Chicoutimi are blue and white. The motto of Chicoutimi is maître du domaine, which translates into English as "master of the domain".

title: HMCS Chicoutimi (SSK 879)


text:
FN Model 1949

The Fabrique Nationale Model 1949 (often referred to as the FN-49, SAFN, or AFN (automatic rifle version) is an autoloading battle rifle designed by Belgian small arms designer Dieudonné Saive in 1947. It was adopted by the militaries of Argentina, Belgium, the Belgian Congo, Brazil, Colombia, Egypt, Indonesia, Luxembourg, and Venezuela. The selective fire version produced for Belgium was known as the AFN.

While well regarded for its high build quality and reliability in comparison to the rifles of the time, its marketability was limited, as it was not developed in time for use in World War II but later, as many militaries had already begun the switch to selective fire battle rifles. About half of FN-49s were produced as selective fire automatic rifles, but the small 10 round box magazine limited the usefulness of the fully automatic feature.

The FN-49 found itself in direct competition with a number of more modern rifles such as the Heckler & Koch G3 and Fabrique Nationale de Herstal's own FN FAL, resulting in limited sales.

Development
Dieudonne Saive, Fabrique Nationale's then chief firearm designer, experimented with a number of recoil-operated rifle designs in the early 1930s. While little came of these experiments, they would become the basis for a gas-operated semi-automatic rifle, which he patented in 1936 and prototyped in 1937. (Photographs of these prototypes still exist, and they show a number of characteristics that would later appear in the FN-49.)

FN's new rifle was still in development in late 1938 – early 1939, and a version with a 5-round magazine was about to be marketed. When German armies invaded Poland, these plans were delayed to increase production of bolt-action rifles and machine guns.

The German invasion of Belgium in May 1940 interrupted any plans for the production of the new model, as Liège, home of FN's factory, was occupied by the German military. Despite this setback, Saive was able to escape to England via Portugal in 1941, where he continued work on what would become the FN-49.

By 1943, Saive was back to working on his experimental rifle, now in 7.92×57mm Mauser. Late that year, the Royal Small Arms Factory, Enfield ordered 50 prototypes (designated "EXP-1" and sometimes referred to as "SLEM-1" or "Self-Loading Experimental Model"). Based on tests with these prototypes, Enfield placed an order for 2,000 rifles for troop trials, but a last-minute problem with the moderation of the gas pressure (as well as the impending end of World War II) led to the cancellation of this order. Despite this, Saive (who had returned to Liège shortly after its liberation in September 1944) continued work on the rifle, and finalized the design for the FN-49 in 1947.

The FN Model 1949 is not ammunition specific, since it has an adjustable gas port or valve to adjust the rifle to various propellant and projectile specific pressure behavior, in which the gas port can be adjusted with a special wrench. This also requires removing the upper forward handguard for the adjustment.

Production lifetime

The contracts for the SAFN 1949 rifle started in 1948 with the first order placed by Venezuela on March 31, 1948, delivered exactly four months later. The last production contract of complete rifles was ordered by Indonesia on December 19, 1960 and delivered by February 19, 1961.

Some sources claim pre-production models for demonstration and testing were produced in 1948, making rifle ready for contract orders and mass production. Other sources however claim the rifle was trialed with the Royal Netherlands Navy in 1947, The Netherlands Navy trials did not however lead to a sales contract.

FN started looking for customers, but the communist states were not an option (as they were required to buy or build Soviet designs). The Western European nations had vast stocks of World War II firearms. They also could get American and British weapons aid, which was inexpensive or free. So FN decided to market to the non-aligned countries, who did not want to commit to Western or Soviet doctrine, which was inevitable when accepting aid.

The first contract production of the SAFN 1949 rifle was delivered to Venezuela by May 31, 1949. It composed of 2,000 rifles in caliber 7×57mm Mauser, with an additional 2,012 rifles including cut-away training demonstration rifles delivered by July 31, 1949. The remaining rifles of the Venezuelan contract of 8,012 rifles were sold as surplus in the United States, and are prized by US collectors, sportsmen, and hunters because of the unique features ordered by Venezuela, the general good to excellent condition of the surplus rifles, and the superb accuracy of the 7×57mm Mauser cartridge.

The second contract was for the Egyptian government, consisting of 100 rifles chambered to fire the 7.92×57mm Mauser cartridge (also popularly known as 8mm Mauser). It was ordered on May 30, 1948 and delivered by June 10, 1949. While initially a small contract delivery, Egypt would eventually purchase 37,602 SAFN 1949 rifles total.

The third contract was ordered by the Belgian government, starting with thirty test rifles on May 12, 1949, received on August 31, 1949, and a second larger order for 100 test rifles delivered by December 12, 1949. The Belgians would make a contract for production of the SAFN 1949 rifle on August 24, 1950 for 6,000 rifles in caliber .30-06 Springfield. The Belgians designated the rifle as the ABL SAFN-49, ABL is an acronym for the Belgian Army in both French and Dutch; "AB" for the French "Armée Belge" and "BL" for the Dutch "Belgisch Leger". The contracts for the SAFN 1949 rifle made by FN for Belgium totaled 87,777 rifles total, composing almost half of all FN-49 rifles ever produced. A selective fire version, known as the AFN was produced for the Belgian military. It is sometimes stated that all the ABL weapons were either built as a selective fire automatic rifle or that all could be readily convertible to selective fire automatic rifle. The AFN was also used by the Marines of the Belgian Navy or ZM-FN. (Zeemacht - Force Navale).

Luxembourg was the fourth country to order the SAFN 1949 rifles, with the first order placed on October 4, 1950 and taking possession of the first 1,500 rifles by May 5, 1951. The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg would eventually purchase a total of 6,306 rifles, including rifles specifically for Luxembourg's Gendarmerie, which were FN-49s that comprised standard models, training cut-away rifles, and sniper variants, all in caliber .30-06 Springfield. The Luxembourg models, except for the Gendarmerie contract, were sold as surplus in the United States. Some were distributed to purchasers in larger US chain retail outlets. The Luxembourg models are sought after for two reasons: first, because of the particularly good condition of the Luxembourg surplus rifles; and second, because these FN-49 rifles were chambered for the .30-06 Springfield, a cartridge popular in the US sport shooting and hunting communities. Very few .30-06 FN-49 rifles from other contracts have been imported into the United States, making the Luxembourg rifles the only affordable option for an FN-49 in that caliber.

Indonesia, the Belgian Congo, and Colombia would make up the fifth to seventh contracts, all produced in caliber .30-06 Springfield.

Argentina requested the eighth contract, ordering 5,536 SAFN 1949 rifles in caliber 7.65×53mm Argentine on July 29, 1953 for use by the Argentine Navy after an initial order of one test rifle in 1948.

Several prototypes were made in other calibers, including at least five in 6.5×55mm Swedish for testing in Sweden, one in caliber 7.5×54mm French for testing in Syria, one in caliber .30-06 Springfield for testing in the United States, and one in caliber 7.62×51mm NATO for testing in Brazil.

A very small yet unknown quantity of commercial rifles chambered in .30-06 were imported to the US and Australia by Browning some time during the 1960s. These rifles are incredibly rare and few examples have been documented. They are configured with a polished checkered stock with a rollover cheek piece and side mount.

Argentinian modification
Contrary to some speculation, FN did not contract or produce the Argentine conversion of SAFN 1949 rifles from 7.65×53mm Argentine to 7.62×51mm NATO. While FN did receive and then later deliver an order for a conversion of a single rifle in March 1967, the remaining armory stock of the Argentine rifles were converted domestically by Metalúrgica Centro, a company formerly known as Fábrica de armas Halcón. Metalúrgica Centro provided and installed in each rifle a new barrel in 7.62×51mm NATO, modified each ejector, and modified each trigger guard to take a new 20 round detachable box magazine. The converted rifles were provided with proprietary 20 round detachable box magazines manufactured by Metalúrgica Centro to fit the SAFN 1949 rifle conversions. The 20 round steel magazines are proprietary, but were made to share the magazine loading charger with the FN FAL rifle used by the Argentine Army. These chargers are the same as for the Mauser Kar-98k, and thus not interchangeable with standard NATO stripper clips. These are very inexpensive via surplus dealers. Not only are Mauser 98 stripper clips not interchangeable with 7.62×51mm NATO standard, but also not with old 7.65×53mm Argentine versions.

A very small number were later used in the Falklands War as sniper rifles by the Argentinians.

Surplus Argentine rifles function quite well, but many imported magazines were poorly cut down to 10 rounds due to US import restrictions.

Some US collectors have been able to modify BAR 1918 and MG13 magazines to fit the original caliber rifles. However, the quality varies heavily with these mag conversions, ranging from some simply being extended internal magazines without last round bolt hold-open to those with fully detachable magazines and working bolt catch (the latter requiring the receiver feed lips and trigger guard modifications the Argentinian .308 weapons have).

Users

 * 🇦🇷 Argentina
 * 🇧🇪 Belgium
 * 🇧🇷 Brazil
 * 🇨🇴 Colombia
 * Democratic Republic of the Congo
 * 🇪🇬 Egypt
 * 🇪🇹 Ethiopia
 * 🇮🇩 Indonesia
 * 🇱🇺 Luxembourg
 * 🇸🇴 Somalia SAFN variant from FN
 * 🇻🇪 Venezuela
 * Zaire

Similar weapons

 * SVT-40
 * SKS
 * MAS-49 rifle
 * Ag m/42
 * Hakim rifle
 * Rasheed Carbine
 * Gewehr 43
 * M1 Garand
 * vz. 52 rifle

title: FN Model 1949


text:
Talk:Seetal railway line

Old VfD

 * The following discussion is closed. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

from VfD:

Another useless "translation" by pumpie. He's been very busy, though. --Voyager ch 21:33, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Rhymeless to the rescue again. Keep corrected version. Average Earthman 11:51, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Ah, it's a pumpie product. That explains much. I was looking at it, and saw nothing to merit deletion. Good work, Rhymeless. Keep. DS 14:16, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Needs cleanup, not deletion. Factitious 06:58, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Appears to be fixed. [[User:Rhymeless|Rhymeless | (Methyl Remiss)]] 07:46, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Intrigue 18:17, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Every single trace of Babelfish nonsense has now been removed. No need to delete it anymore. --Voyager ch 00:06, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

title: Talk:Seetal railway line


text:
Lollianus

Lollianus (sometimes rendered in English as Lollian) is a Roman personal name which may refer to many figures of classical antiquity, including:

 * Ulpius Cornelius Laelianus (Laelian), sometimes incorrectly called "Lollianus", emperor of the Gallic Empire in 269.
 * Lucius Hedius Rufus Lollianus Avitus, consul in consul AD 114.
 * Lucius Hedius Rufus Lollianus Avitus, consul in AD 144.
 * Quintus Hedius Rufus Lollianus Gentianus, suffect consul around AD 187.
 * Publius Hordeonius Lollianus, 2nd century philosopher and orator
 * Quintus Flavius Maesius Egnatius Lollianus Mavortius, consul in 355 AD.
 * Lollianus, 2nd century writer and author of the Phoinikika (Phoenician Tales).
 * St. Lollianus, one of the Seven Martyrs of Samosata, crucified with Saint Hipparchus and Philotheus, Abibus, James, Paregrus and Romanus by the emperor Maximian in 297.

title: Lollianus


text:
Talk:Lenzburg Castle

VfD Discussion
sigh... Pumpie again... i'm running out of sarcastic comments... --Voyager ch 21:37, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Keep. This one in particular seems notable enough. As the maxim goes, VfD is not cleanup. Cool Hand Luke  02:28, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Keep. Needs cleanup, not deletion. Factitious 06:58, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Intrigue 18:17, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Send to Clean Up. By rights, Pumpie should have to do the cleaning, but I suspect that's a lost cause.  Switzerland-high?  Pumpie high. Geogre 21:15, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

Cleanup Work Space
I need the help of someone who knows German to translate some of the words here:

Landvogtei
The Landvogtei became the office and house of the Bernese Landvoegte. An older structure was destroyed in 1518 by a fire. Over the dreigeschossigen building there is a Treppengiebel. The triangular stair tower, built in the 17th century was attached outside, replaced by a steeper staircase inside the building. In the Landvogtei a museum was furnished, which the housing tradition of the owners in the late-Middle Ages up to the 20th century shown.

North wing
In the place of a guard and a wash house was built between 1672-1674 as a new Landvogtei. The old Landvogtei had become by the building of the ostbastion too damp and was not habitable any longer. Today the museum administration is accommodated.

Palace
The entrance was for safety reasons something lain over the soil and only over wood stairs attainable. At present that Landvoegte was Bernese Folterkammer accommodated. Today lies a Café.

Knight's House
The building began under habsburger rule in 1340. Where the Duke Friedrick II of Austria married the daughter of king Edward III. Unfortunately it was never added, because the young duke still died before the completion of the knight house in the year 1344. The two areas of the knight house today are used for donation the "Schloss Lenzburg" and can be funded for festive causes rented for social events.

The Backyard
1599/1600] ] was established at the north side of the [[Ökonomiebau, the Hintere Haus, lit. the rear house. It is today designed after Philipp Albert Stapfer, one of the revolutionary and minister of the Helveti republic.  From 1822 to 1853 led reforms in paedagogue] and Pestalozzi a friend of Christian Lippe of the institure Bildungsinstitut, in whom after at that time most progressive educational principles wereinformed.  Today the backyard serves as a meeting center with various cultural activities.  Regularly exhibitions take place to current contemporary history.

 * Very belatedly, all done. In the meantime it had become a Good Article on de.wikipedia and the situation with the museum had evolved. This article should have been placed in the Rough Translations category but presumably antedates it. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lenzburg Castle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110519085706/http://www.ag.ch/lenzburg/en/pub/ to http://www.ag.ch/lenzburg/en/pub/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:14, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Lenzburg Castle


text:
User:Andrewdrake

Hi. I'm Andrew Drake.

My main website is http://toastcrumbs.com.

title: User:Andrewdrake


text:
Iliamna Lake

Iliamna Lake or Lake Iliamna (Yup'ik: Nanvarpak; Dena'ina Athabascan: Nila Vena) is a lake in southwest Alaska, at the north end of the Alaska Peninsula, between Kvichak Bay and Cook Inlet, about 100 mi west of Seldovia, Alaska. It shares a name with the Iliamna River, which flows into it, and the nearby community of Iliamna, Alaska.

It is the largest lake in Alaska, 7th largest lake in the United States, and twenty-fourth in North America. Covering about 2,600 km2, Iliamna Lake is 77 mi long and up to 22 mi wide, with a maximum depth of 988 ft. Through the Kvichak River, its waters drain into Bristol Bay.

Name
The lake is marked as 'Oz[ero] Bol[shoy] Ilyamna' (Big Ilyamna Lake) on the Russian Hydrographical Department's Chart 1455, published in 1852. On an earlier Russian map, from 1802, the lake was named 'Oz[ero] Shelekhovo' (Lake Shelekov) after Russian explorer Grigory Shelekhov. According to G.C. Martin, of the United States Geological Survey, Iliamna is said to be "the name of a mythical great blackfish supposed to inhabit this lake, which bites holes in the bidarkas of bad natives."

The name Iliamna is derived from the Inland Dena'ina Athabascan name Nila Vena, which means island's lake.

Williamsport-Pile Bay Road portage
Originally constructed by the Alaska Road Commission during the mid 1930s, the Williamsport-Pile Bay Road is a utility-class road maintained by the Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities. Connecting Pile Bay on the lake's northeast side with Williamsport, a tiny settlement on the Iliamna Bay of Cook Inlet (about 100 mi southwest of Homer), the road is 15.5 mi long and one lane wide with four bridges. The Williamsport-Pile Bay Road is maintained as a gravel utility road for the purpose of hauling boats and freight, and is not intended for general purpose use. The road allows boats small enough to be hauled across the road's bridges an opportunity to portage from Cook Inlet to Bristol Bay, saving a trip on the open ocean which involves traveling around the Alaska Peninsula. For this and other reasons, the road is also believed to significantly reduce fuel costs for the Lake Iliamna and Bristol Bay regions.

Populated places
The villages of Iliamna, Newhalen, Kokhanok, Pedro Bay, Pope-Vannoy Landing and Igiugig lie on the shores of Iliamna Lake.

Flora and fauna
Iliamna Lake is noted for its sport fishing. The three primary targets of anglers in the lake are trout, salmon, and grayling. August through September is prime time for catching fat rainbow trout, some of which exceed 28 inches long. The Kvichak River Policy (the drainage of Lake Iliamna) is catch and release on trout (and all other native fish), but not on salmon. Sockeye (red) and Chinook (king) salmon are consistently found in the lake and are open to harvest under Alaska Department of Fish and Game Regulations. Lake Iliamna also has one of few populations of freshwater seals in the world. It also serves as a nursery for the largest red salmon run in the world. Red salmon spend half of their 5-year lifespan in fresh water. This is longer than any other species of salmon.

Monster Legend
Local residents have a number of stories about the alleged Iliamna Lake Monster, an unknown aquatic creature. Speculation exists that reported sightings may be of an undocumented population of white sturgeon. If true, this would be the most northerly population known to exist, just a few hundred miles from the Arctic Circle. Jeremy Wade, presenter of Animal Planet's River Monsters, is among those who speculate these sightings of a reputed "monster" are of a white sturgeon. Others believe that it is a Pacific sleeper shark. Evidence of this is corroborated by a 2012 YouTube video that shows a smaller Pacific sleeper shark in Lake Iliamna. There were several new sightings in 2017. The Anchorage Daily News once offered a prize of $100,000 for concrete proof of its existence.

title: Iliamna Lake