text:
Airport Express (MTR)

The Airport Express is one of the ten lines of the Hong Kong MTR system. It links the urban area with Hong Kong International Airport and the AsiaWorld–Expo exhibition and convention centre.

It is the only rail link to the airport. It runs parallel to the Tung Chung line, a rapid transit line, from Hong Kong station to just south of the channel between Lantau Island and Chek Lap Kok island, on which the airport was constructed. The line continues to the airport and terminates at AsiaWorld–Expo. The Tung Chung line terminates in the adjacent Tung Chung new town, with bus service to various areas at the airport, including the passenger terminals.

The journey from Hong Kong station to the airport takes 24 minutes. The line is coloured teal on MTR system maps.

History
In October 1989, the Hong Kong government decided to replace the overcrowded Kai Tak Airport, located in Kowloon, with a new airport to be constructed at Chek Lap Kok. The government invited the Mass Transit Railway Corporation to build an express line to the airport. The project began when the Chinese and British governments settled the financial and land agreements in November 1994.

During the construction, the consultants for the Lantau Airport Railway, such as Arup, Halcrow, Meinhardt, Hyder Consulting, and others.

The Lantau Airport Railway was developed as two separate MTR lines, the Tung Chung line and the Airport Express, with the two lines sharing tracks in some sections. It cost HK$35.1 billion. The Airport Express began service on 6 July 1998, the opening date of the new Hong Kong International Airport. The line initially terminated at Airport station and the entire journey time was 23 minutes.

With the opening of Sunny Bay station on the Tung Chung line in June 2005, the total journey time between the Airport and Hong Kong stations was increased to 24 minutes. With the opening of AsiaWorld–Expo, the line was extended to AsiaWorld–Expo station on 20 December 2005 and a journey on the entire route takes 28 minutes.

Route
The Airport Express line runs from Hong Kong station in Central. It crosses beneath Victoria Harbour before stopping at Kowloon station, which was built on reclaimed land. The line then runs along the western side of the Kowloon peninsula, crosses over the Rambler Channel rail bridge to Tsing Yi, and stops at Tsing Yi station. The line continues on the Lantau Link and runs parallel to the North Lantau Highway to Airport station before terminating at AsiaWorld–Expo station.

The line shares tracks with the Tung Chung line only in the cross-harbour tunnel and from the Lantau Link through the split before reaching the airport island. The two lines have their own tracks and platforms at all stations.

Features
The Airport Express offers more spacious and comfortable trains and stations than other MTR services. On the trains, there are luggage racks next to each door, and each seat is equipped with in-seat loudspeakers for current news, advertisements and announcements shown on LCD televisions in front.

In-town check-in
The Airport Express provides In-Town Check-In at the Hong Kong station, where passengers on flights with Cathay Pacific can receive boarding passes and check in their baggage before heading to the airport bags-free. Each train has a special baggage container car and the checked baggage is scanned in bulk by a Mechanised Automatic Explosive Detection System. In-town check in was offered for a greater variety of airlines at both Hong Kong and Kowloon stations, but this has been partially suspended due to the Covid-19 pandemic travel disruptions.

Baggage trolleys, wide fare gates, and free porter service are available at all stations except AsiaWorld–Expo to assist passengers with baggage.

Shuttle bus service
The Airport Express Shuttle Bus was a free service provided exclusively for Airport Express passengers at Hong Kong or Kowloon stations, connecting them with major hotels in the Western District though Quarry Bay on Hong Kong Island and the Yau Tsim Mong District and Hung Hom station in Kowloon. Before boarding, proof of eligibility had to be shown, including Airport Express train ticket (Single Journey, Same Day Return, Round Trip, Airport Express Travel Pass), Airline ticket / boarding pass, Airport Staff Octopus card, AsiaWorld–Expo entry pass or event ticket. This service was discontinued from 30 June 2020 due to low ridership caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

On-board WiFi and charging service
WiFi is available on all Airport Express cars, while charging service are assigned on first and last cars. USB and electric socket are provided for charging mobile electronics.

Graphic identity
The Airport Express visual identity, which includes the logo, vehicle livery, signage, route maps and passenger information, was created in 1999 by Lloyd Northover, the British design consultancy founded by John Lloyd and Jim Northover.

Fare structure

Fares on the Airport Express are substantially higher than main line fares; a separate fare system is used for this line. Single trip or same-day return trips between the Hong Kong, Kowloon and Tsing Yi stations to Airport station cost HK$115, HK$105 and HK$70 respectively. Return tickets within 30 days cost HK$205, HK$185, and HK$120 respectively. Tickets are available at all MTR stations and the MTR online booking service. Although no entry gates are provided at Airport station, passengers must still buy tickets from the ticket machines located in the Arrivals Hall, on platform 1 of the airport before boarding the train or at destination platforms.

Various discounts and rewards programmes are available, such as Group Ticket Discount, free taxi connections, Rewarding programme, Asia Miles programme, etc. Passengers may also buy discounted tickets from local travel agents. Discounts are available for groups of two to four people. Hong Kong residents can also obtain discount coupons, such as those sent from credit card companies. Discounted fares are available to airport staff to encourage commuting on the Airport Express.

Same-day return discount will be given to Octopus card users who have stayed in AsiaWorld–Expo for at least one hour. The discounted fare costs HK$72, HK$64, and HK$42 from Hong Kong, Kowloon, and Tsing Yi stations respectively, and includes a free connection with other MTR lines. A single trip from the Airport to AsiaWorld–Expo is HK$5.

Given their separate fare structure, Airport Express journeys require an out-of-system transfer if coming from or going to other MTR lines that call at the same or connected stations (e.g. coming from Central towards Hong Kong station or transferring between Airport Express and Tung Chung line trains). However, Airport Express passengers using Octopus cards can connect with all other MTR lines for free in conjunction with the Airport Express journey within one hour of arrival at an Airport Express station.

In March 2010, the MTR began to replace the magnetic tickets used for single, group, and multiple journey tickets with new "smart tickets" that contain a memory chip. The new system was in full operation by 5 June 2010.

Due to the high fares and small catchment areas of the Airport Express stations, some travellers may instead choose to either use the cheaper, local Tung Chung line combined with a bus route, or make their entire journey by bus. Patronage on the Airport Express is cannibalised by the Tung Chung line running mostly on the same track.

Morning Express Service
The Morning Express Service is a special promotional service, allowing passengers from Tsing Yi and Kowloon stations to travel to Hong Kong station to get to work daily (excluding Sundays and public holidays) from 7am to 10am for HK$20.

Operation and stations
Before the COVID-19 pandemic, Airport Express services operated every 10 minutes from the start of service (05:54 from Airport and 05:50 from Hong Kong) and every 12 minutes from 23:28 (from Airport) and 00:00 (from Hong Kong) until the last service 00:48. Train service is currently reduced until further notice as passenger ridership has yet to completely recover. As of 5 November 2022, train services run every 15-20 minutes throughout the day.

The Airport Express, along with other MTR metro lines, is monitored by the Operations Control Centre in Tsing Yi.

Rolling stock
The Airport Express is served by 11 CAF-Stock trains built and assembled by Construcciones y Auxiliar de Ferrocarriles in Spain while Adtranz contributed control and traction equipment. These trains were made up of seven cars until 2003. To cope with the extra traffic demand derived from the opening of AsiaWorld-Expo station, an additional car was added to each train to form a total of eight cars. If future demand increases, trains on the AEL are capable of running with ten cars. In service, the trains travel at a maximum speed of 135 km/h.

The train interiors saw their first refurbishment in 2008, after ten years in service. The grey seat covers were replaced with purple and green ones, and a new indigo carpet was installed. The interior was updated yet again in 2020, and new seat covers featuring the blue and aquamarine AEL logos and a grey wave pattern will be paired with synthetic leather head rests.

Stations
This is a list of the stations on the Airport Express line.

List

Use in media
In late 1998, Leon Lai showed a music video of MTR's Airport Express line for the song "Happy 2000", which includes the interior of the A-Train.

In the film Shock Wave 2, a CAF-Train of the Airport Express was hijacked and planted with bombs, afterwards one of the terrorists drove it towards Hong Kong International Airport.

Design limitations
When British Hong Kong was planning to build the Airport Railway (Tung Chung line and Airport Express) in the 1990s, which was a few years before the handover to China, the Chinese government raised concerns about the effect of the project on the territory's fiscal reserves, which eventually forced the Hong Kong government to reduce the cost of the Airport Railway. The resulting changes made to the design imposed limitations on the level of service on the line.

 * The airport rail link was originally designed to accommodate four tracks, two each for the Airport Express and Tung Chung line. It was later reduced to two tracks where both services share the same trackage. As a result, signal failures can affect both services.
 * The Lantau Link section of the line (consisting of the Tsing Ma Bridge, Ma Wan Viaduct, and Kap Shui Mun Bridge) only allows one train to pass through each direction at the same time, raising the minimum headway between trains to 2 minutes 15 seconds.
 * The signalling system is not capable of giving priority to Airport Express trains; as a result, Tung Chung line trains stopping at Sunny Bay station frequently impede Airport Express trains, which do not serve the station.
 * The power supply system restricts the number of trains running between Kowloon and Lai King stations. The system can accommodate a maximum of one Airport Express train and two Tung Chung trains travelling in both directions at one time. The minimum headway on this section of the line is 3 minutes 30 seconds.

title: Airport Express (MTR)


text:
Talk:May 13 incident (Malaysia)

placate
removed "many Malays & Chinese dissatisfied by their newly independent government's perceived willingness to placate the Chinese at their expense"

Need further details as this statement should not be thrown off-hand--Malbear 07:48, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Suggestion Changing "Causes of the Riot" to "Chronology of the Riot" will make individual events stand out from the long paragraphy. Sltan19:00 1 Mac 2005 (GMT+8)

Suggestion include John Slimming's book, "Death of a Democracy", in bibliographical information.

removal of curfew
removed ", but the curfew was relaxed in most parts of the country on May 18 and rescinded even in central Kuala Lumpur within a week."

and changed to

"but the curfew was relaxed in most parts of the country on May 18 and not enforced even in central Kuala Lumpur within a week."

Officially this state of emergency has never been repealed. --Malbear 07:48, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Should this article be renamed?
I wonder if this article is in compliance with Wikipedia naming policy; for one, the name is too general. Many other important things could have happened on May 13, and due to its naming, this page is liable to be confused with the May 13 article by some new users. At the very least, shouldn't the "Incident" be in lower-case, per policy (correct me if wrong, though)? In any case, I think a more appropriate name would be "May 13 Malaysian racial riots" or something like that.

 * I thought about this when I created the article, but couldn't come up with a better name. It can't be lowercase "May 13 incident", because that could mean anything.  How about we drop the May 13 completely and call it the "1969 Malaysian racial riots"?  Jpatokal 10:24, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * It is known as May 13 in Malaysia. The term May 13 has in fact become a proper noun which is widely used. Mention the phrase and in the Malaysian psyche there can be no name space collision. However mention 1969 and you may get a blank look... I am sure there are policies for namespace collision and the article can be moved but renaming it pre-emptively for a yet to happen eventuality is pre-mature at best.--Malbear 10:55, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * The term "May 13, 1969 Racial Riots" has also been used in order to eliminate any ambiguity in local discussions and talks. This could be an option for the title of this article. I'm not sure if this term is in compliance with Wikipedia naming policy. Whatever the case, "May 13" or "13 May" are invariably written or spoken in any context (in Malaysia) when this topic is being referred to. --Saifol 02:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

 * It may mean everything in Malysia, but for the rest of the world, a more descriptive title that is connected to what happened or the place would be helpful: as in "May 13 Malaysian Racial Riots", or May 13 Racial Riots", or "May 13 Malaysian Riots". Or add the year, too. Can we reach a consensus? --Parkwells (talk) 01:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Whos started the fight?
As this is a sensitive issue for malaysian. I wonder if "Reportedly, the gathering crowd was informed that Malays on their way to the procession had been assaulted by Chinese in Setapak, several miles to the north." is correct? Where is the citation and source for it? Its quite misleading to actually imply that malay or chinese started the riots. We need proper quotation for it. There seem to be a lot of info to be included as well e.g Malaysia formally introduce the Rukun Negara after the may 13 riots. It was officialy introduce in August 31, 1970. Thought its best to include the links I found the info so here it is:. TheRace History 's introduction speaks of the riots briefly. Seems to have taken it from Anthony Reid 's "The Kuala Lumpur Riots and the Malaysian Political System" article in the Australian Outlook, Volume 23, Number 3. (December 1969 issue). So got any Australian friends that might track that down for us? - --C2Sane 08:54, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

Comment: An encyclopedia should report the facts. Sensitivities are really besides the issue. Example, even if 99% of people believed the world is flat....you know the rest of this old horse. anyway the government reports on the riot are still classified as OSA. So facts are scarce. IF there are any you dispute I would suggest putting in the disputed view and perhaps providing a citation. Then the reader must choose which citation is "better"--Malbear 13:26, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Agreed. But two points. One, its scarced in Malaysia due to the OSA but not elsewhere. Apparently they are riots pictures in Singapore and articles about it. I don't have access to it though and I think its illegal to bring it to Malaysia too. Australia papers did report on the riots as well. Don't have access to it. Two, the line "Reportedly, the gathering crowd was informed that Malays on their way to the procession had been assaulted by Chinese in Setapak, several miles to the north." seem dubious. I only found one hit in google and thats in Wikipedia. I can't find that fact report in anywhere. Wish to clarify the source? --C2Sane 13:55, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, I just got some more hits from google. Sorry about that. Heres one of the links --C2Sane 14:01, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

A book review of Kaneko Yoshiki's Ethnicity and Politics in Malaysia: Chinese Politics and National Intergration states that 'Kaneko describes the murder, looting and massive arrests conducted unjustifiably againts the Chinese by the pre-dominantly Malay police and military at that time of the 1969 race riots as an "example of how an extremly primodial element of ethnicity spontaneously' and powerfully defines human behaviour in the midst of extreme situation of ethnic conflict" --C2Sane 10:44, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

Found another info. "On May 15, government of Malaysia suspended all Malaysian newspapers including the Straits Times for four days due to May 13 riots but The Straits Times Singapore edition continued to publish news sent by teleprinter from Kuala Lumpur" --C2Sane 09:31, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

Should Marina's arrest be noted too? It shows how the Malaysian government deals with people who try to tell different story about May 13 incident. --C2Sane 10:19, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

May 13 incident influence on Malaysian Press
The claim of journalism in Malaysia's self-censorship should be noted? The links are here and here --C2Sane 10:07, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

this is a good website. try reading it. it explains what really happened and the effect. http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/May-13th-Incident

Repercussion of may 13 incident?
The ban on public rally because of the incident should be noted? Although DAP, Malaysia claims that the riots wasnt the reason for it. --C2Sane 10:44, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

Conspiracy?
Freeawnar.net contains article that claims a conspiracy associated with May 13 incident. Issit realible? Mggpillai sometimes in his article claims such evidence are surfacing recently. Should it be noted? There are other places where people claim and posted personal experience of May 13? Should it be noted too? --C2Sane 10:48, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

One should not limit to "official report" or "conspiracy theory". If 1+1 equal to 2 is a facts, you don't need a official to confirm it. Thus, facts can also be gather by analysis. Reviewing the economy facts on 1969, there is little facts that the riots cause by ethnics economy divide. Indeed, this wiki has little info about the whole cronology. This involve various action that take by governing political parties in stage. By taking away the opposition political rights(even they win seat, they lost their seat during the incidents), the whole incidents is more towards a political power seizure.

I have split this "Cause of riots" to official and unoffical claims.

Unofficial claims : Political Power seizure
In facts, the incidents is spark by a head of state, Harun Bin Idris. Although Harun Bin Idris have been arrested, the arrest are short live. Harun Bin Idris are not even trial for his crime. The economy divide conclusion is bring out after the two strong ethincs driven political party that lose badly in urban area to socialist driven oppositions. Banning the coucils elections, it allow the losing ethnics driven governing party to manipulate resources in favor of the governing party.

In contrast, the socialist opposition are strong worker union supporter, which represent the lower income class. While the governing ethnics party are strong opposer to union.

Conclusively, it seems that the whole incidents are merely a political power seizure.

 * Your edit is simultaneously NPOV and almost incomprehensible. Could somebody who speaks English explain the conspiracy theory in question? Jpatokal 08:49, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Er...we generally cite sources for conspiracy theories (i.e. the theory that there was a coverup regarding JFK's assassination), which means you have to find a website or book supporting your theory and cite it. Analysing the event and providing your own independent conclusions is not acceptable per the policy regarding original research. Johnleemk | Talk 16:02, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

How do you define seizure of power? Wheter in a democracy or ditactorship political system, when one party denied or suppress the opposing voices using inordinary actions, whether using army force, police forces, curfew, arrest order, even it is "legal" to the beneficial party; a political power struture changes without the consent of opposing voice, is a seizure of power. Here is some example of political power seizure
 * 2004, Nepal, Gyanendra dissolve the democracy government using military force.
 * 1989, US invasion on Panama
 * 1990, Burma military denied the political right of NLD, although through landslide winning.
 * 1968, Prague Spring. USSR invasion of czech

Do take note that, in the May 13 incidents, the incumbent political party has take action without consulting any opposition. The opposition have been strip off their rights to maintain the seat in the local councils. Although you can argue a local councils election is insignificant compare to Parliments election, this does not justify the legitimate of one side story of denying the minority voices.

 * That is not the issue. This issue is:
 * Are you willing to make your meaning clear in understandable English?
 * Are you able to cite a source for your claims on this issue? Johnleemk | Talk 07:21, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I will try my best effort to locate chronology of the events, provided I can find in local libary. It is not an easy task because it is a taboo in Malaysia. It seems out of Malaysia source has more freedom to source the information. Thus I add the following link. The link include numerous reference of books
 * A History of Race Relations in Malaysia from www.huaren.org
 * Some reference from the link
 * Comber, Leon. 13 May 1969: A Historical Survey of Sino-Malay Relations. (Kuala Lumpur: Heinemann Asia, 1983.)
 * Snider, Nancy L. "Race, Leitmotiv of the Malayan Election Drama." Asian Survey, Volume 10, Number 12. (December 1970)

Will the policy favouring the malays ever be stopped?
i can see a lot of the effects of the 16 may incident on my life and my others friends that are not malays or bumiputera's. i really do not feel that is is right to give malays the upper hand in the government or any juristiction. even the 'perlembagaan'or constitution prohibits us of talking about 'racial sensitivity'. we can be arrested just for questioning the 'perlembagaan'!

its not that i do not like malays, but it has been decades since then, and i think that some changes should be made. its not like the malays are as poor as they used to. walk around any city and you'll see many chinese and indians too, are still considered poor. yet the government still does not change the system and is still favouring the malays. i guess thats why the malays these days are said lazy, they depend too much on the government. thats why more chinese enters bussiness, because know they cant rely on the government.

the government says the malays need to have at least 30% share in the economy or bussines, or something like that, but how can that happen when the government keeps giving away posts in the government to the malays? the malays will almost definitely become a government servant, and the chinese will be a bussinesman. i dont see how the govenrment cant see this!

even in the education system, there is a lot of faulty favouring the malays. eventhough some chinese/indian students are better and cleverer than the malays, places in universites and sholarship will be given to the malays. i know of the students, top in their school, both chinese, not being able to get scholarhip, and yet the 3rd and 4th placed in that school with is bumiputera's got scholarship! now, those two chinese boys are living in australia and singapore. they said that they do not want to remember their schooling days, as it was a terrible injustice for them......... and the hardest thing in this is that this 'perlembagaan' or constitution is very hard to change. you'll need more than 2/3rd of the majority in the parliament and also the approval of the Yang Di-Pertuan himself! i cant see that happening anytime soon.

just to conclude, how can the government expect the non-bumiputera's to stay loyal to the government if the government does not be fair. it's just like pursecuting without thinking. a riot like 16 may will definitely reoccur if this system does not change. i can already imagine what will happen if i print this out and paste it all around my school and in the streets........ there is a very thin line peace seperating peace and conflict in malaysia in my mind.

pls, if anyone wants to comment on this, pls post here. im waiting to hear from you. check this site out http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/May-13th-Incident a very good site.

"those who forget the past is condemned to repeat it'

The above site is just a rehash of wikipedia

That is why the smart Chinese boys are all at overseas, and why Malaysia is so screwed.

Clearly you do not understand the constitution & how malaysia is built in the 1st place. I do see the effect of the bumi rights effecting other races. Most of the riches people in malaysia is non-bumi's. Maybe if more non-bumi sign up as military & police personnel and most of other races have loyalty to the country then its time to consider deleting the status. Even now i do hear about other non-bumi taking about motherland and others. Your loyalty is not to malaysia thats why this status will never stopped. Ask yourself & look around you. What have you contribute to the nation? I dont see any effect on that u say smart chinese boys all overseas. At least we do have smart other race still in the country living happily & yet malaysia is not screwed.

I strongly agree with above statement. Let me tell you - I am neither malay, chinese nor indian. I just live and work in m'sia. If the same had happened in my country - I am sure similar laws would be introduced to protect the locals. I don't see any loyalty displayed by chinese. many don't even try to use local language (bahasa) and certainly they don't assimiliate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.48.48.29 (talk) 12:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

A nation that doesn't love its people, doesn't deserve the people's love. Our loyalty will come if the nation would treat us as their children without bias. You lived your life through equality and don't act like you understand us and our positions, my 'no-name friend'. - CLeon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.54.82.250 (talk) 15:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

So, you expect us to go out and die for a government that treats us as though we were immigrants and not deserving of equal rights? How dare you ask that of us while you sit there enjoying your privileges and quotas and bumiputera status and expect people to feel any shred of loyalty to a country that discriminates against them? It's like asking the Jews to feel loyalty towards Germany while being killed off. There's a difference in the magnitude of discrimination, but the basic principle is the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.177.159.140 (talk) 22:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Should eyewitnesses' accounts of what happened during that time be included ?
There are some good personal commentaries found in the internet by people who witnessed how the event unfold.

Granted these personal comments can be biased towards the eyewitness point of view, however there are some facts that can be verified, or corrected when more eyewitness come forward to contribute to this wiki. For instance,

"The riots first broke out in the Kampong Bahru/Raja Laut/Chow Kit area..when the Malay mobs armed with parangs came out of Kampong Bahru and started attacking Chinese and Indian passers-by, burning cars and torching Chinese shophouses in the Raja Laut/Chow Kit areas...Chinese gangsters came out to defend the Chinese and Indians and fought with the Malays with sharpened lead pipes...then the Malay regiment came out and started shooting the Chinese with their guns...a lot of people died in the Jalan Tuanku Abdul Rahman area near the Odeon Cinema.

The casualties brought to the KLGH in stages showed that in the first stage, most of the casualties were Chinese suffering from parang wounds..this showed that that the Malays had attacked first and the Chinese were caught by surprise...The 2nd stage casualties were almost equal between Chinese and Malays with parang wounds (Chinese) and wounds inflicted by sharpened pipes (Malays). In the 3rd stage, all the casualties were Chinese many dying from gunshot wounds showed reflected the shooting spree of the Malay regiment....Many of the victims were Chinese and Indians shot by Malay soldiers for "breaking the curfew"..what actually happened was that when their houses were burnt by the malay rioters, these non-Malays had to run out and were shot by the soldiers for "breaking the curfew"...I remember hearing over Radio Malaysia during the height of the riots that "curfew breakers would be shot..."

The mass graves of Chinese at Sungei Buloh and other places with some of the bodies tarred to prevent racial identification was true as described by other bloggers above"

- by Anonymous Thursday, February 03, 2005 10:47:46 PM

[taken from http://www.malaysia-today.net/Blog-e/2005/02/is-polarisation-in-malaysia-dead-or.htm]

 * Uh, I'm not sure if including a verbatim reproduction of that comment is legal here, as the original author has to release it under the GFDL. Anyway, according to WP:CITE, blog comments cannot be used as references because they lack verifiability. So, I guess that comment is verboten for use in the article. Johnleemk | Talk 15:36, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Your comments were based on biased bloggers & blogs cannot be considered as reference. If there's really an eye witness of the event, let them makes books or personnal interview.

I do not agree on comments or blogs considered as reference. Because most of it is based on personnal sentiment and now really an event. Please check WIKIPEDIA guideline as well if you do not understand. -azayi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.82.209.58 (talk) 03:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Unclear expression
In the second paragraph of Causes of the riot it is said: "1964 Race Riots in Singapore were a large contributing factor in the expulsion of the state from Malaysia". I do not understand (sorry) - what is an "expulsion of the state"? Deuar 10:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Singapore getting kicked out Malaysia. IMHO the sentence is grammatically correct. Jpatokal 15:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, now I see ... Very interesting. I've changed the text to make it understandable to someone (like me) not familiar with Malaysian history (although it was gramatically correct, indeed) :-). Deuar 16:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Let the young ones learn this
Should school children learn about this in the Malaysian history lessons? I just need to ask this, how much, if any are the school textbooks include this in their daily lesson. We are talking about to educate the nation of its past mistakes, thus should this be part of the lesson in school ? --dee.tee 21:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

grented this isn't the best forum to talk about such things. I completed SPm in 2003. The only reference to this incident was along the lines of "the may 16th incident is one where the races of malaysia came into conflict, it was an ungainly event." i was actually surprised at the "portrayal" of this chapter of our history. Khing 17:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

It is rather sad that as a malaysian youth, i had to read about such an important part of our history in wikipedia instead of being able to discuss it in school. Textbooks do mention May 13, but only to the extent of "racial riots" and citing it as a reason for policies and the RUKUNEGARA.

If this was learnt in our secondary school, even more racist riots will happen. It certainly wasn't a good step not to letting the young generation to learn about this, but it would certainly not be a wrong one. And however, with more racist statements coming out from, not the public, but the government officers themselves (even PM himself), and that just make us wonder how long this "peacefulness" between races can be preserved?203.127.106.2 07:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Children need to learn about the past to cease their attempts to make the same mistakes. Malaysia history books, if you ever read one, would always have this problem - blurry statements and facts that were covered when it is not in favor of the government. The children never know what's going on, what are the consequences and would always repeat the same thing and racism wouldn't stop. That is the dilemma here. - CLeon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.54.82.250 (talk) 15:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

If children don't learn about this in the history books, parents will tell them about it anyway. And you can bet that those parents will be much more biased and they will tend to spread feelings of prejudice and racism to their children. What we need, instead of covering wounds up and letting them fester, is simply for an account of the event that is truthful, neutral, unbiased, and uninfluenced by any political motive, along with explanations of the political, social, and historical reasons for why it happened, without trying to push the blame unfairly on either side. Only when all these past issues are satisfactorily dealt with will Malaysia become a truly integrated country. If not, the memory of the riots and past conflict, combined with discriminatory policies, will simply cause racial tensions to grow and grow and grow until inevitably another riot - or worse - happens. There needs to be open dialogue and communication between groups so that we can, as a collective, deal with these issues in a mature and grown up way, which will help us move towards a future where all racial groups can co-exist in true harmony without too much underlying tension. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.177.159.140 (talk) 22:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.120.141.81 (talk) 17:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Excising the Singaporean 1964 Riots
I have removed the sections of the article relating to this (including "Foreign Views", which clearly deals with the 1964 riot instead of May 13). The article doesn't explain at all how the two incidents were related by more than their racial nature, geographical proximity, and UMNO's involvement in both. These two disparate evetns are not tied together, making the article confusing for both the clueless and those who have read about both issues. The 1964 Singaporean riots should be mentioned, but there is no need to devote several paragraphs and two sections to chronicling the events there. If anything, one ought to mention the racial riots in Penang and elsewhere that occurred in the 1950s and 1960s (I would include them, but have lost the relevant sources); these would likely be more relevant than the Singaporean riots. As far as I can establish from the sources I have read, any connection between the 1964 and 1969 riots is tenuous, at best. Therefore, I have removed the two sections of the article relating to the 1964 riots. Johnleemk | Talk 17:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Partial lock?
Since this article is coming out tomorrow at the front page in the selected anniversary section, maybe it is wise to partially lock the page? I do not doubt that some anonymous editors will make unhelpful contribution to the article tomorrow. __earth (Talk) 09:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. i think you are one of the editors who simply deleted some of the fact section on the info which is refers to official books not based on personnal comments & blogs which is not consider as evidence. -azayi

Fair use rationale for Image:May 13 aftermath.jpg
Image:May 13 aftermath.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Smells of What Isn't Said
This entire article smells of what isn't said. For example, the lead states:
 * These riots continued for a substantial period of time, leading the government to declare a state of national emergency and suspend Parliament until 1971.

How long were the riots? Riots caused parliament to be suspended for two years? And whom did "affirmative action" favor? The majority? The article also needs a native English speaker to rewrite it.68.111.71.197 (talk) 18:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. - Two hundred percent (talk) 13:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Reversion without discussion
An editor reverted work because of thinking it made POV worse. My work included many grammatical corrections, punctuation corrections, and improvements to sentence structure - not just changes or additions to narrative. I also went back to original sources to see what material was being used to construct the article, and added more facts than were there. For people who don't know the background on Malaysia, the article has gaps. Per Wikipedia policy, please use this talk page to discuss objections or changes you would like to see rather than using reversion.--Parkwells (talk) 01:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

 * First off, you edit contradicted some fact in the article. For instance, in the lead section, you wrote the event happened after the Malays attacked the Chinese. But in the Cause section, it read that the Chinese attacked the Malays first. Given that the latter was cited and the former was not, I decided to remove the contradiction. Besides, the previous wording was neutral enough by stating it was a racial riot. Other historical inaccuracy include the independence of Malaysia (which you stated as 1963). Malaysia did not become independent in 1963. Previous version which I've reverted to use an accurate term of formation. __earth (Talk) 01:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Source text
I know it'd be better if I'd signed in to edit this post, but the book by Tunku Abdul Rahman, May 13 : Before and After, figures as my main source. Should I put in a gist of what is said in there, along with extracts ? 60.49.70.249 (talk) 12:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem
This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Move back to May 13 incident
This article was previously May 13 incident. Someone moved it to the current title (13 May incident) with the the rationale: to mirror the Malaysian article. English sources mainly uses the term May 13. Google 13 May incident and May 13 will come out. ќמшמφטтгמ torque 07:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:13 May Incident which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:19, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:May 13 incident (Malaysia)


text:
Category:Macintosh operating systems development

Topics to do with software development on the Macintosh operating systems.


text:
Plain swift

The plain swift (Apus unicolor) is a medium-sized swift. Although this bird is superficially similar to a barn swallow or house martin, it is not related to those passerine species. The resemblances between the groups are due to convergent evolution reflecting similar life styles.

Swifts have very short legs that they use only for clinging to vertical surfaces. They never settle voluntarily on the ground, and spend most of their lives in the air, feeding on insects that they catch in their beaks. They drink on the wing.

Plain swifts breed in colonies on cliffs, bridges and buildings on the Canary Islands and Madeira, laying two eggs in a saucer-shaped nest made of flowerheads glued with saliva. They are partially migratory, with many birds leaving to winter in mainland Africa. Until recently it was thought that the birds wintered on the African coast but recent studies suggest they travel much further to the equatorial forests of Liberia and Guinea, a distance of 2,600 kilometres. Small numbers are also believed to breed in Morocco between Agadir and Essaouira, where a colony was found on coastal cliffs and possibly also in Mauritania where there are frequent sightings

This 14–15 cm long species is very similar to the closely related common and pallid swifts, which also occur in the archipelagos, and separation is only possible with good views. Like its relatives, it has a short forked tail and very long swept-back wings that resemble a crescent or a boomerang.

It is entirely dark except for an indistinct pale throat patch. It is slimmer and more rakish than the pallid swift, and is darker than that species and lacks the obvious white throat.

Distinguishing the plain swift from the similarly plumaged common swift is much more difficult, although juvenile common can be easily eliminated due to its white throat. The plain is slimmer and appears longer winged than the common, and has scaly underparts, difficult to see except with excellent views. The call is a loud dry scream similar to that of the common swift, though possibly higher pitched.

title: Plain swift


text:
Animal Free Research UK

Animal Free Research UK (AFRUK), formerly the Dr Hadwen Trust, is a UK medical research charity that funds and promotes non-animal techniques to replace animal experiments. Established in 1970, the work undertaken by Animal Free Research UK develops reliable science whilst avoiding animal testing.

History
Animal Free Research UK was established as the Dr Hadwen Trust for Humane Research in 1970 (registered charity number 261096). It was formed by the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV) in honour of its former president, Walter Hadwen. In 1980, Dr Hadwen Trust split from BUAV and became an independent charity.

The charity became incorporated as a charitable company (registered charity number 1146896) in 2013. In 2015, the Dr Hadwen Trust became registered as a charity in Scotland (SC045327). In April 2017, the charity changed its working name from Dr Hadwen Trust to become Animal Free Research UK.

Animal Free Research UK promotes the practice of non-animal research through its funding, publications, science community outreach, and the media. Its purpose is to "support scientists to transition from using animals to using new approach methodologies in medical research".

Research
Projects receiving funding from the Dr. Hadwen Trust range from epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, breast and skin cancer, meningitis, asthma, diabetes and drug testing, to arthritis, Parkinson’s disease, lung injury, whooping cough, vaccine testing, dentistry, heart disease, tropical illness, fetal development, brain tumours, and AIDS.

Funding is received in the form of summer studentships, PhD students, post-docs, and strategic grants.

title: Animal Free Research UK


text:
Forgotten

Forgotten or The Forgotten may refer to:

Film

 * Forgotten (1933 film), an American film directed by Richard Thorpe
 * The Forgotten (1973 film), a psychological horror film
 * The Forgotten, a 1989 television action film directed by James Keach
 * The Forgotten (2003 film), a Korean War film
 * The Forgotten (2004 film), a psychological thriller
 * Forgotten (2012 film), a Taiwanese/Chinese television film
 * Forgotten (2013 film), a Bolivian film
 * The Forgotten (2014 film), a British horror film
 * Forgotten (2017 film), a South Korean mystery thriller

Literature

 * The Forgotten (Applegate novel), a book in the Animorphs series by K. A. Applegate
 * The Forgotten (Baldacci novel), a 2012 novel by David Baldacci
 * The Forgotten (Wiesel novel), a 1992 novel by Elie Wiesel

Television

 * The Forgotten (TV series), an American crime drama
 * "The Forgotten" (Batman: The Animated Series), an episode
 * "The Forgotten" (The Purge), an episode
 * "The Forgotten" (Star Trek: Enterprise), an episode

Music

 * The Forgotten (band), a punk rock band
 * "The Forgotten" (Green Day song), a song by American punk rock band Green Day from their 2012 album ¡Tré!
 * "Forgotten", a song by Avail from Satiate
 * "Forgotten", a song by Avril Lavigne from Under My Skin
 * "Forgotten", a song by The Browning from Burn This World
 * "Forgotten", a song by Candiria from While They Were Sleeping
 * "Forgotten", a song by Gothminister from Empire of Dark Salvation
 * "The Forgotten (Part One)" and "The Forgotten (Part Two)", songs by Joe Satriani from Flying in a Blue Dream
 * "The Forgotten", a song by Killswitch Engage from Killswitch Engage (2009 album)
 * "Forgotten", a song by Korn from Requiem
 * "Forgotten (Lost Angels)", a song by Lamb of God from Sacrament, 2006
 * "Forgotten", a song by Linkin Park from Hybrid Theory

Video games

 * Age of Empires II: The Forgotten, an expansion pack

Places

 * Forgotten River, New Zealand
 * Forgotten Hills, Victoria Land, Antarctica

title: Forgotten


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human rainbow

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was - kept

Report of non-notable record-breaking event wrapped in the worst sort of corporate nothingspeak ("World's Largest Human Rainbow is a symbolic affirmation of the constitutive strength of PUP as the biggest contributor to the nation's human capital stock and as an ardent producer of transcendent values"). --Ianb 07:59, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC) --Eurleif 08:16, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: Article has now been rewritten (thanks!) and the grounds for deletion no longer apply. --Ianb 07:25, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Thanks for addressing all my complaints. I like the new page!  ---Rednblu 18:40, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'm willing to change my vote if you structure what you have into a page something like this page. But the current page is advertisement.  Non-notable, at least the author gave insufficient reason to think the subject is notable.  Not encyclopedic; not enough description of the surrounding social, politicial, or economic environment to be useful.  Just political slogans.  ---Rednblu 08:35, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Neutral. Something doesn't seem consistent between the title and what the article is about. For me, human rainbow seems to be an interesting description of the world, more than of a national university, whatever its human qualities that seem to make it deserve its own article. Hey, guys and girls, here we could have two articles for the price of one ;-)) --Pgreenfinch 08:36, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC) Keep now that it was rewritten --Pgreenfinch 19:35, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think the original poster copied and pasted the whole message from the acting president of the PUP. That's why it's inconsistent between the title and the article... =) --Andylkl 06:41, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Contains no encyclopedic information at present. Andrewa 09:32, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Everyking 11:58, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Lots of POV but nothing that makes sense. Reminds me of the release of the Euro symbol with claims that its design represented European values and aspirations. Jallan 15:06, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-encyclopedic.   — Gwalla | Talk 19:46, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Now it's actually about something. Good rewrite.   — Gwalla | Talk 16:56, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Crimmer 06:31, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've rewritten the article already. =) --Andylkl 07:13, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: Since the grounds for deletion are no longer applied, I'll be taking out the VfD tags, right? --Andylkl 08:50, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: Seems ok to me. Thue | talk 21:07, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Looks great after Andylkl's rewrite.
 * Keep. Rewrite has produced a modest and appropriate article. Denni ☯ 16:43, 2004 Oct 3 (UTC)
 * Keep rewritten article. Thue | talk 21:07, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep rewrite. Silly but valid subject, decent little article. -- Cyrius|✎ 00:03, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.


text:
Talk:Mary Arden, Lady Arden of Heswall

Untitled
Debrett's uses "Lady Justice" - where does it say that women are still "Lord Justice"? Proteus (Talk) 08:02, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * The Dept of Constitutional Affairs] claims that "The Right Honourable Lord Justice Doe" is used "officially," whilst "The Right Honourable Lady Justice Doe" is used "informally." -- Emsworth 01:47, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * How interesting. I suppose it makes sense, though, as "Lord" is just as much an adjectice in "Lord Justice" as it is in "Lord Chancellor", and we wouldn't call a female one of them "Lady Chancellor". Proteus (Talk) 13:17, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * The relevant matter for how she is styled (as opposed to the name of the office she holds) is covered at http://www.dca.gov.uk/judicial/senjudfr.htm under "Forms of Address".Lords Justices are called Lady Justice So-and-So if female.--L.E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 19:25, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The new Judiciary of England and Wales website seems to have removed this "official"/"informal" distinction. I remember reading recently (though I'm afraid I can't remember where) something to the effect of "until recently, female Lords Justices of Appeal were officially styled "Lord Justice X"", because that was the form used in the Act of Parliament creating the position, but it seems now to have changed. Proteus (Talk) 17:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

 * She is certainly styled "Lady Justice" in official documents and orally by lawyers. As to the point about a "Lady Chancellor", I concur, given that Lady Hayman is called the "Lord Speaker". But I think that it is entirely feasible that a future female Lord Chief Justice (Lady Justice Hallett, maybe, after Lord Judge?) would be known as the "Lady Chief Justice". I have seen this title written down somewhere in a legal text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.222.231.37 (talk) 22:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Retired?
Today is her seventy-fifth birthday. Has there yet been any official announcement of her leaving office? Robin S. Taylor (talk) 13:23, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Mary Arden, Lady Arden of Heswall


text:
Swayback

Swayback, also known clinically as lordosis, refers to abnormally bent postures in the backs of humans and of quadrupeds, especially horses. Extreme lordosis can cause physical damage to the spinal cord and associated ligaments and tendons which can lead to severe pain. In horses, moderate lordosis does not generally impact an animal's usefulness and does not necessarily cause lameness.

Humans
Swayback posture in humans is characterised by the posterior displacement of the rib cage in comparison to the pelvis. It looks like the person has a hyperextension of the lower back, however this is not necessarily the case. Most sway-back exhibits a posteriorly tilted pelvis; the lumbar region is usually flat (too flexed) and not hyperlordotic (too extended).

Horses
Usually called "swayback", soft back, or low back, an excessive downward bend in the back is an undesirable conformation trait. Swayback is caused in part from a loss of muscle tone in both the back and abdominal muscles, plus a weakening and stretching of the ligaments. As in humans, it may be influenced by bearing young; it is sometimes seen in a broodmare that has had multiple foals. However, it is also common in older horses whose age leads to loss of muscle tone and stretched ligaments. It also occurs due to overuse or injury to the muscles and ligaments from excess work or loads, or from premature work placed upon an immature animal. Equines with too long a back are more prone to the condition than those with a short back, but as a longer back is also linked to smoother gaits, the trait is sometimes encouraged by selective breeding. It has been found to have a hereditary basis in the American Saddlebred breed, transmitted via a recessive gene. Research into the genetics underlying the condition has several values beyond just the Saddlebred breed as it may "serve as a model for investigating congenital skeletal deformities in horses and other species."

title: Swayback


text: File:Immortal memory - gerrard cassidy - front.jpg


text:
Folk revival (disambiguation)

Folk revival may refer to:

 * American folk music revival
 * British folk revival
 * Roots revival
 * Roots Revival (project)

title: Folk revival (disambiguation)


text:
Swingfire

Swingfire was a British wire-guided anti-tank missile developed in the 1960s and produced from 1966 until 1993. The name refers to its ability to make a rapid turn of up to ninety degrees after firing to bring it onto the line of the sighting mechanism. This means that the launcher vehicle could be concealed and the operator, using a portable sight, placed at a distance in a more advantageous firing position.

Swingfire entered operational service in 1969 and underwent several major upgrades during its time in service. It was used on a number of vehicles including the FV438, FV102 and several truck mountings including the Land Rover and Ferret armoured car. Concepts adapting it to helicopters, tanks and even hovercraft went nowhere. Swingfire remained in service on the FV102 Striker until 2005 when they were retired in favour of man-portable missiles.

Earlier efforts
The British Army was among the first to introduce a heavy anti-tank missile when they introduced the Malkara in 1958. The Malkara had a number of problems, among them that the missiles had to be raised into the line of sight for firing, and the missile left a line of smoke from its rocket motor that lingered long enough to point directly back to the launcher. Additionally, the guidance system was difficult to use and had limited performance against moving targets. Malkara was nevertheless purchased for the airborne infantry to allow them to deal with Soviet armour at long range.

Desiring a more capable weapon, the Ministry of Supply funded the Orange William development at Fairey Engineering Ltd beginning in 1954. The idea behind Orange William was that the launcher and guidance systems were separated by up to 2 km, allowing the launcher to remain far behind the front line while the small and heavily camouflaged guidance vehicle moved forward where it could see the enemy. Unfortunately, testing demonstrated the selected guidance system was easily blocked by smoke and dust, making it ineffective on the battlefield. Through this same period, the Army was developing the Royal Ordnance L11 120 mm gun for the Chieftain tank, as development continued it appeared it would be able to defeat any Soviet tank design. The need for a heavyweight missile was less pressing and development of Orange William was cancelled in September 1959.

Through the same period, a much lighter man-portable weapon was also being developed, the Vickers Vigilant. Based on the experience with Malkara, Vigilant introduced a much improved guidance system. While it was still manual, requiring the gunner to watch the missile approach the target, it used a new method of sending corrections to the missile that was far easier for the gunner to use, especially against moving targets. Vigilant went on to see widespread use in several nations including the United States.

Swingfire and TOW
The basic idea of under-cover fire remained of interest to the Army after the cancellation of Orange William, and the Royal Armament Research and Development Establishment (RARDE) was given £250,000 a year to continue research into the basic concepts. As part of the resulting Project 12, they developed two basic concepts, Quickfire and Swingfire. The former appears to be a fast-action weapon, but few details have been made public. The latter was designed to allow it to be fired from under cover, like Orange William. As the company already had experience in the indirect fire role, and fearing it would otherwise lead to the breakup of their missile team, Fairey was issued a new development contract in October 1959.

The basic idea of the Swingfire concept was that thrust vectoring of the rocket exhaust allowed the missile to make extreme maneuvers, including a right-angle turn immediately after launch. This was especially useful in urban settings like Berlin; the gunner could take the sight up to 100 m from the launcher and position themselves along potential lines of approach, while the launcher parked down a side street or alleyways. The crew would then dial in the distance to the main line of fire and its angle relative to the launcher, and the missile would travel that distance and then turn, flying past the gunner and into his sights. The missiles could be fired without the launcher ever exposing itself to the enemy, and the gunner could easily remain hidden in a foxhole or building. While the rocket smoke would still give away the rough location of the launcher, the enemy would be unable to return fire against the hidden launcher and would have no idea where the gunner was located.

As the Warsaw Pact greatly increased its number of tanks during the 1960s, the long-range missile was once again considered important. The Soviet plan was to simply overrun NATO forces using sheer numbers, so a weapon that could attrit these forces before they reached friendly forces was highly desirable. The US Army was equally interested in such a system, and in July 1961 the two countries signed the Rubel-Zuckerman Agreement for further development. Under this plan, the US would concentrate on short-range rapid-fire weapons, while RARDE would continue Swingfire development for the long-range role. Of the several concepts studied in the US, the BGM-71 TOW was ultimately selected. TOW used a semi-automatic guidance system that was very easy to use and capable of easily tracking moving targets, but had limited accuracy in long-range use and had to fly directly at the target and thereby expose the gunner to attack.

As TOW developed, it continued to grow larger and gain more range, ultimately emerging as a much larger design similar to the Swingfire. The US suggested the British adopt the TOW, but the necessity for the tracker to be inline with the missile throughout its flight was considered completely unacceptable to the British while the US saw this as irrelevant. Any plans to introduce TOW in British service ended.

FV438 Swingfire
Initially, some consideration was given to adding four Swingfire missiles to the Chieftain. Their external mounting was a significant problem, and fitting them required changes to the sighting systems, none of which was inexpensive. As the Royal Ordnance L11 main gun underwent development it proved far more powerful than expected and the extra hitting power of the Swingfire was no longer seen as a benefit worth the cost.

In November 1962, GOR.1174 was issued for a light vehicle to carry Swingfire instead, selecting the FV432 as its basis. The original design called for a roof-mounted rack with two launcher tubes angled upward at about 30 degrees. This allowed the vehicle to be placed behind barriers or inside entrenchments and the missile would pop up above it to clear the barrier. Aiming was accomplished either by the remote sight or one permanently mounted on a periscopic extension on top of the vehicle that allowed it to see over any fortifications in front. The launchers were mounted on a hinge at the rear that allowed them to be lowered for reloading. It swung through an angle of 45 degrees so the front was pointed slightly downward when lowered to allow the loader easy access to the front of the tubes from inside the vehicle. On firing, the rocket exhaust was directed forward through the tube, thereby eliminating any danger to troops near the vehicle.

The forward-firing rocket blast proved so powerful that it sometimes damaged the control wires or the missile itself. In one test, a simulated hangfire caused a fire that continued burning for three minutes and was believed it would have burned through the launcher and into the vehicle had it not been put out by a fire crew. The forward-exhaust concept was abandoned and a new launcher with open ports at the end of each tube was adopted. On launch, the exhaust hit the rear section of the vehicle deck and was deflected and spread out to a degree. Another change was that the two tubes were now separately mounted, instead of sharing a common hinge, which allowed one to be lowered for reload while the other was still in firing position.

Prototype problems
During testing, the system proved to have a huge number of minor problems and continually failed. It was not until 1969 that the system was considered even partially usable and the missiles began to work reliably.

A significant problem was due to the rocket smoke. Previous missile designs like Malkara had left a smoke trail pointing directly back to the launcher which could then be attacked. Swingfire didn't need to be concerned about the smoke because the launcher itself would be hidden, so little effort was expended on using a lower-smoke design. However, in testing, it was found that the smoke was thick enough to obscure the missile or the target. This was especially a problem at long range when the missile was being viewed through the entire column of smoke. This made aiming at long range largely a matter of luck, and as a result the accuracy proved to be below specifications.

The missile was initially presented to the Army for acceptance in July 1969. and on 28 July they initially rejected it until additional corrections were made. They also found the training systems were inadequate. The new owners of the system, British Aerospace, agreed to make several changes to the design, and the Army eventually accepted the design on a provision basis in August.

FV102 Striker
In 1960, the Army launched the Armored Vehicle Reconnaissance (AVR) program for a light tracked reconnaissance vehicle. The initial concept called for a single turret mounting both a gun and missiles, presumably Swingfire. However, attempts to design such a turret for a vehicle light enough for the requirements proved impossible and the project was cancelled in 1964.

In its place, an even lighter aluminium armoured vehicle was designed, the Combat Vehicle Reconnaissance (Tracked), or CVR(T). This differed from AVR primarily in abandoning the single turret concept and using mission-specific turrets on different vehicles. The most widely produced version was the FV101 Scorpion which mounted the 76 mm L23A1 gun firing HESH rounds capable of destroying most armoured vehicles, but not main battle tanks.

For the heavy anti-tank role, the FV102 Striker was designed, initially with a rotating turret mounting two Swingfire missiles on either side of the optics in the centre. However, this concept was seen as flawed as there was no need to rotate Swingfire to point at the target, so a new version was designed with five launcher tubes in a box along the rear of the vehicle. Another five rounds are stored in the vehicle, and like FV438, the tubes can be reloaded by lowering the tubes but the rounds have to be inserted from outside the vehicle.

Upgrades
The problem with the rocket exhaust became evident during the period in which new low-smoke solid rocket motors were being developed in the US and Canada, and the company agreed to develop a new motor for Swingfire to be available for 1972. Another lingering problem was that the gyro which kept the missile flying level tended to drift, but this was corrected simply by angling the launch tubes up more.

A larger upgrade was the "Swingfire Improved Guidance", or SWIG. This added an infrared tracker to the vehicle optics that tracked the rocket motor exhaust and sent the correct commands to the missile to bring it inline with the sights. This was the same basic system used on the TOW. This makes missile guidance much easier as the gunner simply has to keep their sight pointed at the target and does not have to make any corrections themselves.

Barr & Stroud introduced an infrared spotting scope that was evaluated by the Army in 1982. This led to a 1984 purchase of 3,500 sights. British Aerospace later introduced a thermal imaging sight that gave the missile much better night time performance.

Swingfire was developed by Fairey Engineering Ltd and the British Aircraft Corporation, together with Wallop Industries Ltd and minor subcontractors. It replaced the Vickers Vigilant missile in British service.

Besides its use on the FV438 Swingfire and the Striker armoured vehicles, Swingfire was developed to be launched from other platforms:
 * FV712, Mk 5 Ferret with 4 missiles in use with the British Army
 * Beeswing – pallet that can be mounted on a Land Rover or similar.
 * Hawkswing – on a Lynx helicopter.
 * Golfswing – on a small trolley or Argocat vehicle.

Combat history
Swingfire was used in the Gulf War.

Replacement in British Army
After a lengthy debate, the Swingfire was replaced with the Javelin in mid-2005 to meet new and changing situational requirements. The British Army invested heavily in the Javelin, and it is now the main heavy anti-tank missile system in use by the British Army.

Specification

 * Diameter: 170 mm
 * Wingspan: 0.39 m
 * Length: 1.07 m
 * Weight: 27 kg
 * Warhead: 7 kg HEAT
 * Range: 150 m to 4000 m
 * Velocity: 185 m/s
 * Guidance: Wire-guided, originally MCLOS, later upgraded to SACLOS, in which form the system is known as SWIG (Swingfire With Improved Guidance).
 * Steering: Thrust Vectored Control (TVC)
 * Penetration: 800 mm RHA
 * Unit cost: £7,500

Current operators

 * 🇪🇬: Egyptian Army
 * Swingfire missiles were also produced in Egypt under license by Arab-British Dynamics.
 * 🇰🇪: Kenyan Army
 * 🇳🇬 Nigeria: Nigerian Army
 * 🇸🇦: Saudi Arabian Army Ferret Mk5 1 Bovington.jpg, Bovington]]
 * SPAF
 * 🇸🇦: Saudi Arabian Army Ferret Mk5 1 Bovington.jpg, Bovington]]
 * SPAF

Former operators

 * 🇧🇪: Belgian Army
 * FV102 Striker
 * 🇮🇷: Iranian Army
 * Portuguese Army
 * Used on the Chaimite armoured fighting vehicle, now retired.
 * 🇬🇧: British Army
 * FV102 Striker – 5 in ready-to-fire bins.
 * FV438 Swingfire – Two firing bins
 * Ferret Mk 5 – Four firing bins

Decommissioning problems
In March 2002 20 warheads, removed for decommissioning, were washed into the Bristol Channel along with 8 anti-tank mines. The warheads, with a total explosive weight equivalent to 64.2 kg of TNT, were never located.

title: Swingfire


text: Category:Norwegian explorers

title: Category:Norwegian explorers