Flex,
All these witnesses too:

http://www.geocities.com/someguyyoudontknow33/witnesses.htm

http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/index.php?title=Pentagon_witnesses

Rense.com is an idiotic site, but has images of the airliner wreckage:

http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm

It’s my observation that the change has already occured. And it seems my explanation for its probable cause have rubbed some people the wrong way.

As it is pointed out, the JH-7 remains the Flying Leopard in usage, and the name Flounder has never been confirmed. There is also no F-name for the J-10 for anyone to get annoyed at. Given the existance of this aircraft was well documented for a decade with no adversary name given, the situation will in all likelihood remain that way.

I think at this point all sides of the arguement have been presented. The kind thing to do is to leave it at that. We’ll have to let history be the juge.

Multirole,
Ask SOC. The naming system has never gone away. Again, ask SOC about the JH-7.

I appreciate the situation, but the J-10 will be given its proper market name soon enough, and it would probably be less linguistically intimidating than the Taiwanese “Ching-Kuo” fighter. I’m sure there are lots of words for Falcon/Eagle/Phantom in the various European languages as well so I don’t see what’s so confusing calling the JH-7 Flying Leopard.

So the question comes back to why should a CHINESE fighter get a Nato codename when plenty of non-Nato jets do not? If this were truely an universal rule it would be not be worth mentioning. Will you admit there’s an underlying assumption in this naming tradition that Nato is more likely to fight against a Chinese aircraft than other non-Nato types? That being the case I think such a policy needs updating. Given the good relations Nato enjoys and promotes with the PRC, it wont surprise me in the least should Nato part with tradition in this case.

Multirole,

What you have to understand is that NATO has nothing to do with the naming system. The names are allocated by ASIC formerly ASCC.

http://www.airstandards.com/ascc/

A small thread on the topic also appears at the following on rec.aviation.military:

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/rec.aviation.military/browse_thread/thread/133690d1bed3121a/9b51cb38efa7018c?hl=en#9b51cb38efa7018c

I know that the Atlantic Conveyor was hit by an Exocet. For the rest; Thanks for the correction and feel free to add detals.

http://www.fuerzaaerea.mil.ar/conflicto/dias/jun13.html

Skyhawks attacking troops at Two Sisters, Daggers attacking troops at Mount Longdon. The Pucara attacks are well documented in several publications and also on the web.

The Argentine Canberras even conducted low-level bombing missions against landed UK forces on the Falklands. On the 27 May two Canberras of Grupo 2 made an 800ft attack on San Carlos. 29 May saw two Canberras make a 700ft attack on troops at San Carlos. 31 May saw another two attacks at San Carlos with one from 600ft. 1st and 4th June saw Canberra missions against troops at Mount Kent. The 12th June saw missions against troops deployed at Bluff Cove.

The last mission was on the 13th June in an attempt to hit an HQ at Port Harriet House. Several bombing missions against UK ground forces were aborted. The Canberra combat missions are snippets from the ‘Wings of Fame’ Volume 17 ‘Canberras of the Fuerza Aerea Argentina’ article.

enjoy;)
http://myaviation.net/?pid=00915164
http://myaviation.net/?pid=00915154

Hmmm, wasn’t it ‘Flogger’ in one of his many rants that stated:

‘Libya has no MiG-23ML but MiG-23MS and MiG-23MF’

This must be first photographic proof of an ML in Libyan service?

Someone correct me if I’m wrong?

The RAF Regiment are going out of the GBAD (Ground Based Air Defence) role. The role is currently being transferred to the Army (Royal Artillery). All should be transferred by 2008.

The RAF Regiment Rapiers on the Falklands have already been handed over to the Royal Artillery.

Snippet from UK 2004 Defence review of the transfer of the RAF Regiment Rapiers to the Army:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmhansrd/vo040721/debtext/40721-08.htm

2006 article highlighting the RAF Regiment handing over the reigns to the Royal Artillery:

http://www.sartma.com/artd_3383_09_2006_3.html

‘SUNSET CEREMONY MARKS FAREWELL FOR THE RESIDENT RAPIER SQUADRON

As part of a wider restructuring of the military, the RAF Regiment is to
lose its Ground Based Air Defence role. Consequently, the Rapier air defence
missiles here in the Falklands will soon no longer be manned by the Resident
Rapier Squadron (RRS), which has been here on continuous service since 1982.

At the end of October, the air defence of the Islands will be passed on to 16 Regiment Royal Artillery, currently based in Woolwich.

As part of their farewell, the Squadron will be firing live Rapier missiles
on the 4 and 5 of October from Harriet Farm. This will not only be the last
time the RAF Regiment will fire Rapier in the Falklands, but also the last
time RAF Regiment will fire the missiles anywhere in the world. In addition
to the firing camp, they will be holding a sunset ceremony at Black Eagle
Camp, Stanley Airfield at 1800 on the 4 October. Squadron Leader Matt
Radnall, OC RRS, explained the significance, “Black Eagle Camp is the
spiritual home of the RAF Regiment in the Falklands. After a month at San
Carlos in June of 1982, 63 Squadron RAF Regiment, whose crest depicts a
black eagle, set up their Squadron HQ in the camp on arrival in Stanley.
Once MPA was built, the Rapier Squadron moved their HQ to the base, from
which the RAF Regiment have been providing air defence for the airfield
continuously since. This is a historic time for the Squadron and the whole
of the RAF Regiment.”

The ceremony will consist of a short service followed by a lowering of the
ensign. Stanley Sea and Marine Cadets will be in attendance and all members
of the general public are invited to attend.’