Tactical air

[Jonathan Lighter]

I'm not a vet either.  Just reasonably well read.

JL

On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 1:38 PM, victor steinbok <aardvark66 at gmail.com>wrote:

> ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> -----------------------
> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> Poster:       victor steinbok <aardvark66 at GMAIL.COM>
> Subject:      Re: Tactical air
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The issues has come up here several times within the last couple of
> years. It's not clear how much differentiation there is at this point,
> however, especially since the reference is mostly to non-US forces and
> I am not sure what they have aside from Mirage. And fighter-bombers
> have been mostly referred to as "fighters" in the media--doesn't help
> that there are virtually no vets among journos.
>
> VS-)
>
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 1:02 PM, William Palmer <palmerwil at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Reporting on air operations over Libya, media journalists seem to refer
> to
> > any and all aircraft with weapons as "fighters".  In fact, the primary
> > mission of fighter aircraft is to establish and maintain air
> > superiority...engage and neutralize enemy aircraft.  "Attack" or "strike"
> > aircraft exist to destroy ground targets.  Some aircraft do both.
> >
> > Or that's the way it used to be
> > --
> > Bill Palmer
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>



--
"If the truth is half as bad as I think it is, you can't handle the truth."

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org