Tactical air

[Dave Wilton]

I just listened to a public radio KQED program from a few days ago where the
host, Michael Krasny, referred to "tanks" rolling through the streets of
Manama, and the reporter in Bahrain whom he was talking to corrected him
saying they were "armored cars." So there is some hope.

Referring to contemporary warplanes as "fighters" regardless of type is not
so egregious anymore. The separate categories of "strike" or "attack"
aircraft are largely a thing of the past. The planes are so damn expensive
and the US has total air supremacy pretty much everywhere in the world, so
"fighters" have to do all roles. The only exceptions are the big, strategic
bombers.


-----Original Message-----
From: American Dialect Society [mailto:ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On Behalf Of
Jonathan Lighter
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 3:43 PM
To: ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: Tactical air

Yes. This has been going on in the news media for many years.

"Fighter jets" and "fighter aircraft" are the usual journalistic terms
regardless of precision. "Warplane" is also used, but less often.  (Years
ago I reported Fox's characterization of WWII fighters and bombers
overflying a ceremony as "fighter jets.")

Cf. "battleship."  Armored cars (with wheels) are frequently called "tanks."


Armored personnel carriers, however, are almost always correctly identified,
despite the annoying syllable count. Ditto for "Bradley Fighting Vehicles."

JL
On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 1:02 PM, William Palmer <palmerwil at gmail.com> wrote:

> ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> -----------------------
> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> Poster:       William Palmer <palmerwil at GMAIL.COM>
> Subject:      Tactical air
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
>
> 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

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