Talk:Attack aircraft

message: Close Air Support is a doctrinal term describing a role or mission that can apply to Attack or Ground Attack Aircraft, but the opposite relationship isn't always automatic. Interdiction is also a doctrinal term that can describe a role that applies to the same aircraft. Are we also recommending that Interdiction and Close Air Support be merged?
I recommend the two not be merged. I also think that Ground Attack is really an outmoded term, since it is somewhat redundant. An Attack Aircraft is an aircraft that traditionally delivers air-to-ground munitions to targets that are on the ground. 
So, I recommend:
* Ground attack aircraft be renamed to Attack Aircraft to decrease any confusion with people not familiar with the difference between Ground Attack Aircraft and any techniques of attacking the ground referred to as Ground Attack. 
* Ground attack be merged with/redirected to Air Interdiction or Aerial interdiction, whichever variant wins out in that merge discussion. 
* Close Air Support be left alone. This is a specific mission relating to the support of ground troops in contact with an enemy force. (Born2flie 00:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Close Air Support

message: See above from Born2flie. I'm not wholly sure; I'd like to hear what other people have to say.--Mmx1 00:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rename to "attack aircraft"

message: I was surprised to read the a line in the World War II section comparing the Stuka with the Ilyushin Il-2, which claimed that the latter was a more famous example of a Ground attack aircraft.  From my own experience, I knew quite a lot about the Stuka, but had only heard of the Il-2 because I saw the computer game of the same name in the bargain bin at my local games shop.  Obviously, that's not a valid source of information, so I decided to do a quick google search, and found 1.26 million hits for the word "Stuka" and only  293,000 for "Il-2."  I just added a  tag because I couldn't find anything concrete either way.
Minion-for-hire (talk) 15:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed to "more notable". --Kubanczyk (talk) 02:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Famous Aircraft 

message: I may have missed something, but why is there a photo of a Tornado F.3 on this page? And to boot, it's linked to Panavia Tornado Davidelit (talk) 04:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong Photo 

message: To quote the article, "Current US doctrine increasingly emphasizes the use of United States Army helicopters for close air support and anti-tank missions." Really? Since when? After the disastrous performance of the Apache in Iraq (I am specifically thinking of the incident where 33 Apaches engaged the Iraqi "Medina" armoured division resulting in 30 aircraft damaged or downed by an Iraqi "flak trap"), the Army has been shifting more towards aquiring fixed wing aircraft. They still haven't decided if they want something light (like the planes being considered for the Air Force's new OA-X program) or heavy (like the A-10), but they do want to get away from total reliance on the helicopter, and more towards fixed-wing aircraft. SpudHawg948 (talk) 01:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are you sure about that? 

message: Perhaps it should be noted that modern ground-attack aircraft are not more accurate than older ones. ie a Stuka was just as accurate in destroying tanks as A-10 Warthogs, and was equally efficient in theater.The Age of Airpower by Martin van Creveld  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.186.148 (talk) 07:30, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: In clear weather, maybe. :) - BilCat (talk) 20:53, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Efficiency

message: Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted.
Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia.
This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link.
If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting.
If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page.
If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta.
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.
The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true.
Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
*http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/a-10/
*:Triggered by \bairforce-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 11:15, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page 

message: Saw that someone tried to delete this earlier, and I happen to agree with them. This page is referring to tactical (fixed wing) aircraft, and since attack helicopters have their own page I'm not sure what use they have here. 24.192.250.124 (talk) 02:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attack Helicopters 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Attack aircraft. 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/20120302220513/http://www.af.mil/shared/media/epubs/AFI16-401%28I%29.pdf to http://www.af.mil/shared/media/epubs/AFI16-401%28I%29.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060511035001/http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123018656 to http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123018656
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060510181322/http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123008450 to http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123008450
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:17, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified