comment: >
  
  ? I can't with some of you
context: Oh hey, we made the news! >
  
  Are you NATO, German, Romanian, Russian, Ukrainian or a spy plane? >
  
  Yes. >
  
  The title and article are simply rubbish.... >
  
  Can we stop using "Spyplane", "Warplane", and "Warship"? It gives barely any information about the vehicle in question and just sounds like it's coming from the vacabulary of a 6th grader.
  Airborne early warning and control system is easy to understand, gives significantly more information, and doesn't sound as amateurish. Or at least use reconnaissance aircraft if you are desperate to not give too much information in the title.
  Same with fighter aircraft, frigate, destroyer, etc. 
  Those names exist for a reason. >
  
  Headlines are for dumb people to understand and are meant to be short, for those that are interested they can read the article.
  I dont really see the issue here. >
  
  The issue is it causes dumb people to think they understand while they avoid reading the article. Let's not cater to idiots. >
  
  When I was in the Navy we called ships Warships and reconnaissance aircraft spy planes. We called all kinds of things by their simpler easier to say terms unless we had a critical need to be specific.
  We didn’t say “there is a Nimitz class nuclear steam propelled aircraft carrier maneuvering at one hundred and eighty degrees head and moving forward at 22 knots or approximately 23 miles per hour bearing two hundred and twenty degrees off of our port stern section”
  We said “conn we have a warship bearing two two zero heading one eight zero at 22 knots”
  Headlines and articles should also communicate in a direct manner (especially the headline) and add context where it is needed (typically in the article). >
  
  Will be interested in how this unfolds. >
  
  NATO save some jet fuel. >
  
  Majestic planes. It's like watching a bird gliding mid fight. >
  
  A gliding bird is considerably less noisy. >
  
  I would say the noise difference between the two can be insignificant. >
  
  What kind of noisy birds do you have where you live? >
  
  Definitely an Australian. Holy smoke their birds can screech and make a noise. >
  
  Spy plane? >
  
  these are AWACs planes which are under general NATO command. I know the crews are German, not even sure how the planes' ownership is precisely handled because I do not think they are actually in the inventory of the German air force.
  I don't think they are technically German, but NATO is having a pooled air base with AWACs planes and crews from around NATO in germany. >
  
  Crews are not strictly German, but a mix of multiple NATO countries, and the fleet is technically owned by Luxembourg while the home station is in Germany. >
  
  On a side note, after a Chinese fighter plane dumped chaff in front of a Royal Australian Air Force Wedgetail AWACS aircraft, which then ingested it into their engines. The Aussies are also now flying with in the south China Sea with American, British, Canadian etc personnel on board. If the Chinese want to endanger RAAF aircraft and personnel, well, now they are endangering military personnel from a whole heap of countries. Simple but effective way to counter the Chinese (or Russian).
  Something the Russians and Chinese cannot do is build large significant alliances with numerous countries. >
  
  To replace the AWACS that where there already? I remember seeing one flying circles near the Moldovan-Romanian border back in March. >
  
  Hope this time  they watch russians not Ukrainians