My guess would be that 'airforce planes' and 'navy boats' are the kind of thing that are expected to be armed. But when you talk about arming something new it perks up peoples ears.
People are familiar with helicopters ..but
armed helicopters are a new thing for them. Anytime that you consider arming something that was not previously expected to be armed many Canadians will recoil ..at least the Canadians that I think we are talking about here. Which is to say, those of us who slavishly suckle at the teat of the Mother Corp (CBC
) and vote Liberal even though we know they steal our $ ..because the other guys are "too scary"
..and don't even mention 'gunships'! That would be as big a mistake as Harper using the term 'mini carrier' in the last election. :
(The public should be better informed, but given that they are not, that was a stupid mistake.)
Wow ..feeling pretty cynical tonight.
EDIT: ..I'll bet you would get the same kind of reaction if it were suggested that the airforce should have "bombers". To address your question more directly; I don't think it's a matter of offensive vs. defensive weapons or roles.. to suppose so would assume that the public is better informed than they are. I think it's really a question of language and associations ..coupled with a general dislike of things that go boom and make owchies.