This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Considering the growing number and sophistication of amateur UAV makers (students, hobbyists, contests etc), it seems that a few sentences on them would be welcome in this article. Rather than me simply adding external links, BillCJ suggested I bring the subject up here. Any objections to my adding that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zlite ( talk • contribs) 13:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
The Second and Third Gulf Wars involved US/Coalition vs Middle East forces. Don't forget the First, involving no US forces (which is why most not clued-in Westerners ignore it in counting), but several Middle East countries, I don't remember the specifics at this point, this needs fixing.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.75.196.21 ( talk • contribs) 20:52, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
66.167.136.12 05:49, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC):There's no article on the Phoenix UAV used by the British Army (see Operation Telic order of battle)...
Removed mention of the Israeli air force using the term UAV since english is not the official language of Israel thus the mention of the usage of the translated term is irrelevant—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.76.30.78 ( talk • contribs) 21:58, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Where in the article should I place information about such UAVs? Under the country of origin? Specifically I wanted to talk about the Snark, built by New Zealand-based commercial helicopter manufacturer TGR Helicorp [1]. Jacoplane 11:38, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Typo here: "More sophisticated verions may h..." ('versions')
Also needs links to waypoint navigation etc.
Will try to edit this once I get some time, but if anybody else wants to jump in, then go for it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.55.245.26 ( talk • contribs) 23:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Can someone who knows about this stuff please take a look at Top I Vision casper 250 and Casper mini uav, which appear to be about the same thing, but need some pretty heavy editing. Many thanks, ::Supergolden:: 09:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I posted this over on the talk page for History of unmanned aerial vehicles. There is a lot of duplication of articles on the subject of UAVs, with History of unmanned aerial vehicles being the most superfluous. I am proposing to integrate most of the data on that page into the appropriate already-existing pages. It makes sense that Unmanned aerial Vehicle be the main general page on the subject, so some of the material will be integrated here. What will be left over there is a general history page, essentially an expansion of the History section on this page. Comments on the project are welcomed. Akradecki 18:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Some of the lines between a UAV and a missle can get blurred, especially when talking about vehicles like the ADM-20. I'd like to propose including a definition like this in the article: "For the purposes of this article, and to distinguish UAVs from missles, a UAV is defined as being capable of controlled, sustained level flight and powered by a jet or reciprocating engine." This will, of course mean that cruise missles are included as UAVs, but things like Sidewinders are not. Comments? Akradecki 14:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I see no real reason we need to have a disambig statment at the top that's a red link, and another that is a fictitous land vehicle. If there's no objections, I'll delete in a day or two. Akradecki 15:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm seeking input for the folks who frequent this page so a consensus can be reached regarding layout. Because of the large white space created, I floated the TOC to the right (see this diff [2] for sample). However, User:Netoholic says that it is improper to do this. However, Help:Section#Floating the TOC says "A floating TOC should be used when it is beneficial to the layout of the article, or when the default TOC gets in the way of other elements." Seems to me that, in this case, it is indeed beneficial to the layout, and having the large white space gets in the way of the article. To me, the article looks better with the TOC on the right. How does everyone else feel? Akradecki 04:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
...because there have been recent flights of UAVs into tropical cyclones. Thegreatdr 15:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
What about pilotless drones? ;) Otto1970 05:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
There needs to be a list of UAVs page to supplement this article. I did not see a link to one on here if it exists already. -- Dave1g 09:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
There is a list, see the section in the article titled "Models". Akradecki 15:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
"Currently the Air Force is promoting research.........." - which one?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.3.44.9 ( talk • contribs) 00:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
This part of the article has several items that are somewhat debatable, out of date, and confuses several terms used in the uav industry, using them to refer to other activities. I've attempted to fix several of the mis-used terms, but I'm afraid it's still innaccuate. Is this part really necesary, or can we remove it. [[ Community editor 16:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)]
It has now stopped, however some users were on the verge of violating the rule. Before starting an edit war, please discuss on the talk page and arrive at a Consensus -- Statsone 01:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Is there a specific reason why a lot of content has been removed? No discussion, just removal. I don't want to revert, so some comments are welcome. -- Statsone 20:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was no consensus to move this page from Unmanned aerial vehicle to "Remotely piloted vehicle", per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 09:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
UAV is a newer term. RPV covers more ground & is more likely to be known by more people. Also, I have never heard an undewater vehicle called an RPV, so a redirect to ROV is mistaken. Trekphiler 16:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
We've all seen images of soldiers controlling UAVs on the ground (tactically, rather than in a control room). I know very little about them, however, and I think this article would benefit from a section detailing the methods used to control UAVs on a tactical level. Racooon ( talk) 17:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
I have also heard the initialism "UAV" expanded to "Uncrewed Aerial Vehicle" and "Uncrewed Air Vehicle" -- which is correct, which source is considered the authority, and is it being debated to any extent and for what reason -- for example, gender neutrality?
C
13.XI.2008
The image File:NISHANT UAV Flight.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --05:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I made a bold edit and cleaned up the external links. There were a few that might be worth integrating into inline citations:
Basically, I tried to keep the most general and neutral links. The ones above tend to be in-depth or very specific studies. I also removed a large number of links that were dead or related to one specific product. tedder ( talk) 01:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
The article is best moved to "unmanned aircraft system (UAS)", as a ua "vehicle" suggests it is to transport people (which too is possible; however these are special UAS's eg for recovery of wounded soldiers behind enemy lines). The aircraft discussed here focuses on combat (UCAS), monitoring of fires, ....
also mention the insitu group UAS's (integrator, eagleEye, ...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.171.68 ( talk) 09:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Are there any counter-arguments to using unmanned vehicles in the battlefield? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.200.228.164 ( talk) 04:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Anybody knows what level or reliability radio control links have? Can they be jammed? Do they have some autonomy programs for such a case? Can they even be hijacked? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.106.58.251 ( talk) 18:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Shortly after I added the brief remark "Drone attacks often kill civilians." together with two sources, it was removed by an anonymous user in this edit. I think Wired and New York Times qualify as reliable sources for this remark. The remark also very closely matches what is written in both of those sources--the two sources do not delve into why the drone attacks kill civilians--they merely observe/remark that they do. The sources do not mention anything about the cause of civilians deaths--and attributing them to policy or to any other cause without a reliable source would constitute original research, something to be avoided. Perhaps, if you object to the wording, it could be made more specific to make clear that it is talking about a particular instance of drone attacks--those in the certain region of Pakistan in question. However, I think the other sources on other instances also point towards drone attacks killing civilians. This source: [4] references 90 civilians, including 60 children, killed in drone attacks in Afghanistan. Here's yet another article discussing the extensive controversy around this issue: [5]. Cazort ( talk) 23:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
How can you say "often"? On which statistics do you rely on? This is completely untrue. There are hundreds of UAV flight each months. They don't "often" kill civilians. Yes, there are some accidents. But that's all. Furthermore, that has nothing to do in the first paragraph.
I feel the need to further justify my inclusion of material on drone attacks killing civilians, as now, in addition to several anonymous users removing that material, User:BilCat has removed this material, with the remark "unnecessary, POV":
With such overwhelming volume of sources covering this issue, I cannot interpret removal of this material in any way other than an attempt to sanitize this page. I see the accusation that the material I added is POV as completely baseless--it is the repeated attempts to remove this material, without providing any justification, that is POV. In my opinion, removal of my material is no different from removing well-sourced discussion of side-effects from a page on a drug, or well-sourced material about environmental impacts from the page on an herbicide. Personally, I think this topic deserves an extensive section in this article and probably a page of its own--there is certainly more than enough material in reliable sources to back this up. Removing a single comment at this point borders on absurdity. I will return to create such a section rather than engaging in a silly edit war over a single small sentence. Cazort ( talk) 19:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I did a google news archive search and found 0 hits for "Fusions Group Pakistan" or even "Fusions Group". Under google scholar I only found unrelated scientific articles, not written about the subject. This seems clearly spam/promotional material as it is promoting a company, is not sourced, and I was unable to find any independent sources. On these grounds, I am going to remove this spammy material and take Fusions Group to deletion. Cazort ( talk) 20:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Explain this one to me please. It does not matter how much it costs to develop each type of UAV because the Pentagon has an infinite budget? Hcobb ( talk) 06:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I reverted User:ViperNerd's removal of 3 sections; I consider them NPOV. I encourage you (or anyone) to discuss your reasons here rather than removing entire sections which in my opinion are reasonably well-cited/written. Brianrusso ( talk) 00:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
So far, this looks like a pure textbook NPOV exercise to me, though I am open to arguments why it might not be.
The media have been making a point of tying deaths to robots, rightly or wrongly. It is then NPOV to state that those particular media outlets (ref: AJ, WMSM, etc.) have been making a point of tying deaths to robots. The decision about whether the media are right or wrong can then be left up to the reader. It is not normally NPOV to remove mention of the fact that the media are doing so.
Can you provide any arguments why we should deviate from the "textbook" here? -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 11:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
It is now 24 hours later, with no further activity. My final position on this is that the removed section *does* comply fully with
the attribution and substantiation requirements of NPOV. Does anyone view this differently? --
Kim Bruning (
talk) 11:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I just posted a request for assistance here: Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#assistance_requested_on_Unmanned_aerial_vehicle, on the NPOV Noticeboard. Hopefully this can move us more towards some sort of consensus instead of continuing the edit war. Cazort ( talk) 14:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
@Vipernerd: Are you interested in moving the civilian casualties information off of this page and over to somewhere where it might be more appropriate? -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 00:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I just added a five-sentence paragraph to the old heading "Precision strikes" and I renamed that section "Armed attacks", as the precision has been questioned. The five sentences I added are about the ratio of civilian to intended killings in Pakistan and in Gaza Strip. I want to keep this paragraph VERY SHORT because there are main articles on the subject which go into greater detail. Binksternet ( talk) 17:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I have semi-protected the article, since someone thinks it a good idea to continue edit-warring using anonymous proxies. Let's not go down that road please. Constructive suggestions for the article, from new and unregistered editors, can be made below. Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I've got lots of links about UAVs in COIN so I'd like to make a new section on that and I think a lot of the "backlash press" falls under that. Hcobb ( talk) 13:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I've redirected Unmanned Aircraft System here. The content of that page, should anyone want to merge it into this article, was:
I see that U.S. UAVs that are routinely used in war zones (e.g., Iraq, Afghanistan) are usually remotely piloted (flown) from military bases inside the United States. Do any such war-zone flights actually take off and land in the U.S.? If so, is this also routine? -- 71.174.166.181 ( talk) 07:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MizaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 60 days.-- Oneiros ( talk) 18:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
The Afghani perception of U.S.-operated UAVs in the War on Terror should be included somehow, for the sake of the anthropology/psychology factor at least. I know an anthropologist friend who states that the perception by Afghanis of American "honor" is severely damaged by the use of these machines, and a common saying in Afghanistan is "Common robbers at least have the courage to challenge their victims face-to-face/personally in a manly way, whereas [the Americans] have no such spirit"... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.52.186.148 ( talk) 08:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
"The absolute epitome of cowardice, such that it exceeds that which the soul can comprehend" an interesting footnote perhaps. War has modernized differently accross cultures. 64.222.117.53 ( talk) 08:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
At my understanding, "piloted" and "unmanned" are antonyms. So I disagree with the definition that "an unmanned air vehicle is an RPV". I think it will be a good idea to follow the formal definitions of organizations like FAA and DoD.-- Crodrigue1 ( talk) 01:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
The military and FAA are now using UAS groups based on weight, altitude, airspeed, etc. rather than the inconsistent Type I, II, etc. I understand there are 5 groups, but I have not been able to find their complete definition on the web (though I recently saw a table with the specs presented). Need help tracking this down and then this article should be updated. Jsauter ( talk) 18:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
The Unmanned aerial vehicle#UAV functions seems to have become a dumping-ground for images of UAVs from various vendors. Doesn't illustrate the idea of "UAV functions" since all we see in most are a full view of yet another UAV with no specific payload or attachments. The good example is the FLIR camera that I pushed back into the "Remote sensing" section. The RQ7/quickMEDS image might be good for the "Transport" section if it were a closeup of the payload area--oh, and if the article about that specific UAV didn't clearly say that this payload is only in the proposal/solicited-bids phase (WP is not a crystal ball). The others do not mention specific applications at all. Maybe move 'em to a gallery? Is there a free image of a UAV firing some sort of weapon? That would be a nice on-target (sorry:) addition to the "Armed attacks" section. What about one with a frame of weather sensors for the "Scientific research" section? DMacks ( talk) 13:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Chaosdruid ( talk) 22:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi all
There seems to be a lot of confusion over UAV and UCAV. Material relating to the UCAVs should really be at Unmanned combat air vehicle with a short summary of the development from UAV to UCAV left in here.
Chaosdruid ( talk) 22:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi all
Just wondered if there were grounds for discussion on moving the title to UAV. The reason is that MoS states "Abbreviations and acronyms are generally avoided unless the subject is almost exclusively known by its abbreviation"
Google searches give:
I would say that as the acronym is close to a 10:1 usage that may be grounds for the move. Many pages still link to the UAV page as no-one fixed them after the redirect in January. Also it seems that the merge proposal was not fully discussed, only the proposer and one other editor made comments. Chaosdruid ( talk) 07:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Someone has placed a {{ lead rewrite}} tag on the article. I cannot find any discussion on the Talk page so will start one.
First off, it would be helpful if the editor who placed that tag would articulate their rationale for the tag.
Second, having nothing from the proposer, I'll just note that it does seem to make some assertions that are not true. For example, the end of the initial sentence says "...is an aircraft that is flown by a pilot or a navigator (called Combat Systems Officer on UCAVs) depending on the different Air Forces." This incorrectly places all UAVs into the class of [[|teleoperation|teleoperated]] UAVs and implies that an autonomous UAV cannot exist. Furthermore, by stating "(... called Combat Systems Officer on UCAVs) depending on the different Air Forces.", with the Air Forces comment outside the parentheses, it implies that perhaps only the military forces operate UAVs. Both of these are clearly wrong.
What improvements do others note are needed? N2e ( talk) 21:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
The link " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RQ-7_Shadow#Quick-MEDS" (Armed attacks section under a picture) isn't going to a "#Quick-MEDS" (not scrolling down to where it's mentioned).
The Quick-MEDS is only a one liner should it be removed or a "id=Quick-MEDS" added to the RQ-7_Shadow page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.139.0.55 ( talk) 18:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
In 3 June 2011 Ilyas Kashmiri, a senior al-Qaeda member, was killed by a UAV. It is a "iconic event" of UAV history and cultural critique/reception of UAVs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.103.31.154 ( talk) 11:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
This article is a nightmare of promotion with too many unneeded examples given in places where generalities would suffice. Many of the mentions of a single model of UAV or of a UAV company can be taken out in favor of a less specific discussion of capabilities and use. This article is a magnet for promotion because other UAV designers see their competitor listed, and they want to be listed as well. Binksternet ( talk) 19:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article, File:Anka-tai-cmd4814.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 13:13, 31 August 2011 (UTC) |
Why aren't the Lavochkin La-17 and Tupolev Tu-123 mentioned? This article should be marked as not representative of a world view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexkvaskov ( talk • contribs) 00:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
For an overview article on the world of UAVs it appears to be undue weight given in the article about the military use of UAVs and armed attacks. Can this be pruned and/or moved to a more specialist article rather than this article which should just be a brief summary. MilborneOne ( talk) 19:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:Globalhawk.750pix.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 02:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC) |
Yeah, they been hacked, but I can't be bothered adding it to the article, maybe someone else is interested in this, it is very surprising, and the military attitude to it is also quite surprising, they're like 'meh' [24] Penyulap talk 05:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Here Come the Drones; These popular, unmanned aircraft will eventually fall into the hands of hostile nations and terrorists by John Villasenor (a Brookings Institute fellow) Scientific American January 5, 2012. 97.87.29.188 ( talk) 01:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Though I added 8 Domestic use and 8.1 Civilian aerial surveillance, I think the above remarks show that this article should be devoted to historical technology, and that developments beyond military usage should be only briefly mentioned, and directed to new, stand-alone articles. -- Pawyilee ( talk) 12:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I cant find this anywhere on the main page. My apologies if this has been discussed at length, I merely request direction to the appropriate article on the issue. 74.128.56.194 ( talk) 10:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Marines, for example, will use a new base in Darwin, Australia, as a launch pad for Southeast Asia, while the U.S. is in talks to expand the U.S. presence in the Philippines—potential signals to China that the U.S. has quick-response capability in its backyard, defense officials said.
See Combat air patrol and MQ-9 Reaper in graphic. 97.87.29.188 ( talk) 22:15, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
99.181.159.67 ( talk) 01:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
See Oligarchy and Second Thoughts on James Burnham 99.35.12.74 ( talk) 06:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Blog entry on drone swarms. Fact or fiction? If basis in fact, should be in article to make more interesting. Of course, I don't think they made up the video of these dang things flying in formation and going after targets!! CarolMooreDC 16:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Chaosdruid ( talk) 11:19, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
It should be noted in the article that the US military UAV's can operate using their military satellite network. A simple hobbyist can not attain any significant range, though ranges up to 7km are possible (see UAVTeam Netherlands, ref = http://www.youtube.com/user/UAVTeamNetherlands/featured ) A standard amateur radio is able to give signals upto 1 mile away. Appearantly some systems use GPS and sensors instead to simply allow the airplane to fly autonomously to circumvent this limitation, see Maynard Hill TAM-5 ref http://tam.plannet21.com/FAQs.htm#electronics
Perhaps a possibility is to use radio repeaters along a path (look into this), but then only a specific route can be flown.
Perhaps also mention that remote controlled airplanes will also be used for the transportation of material for hospitals (medicine, blood samples, human organs, ...)and packet services, and for transporting wounded military personnel by the military. RC passenger airplanes [3] will also used in the near future.
91.182.172.157 ( talk) 14:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Rather surprising to find no such section regarding military use, given the amount that the issues and implications have been discussed in many media at many levels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.167.19.166 ( talk) 14:07, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Such concerns are clearly expressed under the subcategory 'Armed attacks', as well as the related articles: Targeted killing, Unmanned combat aerial vehicle, and Drone attacks in Pakistan. KiloEchoNovember ( talk) 08:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
The World Wide Fund for Nature WWF recently announced its intention to use UAVs in Nepal, to combat poaching and aid conservation, following a successful trial of two aircraft in Indonesia. The project could be expanded to other countries, such as Tanzania and Malaysia. [4]
Should this be added under the category 'Uses'? KiloEchoNovember ( talk) 08:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
U.S. anti-drone weapon unveiled http://www.spacewar.com/reports/US_anti-drone_weapon_unveiled_999.html
95.209.106.167 ( talk) 00:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Do any remotely piloted fighter aircraft allready exist ? Remotely piloted ground attack aircraft allready exist (ie General Atomics MQ-1 Predator) yet fighter and fighter/ground-attack aircraft do not. I think a remotely operated version of the Dornier_Do_335 or even Yakovlev_Yak-3, Supermarine Spitfire or Mitsubishi A6M Zero would be beneficial and allow greater reductions in military spending (ie a Joint Strike Fighter costs 60,4 million dollar). RO-versions of these WW2 fighters might not be as good in dogfights, but for 60 million dollar, one can make a lot of RO WW2 fighters, and I'm not sure whether a huge group of these won't win against a single JSF. 91.182.37.177 ( talk) 11:58, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
"This marked the first use of an armed Predator as an attack aircraft outside of a theater of war such as Afghanistan." What does thast mean? The Afghanistan war wasn't real? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.52.168.106 ( talk) 15:57, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Should
kinetic activity redirect here?
[25] OR to
murder?
[26] What about
stealth-wear? —
Pawyilee (
talk) 03:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
List_of_established_military_terms#Technological may now take care of it by changing "Drone strike" to Drone technology," linked to that article's topic "Vehicles: Unmanned"; and redirecting " Drone strike" from here to " Unmanned combat air vehicle". I'll worry about "kinetic activity later, and altogehter forget about "stealth-wear". — Pawyilee ( talk) 06:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
UAV named Mah 01, Mah 02 and Bojnik were used in Operation Storm in 1995 by HV in cooperation with US. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIGJPtfZ4oU 89.172.205.35 ( talk) 00:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Another editor reverted my removal of a several-month's-old tag, which I had undertaken because (1) I hate looking at these stupid things encrusting the tops of every other page (usually without substantive merit), (2) the "Worldview" tag is one of the most arbitrary and nebulous of all Wiki tags, and (3) I noticed nobody complaining about US-centric article bias in Talk (where, one would assume, either the person who originally added it four months ago, or the objecting editor, would have something to say about it).-- Froglich ( talk) 09:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps following section can be added at "Uses"
Miniature UAV design is becoming more and more popular as a leisure activity. Home builders are exchanging plans via websites such as DIYDrones.com and UAVSourceForge. [5]
Added a few mentions of FPV UAVs for leisure. Zedtwitz ( talk) 15:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Also, perhaps its intresting to mention
multicopters. Several police forces allready have octocopters and there is gowing intrest for using multicopters in
crowd management. Some police forces are also working on implementing minidrones on a large scale. For example England will be integrating a
national drone plan by 2012.
[6]
This is not a dictionary for employees of NATO's "air component". When I take a piece of paper and fold it, and make an airplane and throw it, then I have launched a UAV, but I have not launched what is commonly known as a drone.
The first sentence of the article might need a rewrite. Perhaps the article should be called "Drone", and the first line should say "... less commonly known as a unmanned aerial vehicle". -- Aicarambole ( talk) 11:24, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
I put the subsections in alphabetical order, just to make it easier to find a given section. I also added a section on the Republic of Ireland, which I'll probably expand a bit as there's a bit more that could go in. Autarch ( talk) 18:37, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
cyberbot II has tagged this link as being on one of two spam blacklists. I'm not sure which pattern matches the URL, so I'm not sure if it's a false positive. Anyone know how to check? Autarch ( talk) 20:15, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
This article is now getting quite long and the way it jumps back-and-forth between general material and military specifics makes it hard to read. In particular, there are top-level section headings like "UAV operators", "Public opinion", "Morality" and "Legality" that deal exclusively with military uses. So the article could do with re-organization. But it might be more efficient to divide the article into a main UAV history/technology topic with short sections outlining the principal military and non-military uses, which could then be described in-depth in two or three separate articles. Civilian applications (which are set to increase significantly e.g. BBC story) in general use very different platforms and operating models. I appreciate that there is some overlap – maybe surveillance and policing would belong with military – but I'm sure we could work that out. What do you think? - Pointillist ( talk) 06:56, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
The Green Falcon solar UAV is a proposed UAV designed by Wessam Al Sabban and Dr Felipe Gonzalez for fire monitoring of forests in Australia. The UAv has a 2,5 metre wing span and is hand-launched. [7] [8]
Jgui's 27 Aug 2013 "Civilian casualties" contested edit is here. If I don't see convincing arguments to Keep, I will again Delete it as being unencyclopedic POV and unreliably sourced. RCraig09 ( talk) 15:10, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Is this section in breach of WP:CRYSTAL? Autarch ( talk) 14:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/31/world/asia/pakistan-drone-strikes.html?_r=0 Pakistan govt, Oct 31, 2013: 3% [three] of drone-strike casualties were civilians since 2008. There were 317 drone strikes since then, and they killed 2160 terrorists, and 67 civilians. These figures are very similar to the CIA's. 74.60.161.158 ( talk) 21:59, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
[27]( Lihaas ( talk) 17:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC)).
http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/media/uas_roadmap_2013.pdf started in 2012 by FAA and Congress. — Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 22:58, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
The term 'Unmanned Aircraft Systems" is becoming the most popular, (UAS), but there is not a Wikipedia article with this title. Such an article does not redirect here. The FAA uses this term also. [28] — Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 23:47, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
There is a rambling section on the legality of using drones to carry out assassinations. Aside from being hard to read it is referring only to one single alleged memo which supposedly says that such killings are legal. I am afraid that however POV is interpreted, that is not good enough and must be seen as unacceptable NPOV. It is one-sided and entirely lacking in independence, transparency or objectivity. It is like saying that Hitler didn't kill any Jews, and the proof is in a Nazi Party memo which I am afraid I cannot show you! Would anyone accept that at face value? The supreme irony is that the supposed memo actually does not support the CIA case - if it says that killing of "senior operational leaders of Al-Qaeda" is legal, the thousands of other people killed were not lawfully killed according to the memo! 101.98.175.68 ( talk) 07:23, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I am not a regular editor to the article and don't plan to be, but I was wondering, wouldn't the flying/hovering M4 device/robot from the February 14, 1969 episode of Star Trek " Requiem for Methuselah" be considered a drone? It had sensors, could fire an energy beam, could deactivate hand phasers, had autonomous flight, and also responded to Flint's voice commands and probably his handheld button pad. Pictures: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. If you think it should be included then go ahead in my opinion, as I likely won't be back here. 5Q5 ( talk) 15:31, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Not in US subsection, lobbying, classification?: http://www.dailytech.com/Commercial+Drones+to+Get+Privacy+Guidelines+Via+Executive+Order/article36285.htm comp.arch ( talk) 14:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
In the sentence
"and development is underway on the still smaller US Navy-developed Spike missile.[83]"
the link to "Spike missile" in the above sentence points to the wrong article. It points to a much larger missile developed by the Israeli company Rafael Advanced Defense Systems, rather than to the US Navy Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake, Calif.-developed "world's smallest" missile, for which you have no article yet.
Here are two articles about the US Navy's Spike missile:
http://www.janes.com/article/33507/usn-spike-miniature-pgm-successfully-engages-fiac-targets
http://www.navytimes.com/article/20140223/NEWS04/302230006/Navy-develops-world-s-smallest-guided-missile-
You also have no reference for the acronym "FIAC" -- "Fast Inshore Attack Craft" used in those articles about the USN Spike. Perhaps you can add a page for that; it took me a few minutes to find the definition elsewhere.
(apologies if I'm using the wrong procedure, I've never done this on Wikipedia before)
Jimcgreevy ( talk) 23:52, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
This page is getting rather large and will become harder to manage as there will be a lot of development over the next few years. With the tremendous growth of the civilian uses developing now I think we should separate these topics to their own pages. -- Ricochetintj ( talk) 06:32, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
We currently have:
I have placed a merge proposal on
Battlefield UAV into
Unmanned aerial vehicle
I propose we also merge
Battlefield UAVs in the United States into
Unmanned combat aerial vehicle
I have Moved titles with 'air vehicles' in them to aerial vehicles for consistency, so, there's no more air vehicles
Perhaps we could break it into: Unmanned aerial vehicles and keep it rigorously civilian, Make Unmanned combat aerial vehicle military applications only and remove all the UAV repetitions or transclude. Carefully link sections to their Major Pages and keep very brief summaries.
I am not sure about the title
Unmanned combat aerial vehicle, maybe it's OK but this is the only place I've seen it, could it become
Unmanned aerial vehicle - military and maybe
Unmanned aerial vehicle - civilian?
What think you?
E
x
nihil (
talk) 17:52, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
I think that the drone-related incident in UEFA Euro 2016 qualifying match between Serbia and Albania, played in Belgrade, shoud be put in the Sport section. -- Ammar Tivari Talk! 14:29, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I would like to suggest that we change the nomenclature used in certain sections of this article. The would Autonomous or Autonomy is sometimes used in relation to unmanned vehicles but it is inappropriate. The correct word to use would be automated or automation. Autonomy is related to free will(free agency) and means the ability to take decisions which can be contrary to those pre-programmed into the vehicle. Unmanned vehicles may frequently do things we did not intend but it is not because they make a decision to disobey but because of errors in their automation.
Clough, Bruce.T (August 2002).
"Metrics, Schmetrics! How The Heck Do You Determine A UAV's Autonomy Anyway". AIR FORCE RESEARCH LAB WRIGHT-PATTERSON AFB, OH. Retrieved 26 October 2014. {{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)
Please see this paper for a good discussion.
JPelham (
talk) 16:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Please comment on the page move decision at Talk:Drone attacks in Pakistan. Uhlan talk 21:38, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I suggest splitting this article into sections accessible from a disambiguation page as it has become too long to read, and has both Military and Non Military UAVs on the one page, which can be confusing to those who are not "experts" in the field of UAVs. 110.148.140.247 ( talk) 01:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
There's far too much overlap to split the article in two with a disambiguation page...that's not a proper way to handle a subject like this. Certain sections can be spun off to create daughter articles (see Wikipedia:Summary style), which is the proper way to handle such issues and appears to be what the other editor above are doing with some content in this article. I just came across this article while working on other Wikipedia content, so I don't have a full understanding of all the content on this subject to be able to provide a thorough suggested article hierarchy. I think that a daughter article can be created Military use of unmanned aerial vehicles (or a similar title...acronyms shouldn't be used). I don't think an article solely concerning civilian use is necessary.
Personally, I think a review of the hierarchy of all UAV-related articles needs to be examined. Many have proposed merges/splits and I think a review and discussion of the entire field of UAV-related articles is appropriate. I'm busy working on other content on WP, so I'm not willing to initiate/work on a complete proposal, but I think such a review would be very useful. AHeneen ( talk) 02:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Time we deleted this section I think, it is becoming a dumping ground for trivia that is not really important or notable in what is an overview on UAVs. MilborneOne ( talk) 16:13, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Definition and terminology
To distinguish UAVs from missiles, a UAV is defined as a "powered, aerial vehicle that does not carry a human operator, uses aerodynamic forces to provide vehicle lift, can fly autonomously or be piloted remotely, can be expendable or recoverable, and can carry a lethal or nonlethal payload".[6]
Therefore, cruise missiles are not considered UAVs because, like many other guided missiles, the vehicle itself is a weapon that is not reused, even though it is also unmanned and in some cases remotely guided.
The second sentence makes no sense following the first: "... cruise missiles are not considered UAVs because the vehicle itself is a weapon" but UAVs "can carry a lethal ... payload" and "not reused" but UAVs "can be expendable."
I would think one would simply say cruise missiles aren't considered UAVs because of their (hopefully) rarely used narrow mission profile and to prevent any ambiguity between this mission and common UAV missions. JetMec ( talk) 04:59, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 18 external links on
Unmanned aerial vehicle. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 15:14, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Considering the growing number and sophistication of amateur UAV makers (students, hobbyists, contests etc), it seems that a few sentences on them would be welcome in this article. Rather than me simply adding external links, BillCJ suggested I bring the subject up here. Any objections to my adding that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zlite ( talk • contribs) 13:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
The Second and Third Gulf Wars involved US/Coalition vs Middle East forces. Don't forget the First, involving no US forces (which is why most not clued-in Westerners ignore it in counting), but several Middle East countries, I don't remember the specifics at this point, this needs fixing.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.75.196.21 ( talk • contribs) 20:52, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
66.167.136.12 05:49, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC):There's no article on the Phoenix UAV used by the British Army (see Operation Telic order of battle)...
Removed mention of the Israeli air force using the term UAV since english is not the official language of Israel thus the mention of the usage of the translated term is irrelevant—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.76.30.78 ( talk • contribs) 21:58, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Where in the article should I place information about such UAVs? Under the country of origin? Specifically I wanted to talk about the Snark, built by New Zealand-based commercial helicopter manufacturer TGR Helicorp [1]. Jacoplane 11:38, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Typo here: "More sophisticated verions may h..." ('versions')
Also needs links to waypoint navigation etc.
Will try to edit this once I get some time, but if anybody else wants to jump in, then go for it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.55.245.26 ( talk • contribs) 23:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Can someone who knows about this stuff please take a look at Top I Vision casper 250 and Casper mini uav, which appear to be about the same thing, but need some pretty heavy editing. Many thanks, ::Supergolden:: 09:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I posted this over on the talk page for History of unmanned aerial vehicles. There is a lot of duplication of articles on the subject of UAVs, with History of unmanned aerial vehicles being the most superfluous. I am proposing to integrate most of the data on that page into the appropriate already-existing pages. It makes sense that Unmanned aerial Vehicle be the main general page on the subject, so some of the material will be integrated here. What will be left over there is a general history page, essentially an expansion of the History section on this page. Comments on the project are welcomed. Akradecki 18:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Some of the lines between a UAV and a missle can get blurred, especially when talking about vehicles like the ADM-20. I'd like to propose including a definition like this in the article: "For the purposes of this article, and to distinguish UAVs from missles, a UAV is defined as being capable of controlled, sustained level flight and powered by a jet or reciprocating engine." This will, of course mean that cruise missles are included as UAVs, but things like Sidewinders are not. Comments? Akradecki 14:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I see no real reason we need to have a disambig statment at the top that's a red link, and another that is a fictitous land vehicle. If there's no objections, I'll delete in a day or two. Akradecki 15:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm seeking input for the folks who frequent this page so a consensus can be reached regarding layout. Because of the large white space created, I floated the TOC to the right (see this diff [2] for sample). However, User:Netoholic says that it is improper to do this. However, Help:Section#Floating the TOC says "A floating TOC should be used when it is beneficial to the layout of the article, or when the default TOC gets in the way of other elements." Seems to me that, in this case, it is indeed beneficial to the layout, and having the large white space gets in the way of the article. To me, the article looks better with the TOC on the right. How does everyone else feel? Akradecki 04:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
...because there have been recent flights of UAVs into tropical cyclones. Thegreatdr 15:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
What about pilotless drones? ;) Otto1970 05:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
There needs to be a list of UAVs page to supplement this article. I did not see a link to one on here if it exists already. -- Dave1g 09:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
There is a list, see the section in the article titled "Models". Akradecki 15:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
"Currently the Air Force is promoting research.........." - which one?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.3.44.9 ( talk • contribs) 00:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
This part of the article has several items that are somewhat debatable, out of date, and confuses several terms used in the uav industry, using them to refer to other activities. I've attempted to fix several of the mis-used terms, but I'm afraid it's still innaccuate. Is this part really necesary, or can we remove it. [[ Community editor 16:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)]
It has now stopped, however some users were on the verge of violating the rule. Before starting an edit war, please discuss on the talk page and arrive at a Consensus -- Statsone 01:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Is there a specific reason why a lot of content has been removed? No discussion, just removal. I don't want to revert, so some comments are welcome. -- Statsone 20:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was no consensus to move this page from Unmanned aerial vehicle to "Remotely piloted vehicle", per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 09:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
UAV is a newer term. RPV covers more ground & is more likely to be known by more people. Also, I have never heard an undewater vehicle called an RPV, so a redirect to ROV is mistaken. Trekphiler 16:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
We've all seen images of soldiers controlling UAVs on the ground (tactically, rather than in a control room). I know very little about them, however, and I think this article would benefit from a section detailing the methods used to control UAVs on a tactical level. Racooon ( talk) 17:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
I have also heard the initialism "UAV" expanded to "Uncrewed Aerial Vehicle" and "Uncrewed Air Vehicle" -- which is correct, which source is considered the authority, and is it being debated to any extent and for what reason -- for example, gender neutrality?
C
13.XI.2008
The image File:NISHANT UAV Flight.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --05:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I made a bold edit and cleaned up the external links. There were a few that might be worth integrating into inline citations:
Basically, I tried to keep the most general and neutral links. The ones above tend to be in-depth or very specific studies. I also removed a large number of links that were dead or related to one specific product. tedder ( talk) 01:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
The article is best moved to "unmanned aircraft system (UAS)", as a ua "vehicle" suggests it is to transport people (which too is possible; however these are special UAS's eg for recovery of wounded soldiers behind enemy lines). The aircraft discussed here focuses on combat (UCAS), monitoring of fires, ....
also mention the insitu group UAS's (integrator, eagleEye, ...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.171.68 ( talk) 09:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Are there any counter-arguments to using unmanned vehicles in the battlefield? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.200.228.164 ( talk) 04:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Anybody knows what level or reliability radio control links have? Can they be jammed? Do they have some autonomy programs for such a case? Can they even be hijacked? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.106.58.251 ( talk) 18:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Shortly after I added the brief remark "Drone attacks often kill civilians." together with two sources, it was removed by an anonymous user in this edit. I think Wired and New York Times qualify as reliable sources for this remark. The remark also very closely matches what is written in both of those sources--the two sources do not delve into why the drone attacks kill civilians--they merely observe/remark that they do. The sources do not mention anything about the cause of civilians deaths--and attributing them to policy or to any other cause without a reliable source would constitute original research, something to be avoided. Perhaps, if you object to the wording, it could be made more specific to make clear that it is talking about a particular instance of drone attacks--those in the certain region of Pakistan in question. However, I think the other sources on other instances also point towards drone attacks killing civilians. This source: [4] references 90 civilians, including 60 children, killed in drone attacks in Afghanistan. Here's yet another article discussing the extensive controversy around this issue: [5]. Cazort ( talk) 23:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
How can you say "often"? On which statistics do you rely on? This is completely untrue. There are hundreds of UAV flight each months. They don't "often" kill civilians. Yes, there are some accidents. But that's all. Furthermore, that has nothing to do in the first paragraph.
I feel the need to further justify my inclusion of material on drone attacks killing civilians, as now, in addition to several anonymous users removing that material, User:BilCat has removed this material, with the remark "unnecessary, POV":
With such overwhelming volume of sources covering this issue, I cannot interpret removal of this material in any way other than an attempt to sanitize this page. I see the accusation that the material I added is POV as completely baseless--it is the repeated attempts to remove this material, without providing any justification, that is POV. In my opinion, removal of my material is no different from removing well-sourced discussion of side-effects from a page on a drug, or well-sourced material about environmental impacts from the page on an herbicide. Personally, I think this topic deserves an extensive section in this article and probably a page of its own--there is certainly more than enough material in reliable sources to back this up. Removing a single comment at this point borders on absurdity. I will return to create such a section rather than engaging in a silly edit war over a single small sentence. Cazort ( talk) 19:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I did a google news archive search and found 0 hits for "Fusions Group Pakistan" or even "Fusions Group". Under google scholar I only found unrelated scientific articles, not written about the subject. This seems clearly spam/promotional material as it is promoting a company, is not sourced, and I was unable to find any independent sources. On these grounds, I am going to remove this spammy material and take Fusions Group to deletion. Cazort ( talk) 20:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Explain this one to me please. It does not matter how much it costs to develop each type of UAV because the Pentagon has an infinite budget? Hcobb ( talk) 06:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I reverted User:ViperNerd's removal of 3 sections; I consider them NPOV. I encourage you (or anyone) to discuss your reasons here rather than removing entire sections which in my opinion are reasonably well-cited/written. Brianrusso ( talk) 00:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
So far, this looks like a pure textbook NPOV exercise to me, though I am open to arguments why it might not be.
The media have been making a point of tying deaths to robots, rightly or wrongly. It is then NPOV to state that those particular media outlets (ref: AJ, WMSM, etc.) have been making a point of tying deaths to robots. The decision about whether the media are right or wrong can then be left up to the reader. It is not normally NPOV to remove mention of the fact that the media are doing so.
Can you provide any arguments why we should deviate from the "textbook" here? -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 11:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
It is now 24 hours later, with no further activity. My final position on this is that the removed section *does* comply fully with
the attribution and substantiation requirements of NPOV. Does anyone view this differently? --
Kim Bruning (
talk) 11:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I just posted a request for assistance here: Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#assistance_requested_on_Unmanned_aerial_vehicle, on the NPOV Noticeboard. Hopefully this can move us more towards some sort of consensus instead of continuing the edit war. Cazort ( talk) 14:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
@Vipernerd: Are you interested in moving the civilian casualties information off of this page and over to somewhere where it might be more appropriate? -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 00:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I just added a five-sentence paragraph to the old heading "Precision strikes" and I renamed that section "Armed attacks", as the precision has been questioned. The five sentences I added are about the ratio of civilian to intended killings in Pakistan and in Gaza Strip. I want to keep this paragraph VERY SHORT because there are main articles on the subject which go into greater detail. Binksternet ( talk) 17:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I have semi-protected the article, since someone thinks it a good idea to continue edit-warring using anonymous proxies. Let's not go down that road please. Constructive suggestions for the article, from new and unregistered editors, can be made below. Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I've got lots of links about UAVs in COIN so I'd like to make a new section on that and I think a lot of the "backlash press" falls under that. Hcobb ( talk) 13:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I've redirected Unmanned Aircraft System here. The content of that page, should anyone want to merge it into this article, was:
I see that U.S. UAVs that are routinely used in war zones (e.g., Iraq, Afghanistan) are usually remotely piloted (flown) from military bases inside the United States. Do any such war-zone flights actually take off and land in the U.S.? If so, is this also routine? -- 71.174.166.181 ( talk) 07:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MizaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 60 days.-- Oneiros ( talk) 18:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
The Afghani perception of U.S.-operated UAVs in the War on Terror should be included somehow, for the sake of the anthropology/psychology factor at least. I know an anthropologist friend who states that the perception by Afghanis of American "honor" is severely damaged by the use of these machines, and a common saying in Afghanistan is "Common robbers at least have the courage to challenge their victims face-to-face/personally in a manly way, whereas [the Americans] have no such spirit"... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.52.186.148 ( talk) 08:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
"The absolute epitome of cowardice, such that it exceeds that which the soul can comprehend" an interesting footnote perhaps. War has modernized differently accross cultures. 64.222.117.53 ( talk) 08:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
At my understanding, "piloted" and "unmanned" are antonyms. So I disagree with the definition that "an unmanned air vehicle is an RPV". I think it will be a good idea to follow the formal definitions of organizations like FAA and DoD.-- Crodrigue1 ( talk) 01:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
The military and FAA are now using UAS groups based on weight, altitude, airspeed, etc. rather than the inconsistent Type I, II, etc. I understand there are 5 groups, but I have not been able to find their complete definition on the web (though I recently saw a table with the specs presented). Need help tracking this down and then this article should be updated. Jsauter ( talk) 18:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
The Unmanned aerial vehicle#UAV functions seems to have become a dumping-ground for images of UAVs from various vendors. Doesn't illustrate the idea of "UAV functions" since all we see in most are a full view of yet another UAV with no specific payload or attachments. The good example is the FLIR camera that I pushed back into the "Remote sensing" section. The RQ7/quickMEDS image might be good for the "Transport" section if it were a closeup of the payload area--oh, and if the article about that specific UAV didn't clearly say that this payload is only in the proposal/solicited-bids phase (WP is not a crystal ball). The others do not mention specific applications at all. Maybe move 'em to a gallery? Is there a free image of a UAV firing some sort of weapon? That would be a nice on-target (sorry:) addition to the "Armed attacks" section. What about one with a frame of weather sensors for the "Scientific research" section? DMacks ( talk) 13:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Chaosdruid ( talk) 22:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi all
There seems to be a lot of confusion over UAV and UCAV. Material relating to the UCAVs should really be at Unmanned combat air vehicle with a short summary of the development from UAV to UCAV left in here.
Chaosdruid ( talk) 22:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi all
Just wondered if there were grounds for discussion on moving the title to UAV. The reason is that MoS states "Abbreviations and acronyms are generally avoided unless the subject is almost exclusively known by its abbreviation"
Google searches give:
I would say that as the acronym is close to a 10:1 usage that may be grounds for the move. Many pages still link to the UAV page as no-one fixed them after the redirect in January. Also it seems that the merge proposal was not fully discussed, only the proposer and one other editor made comments. Chaosdruid ( talk) 07:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Someone has placed a {{ lead rewrite}} tag on the article. I cannot find any discussion on the Talk page so will start one.
First off, it would be helpful if the editor who placed that tag would articulate their rationale for the tag.
Second, having nothing from the proposer, I'll just note that it does seem to make some assertions that are not true. For example, the end of the initial sentence says "...is an aircraft that is flown by a pilot or a navigator (called Combat Systems Officer on UCAVs) depending on the different Air Forces." This incorrectly places all UAVs into the class of [[|teleoperation|teleoperated]] UAVs and implies that an autonomous UAV cannot exist. Furthermore, by stating "(... called Combat Systems Officer on UCAVs) depending on the different Air Forces.", with the Air Forces comment outside the parentheses, it implies that perhaps only the military forces operate UAVs. Both of these are clearly wrong.
What improvements do others note are needed? N2e ( talk) 21:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
The link " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RQ-7_Shadow#Quick-MEDS" (Armed attacks section under a picture) isn't going to a "#Quick-MEDS" (not scrolling down to where it's mentioned).
The Quick-MEDS is only a one liner should it be removed or a "id=Quick-MEDS" added to the RQ-7_Shadow page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.139.0.55 ( talk) 18:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
In 3 June 2011 Ilyas Kashmiri, a senior al-Qaeda member, was killed by a UAV. It is a "iconic event" of UAV history and cultural critique/reception of UAVs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.103.31.154 ( talk) 11:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
This article is a nightmare of promotion with too many unneeded examples given in places where generalities would suffice. Many of the mentions of a single model of UAV or of a UAV company can be taken out in favor of a less specific discussion of capabilities and use. This article is a magnet for promotion because other UAV designers see their competitor listed, and they want to be listed as well. Binksternet ( talk) 19:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article, File:Anka-tai-cmd4814.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 13:13, 31 August 2011 (UTC) |
Why aren't the Lavochkin La-17 and Tupolev Tu-123 mentioned? This article should be marked as not representative of a world view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexkvaskov ( talk • contribs) 00:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
For an overview article on the world of UAVs it appears to be undue weight given in the article about the military use of UAVs and armed attacks. Can this be pruned and/or moved to a more specialist article rather than this article which should just be a brief summary. MilborneOne ( talk) 19:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:Globalhawk.750pix.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 02:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC) |
Yeah, they been hacked, but I can't be bothered adding it to the article, maybe someone else is interested in this, it is very surprising, and the military attitude to it is also quite surprising, they're like 'meh' [24] Penyulap talk 05:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Here Come the Drones; These popular, unmanned aircraft will eventually fall into the hands of hostile nations and terrorists by John Villasenor (a Brookings Institute fellow) Scientific American January 5, 2012. 97.87.29.188 ( talk) 01:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Though I added 8 Domestic use and 8.1 Civilian aerial surveillance, I think the above remarks show that this article should be devoted to historical technology, and that developments beyond military usage should be only briefly mentioned, and directed to new, stand-alone articles. -- Pawyilee ( talk) 12:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I cant find this anywhere on the main page. My apologies if this has been discussed at length, I merely request direction to the appropriate article on the issue. 74.128.56.194 ( talk) 10:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Marines, for example, will use a new base in Darwin, Australia, as a launch pad for Southeast Asia, while the U.S. is in talks to expand the U.S. presence in the Philippines—potential signals to China that the U.S. has quick-response capability in its backyard, defense officials said.
See Combat air patrol and MQ-9 Reaper in graphic. 97.87.29.188 ( talk) 22:15, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
99.181.159.67 ( talk) 01:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
See Oligarchy and Second Thoughts on James Burnham 99.35.12.74 ( talk) 06:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Blog entry on drone swarms. Fact or fiction? If basis in fact, should be in article to make more interesting. Of course, I don't think they made up the video of these dang things flying in formation and going after targets!! CarolMooreDC 16:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Chaosdruid ( talk) 11:19, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
It should be noted in the article that the US military UAV's can operate using their military satellite network. A simple hobbyist can not attain any significant range, though ranges up to 7km are possible (see UAVTeam Netherlands, ref = http://www.youtube.com/user/UAVTeamNetherlands/featured ) A standard amateur radio is able to give signals upto 1 mile away. Appearantly some systems use GPS and sensors instead to simply allow the airplane to fly autonomously to circumvent this limitation, see Maynard Hill TAM-5 ref http://tam.plannet21.com/FAQs.htm#electronics
Perhaps a possibility is to use radio repeaters along a path (look into this), but then only a specific route can be flown.
Perhaps also mention that remote controlled airplanes will also be used for the transportation of material for hospitals (medicine, blood samples, human organs, ...)and packet services, and for transporting wounded military personnel by the military. RC passenger airplanes [3] will also used in the near future.
91.182.172.157 ( talk) 14:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Rather surprising to find no such section regarding military use, given the amount that the issues and implications have been discussed in many media at many levels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.167.19.166 ( talk) 14:07, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Such concerns are clearly expressed under the subcategory 'Armed attacks', as well as the related articles: Targeted killing, Unmanned combat aerial vehicle, and Drone attacks in Pakistan. KiloEchoNovember ( talk) 08:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
The World Wide Fund for Nature WWF recently announced its intention to use UAVs in Nepal, to combat poaching and aid conservation, following a successful trial of two aircraft in Indonesia. The project could be expanded to other countries, such as Tanzania and Malaysia. [4]
Should this be added under the category 'Uses'? KiloEchoNovember ( talk) 08:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
U.S. anti-drone weapon unveiled http://www.spacewar.com/reports/US_anti-drone_weapon_unveiled_999.html
95.209.106.167 ( talk) 00:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Do any remotely piloted fighter aircraft allready exist ? Remotely piloted ground attack aircraft allready exist (ie General Atomics MQ-1 Predator) yet fighter and fighter/ground-attack aircraft do not. I think a remotely operated version of the Dornier_Do_335 or even Yakovlev_Yak-3, Supermarine Spitfire or Mitsubishi A6M Zero would be beneficial and allow greater reductions in military spending (ie a Joint Strike Fighter costs 60,4 million dollar). RO-versions of these WW2 fighters might not be as good in dogfights, but for 60 million dollar, one can make a lot of RO WW2 fighters, and I'm not sure whether a huge group of these won't win against a single JSF. 91.182.37.177 ( talk) 11:58, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
"This marked the first use of an armed Predator as an attack aircraft outside of a theater of war such as Afghanistan." What does thast mean? The Afghanistan war wasn't real? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.52.168.106 ( talk) 15:57, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Should
kinetic activity redirect here?
[25] OR to
murder?
[26] What about
stealth-wear? —
Pawyilee (
talk) 03:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
List_of_established_military_terms#Technological may now take care of it by changing "Drone strike" to Drone technology," linked to that article's topic "Vehicles: Unmanned"; and redirecting " Drone strike" from here to " Unmanned combat air vehicle". I'll worry about "kinetic activity later, and altogehter forget about "stealth-wear". — Pawyilee ( talk) 06:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
UAV named Mah 01, Mah 02 and Bojnik were used in Operation Storm in 1995 by HV in cooperation with US. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIGJPtfZ4oU 89.172.205.35 ( talk) 00:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Another editor reverted my removal of a several-month's-old tag, which I had undertaken because (1) I hate looking at these stupid things encrusting the tops of every other page (usually without substantive merit), (2) the "Worldview" tag is one of the most arbitrary and nebulous of all Wiki tags, and (3) I noticed nobody complaining about US-centric article bias in Talk (where, one would assume, either the person who originally added it four months ago, or the objecting editor, would have something to say about it).-- Froglich ( talk) 09:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps following section can be added at "Uses"
Miniature UAV design is becoming more and more popular as a leisure activity. Home builders are exchanging plans via websites such as DIYDrones.com and UAVSourceForge. [5]
Added a few mentions of FPV UAVs for leisure. Zedtwitz ( talk) 15:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Also, perhaps its intresting to mention
multicopters. Several police forces allready have octocopters and there is gowing intrest for using multicopters in
crowd management. Some police forces are also working on implementing minidrones on a large scale. For example England will be integrating a
national drone plan by 2012.
[6]
This is not a dictionary for employees of NATO's "air component". When I take a piece of paper and fold it, and make an airplane and throw it, then I have launched a UAV, but I have not launched what is commonly known as a drone.
The first sentence of the article might need a rewrite. Perhaps the article should be called "Drone", and the first line should say "... less commonly known as a unmanned aerial vehicle". -- Aicarambole ( talk) 11:24, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
I put the subsections in alphabetical order, just to make it easier to find a given section. I also added a section on the Republic of Ireland, which I'll probably expand a bit as there's a bit more that could go in. Autarch ( talk) 18:37, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
cyberbot II has tagged this link as being on one of two spam blacklists. I'm not sure which pattern matches the URL, so I'm not sure if it's a false positive. Anyone know how to check? Autarch ( talk) 20:15, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
This article is now getting quite long and the way it jumps back-and-forth between general material and military specifics makes it hard to read. In particular, there are top-level section headings like "UAV operators", "Public opinion", "Morality" and "Legality" that deal exclusively with military uses. So the article could do with re-organization. But it might be more efficient to divide the article into a main UAV history/technology topic with short sections outlining the principal military and non-military uses, which could then be described in-depth in two or three separate articles. Civilian applications (which are set to increase significantly e.g. BBC story) in general use very different platforms and operating models. I appreciate that there is some overlap – maybe surveillance and policing would belong with military – but I'm sure we could work that out. What do you think? - Pointillist ( talk) 06:56, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
The Green Falcon solar UAV is a proposed UAV designed by Wessam Al Sabban and Dr Felipe Gonzalez for fire monitoring of forests in Australia. The UAv has a 2,5 metre wing span and is hand-launched. [7] [8]
Jgui's 27 Aug 2013 "Civilian casualties" contested edit is here. If I don't see convincing arguments to Keep, I will again Delete it as being unencyclopedic POV and unreliably sourced. RCraig09 ( talk) 15:10, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Is this section in breach of WP:CRYSTAL? Autarch ( talk) 14:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/31/world/asia/pakistan-drone-strikes.html?_r=0 Pakistan govt, Oct 31, 2013: 3% [three] of drone-strike casualties were civilians since 2008. There were 317 drone strikes since then, and they killed 2160 terrorists, and 67 civilians. These figures are very similar to the CIA's. 74.60.161.158 ( talk) 21:59, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
[27]( Lihaas ( talk) 17:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC)).
http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/media/uas_roadmap_2013.pdf started in 2012 by FAA and Congress. — Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 22:58, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
The term 'Unmanned Aircraft Systems" is becoming the most popular, (UAS), but there is not a Wikipedia article with this title. Such an article does not redirect here. The FAA uses this term also. [28] — Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 23:47, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
There is a rambling section on the legality of using drones to carry out assassinations. Aside from being hard to read it is referring only to one single alleged memo which supposedly says that such killings are legal. I am afraid that however POV is interpreted, that is not good enough and must be seen as unacceptable NPOV. It is one-sided and entirely lacking in independence, transparency or objectivity. It is like saying that Hitler didn't kill any Jews, and the proof is in a Nazi Party memo which I am afraid I cannot show you! Would anyone accept that at face value? The supreme irony is that the supposed memo actually does not support the CIA case - if it says that killing of "senior operational leaders of Al-Qaeda" is legal, the thousands of other people killed were not lawfully killed according to the memo! 101.98.175.68 ( talk) 07:23, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I am not a regular editor to the article and don't plan to be, but I was wondering, wouldn't the flying/hovering M4 device/robot from the February 14, 1969 episode of Star Trek " Requiem for Methuselah" be considered a drone? It had sensors, could fire an energy beam, could deactivate hand phasers, had autonomous flight, and also responded to Flint's voice commands and probably his handheld button pad. Pictures: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. If you think it should be included then go ahead in my opinion, as I likely won't be back here. 5Q5 ( talk) 15:31, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Not in US subsection, lobbying, classification?: http://www.dailytech.com/Commercial+Drones+to+Get+Privacy+Guidelines+Via+Executive+Order/article36285.htm comp.arch ( talk) 14:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
In the sentence
"and development is underway on the still smaller US Navy-developed Spike missile.[83]"
the link to "Spike missile" in the above sentence points to the wrong article. It points to a much larger missile developed by the Israeli company Rafael Advanced Defense Systems, rather than to the US Navy Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake, Calif.-developed "world's smallest" missile, for which you have no article yet.
Here are two articles about the US Navy's Spike missile:
http://www.janes.com/article/33507/usn-spike-miniature-pgm-successfully-engages-fiac-targets
http://www.navytimes.com/article/20140223/NEWS04/302230006/Navy-develops-world-s-smallest-guided-missile-
You also have no reference for the acronym "FIAC" -- "Fast Inshore Attack Craft" used in those articles about the USN Spike. Perhaps you can add a page for that; it took me a few minutes to find the definition elsewhere.
(apologies if I'm using the wrong procedure, I've never done this on Wikipedia before)
Jimcgreevy ( talk) 23:52, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
This page is getting rather large and will become harder to manage as there will be a lot of development over the next few years. With the tremendous growth of the civilian uses developing now I think we should separate these topics to their own pages. -- Ricochetintj ( talk) 06:32, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
We currently have:
I have placed a merge proposal on
Battlefield UAV into
Unmanned aerial vehicle
I propose we also merge
Battlefield UAVs in the United States into
Unmanned combat aerial vehicle
I have Moved titles with 'air vehicles' in them to aerial vehicles for consistency, so, there's no more air vehicles
Perhaps we could break it into: Unmanned aerial vehicles and keep it rigorously civilian, Make Unmanned combat aerial vehicle military applications only and remove all the UAV repetitions or transclude. Carefully link sections to their Major Pages and keep very brief summaries.
I am not sure about the title
Unmanned combat aerial vehicle, maybe it's OK but this is the only place I've seen it, could it become
Unmanned aerial vehicle - military and maybe
Unmanned aerial vehicle - civilian?
What think you?
E
x
nihil (
talk) 17:52, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
I think that the drone-related incident in UEFA Euro 2016 qualifying match between Serbia and Albania, played in Belgrade, shoud be put in the Sport section. -- Ammar Tivari Talk! 14:29, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I would like to suggest that we change the nomenclature used in certain sections of this article. The would Autonomous or Autonomy is sometimes used in relation to unmanned vehicles but it is inappropriate. The correct word to use would be automated or automation. Autonomy is related to free will(free agency) and means the ability to take decisions which can be contrary to those pre-programmed into the vehicle. Unmanned vehicles may frequently do things we did not intend but it is not because they make a decision to disobey but because of errors in their automation.
Clough, Bruce.T (August 2002).
"Metrics, Schmetrics! How The Heck Do You Determine A UAV's Autonomy Anyway". AIR FORCE RESEARCH LAB WRIGHT-PATTERSON AFB, OH. Retrieved 26 October 2014. {{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)
Please see this paper for a good discussion.
JPelham (
talk) 16:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Please comment on the page move decision at Talk:Drone attacks in Pakistan. Uhlan talk 21:38, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I suggest splitting this article into sections accessible from a disambiguation page as it has become too long to read, and has both Military and Non Military UAVs on the one page, which can be confusing to those who are not "experts" in the field of UAVs. 110.148.140.247 ( talk) 01:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
There's far too much overlap to split the article in two with a disambiguation page...that's not a proper way to handle a subject like this. Certain sections can be spun off to create daughter articles (see Wikipedia:Summary style), which is the proper way to handle such issues and appears to be what the other editor above are doing with some content in this article. I just came across this article while working on other Wikipedia content, so I don't have a full understanding of all the content on this subject to be able to provide a thorough suggested article hierarchy. I think that a daughter article can be created Military use of unmanned aerial vehicles (or a similar title...acronyms shouldn't be used). I don't think an article solely concerning civilian use is necessary.
Personally, I think a review of the hierarchy of all UAV-related articles needs to be examined. Many have proposed merges/splits and I think a review and discussion of the entire field of UAV-related articles is appropriate. I'm busy working on other content on WP, so I'm not willing to initiate/work on a complete proposal, but I think such a review would be very useful. AHeneen ( talk) 02:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Time we deleted this section I think, it is becoming a dumping ground for trivia that is not really important or notable in what is an overview on UAVs. MilborneOne ( talk) 16:13, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Definition and terminology
To distinguish UAVs from missiles, a UAV is defined as a "powered, aerial vehicle that does not carry a human operator, uses aerodynamic forces to provide vehicle lift, can fly autonomously or be piloted remotely, can be expendable or recoverable, and can carry a lethal or nonlethal payload".[6]
Therefore, cruise missiles are not considered UAVs because, like many other guided missiles, the vehicle itself is a weapon that is not reused, even though it is also unmanned and in some cases remotely guided.
The second sentence makes no sense following the first: "... cruise missiles are not considered UAVs because the vehicle itself is a weapon" but UAVs "can carry a lethal ... payload" and "not reused" but UAVs "can be expendable."
I would think one would simply say cruise missiles aren't considered UAVs because of their (hopefully) rarely used narrow mission profile and to prevent any ambiguity between this mission and common UAV missions. JetMec ( talk) 04:59, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 18 external links on
Unmanned aerial vehicle. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 15:14, 28 August 2015 (UTC)