Talk:Unmanned aerial vehicle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Unmanned aerial vehicle article.
Article policies
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
AVIATION This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Aviation Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Amateur UAVs

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)

      Zlite here: Having heard no objections, I'll edit that in. I will add a journalistic (Economist) reference to the amateur trend, and and an external link to one or two amateur UAV community sites.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zlite (talk • contribs) 23:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Second and Third

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.

[edit] Phoenix UAV

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

[edit] Commercial military UAVs

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)

[edit] Needs editing

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.

[edit] Pages needing attention

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)

Done. New article is now Casper 250. Akradecki 20:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rewriting and merging

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)

[edit] UAV definition and distinction

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)

No objections having been raised, definition has been added here and on the history page. Akradecki 19:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disambig

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)

That's cool with me; I only added it because I couldn't stand having UAV be a disambiguation page showing a red link, a fictitous land vehicle, and the vastly-more-common meaning. ➥the Epopt 15:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
BTW...I totally agree with what you did. I always found that disambig page an annoyance. Akradecki 15:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TOC location consensus needed

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)

Eliminate the concern by moving the extraordinarily long list of vehicles to its own page (List of unmanned aerial vehicles). -- Netoholic @ 05:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree, moving that information to a list is the easiest way to shorten the number of headings. This article would be pretty lean on information in that case, so perhaps the history page could be merged here. Salad Days
Agreed as well. Take the entire list to a new page, and replace the existing catagories with "main article at..." and maybe a little bit of summary text of the whole thing. --KPWM_Spotter 22:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Sounds like a plan. I've done the first step, moving the list to the List. Eventually, I'll move the history section over to here like has been suggested, but there's still a lot of work to pare down first (see the To Do list on that article's talk page; all the subpages need to be merged into their relevant model articles...please be patient.) Akradecki 03:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Both pages look great! Salad Days 03:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Included hurricane tag

...because there have been recent flights of UAVs into tropical cyclones. Thegreatdr 15:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed the tag, as UAVs have nothing to do with cyclones. →James Kidd (contr/talk/email) 01:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] pilotless drones

What about pilotless drones? ;) Otto1970 05:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Needs A List

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)

[edit] "the Air Force" - which one?

"Currently the Air Force is promoting research.........." - which one?

[edit] Categories of development

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)]

[edit] 3RR

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)

[edit] Deletion of content

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)

Me and Cyrius both deleted redundant sections that looked like sloppiness in copying and pasting. I don't think anybody will protest these deletions. More to your point, I've been doing a lot of deleting of Breighnk's additions which were beginning to overwhelm the article with references to AAI's Shadow. I felt the Shadow images and text were too rah-rah; too much like a PR puff piece. I especially didn't like the Shadow stuff that crept into the History section which should be kept very short since it links to a larger article.
Hope that explains my stance. Binksternet 21:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Move request

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

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)

  • Oppose. I've heard the term UAV but never RPV. In fact, I read an article about UAVs just today: [3]. Google turns up 248,000 links for "Unmanned aerial vehicle" but only 20,700 for "Remotely piloted vehicle". I would support changing RPV to redirect to this page, but not retitling this page.--Father Goose 10:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment You've lost the "aerial" part of the whole thing -- or is this article supposed to cover fullsize RC trucks and such? (And aren't those already covered elsewhere?) Ewlyahoocom 07:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - RPVs were remotely piloted for the entire flight in most cases, while modern UAVs can and do operate autonomoulsly, and are capable of making decisions without human input. Not quite the same thing. UAV is thus a broader term covering today's range of unmanned aircraft, and RPVs. - BillCJ 08:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - UAV and UAS are the industry standard terms. Proposer should demonstrate through sources that his version is the predominant term. For instance, the term RPV never shows up at NASA, here, here, at DoD, at this USAF site, etc, etc. I could go on and on and on. The proposer's statement that RPV "covers more ground" clearly is in error, as Bill mentioned it actually covers less ground (since many UAVs are semi- or fully-autonomous) and further, that his statement "is more likely to be known by more people" is also clearly in error as it can easlily be sen that UAV is the predominant industry and media term. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 15:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.