Talk:Unmanned combat aerial vehicle

message: You're discussing one particular example of an UCAV as though it were the only UCAV ever. For instance, "The Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle (UCAV) is a millitary aircraft currently under developement of the USA's DARPA..." should be rewritten as "One example of an Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle (UCAV) is a military aircraft currently under development by the USA's DARPA...", and so on. PML.
Problem fixed. Impi 12:07, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: You're

message: seems like there are a lot of UAVs in the list (Saab types?). This list is about combat drones (UCAV) and combat drones technology demo (UCAVTD) not tactical drones (UAV/TUAV)! please check your entries and remove the UAV/TUAV thanks. Shame On You 16:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: UAV is not UCAV!

message: Where can I find more information about Chinese J-5s, J-6s & J-7s becoming UCAVs? can anyone point me to the right direction? Thank you TheAsianGURU 19:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinese J-5s + J-6s + J-7s ---> UCAVs? 

message: The Mikoyan Skat is a dedicated air-to-ground platform, so is it still a UCAV, despite the lack of air-to-air capabilities?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by CeeWhy2 (talk • contribs) 10:21, August 24, 2007 (UTC) 
: It appears that all current armed UAV are air-to-ground platforms - there are probably some that could be rigged out with AAMs, but no-one seems interested at present ... so it looks like the answer defaults to "yes" ... unless we reserve the term "UCAV" for something that isn't even at prototype stage yet. 62.196.17.197 (talk) 17:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Would a dedicated air-to-ground UAV be a UCAV or not? 

message: The image :Image:NEUROn-CG-concept-112005-dassault.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
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:NEUROn-CG-concept-112005-dassault.jpg

message: *Check for UAV material to be moved
*Check for incoming UCAV material from UAV page
*Check page refs and copyedit
*Assess for B class
Chaosdruid (talk) 22:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Robotics attention needed

message: *U.S. Pursues Sale of Armed Drones by ADAM ENTOUS and JULIAN E. BARNES , excerpt ... 
97.87.29.188 (talk) 01:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WSJ]] resource 

message: This article lists the UK as flying the MQ-1, but AFAIK it doesn't. The 39 Sqn page also makes a comment about the MQ-1, but the thing is 39 Sqn's official page only lists the MQ-9 []. There seems to be no official source to any of the UK forces acquiring or having anything to do with the MQ-1 at all. Is it possible that somebody just assumed it because the RAF operates it's MQ-9's out of Creech where the 432d AEW fly their MQ-9's and MQ-1's from? --Streaky (talk) 16:51, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK MQ-1/MQ-9 Source 

message: No weapon exists in a vaccum, however shiny, so I'm adding this section.  The logic of the argument is quite interesting.  Imagine, say, a large section of Northern Idaho was only under the nominal control of the US government.  Insofar as the US government continued to support, say, Canada's use of drones to pick off Idahoans, those residents of northern Idaho would naturally feel more and more cut off from the government that claims to represent them.
It's part of a much larger argument of course of how diplomacy and war overlap:  for every enemy you kill, you risk creating a dozen new ones, et cetera.  Thanks--  Settdigger (talk) 02:39, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. There might be some more relevant material in the report linked by the Salon article. groupuscule (talk) 06:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Rock on, my brother. Settdigger (talk) 07:43, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

text: Settdigger's edits to this page seem generally good, if occasionally lacking the best tone or citations. I don't see how a block requires the reversion of multiple users' edits, but perhaps a link to the decision to block Settdigger would be helpful. Thanks. groupuscule (talk) 18:51, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see the ANI topic, and you can look at Settdigger's talk page for the block and the decline of the unblock request. I'm not going to battle with you on my restore and your reversion as I don't want to embroil myself any more deeply into content issues (unless they constitute clear policy violations) as that takes me out of my role as an administrator. If you and other editors are supportive of his changes, so be it.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Political effects

message: As long as we're talking specs, it would be nice to have the latest unclassified info regarding to what degree drones are pilotable moment-to-moment, and to what degree computer software is responsible for their operations.  Thanks -  Settdigger (talk) 03:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead

message: I propose a redirect from 'Drone Warfare' to make this article easier to navigate to. Thanks. Jusdafax  10:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal: redirect from 'Drone Warfare' 

message: If they do, then you need to include all the other ex-manned-aircraft R/C drones that have been in service for the last 100 years.  I don't think that's the intent of the article.
71.60.184.146 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 02:53, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  F-16 drones don't belong here 

message: >> Yemenis seek justice in wedding drone strike(Lihaas (talk) 00:05, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links 

message: In the late 1980s, Iran deployed a drone armed with six RPG-7 rounds in the Iran–Iraq War. This was the first time an armed drone was used in war."Iran's Asymmetric Naval Warfare", Policy Focus #87, The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, September 2008 You accept this information from WINEP in direct contradiction to the information following it. >>> In the 1973 Yom Kippur War, Israel used U.S. Ryan Firebee target drones to spur Egypt into firing its entire arsenal of anti-aircraft missiles. This mission was accomplished with no injuries to Israeli pilots, who soon exploited the depleted Egyptian defenses. How can the WINEP statement be true in respect to the following paragraph?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Outofthebox (talk • contribs) 
:I think the intent was to provide background of UAVs or target drones starting to be used in more combative ways. Also, the distinction is made regarding Iran that it was the first *armed use* - I may change the order of the text to be more logical. (Hohum @) 15:36, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources disagree? 

message: Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted.
Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia.
This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link.
If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting.
If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page.
If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta.
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.
The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true.
Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
*http://www.army-technology.com/projects/sperwer-uav/
*:Triggered by \barmy-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
*http://www.army-technology.com/features/featureuav-evolution-natural-selection-drone-revolution
*:Triggered by \barmy-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 12:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page 

message: Non-notable topic, nothing here that can't be covered in our article  on drones. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Public opinion about US drone attacks]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Unmanned combat aerial vehicle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080308223614/http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil:80/airchronicles/cc/lazarski.html to http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/cc/lazarski.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:39, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Unmanned combat aerial vehicle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111105055924/http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/MIG082307.xml&headline=First%20Look%20At%20MiG%20Skat%20UCAV%20[Updated]&channel=null to http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/MIG082307.xml&headline=First%20Look%20At%20MiG%20Skat%20UCAV%20%5BUpdated%5D&channel=null
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:41, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There is a putative difference between a UCAV and a UAV. UCAV is used in relation to platforms which are capable of autonomous operation whereas UAV is a more general term often used in relation to platforms which operate under the real time control of an operator on the ground. I therefore suggest seperate articles under the headings UCAV and UAV.JMitakon (talk) 13:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: What sources support your assertion? As far as I know, UAV is the generic term, UCAV is simply an armed UAV, while an autonomous armed UAV is a subtype of UCAV. (Also, unarmed UAVs can be autonomous.)(Hohum @) 14:52, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

text: AFAICT, neither Taranis nor X47 are autonomous, or at least not in combat. The MoD specifically said Taranis was not autonomous (maybe they only meant in combat though). The X47 does autonomous refuelling, but this seems like an abuse of the concept of "autonomous combat vehicle" to me. However, tech journalists are notoriously inaccurate in how they describe technology (you had one job...), and that this fact would produce both incorrect descriptions of the capabilities of particular platforms AND incoherent terminology for describing the classes the platforms belong to does not suprise me in the least. Dingsuntil (talk) 05:17, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Both Taranis and X47 are in the prototype stage. X47 has devolved to a tanker role - though this may change. As for UCAV's vs. UAV - my understanding is this has nothing to do with whether a UAV is autonomous or not. a UAV may be autonomous (e.g. Amazon's delivery drong) and a UCAV (e.g. a predator with hellfire missiles) might not. The distinction between the two is whether the UAV is performing combat operations. Recon UAVs in a military role will often be called UAVs. The moment the UAV is kitted out with missiles/bombs or any other ordinance that is capable of killing / damaging targets - it will be called UCAV.Icewhiz (talk) 06:24, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

text: You explained the definitions and differences of UAV and UCAV, and all that seems reasonable and easy to accept, IMHO. The main challenge here, regarding this particular article, is to find sources and refer to them. ——Nikolas Ojala (talk) 08:54, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

text: is this original research? it sounds like original research. Dingsuntil (talk) 04:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  UAV vs UCAV 

message: The QF-16 program is a full sized areal target program using end-of-life F-16 airframes. It is not an armed combat drone, nor does it partake in any mission that doesn't involve it being  shot down by friendly forces in a training scenario. See http://www.boeing.com/defense/support/qf-16/index.page 73.92.212.248 (talk) 07:09, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleted QF-16

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Unmanned combat aerial vehicle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130820182239/http://www.defense.gov//releases/release.aspx?releaseid=16035 to http://www.defense.gov/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:06, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Great article:  Thanks to all who have contributed so far.  
However, I believe it needs a section describing the official US government (esp. Obama administration) rationale for using drones.  The current article is massively biased against them.  As it is, it should be flagged <nowiki></npov>.  
I won't do that right now, because I hope to find time soon to fix this problem.  Of course, I'd be thrilled if someone else beat me to it.  DavidMCEddy (talk) 12:19, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need official rationale 

message: Many drones in Users are not combat. Smeagol 17 (talk) 14:09, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need to cut 

message: Add only UAVs with hardpoints. Please  don't add any reconnaissance UAV and Loitering munition information here. Nafis Fuad Ayon (talk) 19:32, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't add any information related to reconnaissance UAV and Loitering munition. 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:23, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:09, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:07, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: Information about third world countries such as Turkey and Iran is very doubtful . Because in these countries, government resources are spent on assembly-based toys without any innovation with products bought from the global market. For this reason, it is more correct to write the information of real manufacturers, such as the USA, Western countries and technology manufacturers such as China. Moreover, toys that are claimed as prototypes are actually nothing more than fraud and propaganda.
::This is deception and false information...   Iran in particular is one of the top 5 leading nations in regards to designing and making drones.   And hacking drones, as USA has felt painfully, at least 3 times that we know of.   The claim is simply just arrogance without basis in reality.
178.174.137.13 (talk) 16:30, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deception and false information 

message: It is practically impossible to shoot down a drone that is greater than 200m distant using conventional small arms. There must be some reliable source that can be quoted regarding the comparable effectiveness of drones vs shoulder launched missiles. It is obvious that a drone can be launched and controlled from a distance, making it vastly safer to deploy than a missile that "points back" to it's launch point. There must be documentation, somewhere.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:6AE5:2510:0:0:0:16 (talk) 20:32, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small Arms Effectiveness Against Drones 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:53, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: *https://www.indy100.com/science-tech/drone-fight-ukraine-russia
*https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/32398-video-captures-dogfight-between-mavic-drones-in-ukraine
©Geni (talk) 00:37, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: the drive is solid we've used it before. Will sort out in the morning.©Geni (talk) 23:09, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible sources for possible first aerial drone vs drone combat

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Unmanned combat aerial vehicle's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "tai":
From List of equipment of the Turkish Land Forces: 
From TAI Aksungur: 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 01:03, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Unmanned combat aerial vehicle]] 

message: Could someone in the know please fix the first paragraph of the History section? Some cutting and pasting has made it hard to read. Thank you. Mccarras (talk) 23:41, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing problem 

message: Why is the "users" for Russia showing drones that Russia does not use, showing a whole bunch of non-Russian drones, despite there being at least a halfdozen Russian drones in mass use?
No, Russia doesn't use Shahed.   They use Geran, which is a slightly modified Shahed with Russian internals.   And Ukraine just happened to try to destroy the factory producing Geran's in Tatarstan just recently so the claim that Russia isn't producing them is pure BS.   Or are you trying to say that Iran is making Russian drones, in Russia, using Russian components?
Lancet drones are used in large numbers, and it's the first that can be left fully autonomous to AI.   Orlan, Eleron, Korsar, Altius and Kub-BLA are all  being actively used.   And that's just the Russian drones that wikipedia has articles on.   There's at least another 3 just that i know of, the helicopter one, the new ground drone recently used in Berdychi and another mediumsized recon/attack drone.
You might want to remember that as of 2023, Russia is the world's 2nd biggest producer of drones.   And only the Geran and similarly "Russian-ised" Forpost have any foreign ancestry.   The entry in the list is hence effectively nothing but falsified propaganda. 178.174.137.13 (talk) 17:21, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Say what now???