Talk:Unmanned combat aerial vehicle

You're
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)

UAV is not UCAV!
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)

Al-Kaida loves UCAVs! Beijing too and Putin is also happy.
The big benefit of UCAVs is that it closes the gap between superpowers and small countries. Right now the difference between US and Swaziland military might is a few thousands tanks, fighter-bombers and a 400-strong navy, manned by over a million convincedly patriotic yankees. Only one in every 100,000 GI Joe is susceptible to islamic/chinese/russian brainwash.

After robot warcrafts appear, however, the difference in power will be just a few l44t persons with laptops and folding umbrella antenna dishes. If Swaziland has better hackers, they can breach military satcoms and turn the american robot crafts against their masters. It is stupid of USA to discard its undisputed leadership in manned military might for dumb robots. In contrast to human soldiers who are individuals and have souls, all robots are alike or the same. One is hacked, all of them are hacked, because the method is the same. This will bring the fall of the free world as we know it. BTW, Russia has the best hackers in the world, their programmers are very good. 81.0.68.145 20:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Russia has the best hackers eh? That could be disputed. While I agre that hacking could become a large part of future combat scenarios and something you should be prepared against. I don't agre with sending sons and daughters to their death for plots of land.
 * Simply put networks are already important enough that if your network is breached as bad as in the senario given, you would still lose a war today as any GPS guided missile would be rendered useless and the opposing force would likely be able to track troop movement and listen on your "secure" broadcasts. If a senario like yours ever occurred then the so called "superpower" deserves to lose since such a mistake is unforgivable.
 * Sorry for being three years to late but I really needed to vent this as I can't stand US patriots that doesn't realize that America is not the only country in the world and seems to think that every other country they do acknowledge is out to get to them. On a second note: I get your prejudice towards China and Rusia considering USA's history but what exactly is your problem with Switzerland? 81.233.213.183 (talk) 17:07, 11 December 2010 (UTC) PS It is spelled 1337. DS
 * Don't think the OP was pro-US old boy ... in fact, he seems to rather relish the idea of increased automation creating a weak point in the USA's military superiority. And he's referencing Swaziland, not Switzerland ... very different place and probably picked more or less at random as an example of a bottom tier nation in terms of (military) capability. 62.196.17.197 (talk) 17:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Chinese J-5s + J-6s + J-7s ---> UCAVs?
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)

Would a dedicated air-to-ground UAV be a UCAV or not?
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)

Image copyright problem with Image:NEUROn-CG-concept-112005-dassault.jpg
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 Media copyright questions. --02:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Robotics attention needed

 * 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)

WSJ resource

 * 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)

UK MQ-1/MQ-9 Source
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)

Political effects
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)
 * Thanks. There might be some more relevant material in the report linked by the Salon article. groupuscule (talk) 06:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Rock on, my brother. Settdigger (talk) 07:43, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Settdigger has been blocked for disruptive, non-neutral editing across a number of articles. At least some of the material he added to this article was non-neutral WP:OR, as well as being unencyclopedic. Unfortunately, his edits have become interspersed with other edits, and there is no easy way for me to surgically remove only Settdigger's edits. Therefore, I am restoring the article back to before Settdigger's edits. If other editors wish to re-edit the article to improve it, that's fine. I apologize for any extra work this causes.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Lead
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)

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

F-16 drones don't belong here
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)

The link used as citation is unrelated to the F-16 retrofitted with Unmanned technologies. Need another source. Fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikeunltd (talk • contribs) 19:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC) I agree, the QF16 is a target drone intended for use in training and therefore not an Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle. This demonstrates the problem of ambiguity inherent in the use of the word drone.85.255.233.219 (talk) 20:00, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

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

Sources disagree?
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. 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)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page
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  on the local blacklist
 * http://www.army-technology.com/features/featureuav-evolution-natural-selection-drone-revolution
 * Triggered by  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)

✅ This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 19:33, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose that Battlefield UAV be merged into this page Unmanned combat aerial vehicle because: E x nihil (talk) 12:46, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) the content in the Battlefield UAV article is already covered better under Unmanned combat aerial vehicle
 * 2) there will always be too much overlap between the two
 * 3) US specific material is already much better covered under Battlefield UAVs in the United States
 * 4) Battlefield UAV is not well developed anyway and should not divert resources away from  Unmanned combat aerial vehicle


 * Agree merge battlefield UAV to here. Battlefield UAVs in the United States is still more or less a verbatim copy of Greg Goebel's public domain "4.0 US Battlefield Drones (1)" (one chapter of the two on US battlefield drones- there are 17 chapters in total in his treatment of Drones) Although his more "chatty" section titles have renamed and wikilinks added, it still suffers from being a single source and the style/tone includes too much of an essay nature with self referencing. I think delete that and start again


 * Agree: all above points are correct and there is no reason to have two very similar pages. Merge. 2.218.177.145 (talk) 07:36, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅ Same reasons than above. --Tangopaso (talk) 20:57, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. --DrunkSquirrel (talk) 14:07, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ - SantiLak  (talk) 00:58, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ and while we're at it merge/delete Battlefield UAVs in the United States too, its okay for what it is, but it is not a Wikipedia article.--KTo288 (talk) 21:50, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge. Many/most battlefield UAVs are small unarmed UAVs used for recce, jamming etc - i.e. not UCAVs. DexDor (talk) 20:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Along the same likes as what DexDor has said... Battlefield UAVs appear to be smaller unarmed UAVs used for local battlefield operations. They would appear to be somewhat distinct from larger UCAVS. Having said that, this page does not make the distinction clearly. It is generally a messy page. Mozzie (talk) 06:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅. I would still merge the small and big, armed and unarmed, short- and long-distance military UAVs. Size is relative, locality of a battlefield is relative, distance is relative and armament in case military vehicles does not matter. Both opposers say that it is difficult to draw a line anyway.Geysirhead (talk) 19:29, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * For instance, Battlefield UAVs of the United_States mentions Hunter UAV as Battlefield UAV, although it could drop bombs.Geysirhead (talk) 19:44, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Geysirhead (talk) 21:21, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

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


 * Oppose. The topic would probably pass WP:GNG and there's sufficient material for separate articles (and both have scope for future expansion). Note: I'm the editor who did the split (originally because of all the stuff about this that had been dumped in the UAV article). DexDor (talk) 06:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I'm sure that plenty of material could be sourced to flesh this article out, and the UCAV article is pretty long already. With all the information that I presume to be out there on this topic, it would make the UCAV article overly-long. 79.97.226.247 (talk) 20:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the reasons stated above. I feel like this article would be a good one to merge, but that is not the right article to merge it into. Mozzie (talk) 06:24, 29 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Note It has now been suggested that Public opinion about US drone attacks be merged into Drone strike. Please comment at Talk:Drone strike. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:42, 3 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose Can the proposal be removed from the Article page now please? The article Public opinion about US drone attacks no longer mentions any merge this one. Keep this one factual. DoctorDaveF (talk) 12:04, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link 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 II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:39, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link 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 II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:41, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

UAV vs UCAV
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)

I should be more specific; there is too much commonality between the existing articles. The Unmanned combat aerial vehicle article refers to UCAVs as UAVs and has a photograph of an MQ9 Reaper which is a UAV, not a UCAV because it operates under the real time control of a human operator. A UCAV is not simply an armed UAV, it is an autonomous platform capable of independant action.JMitakon (talk) 14:31, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * 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)

My assertion is based largely on observation. UAV is generally used in relation to systems which operate under real time human control whereas autonomous systems such as the Taranis and X47 Pegasus are usually referred to as UCAVs.


 * 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)
 * 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)

I have written two new chapters which I am considering inserting into the UCAV article under the headings "Military advantages of UCAVs" and "Disdavantages of UCAVs", which I would like some feedback for.

Advantages of UCAVs;

The elimination of the pilot and cockpit structure from the UCAV means that, other things being equal, the UCAV will be more radar-stealthy and have superior range/payload performance. The UCAV can also be smaller than a manned aircraft, with benefits to maneouverability and low observability. In combat situations, the UCAV can employ without restriction manoeuvers and flight regimes that would be psychologically aversive, fatiguing or dangerous to a human pilot. Examples include manoeuvers at g factors in excess of 12 and prolonged low level flight at high speed, using radar, laser scanning and/or other imaging technologies in combination with a computer flight control system to avoid obstacles. Computer systems can react to threats and assign weapons to targets faster than a human pilot, consequently a UCAV flying over an enemy armoured formation at low level could attack several vehicles with precision guided weapons, launched simultaneously or in rapid succession, during a single pass. While these factors may make UCAVs more effective than manned aircraft in many situations, the greatest military advantage of the UCAV is that it does not require a highly trained pilot to operate it. Historically, the availability of trained aircrew has often been a factor limiting the scope and effectiveness of military air operations. UCAVs are less expensive to operate than manned aircraft, which have to be flown regularly to maintain pilot proficiency. The fact that UCAVs can be designed to be smaller than practical manned combat aircraft means that they can be operated from a wider range of locations and deployed further forward, nearer to the enemy. Catapults or rocket boosters can be used to launch UCAVs where a runway is not available. Massed produced UCAVs could potentially be employed using saturation tactics to overwhelm enemy ground and air forces and air defence systems.

Disadvantages of UCAVs;

Robotic or automated weapon systems have a sinister reputation in popular culture, often being used to symbolise undemocratic or clandestine authority. Even if this is dismissed as baseless paranoia, it is nevertheless a political factor. The introduction of UCAVs into military service may be resisted by some in the military who regard the technology as a threat to their image or social status. Their introduction may necessitate major military reorganisation and changes to training and doctrine. The military potential of the UCAV as an unproven new technology is the subject of continuing debate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JMitakon (talk • contribs) 12:11, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Whereas the UAV has civil applications in aerial survey, law enforcement and many other fields, a UCAV is a specifically military system, intended for use in combat situations. This leads to requirements for higher performance and also greater autonomy since the data link necessary for real time control by a remote human operator cannot be relied on in the presence of enemy ECM or Electronic Countermeasures. A digital computer system which receives inputs from a number of sensors operating in a range of electromagnetic wavebands-visual, infrared, radar- should in any case be able to outperform a human pilot or operator in terms of it's ability to react quickly to threats and attack multiple targets or perform reconnaissance or other military tasks assigned to it. If properly designed and programmed it can assess a tactical situation better and it can potentially manoeuver the UCAV precisely at g factors which would kill a human pilot dead. This explains why SEAD or the Suppression of Enemy Air Defences has been identified as a major goal in UCAV development programs. In theory the UCAV should be able to survive where a manned aircraft would not. JMitakon (talk) 15:02, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * is this original research? it sounds like original research. Dingsuntil (talk) 04:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Deleted QF-16
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)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link 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)

Need official rationale
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.

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)

Jihadi John
Emwazi seems to have been killed by a drone. He was also known as Jihadi John.

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

made-up illustration?
The illustration "Aerial aircraft carrier drone" is not really comprehensible and I don't see anything that substantiates it in the citations provided. Is this just something an editor made up, or does the specific design shown have some basis in fact? (If so, then a citation is needed that describes a design like what is shown. E.g. the strange curved ramp on the left side.) DKEdwards (talk) 08:09, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


 * A assume you are talking about the accompanying image, which I copied from the article, labeled, "Aerial aircraft carrier drone". After reading the info on Wikimedia Commons twice, it became clear that this was a "Conceptual sketch of a catamaran airship drone aircraft carrier".  This sounds like a better description to me, and I changed the label accordingly.


 * If this does NOT address your concerns, please revise the caption further or contact the contributor of this image or take other action you feel is appropriate. Thanks for commenting on this.  DavidMCEddy (talk) 12:42, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the explanation. I can't find the article you mentioned so maybe it's been changed. Looking at the wm.commons description, it sounds to me like it's just a drawing made by an editor [saying, "I am the designer and creator of the 3D model (Aerial_aircraft_carrier_drone) on Sketchup"] -- which seems to include fanciful and probably misleading features not based on a cited source.
 * For example, the ramp on the left that's painted like a runway has a baffling unexplained downward curvature to it. Can anyone make any sense of how a runway (or boat-launch ramp??) would benefit from curvature?
 * I think the inclusion of major features which are just made-up would qualify it as "original research", and if a citation can't account for it, then it should just be deleted. It hurts credibility if we can't cite a basis for it. DKEdwards (talk) 02:31, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Don't add any information related to reconnaissance UAV and Loitering munition.
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)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
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)
 * E6uS2JFWYA4BGlm.jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
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)
 * E6uKi3xXMBMWk0o-1068x755.jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
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)
 * CH-4 UAV.jpeg

Deception and false information
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)

Small Arms Effectiveness Against Drones
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)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
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)
 * Shahpar-II UAV.jpg

Possible sources for possible first aerial drone vs drone combat

 * 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)


 * the drive is solid we've used it before. Will sort out in the morning.©Geni (talk) 23:09, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Unmanned combat aerial vehicle
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)

Editing problem
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)

Say what now???
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)

Drone redirects
FYI, drone redirects are being discussed at Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 24 -- 64.229.90.32 (talk) 02:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)