Talk:Loitering munition

Thoughts on links to this article / categories

Maybe add links to this article from:

• List of emerging technologies#Military
• Military technology
• Weapon#Types

And maybe add to these categories?

• Category: Military technology
• Category: Military equipment
• Category:Weapon development

Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:34, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I added to all three cats - they all made sense. Also added a line in Weapon#Types. Regarding List of emerging technologies#Military- it is currently "too emerging" - all of the emerging technologies mentioned there are in fringe use or in development with the exception of stealth, and even that is there with Plasma stealth in the lead which is not in unclassified operational use - the weapon category itself really isn't "new tech" - but more of system engineering or System integration of existing technologies (flight, remote control, warhead, sensors, etc.) into a single package geared for different type of battle field use (the same could've been said of Cruise missile or UAV - which in themselves didn't do anytihng "new" technology wise - but rather were a new useful packaging of existing technology. Loitering Munitions date back in operational use 20-35 years (depends what you take, if you use IAI Harpy as first, then towards 20) - it is an emerging category as this is a new name + has expanded out from initial mainly Israeli use to multiple manufacturers and armies - particularly in the past 5 years or so. It might be a fit in Military technology - but that article currently focuses on very high-level concepts - putting in loitering munitions there would be a sudden low-level scope in relation to other links - so I'm not sure about that one - iffy (would probably require a bit rework there - which I'm not sure is appropriate (should it develop into a list of all/most military tech?)Icewhiz (talk) 19:29, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Re "the weapon category itself really isn't "new tech" - but more of system engineering or System integration of existing technologies (flight, remote control, warhead, sensors, etc.) into a single package geared for different type of battle field use" perhaps the article needs to reflect that. I don't think that distinction comes across at the moment. Maybe it needs a 'history' section? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:18, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Already exists - see "History: From Niche Role in Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses to General Use" (I modified the title heading now, but it was essentially a history section). Note that many weapon system innovations aren't new tech - e.g. as a case in point the Tank (see - Little Willie)at its introduction didn't introduce anything new technically (integrated essentially farm/ground machinery - tractors, existing armor (at the time - heavily used in shipping) and existing weapons) - but was rather a novel application, via system engineering, of existing technologies in a way that totally revolutionized modern combat. Contrast engineering (application of existing tech(s) to new application) vs. elementary research science. Icewhiz (talk) 10:40, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I think a paragraph is needed to introduce that section which talks about the development in a summary form, something like "Loitering Munitions have been in operational use for between 20 and 35 years, depending on definition. The IAI Harpy, for example, was sold to South Korea in 1999. System engineering or system integration of existing technologies (flight, remote control, warhead, sensors, etc.) into a single package geared for different type of battle field use. Since around 2012 usage has expanded from mainly Israeli use to multiple manufacturers and armies and therefore has emerged as a separate class of weapon to UAVs." I'll leave you to work out the wording! The history section can then go on to expand on that in more detail. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:27, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Done. Feel free to chop up the lede a bit - might be too lenghtly / disjointed from the subsequent text.Icewhiz (talk) 12:22, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Appropriate infobox?

Hi Wikipedians, I think the article would greatly benefit of having an infobox, but unsure which would be more appropriate? Any suggestions? Regards, DPdH (talk) 13:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I actually tried (originally - looked at other articles + now went over all the infoboxes + many more articles), but it doesn't seem there is an infobox that really fits. Template:Infobox_weapon is too geared towards a specific weapon type and not a broad weapon class (though it is used in Sabre - the sole use I've found on a class, not sure it's right there - and more borderline since sabre is a fairly specific sword). The following are all missing infoboxes: Reconnaissance aircraft, Fighter aircraft, Bomber, Unmanned aerial vehicle, Unmanned combat aerial vehicle, Cruise missile, Ballistic missile, Sword, Morning star (weapon), Halberd, Pole weapon, Cavalry (is part of a series about war), Tank (is included in "History of the tank"), Catapult, Siege engine, Ballista (part of a series on ancient rome), Cannon (part of a series on cannon), Multiple rocket launcher, Rocket artillery, Grenade, Rifle (Does have a series of pics with evolution of the modern rifle), Carbine, Musket, Bullet, Aircraft carrier, Battleship (which is a FA!), Destroyer, Cruiser, Ship of the line, Ironclad warship, Monitor (warship), Torpedo, Aerial torpedo, Aerial refueling, Submarine.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icewhiz (talk • contribs) 05:23, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps there should be an infobox template for "weapon class" or "general warfare concept". Probably should include period of use (excluding ceremonial use which should be addressed separately (e.g. muskets and swords still have ceremonial uses today)), military application, broad categorization of class, history of development towards first use, dating falling out of use.Icewhiz (talk) 05:27, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Good points, will reassess as "B" given that no appropriate infobox seems to exist. Regards, DPdH (talk) 01:14, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Article improvement

Hi all, got feedback (in my talk page) about my assessment, that will copy to this talk page as seems more appropriate for discussing it. Regards, DPdH (talk) 21:34, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

Hi! First off - thanks for pointing out where citations are missing - I've rectified that + added some additional photographs + expanded users. I'd appreciate if you take another look and point out what else needs improving / expansion.Icewhiz (talk) 08:33, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing my feedback, IMHO only an appropriate infobox is missing. Reassessed against B-class criteria, "Aviation" rates "C" while "MilHist" rates "start", if no infobox is adequate should be "B" in both. Regards, DPdH (talk) 13:07, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Suicide drone vs loitering munition

Regarding the inclusion of usage by Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The sources provided say they use "suicide drones". I don't see any reliable source equating the term suicide drone with loitering munitions, so I removed it. This has been reverted with the unsubstantiated claim that they are the same. (Hohum ^@) 11:07, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

They are the same, or more accurately loitering munition encompasses all suicide drones. Suicide drone is a non technical name dor the same thing, in use in popular media but not in technical lit. The IAI Harpy/Harop have multiple references to them in popular media, including some quoted in the article, as suicide or kamikaze drones. The technical use of loitering for the category is relatively new, past 5 to 10 years I believe. In the past acquisition programs used persistent and other keywords.Icewhiz (talk) 11:14, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

See for instance ref 23 in article, from Washington Post referring to Harop, in title, as kamikaze drone (in reporting on use in Nagorno Karaback) while other references, more technical ones, refer to Harop as a loitering munition.Icewhiz (talk) 11:18, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I understand what prompted you to remove it in the first place - popular vs technical use is not really spelled out any where, and was also missing in the article itself - so I added it as alt in top now. The Hebrew article (which I created in parallel to this one, though they have diverged a bit, will merge some more additions, both ways, in the future) also went through a suicide/kamikaze vs loitering naming discussion (though withndifferent focus, the problej there was that there were more Hebrew non technical, popular, reports using the slangnsuicide or kamikaze and not the Hebrew equivalent to loitering (which is actually "wandering" which is also used in other languages.Icewhiz (talk) 11:28, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

A reputable source for military nomenclature would be more convincing, rather than a newspaper - who are prone to flights of fancy. I somehow doubt military literature does equate them, since the defining attribute of a loitering munition is that it loiters, while the ones attributed to ISIL aren't described as doing so. (Hohum ^@) 11:41, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that newspapers and other popular media use suicide drone quote often, while this is not used in the technical lit. The ISIL drones are quite similar to the switchblade, which is a proper purpose built loitering munition. The ISIL drones, when configured for loitering munition roles are described as searching for a target before a suicide strike, which is what a loitering munition does. All suicde drone usages I am aware of in popular media refer actually to loitering munitions.Icewhiz (talk) 12:16, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

@Hohum: This is not something I would usually source (and seldom do I see sourcing for alternative names in articles) - however since you requested this - I have - both for "suicide drone" and for "kamikaze drone" (mentioning alt. UAV as well) - 3-4 sources for each). More can be found making this link - but I think this is enough - in particular since this is a "popular name", and not a technical name (the use of suicide/kamikaze drone is mostly confined to non-technical publications). I left un-sourced that naming pre mid-2000s is variable - I'm not exactly sure when "loitering munition" took hold - from my recollection it is in the past 10 years - systems that today are described as such (e.g. Harpy) - in the past used variable naming mainly because they were "1 (or 3) of a kind" - and not really an established category. A number of major acquistion programs led to "loitering munition". In addition - regarding the use of ISIS - I've added a source listing this use as a loitering munition (part of a list of such uses - ISIS mentioned in the end as "homemade") - though I believe, given the wide range of sources equating "suicide drone" (popular) and "loitering munition" (technical) that prior sourcing was good enough. Icewhiz (talk) 20:04, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

autonomous kamikazi drone system

I was stationed at Ft. Bragg and was researching UAV platforms that could be used to drop leaflets in support of ground forces. I came across a system that had been developed but not fielded that used a communications shelter with a small room (approximately 3x6 feet) accessible thru a door in the back of the shelter where an operator could set the target area for each of the autonomous drones that fired through the roof of the shelter. The rest of the shelter featured an array of approx 24 or 36 tubes facing straight up. The drones were deployed thru a membrane in the roof of the shelter. When launched a wing would deploy on the top of the drone and a propeller would start spinning to fly the drone to its target area. From launch of end of mission the drone would fly to a designated loiter area and fly around for a period if it "saw" anything on the ground it would dive down and kill that target with its explosive warhead. It was an area denial autonomous robot. It did not use GPS (this was before the deployment of gps). I'm guessing that because this did not allow for human adjudication of valid targets is the reason it was not fielded. I saw this in a publication on aircraft of the world perhaps "JANEs all the worlds aircraft". This same book also featured an entry for the schwitzer aircraft with its wierd serrated propeller.

I would like to obtain an accurate reference for this article I have access to internet broadband but google and duck duck go aren't showing any results.

I believe the shelter was an S240 or S250 shelter. Sunwukongmonkeygod (talk) 18:10, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Mangled reference

The following reference:

"Mortensen, Erika Steinholt. Autonomous weapon systems that decide whom to kill. How international humanitarian law and international human rights law regulate the development and use of offensive autonomous weapon systems during international armed conflicts. MS thesis. UiT Norges arktiske universitet, 2016" (PDF).

Links to:

THE ECONOMIC CALCULUS OF FIELDING AUTONOMOUS FIGHTING VEHICLES COMPLIANT WITH THE LAWS OF ARMED CONFLICT

Evan Wallach* and Erik Thomas**

THE YALE JOURNAL OF LAW & TECHNOLOGY, Volume 18

(Hohum ^@) 11:51, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

@Hohum: Corrected. The intention originally was to ref both. However this got messed up in the initial editing (leaving a HTTP link to one, but a description to another) - both sources should be in OK now..Icewhiz (talk) 20:17, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I'll note that the MS thesis is obviously of less importance than the Evan Wallach paper - it is debatable whether to include (on the upside - it is a rather in-depth look).Icewhiz (talk) 20:20, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Loitering Munition/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: I'll take this on. I think it needs a little work but should be a worthy GA. Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 20:01, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments

• Lead - don't repeat (or UAV); indeed, if we're to mention UAVs at all, they should be wikilinked and the acronym spelt out at first usage.

• Lead is too short - it should summarize each major section of the article, i.e. History, Characteristics, Concerns, Users, Manufacturers, in 3 or 4 paragraphs.

• Done - take a look.Icewhiz (talk) 08:41, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks!

• Comparison to similar weapons: I wonder whether this wouldn't be far clearer with a table showing the 3 weapon types (cruise, loitering, unmanned combat), giving an example (one column), maybe put an image of each type in another column, and a column or two for attributes (e.g. minimum speed, max mission time).

• The problem here is that it is highly variable depending on the particular type mission profile - with all three types. Range / Speed / max mission time / payload - all vary quite a bit (from line of sight range to thousands of kms, from speeds under 100 km/hour to sub-sonic, supersonic, and (possibly) hyper-sonic). Particularly with UAVs and Loitering munitions that these days go down to tactical backpack system (very small system, low speed, short range, small warhead (for loitering munition) - so we'll end with a table that has a pretty large range. We could place a "sample" for each category, but I'm not sure that a particular selection would make sense. the AeroVironment Switchblade (and similar backpack cousins) is quite a different beast than IAI Harpy. The P-800 Oniks is quite different from Tomahawk (missile) (aside from them being cruise missiles). And Aeronautics Defense Orbiter is quite markedly different from say BAE Systems Taranis. Being a UAV / Loitering weapon / cruise missile is really one aspect of a system - the performance envelope (and battlefield roles) of each category are quite wide.Icewhiz (talk) 08:04, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Careful! If that is so then the articles should be merged ...

You misread me - this is a very distinct category - just like UCAV and Cruise Missiles are - and making a table comparing UCAV and Cruise Missile is just as problematic (due to the range of different systems). The difference is in loitering ability, command and control, whether there is a built-in warhead, and expand-ability, and intended battlefield role. A cruise missile will usually attack a pre-set target (at launch, or shortly after launch) - it won't search for a target for a long period. A loitering munition - is expendable like a cruise missile (but looks more like a UAV, usually) - but will search for a target for relatively long time (in long range systems - hours, even more than 10 hours). A UCAV on the other hand - is not a munition, but a platform, it is intended to return to base. The US military designation would be different - a UAV or UCAV would be designated as an aircraft (e.g. RQ-, or AQ-, or whatever use (Q - for unmanned (radio control)). A loitering munition - would be designated according to whatever weapon category it is in (e.g. a guided missile, or mortar replacement).Icewhiz (talk) 08:41, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I guess this could be collapsed into a table - would make it more readable. It's just not a question of range/speed/weight/etc.Icewhiz (talk) 08:46, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Added in table form what is summarized in the text - I think this is more readable at a glance and perhaps what you were shooting for. The comparison is for roughly a similarly sized/cost platform/munition/missile.Icewhiz (talk) 09:03, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Excellent. I still think it would be helpful to get some figures in there, if need by by saying "e.g. Harpy xx mph/yy km/h", "Tomahawk xxxx miles/yyyy km", as it comes across as a bit vague without them.

Why don't we put a picture of each of the 3 types of weapon in a row of the table ("Example", Tomahawk photo, Harpy photo, Predator photo)? Then we could use exact figures for those examples. They could be in 3 new columns (Tomahawk, Harpy, Predator), interleaved (so Tomahawk is to the right of Cruise, etc) or added in parentheses in the existing columns.

That is a good idea, but I need to think about the appropriate example-set. The problem with using Harpy (or the newer Harpy NG) is that it is in a totally different weight class - a 15kg warhead (and high tens of kilos for the airframe) compared to the 450kg warhead (1600kg airframe) Tomahawk, and the 1000kg launch-weight predator. The whole specs would seem out of whack (as increasing size leads, usually, to longer range and often speed). Could use a heavier loitering munition - but they are mostly in development or marketing (e.g. UVision's HERO-900 which has a 100kg warhead), and the specifications are umm... Not always easy to find, and not necessarily reliable (considering some marketed systems are potentially imaginary design board scaling of smaller systems). I'm not sure about really small cruise missiles out there (need to look this up, there probably are smaller air-launched units), or much smaller UCAVs (probably can get some somewhat smaller). I wouldn't use the Switchblade as an example as that is much-much smaller (3kg) for really tactical use (essentially a "smart mortar replacement" - with a loiter phase over the target area - and low speed and range (as this is for use by an individual soldier against a close target)). There are larger loitering munitions plans out there - but these are plans - that is the problem with an emerging weapon category, you are really stuck with what was fielded so far.Icewhiz (talk) 10:09, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. Perhaps the right thing to do would be to choose min and max for each value and for each type, like "(SlowJoe 50mph, Quickshot 250mph)".

I actually prefer sticking to specific types - but need to find an roughly apple to apple comparison with reliable specifications (another problem - particularly if we also try to add cost, but also other params). If we do the range thing, we'll end up possible ranges from slow 50mph, Quickshot 3000mph (+ there will be complexities with artillery/rocket tube launched munitions (not fielded, there have been some programs) - speed on launch on these is very different from subsequent loiter). Light 6kg, Heavy 100 tons (see SM-64 Navaho and Burya) - on all three categories (the UCAV and Loitering munition would be a bit more constrained in range - but not because they can't be "out there" in the various ranges - just because it is a younger system - but systems on the drawing board might be there with all sorts of funky parameters). And I probably would get the performance range wrong - especially for cruise missiles which have a very long history and quite a wide variety of operational parameters. The conceivable performance envelope of all three categories, IMHO, is the same as theoretical atmospheric lifting body performance.Icewhiz (talk) 12:16, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

As you please, but I think some numbers, attributable to specific equipments, are necessary. It might be wise also to mark prototype values in some way, maybe with a ¶ or some such symbol. Cost will be a nightmare, however.

OK - Added Tomahawk vs. Harop vs. Predator comparison. Not sure of Tomahawk's flight endurance (which would be governed by the fuel consumption at minimal possible flight speed) - which I don't find on sources (I even read through a declassified operations manual). It should be fairly low (these things are designed to fly at a high constant speed) - perhaps even close to range/max-speed (around 2 hours, say fudge to 3) - but I don't have a reasonable source for this.Icewhiz (talk) 13:57, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Nice work!

• There are uncited paragraphs which obviously need refs before we can proceed to GA.

• I think everything is cited except for "Comparison to similar weapons" - will work on that. Wasn't sure initially I had to cite this (as it builds on this article's sourcing and UAV, Cruise Missile).Icewhiz (talk) 08:05, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an "unreliable source" as anyone may edit it... so it is never safe to assume that what's on the other end of a wikilink is correct.

Fixed (I think!) - take a look. I left, for the most part, references out of the lead (otherwise I'd have to copy half the references back to the summary in the lead) - they are in the article body. Every paragraph is now sourced in the article body.Icewhiz (talk) 12:06, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

• History - suggest place this straight after lead, i.e. first the past, then the present.

• History - needs some reworking: "since the early 1980s ... or ... or alternatively ... but this remained ... beginning in the 2000s ... The response to the first generation ..." is a breathless jumble. Suggest a simple "In the early 1980s, ...", "In the 1990s, ...", "In the 2000s, ..." which will give readers a clearer picture of developments. Each statement needs to be cited, too.

• History para "Loitering munitions with anti-radiation sensors, such as the IAI Harpy..." seems to me to be part of "Characteristics" not "History". Either move/merge or delete.

• "Moral, ethical, and international law concerns" - why not simply "Ethical and legal issues"?

• Users - these are well cited but somewhat indigestible, nor do I see the point of the flag icons really (they don't add anything encyclopedic). If we reflect on the purpose of the section we must ask what is it actually for? Wikipedia is Not a Catalogue, so it's doubtful if we should have a "Users" or a "Manufacturers" list at all. I suggest we remove both lists and give a few examples in the text of the other sections - the citations are already available, of course.

• I will admit this is a copy-cat motivation from Unmanned combat aerial vehicle (which was one of the templates for article structure, and maybe a few other articles) - including the flags. I admit that listing each Harpy/Harop export customer is a bit superfluous (so I collapse these now into a single line). In individual weapon systems (e.g. McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle#Operators) there is usually an operator list. In very wide and ubiquitous categories (e.g. Rifle or Tank) not. However for an emerging category (such or UCAV, loitering munition, hyper-sonic missiles, or if we were writing about Tank in 1920, etc.) - I think this adds important information - as the system category isn't widely used (at least yet), and knowing what is used and by whom is very informative and also shows how the category is evolving.

Yes, I suspect that the flags in mil articles carry a mix of messages. The list is however already much improved.

• Manufacturers - see "Users" section above. I don't see a valid reason for a list here. It will never remain up to date, nor is it our function to catalogue product manufacturers.

• I agree on manufacturers - I'm cutting this out (per NOTCAT).Icewhiz (talk) 08:06, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

• See also: please remove all items already linked in text, seems to be most of them.

• Done. Initially many of these actually weren't in the text - they worked themselves in, but weren't removed from the see-also.Icewhiz (talk) 08:07, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

• References - 1) please use Title Case consistently, no US ARMY MAY SOON stuff.

• References - 2) we need a consistent citation format, with author and date wherever available. Suggest we use this type of citation (or cite web, cite news as appropriate):

{{Cite journal |author=Wallach, Evan; Thomas, Erik |date=2016 |title=The Economic Calculus of Fielding Autonomous Fighting Vehicles Compliant with the Laws of Armed Conflict |journal=Yale Journal of Law & Technology |volume=18 |pages=1–25 |url=http://yjolt.org/sites/default/files/Wallach_18YJoLT1.pdf}} for all refs. Or we can go with Garcia, Denise. "Killer robots: Why the US should lead the ban." Global Policy 6.1 (2015): 57–63. provided we use it uniformly, but it's frankly easier to let the citation template get the formatting right automatically.

• References - 3) Suggest we use Surname, Forename in every case.

• Refs - once we finish with everything else - I'll do a pass and fix these to a common format (so not to do this on refs we'll remove/add - a pass to make all the refs consistent). I usually use the ref tag and free-type it in (copy-pasting often) - it is less consistent than using the cite templates. I don't have a strong opinion on ref formatting (aside from my laziness) - will conform to your suggestions.Icewhiz (talk) 08:08, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

• Overlinking - some terms like IAI Harpy (and similar) are overlinked many times over. Should be once in lead, once in body, and once in image captions.

• Fixed Harpy and Harop (I did leave them once again in the Users - made sense to be searchable there).Icewhiz (talk) 08:08, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

• Categories - I'd have thought we needed Aerial warfare or something similar?

• Done. Definitely makes sense.Icewhiz (talk) 08:08, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this up

• Thanks for taking this up - will work on the article to improve as per comments. Apologies if I'm newbieish on some aspects - first GA review I'm working on.Icewhiz (talk) 08:01, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

No problem! Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:46, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

This was my first GA nomination and I am delighted to see that my judgement was ok. Thanks Chiswick Chap for reviewing and all your improvements. Well done Icewhiz. It is a fascinating subject and a worthy addition to this encyclopedia. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:33, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

A heartfelt thanks, Curb Safe Charmer and Chiswick Chap for your helpful contributions!Icewhiz (talk) 14:37, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Summary

I'm satisfied with the improvements made that this is now a worthy GA. Good work. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:22, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

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:

• STM Kargu.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:29, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Add the longest range

please add the Arash drone for Army of the Islamic Republic of Iran as probably the suicide drone with the longest range.TahaHastam (talk) 17:24, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

torpedo qualifies?

https://defense-update.com/20220316_loitering-torpedo.html Wvanbusk (talk) 14:34, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

FPV attack drones

The text has a brief mention "During conflicts in the 2010s and 2020s, conventional armies and non-state militants alike began modifying common commercial racing drones into an FPV loitering munition by the attachment of a small explosive"

I reckon, the FPV attack drones / loitering munitions should deserve a page of their own, because in the Ukrainian war they have developed away from Western conception of loitering munition, into a versitile platform that delivers any type of explosive payload to the enemy. What would you say?

LiudvikasJ (talk) 11:49, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

What "western conception" are you talking about? Jamming quickly became rampant in Ukraine, so many of the tactics based around commercial FPV systems don´t work anymore. And so, like with anti-tank missiles in the 80´s - wireguidance is a thing again - with 10.000 m of fibreoptic cable on drones.[1] Calling that "versitile" is a bit of a stretch though, because it´s not. Alexpl (talk) 13:58, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Reassessment

I've reassessed the page as C, primarily due to unreferenced statements. There are also the issues of vague language, overcitation, and what appears to be either overcitation or poor citation by listing all of a couple paragraphs' references at their ends.– Primium (talk) 03:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Undone per discussion on my talk.– Primium (talk) 19:44, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

'Comparison to similar weapons' table

How valuable is the 'examples' section of this table, considering there is so much variation in the specs of different drones and cruise missiles? So many suicide drones can travel faster than the MQ-1. The first half of the table already gives a general overview of the differences. – Primium (talk) 20:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Loitering munition

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:28, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Primarily due to unreferenced statements. There are also the issues of vague language, overcitation, and what appears to be either overcitation or poor citation by listing all of a couple paragraphs' references at their ends. – Primium (talk) 17:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

• Delist - An article largely comprised of anecdotes from the Russian invasion of Ukraine does not an article make. Schierbecker (talk) 04:55, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Inaccurate descriptions / Grey areas in classification

I think this article has a few shortcomings, because loitering munition is a very specific type of munition, and many of the drones featured in the article dont actually fit that description.

For example the Ukrainian bober and other similar drones would probably not be classed as a loitering munition. they are used against static targets (airfields, oil refineries, ammo depots, etc) and the target will generally be predetermined, rather than selecting a target mid flight

There is a big grey area between cruise missile and kamikaze drone, At what point does a drone become a missile? Again using the Ukrainian long range drones as an example, right now they are using kamikaze drones with much longer ranges than any missile they have available to them, despite the article saying kamikaze drones have short ranges. Also look at the Iranian Shahed drones. A version has been developed using a jet engine instead of a combustion engine. by some definitions that would classify as a cruise missile, but its generally referred to as being a drone.

the problem is sources are hard to find for something that is relatively new and the details classified, but i think its worth taking a look at the article to see what can be improved Editormammoth (talk) 12:55, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

We can´t eliminate bad sources - like those dreadful news articles on the iranian drones. They call them "loitering", so we have to keep that in the article. Even if Shahed 131 & 136 are not. Alexpl (talk) 17:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)