Talk:Unmanned Aircraft System

This redirect 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 a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force

Unmanned Aircraft System should not be redirected to Unmanned Aerial Vehicle. There is a spreading misuse of the term Unmanned Aircraft System and it needs to be corrected. Many media outlets are using the term Unmanned Aerial System which is a combination of the two. The prime reference is the DoD UAS Roadmap 2005-2030. If a correction is required, it would be to move the definitions and links from Unmanned Aerial Vehicle to Unmanned Aircraft System and redirect UAV to UAS. --usmcuav 17:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

"Cruise missile weapons are occasionally confused with UA weapon systems because they are both unmanned. The key discriminators are (1) UA are equipped and intended for recovery at the end of their flight, and cruise missiles are not, and (2) munitions carried by UA are not tailored and integrated into their airframe whereas the cruise missile’s warhead is. This distinction is clearly made in the Joint Publication 1-02 DoD Dictionary’s definition for “UAV” (or UA)." This is an excerpt from the DoD UAS Roadmap 2005-2030.

Delete and make redirect

After editing this article and looking at the UAV article, it occurred to me that this article is redundant. It's true that the UAS term is the modern term, however the UAV article is fully developed and even contains a link in its introduction to this article. Therefore this article really serves no practical purpose. If the DoD changes UAS to something else in the future, is it reasonable to create an article for that new name? I think not. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 18:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. RickJP (talk) 09:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree per WP:NOT. This article has no potential to grow beyond a simple dictionary definition. --Kubanczyk (talk) 20:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]