The Mil & Aero Blog
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
  Drone, UAV, UAS ... what do we call that unmanned flyin' thing, anyway?

Posted by John Keller

I'm hearing a lot of different names lately for unmanned aircraft. The mainstream media seems to like the word "drone" to describe the kind of sophisticated pilotless aircraft able to find and attack elusive targets in rugged terrain. Many in the trade press use "unmanned aerial system," or UAS, to describe pilotless aircraft. At Military & Aerospace Electronics, we tend to use "unmanned aerial vehicle," or UAV.

So what's in a name? To the unbiased, perhaps not much, but I've been covering the developing UAV industry for a long time now, and to me, there are some subtle yet substantial differences.

The biggest problem I have is with the use of the word drone to describe today's advanced-technology UAVs. To me, drone describes a remotely operated aircraft, often used for tracking and target practice, and has no role in describing UAV technology that often as not can operate autonomously. We used to call these kinds of flying targets "remotely piloted vehicles," or RPVs -- a term I haven't seen or heard in several years.

Related stories


-- U.S. defense spending for UAV data links and ground-control stations reached billion-dollar mark in 2010

-- Raytheon debuts ground control system for Scavenger UAV, gains ITAR approval

-- Global Hawk UAV makes system flight using MP-RTIP sensor.


I remember visiting China Lake Naval Air Weapons Station in Ridgecrest, Calif., back in the early '80s, and saw old Air Force North American F-86 Sabre jet fighters flying around the area. I couldn't figure that one out; F-86s gained fame in the Korean War in the early 1950s during dogfights in famed Mig Alley. These aircraft were hopelessly obsolete even 30 years ago when I was visiting China Lake.

The people there told me those F-86s I saw in the sky had no pilots in them, but instead were remotely operated -- much like a radio-controlled model plane. Navy fighter pilots in what were new aircraft like the F/A-18 Hornet strike fighter used those remote-control F-86s to practice locking weapons on target during air combat maneuvering exercised. Occasionally, I heard, they used to blow those remote-control F-86s out of the sky, but I never saw them do it.

My point is, the word drone describes something simple and unsophisticated, and has no place describing today's UAVs.

Now for the term UAS. I know the Pentagon loves this term, and its officials are encouraging everyone to use it when describing advanced unmanned aircraft. My reasons for not using it are selfish and simple. The term UAV gets about a million searches on Google every month. UAS gets about half that.

I want Google to sweep as many readers to the Military & Aerospace Electronics Website at www.militaryaerospace.com as possible, and I'll continue using UAV for as long as it draws the most online search traffic.

I'll keep an eye on it, though. The minute that UAS gets more search traffic than UAV is when you'll see UAS through the online and print pages of Military & Aerospace Electronics. We'll see how well -- and how soon -- the Pentagon's UAS campaign pays off.
 
Comments:
Couple more: Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA), Unmanned Aircraft (UA)... I'm sure I'm forgetting 10 or so more.
 
According to Webster, the first definition of drone is a male honeybee that has no sting and does not gather pollen for honey, ergo, it does nothing. Likewise, the original man-made drones were aircraft that did nothing --- their function was simply to be a target. To use the word "drone" for current technology UAS/UAVs is, in my mind, completely inappropriate and is improper word usage.
 
Drone is inaccurate, but simple for the "lower brow line" of the mainstream media. Notice that I did not say "Neanderthal".
 
The term UAV was originally linked to Cruise Missiles. During the early adoption of Remotely Controlled Aircraft for purposes other than guiding a warhead down a chimney stack, the Air force wanted to articulate the fact that the vehicles were being controlled by Rated Pilots and not by an Intel Chip a la Terminator Style. I believe it was Gen Wald that initially approved the term Remotely Pilotrd Aircraft (RPA) which lasted a couple of years. It was under pressure of the FAA that the term UAS was adopted as the Air Force attempted to secure airspace access. The distinction between vehicle and system (UAV vs UAS) was a way to deal with the fact that in the event of an investigation, not only did the board have to look at the vehicle itself, but the other componets such as the ground control system and the communications system. After 6 years of using the term UAS, the Air Force is again reverting back to the term RPA, again to counter the arguments that the aircraft are not being actively controlled and operated by individuals. There should be no distinction between an F-16 and an MQ-9 flying and launhing weapons other than the physical location of the pilot at the time.
 
First if you have been working with UAS for a long time then you would know that at the Program Management Office for Unmanned Aircraft at Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville, Alabama they are called "Unmanned Aircraft Systems", we quit calling them Unmanned Aircraft Vehicles a few years ago. The term "Drone" comes from those that are ignorant of what they are. "Drones" are rocket type devices that we shoot out of the air with our missiles and Field artillery for training.
 
Another point that I want to POINT out is that the Air Force has very few Unmanned Aircraft Systems!!! The Army has 90% of these systems and the one used for over 700,000 Combat hours is the Shadow RQ7B! It is the most widely used and most reliable; the Army also has the Warrior Alpha and the Gray Eagle and the Hunter. Point is I am tired of the Airforce and the media, neither have a clue when it comes to Unmanned Aircraft Systems.
 
Comedian Bill Maher has sarcastically called UAV's "flying killer robots" which brings up memories of the 1960's Japanese manga and tokusatsu series "Johnny Sokko and His Flying Robot". ("Giant Robot" did carry quite an arsenal aboard and Johnny could control it remotely.)
Seems that the platform capability is resembling automata and they are now essentially flying robots.
 
Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]





<< Home
The MAE editorial staff uses the Military Aerospace and Electronics Blog to share ...

Archives
November 2007 / December 2007 / January 2008 / February 2008 / March 2008 / April 2008 / May 2008 / June 2008 / July 2008 / August 2008 / September 2008 / October 2008 / November 2008 / December 2008 / January 2009 / February 2009 / March 2009 / April 2009 / May 2009 / June 2009 / July 2009 / August 2009 / September 2009 / October 2009 / November 2009 / December 2009 / January 2010 / February 2010 / March 2010 / April 2010 / May 2010 / June 2010 / July 2010 / August 2010 / September 2010 / October 2010 / November 2010 / December 2010 / January 2011 / February 2011 / March 2011 / April 2011 / May 2011 / June 2011 / July 2011 / August 2011 / September 2011 / October 2011 / November 2011 / December 2011 /


Powered by Blogger

Subscribe to
Posts [Atom]