Talk:Loitering munition/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

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)