Pentagon: Don't call them UAVs anymore

The U.S. military has begun informally referring to unmanned aerial “systems” rather than “vehicles,” a change that will soon become official and in part is designed to stress the idea that the aircraft are just one facet in a complex network of systems, Dyke Weatherington, deputy of the Pentagon’s Unmanned Aerial Vehicle planning task force, told reporters Aug. 17.

The so-called UAS Roadmap, a 213-page vision statement for unmanned programs, was approved Aug. 4.

The military’s procurement of unmanned systems is not likely to result in large-scale multiyear purchases, which are commonly needed to ensure development funds for increasingly complex cutting-edge manned fighters.

Article link


The P.C military.

so i guess wenever the Pentagon gives a press conference they will say the terrorists in the video they are showing were killed by a system. they just picking words just to make it more civilized or peaceful. like instead of kill they would say pacify or neutralize.

Well I don't know about PC but the change in terminology means a broader application including satellites and space based weapons IMO.

Would such a name change have budgetary implications?

Renaming to Unmanned Aerial "Systems" could be a way to work some of this into it: National Missile Defense Goes Black?
.

UAS' just doesn't have the same ring to it.
Sounds like a dumb move.
It didn't need to be changed.

errrrrrr... that doesn't sound so good... they should change it back to UAVs... UAS... sounds really bad... remember names matters

Yeah, UAV had such a nice ring to it. UAS sounds like something completly different.

I agree.

Over the years everyone has gotton acustomed to UAV, whats wrong with vehicle...after all, thats what it is! UCAS sounds even dumber.

edit: BTW, thanks for pointing that out NWguy, I skimmed through that pdf a few days ago, and that was in it everywhere, and I wondered what it stood for.

[edit on 18-8-2005 by Murcielago]

To me, the word "vehicle" seems to imply that it can or does carry passengers. Think how it's used in conversation. Maybe the military feels the same way and wanted to make that distinction - even if it is very subtle.

Why do they bother with technical names and terms anyway? Back in the 1960's when they started with the first unmanned aircraft, like the Lockheed D-21, or the Firefly project, they were simpally called them Drones! wheather you call it a Drone, a UAV, or a UAS, it still boils down to the same thing: It is an aircraft with noone inside!

Tim