Talk:Spirit Mosquito

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

Technology

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles

Military history: Aviation / British / European C‑class

This article 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

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force

Article name

I'm not sure about the article's name and would be interested in hearing what others think is most suitable. Here are the options that I can see:

Spirit Mosquito - The shortened main manufacturer's name and the aircraft's name, as per WP:AIR/NC.
Spirit AeroSystems Mosquito - The full manufacturer's name and the aircraft's name, as per WP:AIR/NC.
Mosquito (UCAV) - "Mosquito" is the aircraft's name according to the RAF Air Chief Marshall Michael Wigston in the MOD press release.
Lightweight Affordable Novel Combat Aircraft (LANCA) - The wider programme's name but this article focuses on the technology demonstrator/aircraft.

If you can think of anything more suitable, please let me know. My preference is for Spirit Mosquito but I'd like to hear some other opinions. TheArmchairSoldier (talk) 16:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The title Spirit Mosquito seems fine, and probably more in-line with WP:COMMONNAME. Govvy (talk) 16:40, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: withdrawn by nominator, closed by BlueMoonset (talk) 03:14, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that the Royal Air Force may acquire Mosquitos for service as loyal wingmen?

Reviewed: Viking Sally 1987 murder
Comment: aiming for "last hook" with this one.

Created by TheArmchairSoldier (talk). Nominated by The Bushranger (talk) at 13:08, 31 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]

The topic looks quite interesting but I can immediately see some issues:

1. The hook uses the phrase "loyal wingman" and the article keeps repeating the phrase in scare quotes. But it doesn't explain the phrase and doesn't link to anything, not even wingman. I tried to establish what this phrase meant exactly and why the word "loyal" is used. There's no such thing as a "disloyal wingman", is there, so why the distinction? So far, I have established two things:

The phrase seems to be more associated with a different Boeing project, which we have at Loyal Wingman
The Royal Aeronautical Society indicates that the Mosquito is more associated with a "loyal pack" concept, which is a different doctrine – see Loyal wingmen and loyal packs

2. The article is based on an MoD press release and so there's an element of hype and promotion in this. As the details are classified, the design is not finalised and may not be successful, perhaps this is too speculative per WP:CRYSTAL. What can we do about this?

Andrew🐉(talk) 16:01, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On the first, while Boeing first used the phrase, it has (as these things do in the World of Droneness) quickly entered the vernacular as a term used to describe any and all cases of "lead manned aircraft with a flight of unmanned aircraft slaved to its control" - 'loyal pack' is a term I hadn't previously seen. It probably does need a definition though. As for (2), I'll see if I can't wordsmith a bit to smooth things out - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a further look. See Unmanned Aircraft Systems. This is an MoD document which is about "understanding the terminology, tasking and employment of the UK’s unmanned aircraft systems (UAS)." It's from 2017 and says nothing about "loyal wingmen". The jargon is therefore something of a neologism. The concept is problematic because it tries to associate the UAV with the manned aircraft. But the trouble is that, for ethical and legal reasons, they want to have the UAVs under some level of human control and this is typical done by remote piloting supplemented by autonomous systems. The remote piloting isn't going to be done by the manned plane because that pilot has his own plane to fly and that might get shot down. So ground controllers are always going to be in the loop. And then why do you need the manned plane? How these issues work out remains to be seen and it's all quite speculative currently. And the problem for DYK is that, per WP:DYKHOOK, "The hook should refer to established facts that are unlikely to change...".
By the way, note that I started the article Slaughterbots which has a different take on the future of combat drones. Perhaps the "loyal wingman" phrase has been deliberately chosen to sound innocuous and avoid such associations. Andrew🐉(talk) 00:26, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Davidson: Most of the things I've seen, IIRC, imply that the manned-plane pilot will control the "loyal wingmen" - the idea is that the manned plane's pilot will just be a systems operator for the actually-in-combat drones. That said though, I really don't see any reasonably "hooky" hook here other than that, so might be best to withdraw this one. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:11, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Any updates on this? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry for the delay - as noted above, I withdrew this nom. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:00, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]