Talk:AAI RQ-7 Shadow

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 10:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

fact tags

RQ-7B Payload is not liquid-nitrogen cooled —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.185.111.29 (talk) 02:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a good article, but needs some improvements, especially with references. I added an annoyingly large number of fact tags to the article to encourage refs about specific statements. I also removed a phrase that was very peacock-ish. tedder (talk) 20:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

the military now calls unmanned aerial vehicles UAV, unmanned aerial systems UAS. should this be changed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.255.36.12 (talk) 08:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't know what you're actually saying. Don't change anything for now, as it all looks correct to me. - BilCat (talk) 10:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

He means that the military has changed the nomenclature for the Shadow 200 (and all other unmanned things that fly) from UAV (Unmanned Aerial Vehicle) to UAS (Unmanned Aerial System). The article probably should be changed, possibly with a note added at the top mentioning the change. If necessary I can get a reference that directly discusses the change, but the Shadow technical manuals (TM 9-5895-YYY-10, TM 9-5895-YYY-20 and the other related TMs) have all been changed to say "system". Dcrookston (talk) 00:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

OK< thanks for the clarification. As I understand it, the "aircraft" is simple the aerial vehicle itself, while the "system" includes the vehicle, and everything necessary to operate and control the vehicles. Since this article is primarily about the vehicle itself, it's probably fine as-is. - BilCat (talk) 06:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

This is the crux of the matter when it comes to discussing UAVs. While many make the attempt, in the end it is ultimately impossible to talk about an unmanned aircraft without at least referencing its ground support equipment. It is like trying to describe an aircraft without discussing its wings or engine. The ground support equipment is a crucial part of the whole system. No UAV can fly without its dedicated ground support equipment, so ultimately any detailed discussion must talk about it. PistolPete037 (talk) 17:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The information of hellfire missiles being thought of as a payload for RQ-7B is erroneous. RQ-7B's payload capacity is 28kgs while hellfire missiles are typically 46 kg... this would totally change the aerodynamics. There is not a single credible web source mentioning arming of RQ-7B with hell fire missile :Hunk santuu (talk) 18:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Removed it and replaced it with references about actual possible munitions for the Shadow. PistolPete037 (talk) 17:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the California Army National Guard fielded the Guard's first TUAS platoon. Pennsylvania fielded the first platoon, followed closely by Maryland. I also think Maryland was the first platoon to drill regularly with TUAS. -- Mousekill (talk) 17:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Removed reference to California National Guard because it did not have the first TUAS platoon and was not the first to fly the system monthly. Mousekill (talk) 22:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that someone changed the price tag per-aircraft to $100,000 with the total system cost being $800,000; but the source cited states an individual aircraft costs $750,000 while an entire system (and all associated equipment) costs $15.5 million. I'm changing the figures on the page to match the source, unless someone else finds a more reliable figure/source for the price of the system.The Famous Adventurer (talk) 18:34, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

article structure

In the "Variants" section, under RQ-7B I see there's a paragraph detailing the number of flight hours flown by the Shadow and a sortie count in Afghanistan and Iraq. As long as there are no objections, I'd like to move these to the "Operations" section and verify some of the information with whatever sources are available, since this paragraph seems to be lacking references.

Also, I don't know if anyone else has more information on this, but recently AAI has been testing the Shadow STTB as a prototype for their Shadow M-2 project. Can anyone confirm whether some of the upgrades talked about in the Variants section are also part of the STTB? The difficulty with appropriately describing all the different upgrades and components is that with this type of UAV, so many different pieces can be switched out to conform to changing mission roles and updated technology.The Famous Adventurer (talk) 23:36, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the "Variants" section some more, I see a lot of information on component and weapons tests that might fit better under "Development", even though they seem primarily designed for the RQ-7B. Also, should there be a section for the RQ-7B (IE) under Variants? It encompasses such a radical change to the AV that I think it warrants discussion. If nobody objects, I think I'll make some of these changes over the next couple of days.The Famous Adventurer (talk) 00:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

After comparing this article with other Aircraft articles, and after referring to the Layout Study Guide for the Aviation Wikiproject I see that other articles have "Operational History" instead of "Operations" and include this before their "Variants" sections, so I'm making these changes to conform to that standard.The Famous Adventurer (talk) 01:03, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The other thing different is that "Description" is normally "Design" MilborneOne (talk) 09:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Good point. I'll make that change too.The Famous Adventurer (talk) 05:24, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello - the portion of the page that says Pakistan is an operator is not correct. Pakistan does not operate any Shadows. Can this portion be taken out of the article? As well as the reference on the bottom? - Ashlyn Brodeur — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abrodeur (talk • contribs) 16:03, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

@Abrodeur: There are multiple news articles from the 2010, 2011 timeframe saying that Pakistan was negotiating for Shadow aircraft (see Google search). What is your public source of information that says Pakistan is not an operator or that they ended negotiations in the negative? --Izno (talk) 16:44, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello Inzo - I (Abrodeur) am on the public relations team at Textron Systems (formerly known as AAI) and I can confirm for you that Pakistan has never ordered any Shadow systems. The Wikipedia page says that they ordered 12 aircraft (3 systems). I do not have any public article that says this is the case. But what I can show you is a press release we did last year, which clearly states that Shadow supports the U.S. Army, the U.S. Marine Corps, U.S. Special Operations Command, Italy, Sweden and Australia." See press release here: http://www.textronsystems.com/newsroom/press-release?ReleaseID=2b4778e4-72f5-4130-831b-5a5ae06411e7

If you also need proof of my employment and role at Textron Systems, here is my Linkedin page: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashlyn-brodeur-66262652/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abrodeur (talk • contribs) 18:07, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

CBR xyz-technology.com

I am confused - is www.army-technology.com a valid reference or not ? Whether yes or no, a note here would help deal with future refs and discussion. If yes, the ref should be returned. I see on CBR talk that there is a general issue, but isolated refs should be ok. TGCP (talk) 20:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I understand that the foo-technology sites are not really reliable sources, they scoop up content from other websites without attribution, some from blogs and also possible copyright material. Suggestion is that they should be replaced by reliable references. MilborneOne (talk) 20:19, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Ah, that is unfortunate. They do a good job of collecting info on many semi-obscure subjects, too bad they won't name editors and become a credible source. They will probably become obsolete when they are removed from WP. TGCP (talk) 21:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Non-notable accident

I challenged the addition of the Pennsylvania National Guard RQ-7 accident on 3 April as non-notable, rather than discuss it the editor has added it back in. It crashed it didnt hit anything important it didnt kill anybody important so not notable. Suggest it is not added unless it gains a consensus here, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 20:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

There may be a wider issue, as drones lack the wherewithal to try to avoid hurting people and stuff when crashing. Also due to their low price, they are built with less safety than other aircraft, and are thus more prone to crashing. Drones are usually confined to military airspace, and permissions for civil airspace could be affected. TGCP (talk) 21:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on AAI RQ-7 Shadow. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110902194407/http://www.vectorsite.net/twuav.html to http://www.vectorsite.net/twuav.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:57, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on AAI RQ-7 Shadow. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100829152401/http://www.sncorp.com/prod/cnsatm/uav/uav2.shtml to http://www.sncorp.com/prod/cnsatm/uav/uav2.shtml
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=3117663&C=airwar
• Added archive https://archive.is/20120730083415/http://www.dcmilitary.com/stories/022108/southpotomac_28121.shtml to http://www.dcmilitary.com/stories/022108/southpotomac_28121.shtml
• Added archive https://archive.is/20140928104114/http://www.auvsi.org/HigherLogic/UI/WebServiceControls/2492014textron to http://www.auvsi.org/HigherLogic/UI/WebServiceControls/2492014textron

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:52, 22 January 2018 (UTC)