UAS, UAV, Drone, Cruise Missile What's the Difference.

It's time for a new naming convention

There are many ways to approach this. I think the best is talk about the problem, the current naming conventions of NATO and the US, and then a possible solution that encompasses as many systems possible into a new comprehensive naming convention.

The full scale invasion of Ukraine by Russia has thrown NATO and US into “controlled” chaos. One of the things NATO partners immediate saw as inadequate was our current systems which underestimate the role UAVs will play in any future conflict. Whether the allies want to send UAVs into combat or are trying to suppress enemy unmanned aircraft, our militaries were, on February 24, 2022 ,not at all ready for modern near peer conflict. A good argument could be made that since the US/NATO are not the only ones with a Telegram app, that COIN operations in the future will be shaped by UAVs as well. There is ample evidence that western adversaries are learning and implementing almost as fast as Ukraine. Which is to say, faster than the west.

How then does the west catch up? Since it is said that the US Army and NATO are logistics organizations that dabble in war… I think a very small but important piece of the puzzle is to scrap the current NATO and US Department of Defense naming conventions and classification of unmanned aerial vehicles and create something more in line with battlefield realities.

Currently there are so many names used interchangeably that it’s hard to even get a handle on what a UAV or UAS actual is, it’s mission, it’s capabilities. Lets start with UAV vs UAS.

A UAV is an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle. This is just the vehicle. Nothing more.
A UAS is an Unmanned Aerial System. This is the vehicle, the launch crew, the pilot, and perhaps more depending on the role of the vehicle.

Different militaries and branches of militaries often add different letters to the acronym. But all are either a UAV or UAS.

Is a Cruise Missile a UAV? Yes. This is probably controversial, but the moment Ukraine started sending UAVs 1000+ km into Russia, the term of art “cruise missile” was rendered inadequate. Adding to this inadequacy is that modern cruise missiles are now built with the ability to redirect or loiter, making them more UAV than cruise missile. No UAV is fire and forget. If it’s fire and forget, it is something other than a UAV. If the term cruise missile is to survive, it will be only for the long range ordinance flying at aircraft speeds that can’t be redirected after launch.

So let’s look at how the US and NATO designate UAVs.

Current US Department of Defense UAV/UAS designations.

Current NATO UAV/UAS designations.

Immediately obvious is that both conventions are only based on size. Useful, but inadequate. As you will see, I propose that some parts of this designation survive. But only just.

Missing is information about the job of the UAV. Is it Multi-role (ordinance) or is it mainly ISR? Is it crew launched? Is it man portable/deployable? How do you build a system to counter a UAV if you can’t communicate efficiently what if counters? How do you build a UAS if you can’t efficiently communicate its role? How do you deploy it?

The NATO “Class” system is only broken down by weight. The chart shows other information. But it’s not material to the class. The US “Group” system is the same. The chart might show it’s role. But this isn’t part of it classification.

The best naming convention/classification I have seen so far is the US military’s for either MQ or RQ drones. (Predator/Reaper/Global Hawk/etc) It gives some idea that the aircraft is unmanned and the aircraft does ISR/Multirole.

We need to add to this. This isn’t enough. Just adding the NATO class/group only tells you the size and some info on possible range.

With the proposed convention you now have C3-RQ-1B-ym. The red “f” would not be attached. Also the added designations are in lower case to reduce confusion. We’ve added the NATO class, whether the UAV is crewed or not, is it a single munition or can it deploy multiple munitions, and finally is this an FPV. The FPV designation to a person sitting at a desk might not seem important. But, to a person receiving intel on the front line, it’s indispensable information.

Above is the designation for a Ukrainian made Wild Hornet.

• NATO class C1

• Multi Role Unmanned

• ## double hash is used to indicate missing information

• Man Portable and Man Deployable

• Single Munition

• FPV Piloting

Ukrainian UJ-25 Skyline

• Multi Role

• Unmanned

• NATO Class 2

• Crew Launched

• Single Munition

DJI Mavic 3

• NATO Class 1

• ISR Recon

• Man Portable/Man Deployable

• While this UAV can and has had a munition this imagining is of a recon drone. So in this case the s/m designation is absent.

• Generally all of the DJI Class 1 drones can be FPV.

Iranian made Shaheeds? C2-MQ-##-ys

Tomahawk Cruise Missile? C3-MQ-RGM109-E-ys

Global Hawk? C3-RQ-4-y

So, if all you know is that a C2-MQ-##-ys type of UAV was found on an Iranian flagged ship headed to a Russian port. You have a good idea that it’s a Shaheed. If all you know is there is a C2-UAV classification of vehicle, you don’t know what you have.

I’ve missed a lot here. I’m not a military man. I’m an academic. A researcher. So my take is theoretical. But the main point is strong. Currently the words UAV/UAS/Drone/Suicide/Kamikaze can all mean the same thing.

Things that might need to be added:

• Loitering

• Flight time

• More Piloting Designations

• Payload

• Swarm

• Relay/Repeater

• Civilian/Military

There’s more work to do.