I heard that the PM detests the names 'Reaper' and 'Scavenger' and personally directed that both the programme and whatever platform gets selected be named 'Protector'. Something about being on-message....
Must admit that I hadn't heard about any prime ministerial directives relating to Airseeker / Rivet Joint nomenclature, as suggested at the RAeS link. Seems to me as if most have settled on the latter.
As regards 'drones', there comes a point when we have to accept that the term has become so widely adopted that instead of doggedly persisting with unmanned / remotely-piloted / uninhabited (and changing our mind over that every few months), we roll with it. Public and journalistic eyes glaze over when the military is perceived as descending into jargon, whether fairly or not (witness all the recent fuss over 'deconfliction'). We've tried for long enough to embed the precise terminology; it hasn't worked so we should concentrate on getting over the key points that we really want the press and public to understand. Which are, in my view:
1) There is nothing unethical about using a platform which takes the operator away from the point of danger. Drones are simply the latest step in the search for a technological advantage, a process which has given us the spear, the sling (think David and Goliath), the longbow (think Agincourt), the rifle, the howitzer, the cruise missile. Warfare is not a duel; unfair does not mean unethical.
2) There is a person in the loop for all weapon aiming and release. Our drones are not autonomous killers.
Our political masters know how to get the public onside to their arguments. We should follow their example: key messages. Not a boring debate over terminology.
Last edited by Easy Street; 10th Oct 2015 at 01:47.