-- I normally don't get too caught up in people using incorrect military nomenclature or even outright butchering things (e.g. "Scotts" Air Force Base) but this constant mixing up of UAV naming conventions has tipped me over the edge. "RQ" does not mean 'generic unmanned vehicle.'



Q means it's a UAV. The prefix to that indicates function. These prefix's are the same as for manned aircraft, but most drones that would otherwise be classed as "A"ttack or "F"ighter will probably be designated as M for the foreseeable future. Note that the X-47 may get the A designation (AQ-47 or whatever they end up numbering it, assuming it survives budget cuts), but that's largely for political reasons.

CQ means it's a Cargo Transport UAV (i.e. Snow Goose).

RQ means it's a Reconnaissance UAV (i.e. Global Hawk).

MQ means it's a Multi-mission (combat) UAV (i.e. Reaper).

An FQ would mean it's a air-to-air UAV (none known).


A Y prefix to that (i.e. YRQ) means it's a Prototype.

A X prefix to that (i.e. XMQ) means it's Experimental.

So that RQ-47 from Clutch of Dragons, unless they are intentionally obfuscating things that should be YFQ-47 or XFQ-47, or, probably, XMQ-47.

Don't be lazy, folks

THis is why I don;t use goofy military nomenclature. I'd likely just get it wrong anyways. Also, my brain tends to jumble all the letter designations together anyway, and I find them boring, so I can't keep track of any of the planes, drones, or weapons that have those designations. Call it a GMC Nightmare, and I'm going to remember it. Call it a XM-910 and it's going to end up in the recycling center that is the back of my skull, forgotten about until I look that book over again.

You'll note I can't really bag on the Mil tech book, precisely for that reason If you are going to use actual US/NATO-derived nomenclature get it right. If you can't, just give it a cool name or obviously non-derived designation number like the random numbers assigned to MiG and Sukhoi stuff

Yeah, numbers all blend together. The useful exception to that is years, you can call it the GMC Nightmare 2070 and I'll remember that it's the slightly old model which isn't as good as the GMC Nightmare 2078 which is the awesome prototype that I really want to get my hands on.

Pretty much my philosophy there.

Not saying that if I needed/wanted to create something that needed those, I wouldn't do my research. I know enough of you military gearheads that I can find someone to ask questions of and get what I would hope are the correct answers (Or at least someone to blame when I get it wrong ). But yeah, all in all, I'd prefer to make up titles or use new, non-modern designations to prevent any wierd mix ups or confusions.

They still gave Su-45, which looks exactly like PAK-FA (currently T-50, which means it will be Su-50 once the tests are over), the wrong number. So there's that.
And don't even get me started on names. Il Moliniya, ffs.

AA-16, anyone?



-k

AA16 (Arsenal, p. 28) for those not getting the reference. Implication being it's 16-gauge because the 12 in the AA-12 is for 12-gauge (and the AA16 is an obvious expy). Honestly, that's debatable because Shadowrun doesn't really use caliber, and when it does it plays REALLY fast and loose with them (as in, it's usually nonsensical).

It's almost as if Shadowrun has a long and storied history of using improper weapons terminology...

~Umi

Sorry to rain on your tirade, but Global Hawk doesn't have weapon mounts.
MQ-1 Predator and MQ-9 Reaper do, but their also correctly designated.

So it does. Fixed.