Talk:Reconnaissance aircraft

More confusion

The definition of the term reconnaissance is distinct from surveillance. (Although the 3rd definition in the Oxford Shorter English Dictionary has them as synonyms). This article starts out correctly, citing use in reconnaissance, then the Cold War crops up where use was SURVEILLANCE, NOT RECONNAISSANCE, and the term is misused without any indication of the switch. Recon precedes military action, surveillance is spying. I searched for the term "spy plane" and was erroneously redirected to surveillance aircraft (which if the terms were used 'correctly' would have been good, but it seems that the authors of these two articles believe (correctly or incorrectly, IDK, but they CERTAINLY need to justify their belief with an AUTHORATATIVE source) their usage in the world of 'national security' switches their common meaning. Here is a clue: a spy plane is commonly thought to be a extremely high altitude jet aircraft (U-2, Gary Powers, etc.). (Or perhaps that only applies to Baby Boomers? - as far as I know, the meaning hasn't changed since the 1960s.) My gosh! This article doesn't even give references to the list of famous spy planes!! Pathetic!173.189.73.1 (talk) 14:46, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Surveillance implies continuous or near continuous monitoring (or an attempt at such), while reconnaissance would imply a finite and much shorter period of time but aircraft have used both terms as designations (along with a lot of others) interchangeably. Spy plane is media speak and means whatever anyone wants it to mean. All these together mean an aircraft used to gather information and includes everything from the Lockheed U-2 to the Short Sunderland to the Nieuport 10. It is probably the broadest possible topic for aircraft roles imaginable.NiD.29 (talk) 21:08, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Duplicate page

This page partially duplicates a much more complete article on exactly same subject at Aerial reconnaissance. Either this page should forward there or this page should be turned into a list of reconnaissance aircraft. Cheers, NiD.29 (talk) 20:55, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

We have articles like strategic bombing and strategic bomber. I note that there is no corresponding article to the surveillance aircraft page. I would prefer to keep both or at least the reconnaissance aircraft article if possible given Wikipedia's preference for writing articles about "things" instead "acts of doing things". Just make sure that whatever happens to the reconnaissance articles also happens to the strategic bombing articles etc. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 00:14, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Hadn't noticed the strategic bomber one - thanks for pointing that out. It was particularly egregious here because of the disparity in the sizes of the articles, one a full blown page and the other a stub.NiD.29 (talk) 02:27, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Only American aircraft???

Why does this page only list or have reference to American recon aircraft? Near the middle, in the See Also section, there is a link to a List of United States Air Force reconnaissance aircraft. Is there no similar article for recon aircraft of other countries? I've been hearing a lot in the new lately about other countries using drones for recon (as well as attack). If there aren't other similar articles, there should be. Anyone willing to forward me the appropriate info, I'm willing to help create those pages, if you don't have time. — TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 23:26, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh no! Someone made an article about American aircraft!!! The world is going to end unless we quickly create other articles to put the Americans in their place!!! Hurry!!! American exceptionalsm must be countered before Trump takes over the world and turns all into Bible thumpers and capitalists and rapists!!! Help!!!! Facepalm - BilCat (talk) 23:59, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

@BilCat: That wasn't really my point. I wasn't meaning to give the impression that we needed it to counter any form of American exceptionalism. I was only pointing out that there is room for more articles to be written if they don't exist. My apologies if I somehow triggered something that I didn't intend at all to trigger. Not sure where your reply is coming from, but I honestly didn't intend to be snarky at all. — TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 00:04, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

@TadgStirkland: Well, that's kind of how a heading like "Only American aircraft???", with 3 question marks, comes across to me, especially with "Why does this page only list or have reference to American recon aircraft?" as your opening sentence. Yeah, I exaggerated for effect, but why phrase it as if someone's done something wrong by making an article about American reconnaissance aircraft, which seemingly must be countered? I don't get that. It's good that you saw the need for more articles, and perhaps the American article could be retooled to cover more types. I do note the original author is indefinitely blocked, so he won't be objecting if it's revamped and expanded to cover other nationalities and types, perhaps with the annotations trimmed to make a real list. - BilCat (talk) 00:50, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

@BilCat: My wording coulda' probably been done better, I'll accept that. I'll do some research and see what I can find to get other articles started. It just seemed odd to me that the author would address only American recon aircraft, and not give a thought to others. The history behind recon aircraft is very rich, and virtually any aircraft could have been used for recon. That was the first odd thing that struck me about this article. So, you think it should be a "list" more than the annotated prose form that this article currently has? I'd tend to agree with that. — TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 15:44, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

• @BilCat: Now that I look at it, it would seem more appropriate to merge this article with the one linked in the See Also section called Surveillance aircraft. They are for all intents and purposes, the same thing. Thoughts? — TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 15:47, 2 October 2018 (UTC)