Talk:Joint Direct Attack Munition

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Naming conventions

What's the difference between a "Mark-xx" warhead and a Bomb Live Unit ("BLU-xx") warhead? Jigen III 06:34, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

AIUI it's an historical thing - the standard BLU, CBU naming conventions came in mid sixties, anything in use from before then could still have the Mark-xx nomenclature. Riddley 08:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
The MK 80 series and BLUs referenced in the article are nearly identical. But they have a couple of case differences. Whereas the Mk80 series are set up with a standard lightweight aluminum jacket, the BLUs have a "thermally stabilized" (IIRC) jacket (which is also hardened and much more robust than the jacket found on the Mk80 series), and are widely in use with the US Navy. This bomb is particularly safe when exposed to a fire like the USS Forrestal fire in the late 60s. In that fire, Mk80 series bombs were exploding from the heat. Additionally, the BLU has better penetration characteristics because of its jacket. — Andrew 03:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Better late than never.... Mark-80 series bombs are the modern, low drag family of weapons. Mark 82 bomb (for example) is the 500-pound type modern low drag bomb. The BLU-111/B, BLU-111A/B, and BLU-126/B are models of that bomb - all the same shape and casing design, and roughly the same weight, but with different explosive fillers and outer fireproof coatings, etc. Andrew's comment isn't entirely accurate - all the Mark 82's to date use the same steel casing (somewhere, I have the manufacturer's contact info and part prices, I was looking at buying some filled with cement for a R&D contract a few years ago). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Other platforms

Use of JDAM with B-2 is important, but as written, it sounds like B-2 is major user or only game in town whereas F-14, F-15E, F-16 and F/A-18 make great use of JDAMs and so will JSF and F-22 (if so tasked). Also need to add reference to Small Diameter Bomb (SDB) which is a 250# class GPGW and a totally separate program altogether. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HJ32 (talk • contribs) 06:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Other issues

The article shows growth going from the 2000lb class JDAM and then right to the 500lb class JDAM. Thing is that the 1000lb class JDAM reached operational service with the Navy before the 500lb JDAM entered service. A chronology would be like this:

2000lb class -first with B-2 and later with other platforms 1000lb class -First with Navy -500lb class entered service 1000lb class used on USAF F-22

If anyone can find a complete list of the 18? export customers along with a source this would be great. I can't seem to find all of them. As it is the export customer list ( both solid orders and requests to congress ) is incomplete. Thanks in advance. ELPusa 00:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fuze or Fuse

The correct spelling for the fuze in a bomb, or artillery shell is fuze, with a z. It is a common mistake, but the correct terminology is with a z. A firecracker does have a fuse, but a bomb has a fuze. For more info read about fuses here. Yes it is a fine line, but I think it is clear. — Andrew 03:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Compatibility

I'm pretty sure the F-117 is currently deploying the JDAM. I've seen a few programs where the major reference to use of the JDAM was with the F-117. Furthermore, the Nighthawk's Wiki page says it can carry it. I moved it to currently compatible. Wilhelm Screamer 10:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page Classification

This is still tagged as "start-class" but with the number of references and ongoing high quality edits, this page is becoming a stable and well researched resource. Should it be nominated for a different classification? I'm not that up on Wikipedia and don't really know what else should be done to get it rated higher. Thanks. Andrew 12:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Range

Is 15 nautical miles 24 km or 28km?

In the subject prologue it is stated that the range is (after conversion) 28km while in the side box it is stated as 24km. Can someone please clarify this?

[edit] "Despite their precision, JDAM employment is not without risk"

The section about Hamid Karzai almost being struck by a JDAM is a bit odd. The current text implies that 1) the JDAM was somehow responsible for the accident, and thus that if another weapons system was used the problem might not have happened; and that 2) if the JDAM were more precise, the problem wouldn't have been as severe. In fact, the exact opposite seems to be true. In this situation, it wasn't the munition's fault, it was the ground controller's fault. Also, in this particular accident, the less precise the bomb is, the better, since it'd be less likely to precisely hit the ground controller's position. One could change it to "Because of their precision, JDAM employment is not without risk", but since this is a problem that's totally orthogonal to JDAMs, and since it's a problem that occurs infrequently (otherwise the ground controller would have had training to specifically address it), it almost seems better to reword it to indicate that the JDAM's capabilities and incapabilities had nothing whatsoever to do with the accident. --Underpants (talk) 01:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Advert tag

When I browsed this article I had several concerns about its balance and prose. It comes off as promotional and is front weighted toward thinly cited claims about the system's advantages. The first eyebrow raiser is a low-cost guidance kit in the opening line, which I had to reread to make sure this was an actual military system rather than a hobbyist kit that might be sold on a shelf next to remote controlled toy cars. The entire opening paragraph touts the advantages of the system.

From the second section, uncited material:

  • The kit is compatible with the entire Mk-80 family of general purpose bombs - Why the modifier? Should a reader otherwise presume only part of the Mk-80 family would be compatible?
  • JDAM enables accurate delivery against high priority fixed and relocatable targets from both fighter and bomber aircraft. What do these modifiers add to the informational value of the statement?

From the third section:

  • Desert Storm highlighted a shortfall in air-to-surface weapon capability. The structure of the history and development section mimics the structure of a sales presentation: identify a problem, then describe how perfectly the product solves the problem. Although the later paragraphs also cite independent sources, the opening paragraph is entirely referenced to a Boeing press release.
  • In subsequent years, unit costs increased modestly to $21,000 in 2004 and were expected to reach $31,000 by 2011. Why the adjective? For that matter, why place a discussion of cost increases at the very end of the section and juxtapose a comparison with another product that sells for twenty times the price? Tomahawks are missiles rather than guidance systems. Could the reason for this comparison be that Tomahawks are produced by Boeing's competitor Raytheon? Or to downplay the fact that he unit cost of JDAM has nearly doubled?
You may be correct on all accounts, and your points are valid. However, if you are going to tag something as an advert sounding article, fix it, instead of criticizing it. You spent the time to point out errors in the formatting and content, but instead of fixing the article, polluted the discussion page, thereby leaving the article insufficient by Wikipedia standards, or your understanding of them? Most of the sourcing for this article comes directly from Boeing and AF press releases, along with industry publications, what would you expect for a roughly drafted piece, that I greatly expanded, hoping others with enough editorial wherewithal would have helped improve. Thanks for the constructive criticisms, I'll go ahead and work further on this.Andrew (talk) 02:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The article doesn't entirely omit criticism, but a malfunction that nearly killed the president of Afghanistan is buried deep in the text, just before a discussion about upgrades. DurovaCharge! 02:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

My two cents (plus inflation...):
  • On the cost issue, at a time when the GBU-10 laser guided bomb cost $23-27,000 ( [1], the most expensive JDAM kit was $18,000, which makes it in relative terms (among guided bombs) a low-cost unit. NPOV could be applied, but it's a true statement.
  • On general tone, you see commentary like this even in semi-critical sources like Globalsecurity's website and so forth. If the weapon isn't controversial people tend to parrot the PR stuff a bit (here, as well). The tone could be shifted a bit without hurting the info.
  • The Karzai incident wasn't a weapon malfunction. The weapon was confirmed to have landed plus or minus epsilon right where it was told to land. It was user error - the forward observer changed batteries on his target position transmission device, and forgot to re-add-in the offset to the target area, so it was sending his own local position to the bomber. He didn't realize, the bomber pilot didn't cross-check with where the friendlies were, and it hit where it was told to hit. Same thing could have happened if you called in an artillery strike on your own coordinates or a dumb bomb bombing run on a set of coordinates, blind.
I think that we can do better at the tone on the article, though. It's not as neutral and encyclopedic as we strive for, on reflection. That it's what I'd write for an industry specific writeup doesn't mean that it's what Wikipedia should do.
Thanks for the outside viewpoint and input. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Please ping me when the improvements are in place. :) DurovaCharge! 21:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
"Karzai Incident": Not to be flip about this, but was the forward observer killed in the incident? That would indicate the weapon system was working correctly. I realize that's an incredibly callous statement. I don't see anything in the cited ref about the batteries, centcom.mil seems not forthcoming and the wayback machine isn't helping. Can the details be clarified? Sorry if I cause any offense, it's serious business when people are dying. Franamax (talk) 23:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
The details were released in industry magazines shortly after the incident, it's been confirmed. I don't have the refs in front of me though, I'll go looking. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Found a ref to a ref - [2] - shows the causal events chain to the accident, and references Vernon Loeb's 2002 Washington Post article on the incident. The WP doesn't seem to have that article online though. A copy of it is included in the paper linked, though, so we know what it said. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the diligent work - but holy technical Batman! Am I a leaf-node? I always wanted to be a b-tree ;) I'm gonna try putting that ref in nonetheless. Interesting note though, the article before I changed it and another ref said "allied fighters", this one says "opposition soldiers" - a little confusing, isn't that? Franamax (talk) 00:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
You always wanted to be a B-tree? Strangely enough, my best friend growing up was Marc Kaufman's son... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I am the guilty party to rewriting an incredibly biased section on the Karzai incident. The problem I was faced with was that I am intimately knowledgeable with the incident, some of which is still classified by the US Government, so I had to be very careful how I phrased things, and referring it was very difficult...in the sense that I was looking for references that would refute blatant errors in the original reference used to build that section. That said I do agree, the incident was not caused by a JDAM guidance failure, but by a coordinate error induced by the position locating device defaulting to its home position when the batteries were replaced, meaning the failure was operator induced.Andrew (talk) 02:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)