Talk:Joint Direct Attack Munition

Artilce already exists
There already was an article at JDAM, with more detail and interpretation, not the Navy fact file only. It addresses the development direction of the weapon. Howard C. Berkowitz 08:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how there are two articles entitled Joint Direct Attack Munition. Nevertheless, it's certainly not a Navy-only weapon. Further, the legend on the illustration says it is a GBU-10, which is a laser-guided bomb, not a GPS/INS guided JDAM. Howard C. Berkowitz 08:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Howard your link was empty. Also the name for the first, and unfound article, is incorrectly named. Perhaps you could merge the two articles into one since the previous article was already written. The article also mentions the Air Force uses the same weapon, but due to the late hour I wrote the article using the USN fact sheet --- a reliable and accepted source and will look for the USAF info later, if you like. Mary Ash 18:09, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * A text search for JDAM would have found the article, No, the USN fact sheet alone is not a reliable and accepted source for CZ, at least in the Military Workgroup. It is out of date (e.g., F-14 delivery), and is not at the engineering level we expect--more than a data sheet. Please see JDAM for an example of more detailed sourcing, including Navy projects such as as JDAM kits for ASW torpedoes. Howard C. Berkowitz 18:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * As far as the picture, it really seems to be a Mark 8x series conventional bomb (or the Navy variant withinsensitive high explosive). It does not yet have a laser guidance or JDAM kit visible. Howard C. Berkowitz 18:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

{unindent} I don't mean to be unkind but if the information had been correct i.e. using the incorrect name for JDAM, this article would not have been written. The sources must have been inaccurate if the name for JDAM, Joint Direct Attack Munition, was Joint Direct Action Munition. Wikipedia had the correct name. Finally, the photo chosen shows an ordie at work loading up a JDAM.Mary Ash 19:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't plan to address kindness. I do plan to address that JDAM was searchable, a trivial thing to check before creating an article. I will address that my sources were not incorrect, but I mistyped the name and didn't catch it. When you write "unmanned ariel vehicle", you are in no position to claim inaccuracy.
 * I plan to address that the ordie is not loading a JDAM. The caption says it is a laser-guided bomb. There are no strakes on the bomb, which a JDAM requires. Perhaps the ordie plans to attach them, but it is not, in its present configuration, a JDAM. Do you actually know what a JDAM looks like? It doesn't look like that picture. See [[Image:JDAM cluster.jpg|left|thumb|250px|JDAM with strakes   and Tail Actuator Subsystem (red)]].


 * I am not going to get into arguments, but I will make an Editor Ruling that the two articles need to be merged. That will require Constable action to get the histories merged, although there is little new material in your article. As well as technical errors, you have made spelling and grammatical errors, so do not justify your continuation because I am at fault. Howard C. Berkowitz 19:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I can update the article and add more detail. For example, it should consider the MIL-STD-1553 data bus and MIL-STD-1760 digital interface. Howard C. Berkowitz 19:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As I wrote earlier "Perhaps you could merge the two articles into one since the previous article was already written." Mary Ash 21:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And it would have helped if the correct title and JDAM name was used. I do understand about typos they happen to the best of us. Unfortunately in this case it allowed a new article to be created when a previous one existed.Mary Ash 22:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * When I search for prior work, I use more than one term. The abbreviation JDAM would have been trivial. Howard C. Berkowitz 22:44, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

This is what the cutline says
"011017-N-2383B-506 Aboard USS Theodore Roosevelt (Oct. 17, 2001) -- An Aviation Ordnanceman pushes a 2000-pound GBU-31 JDAM through the hangar bay of the aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71). Theodore Roosevelt and its carrier air wing are conducting missions in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. U.S. Navy photo by Chief Photographer's Mate Johnny Bivera. (RELEASED)" The USN calls it a JDAM and so did my ME husband who helped me select the photo. The photo clearly shows a JDAM. Mary Ash 22:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. A JDAM has aerodynamic guidance surfaces called strakes, which are clearly visible in red in the picture on this page. There might be the start of mounts, but it appears to be a plain, ordinary Mark 84 dumb bomb. It could become a JDAM if the JDAM kit was installed, but the JDAM strakes are not installed. Why are you saying "The photo clearly shows a JDAM" when no JDAM-specific components are visible?
 * Military Editor Ruling: it is NOT a working JDAM in the picture. End of discussion, unless your hubby becomes a CZ military editor.
 * I quote your original notes: "2000-pound GBU-10 laser guided bomb through the hangar bay of the aircraft carrier USS Theodore R) |author = By U.S. Navy photo by Aboard USS Theodore Roosevelt (Oct. 17, 2001) -- An Aviation Ordnanceman pushes a 2000-pound GBU-10 laser guided bomb " A GBU-10 is a laser-guided bomb, a JDAM, but the bomb in the picture does not have a LGB guidance kit attached.
 * Here is the similar GBU-24. The GBU-10 guidance unit is shorter, but still the long protrusion on the nose of the bomb. [[Image:PAVEWAY III.jpg|thumb|200px|left|GBU-24]]. Look at your picture: there is no nose projection; the whitish tip is simply a cap for the fuze well.  It's possible that the light-colored sections in the middle of the bomb are packing/lifting, or possible KMU- series mounts for the strakes, but even if they are part of the KMU, the picture is not showing a complete JDAM.
 * Any good picture of a JDAM also shows the Tail Actuator Subsystem, which actually does the steering. The picture I provided shows both strakes and TAS.
 * [[Image:011017-N-2383B-506 JDAM munition on the move.jpg|right|200px|thumb|questioned picture]]
 * Howard C. Berkowitz 22:44, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Articles merged to preserve histories
This article now contains the combined histories of Joint Direct Attack Munition and Joint Direct Action Munition as requested by the ME through the constabulary email and appears to have the support of everyone involved. D. Matt Innis 17:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As best as I can tell no merge was done with this article as there is absolutely nothing left of what I wrote. Granted the article ended up being a dupe as there was an existing article with the wrong name leading to this mix-up. I am filing a complaint as a merge was not done instead, without explanation, almost everything, if not everything, was arbitrarily and capriciously removed. BTW the photo of the JDAM was correct as verified by my husband who is a mechanical engineer.Mary Ash 01:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It was a merge of the histories. This does not say anything about merging or not merging the page contents. It is certainly not possible to simply mix the text from both pages because this would reault in an awful article. --Peter Schmitt 01:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Some information, mostly on configuration, from Mary's version could be used. Most, however, was simply cut and paste.


 * Howard C. Berkowitz 01:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Mary is wrong, a merge of histories was performed. Peter is correct, it is up to the authors on the page to blend the two articles (whose information is now in the history, Mary - just go to that version). Howard has made a ruling and it has not been violated so there is nothing to act on.  Please feel free to work with content here, but if there are behavior complaints, please feel free to use the constabulary email.  Please include everyone involved in the address list and we can work from there. Thanks in advance for your patience. D. Matt Innis 02:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

{unidnet}I typed in Joint Direct Attack Munition and ended up with this: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Joint_Direct_Attack_Munition&diff=100756165&oldid=100755768 As best as I can tell there is nothing included of what I wrote. The link Matt provided takes you to a different article. Does this mean the search engine is not working or are other things happening?Mary Ash 02:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Once again I searched and when using Matt's link I get this: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Joint_Direct_Attack_Munition&oldid=100755768 but when I perform a general search I get this:

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Joint_Direct_Attack_Munition&diff=100756165&oldid=100755768 which is not the same article. If the merge was done, I am not getting it... :-) Mary Ash 02:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Mary, look through the history to find your version (it has you name on it) and then integrate the things that you think need to be added into the last version. I can see how it looks confusing at first, but there is no other way to merge two articles and magically have both articles appear at the same time. You have to put them together.  That's why we want to avoid writing two articles on the same subject in the first place. It causes extra work, but think of it as a good chance to improve both articles. D. Matt Innis 02:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Matt there is nothing left of the article I started. Nothing to me that's NOT a merge. A merge is combination of both articles and it can be done as I have done it at other wikis. Also, as a matter of courtesy an explanation should have been given for why almost nothing (and I am being charitable was not used included my clear explanation of the differences between bombs). This was not done. Finally, the second article i.e. the one I started would not have been written if the correct name had been used in the original article title and article itself. It was not. JDAM was Joint Direct Action Munition which is incorrect. The correct name, and the one I used, is Joint Direct Attack Munition and I have written about this professionally. I have also written about JSOW. While the article I started was open for expansion, as it should be for wikis, it was written late at night to help fill in the article Howard originally started. Now there is nothing left of the stuff I wrote and I used the correct name too. I have sent a request to the EC requesting a review of this action. Mary Ash 02:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Some more comments: My understanding is that you can not remove text without an explanation so if I were to merge the two articles how would I go about leaving comments on the talk page? Also, is this not what the editor is supposed to be doing as I am an author and am not supposed to edit articles here? I don't want to get banned for doing something wrong.Mary Ash 02:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Much of this could have been prevented with a talk page note on the incorrectly titled article, and perhaps a day of waiting.


 * I am unclear what is meant by "my clear explanation of the differences between bombs". Which bombs? If the reference is to "smart" and "dumb", the correct terminology is precision-guided munition and more specifically guided bomb, as well as, on the less intelligent side, Mark 8x series conventional bombs. I'd be open to renaming that last, since Mark 8x is an Air Force designation, with the Navy variant of BLU series with fire-resistant coatings and insensitive high explosive.


 * If there are relevant things one has written professionally, they should be cited. Note that we expect "professional" comments to be at an engineering level. Howard C. Berkowitz 03:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Mary, you have told me the same thing three or four times. There is no way to merge the articles. You have to do it. I am not sure if you aren't reading what I am writing, or if I am just not able to explain myself well, but I don't think writing it again is going to help.  I would suggest you take some time and look through the article's history.   I don't need any more explanations as I understand what you are saying.  If you don't understand me, how about using the email feature and I will try to explain further.  Otherwise, this article is still available for editing.


 * Howard, please leave the behavior issues to the constabulary. While professional comments should be at an engineering level, authors can comment from practically any level, even sheer ignorance as long as they are professionally couched.  Editors are expected to respond to everyone professionally. D. Matt Innis 03:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Did a preliminary merge
I did a preliminary merge. I removed a small amount of duplicated text. I am sure a bit more remains but I will leave that for others to work on. Mary Ash 03:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Added Boeing references to back up statement about the differences between smart and dumb bombs. Boeing gives a good explanation of JDAM and what it does too. Mary Ash 03:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Editorial council
I will now add the reversion of my good faith edits to merge the articles. My efforts were reverted without explanation as seen here: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Joint_Direct_Attack_Munition&diff=100756193&oldid=100756188 Mary Ash 04:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Merge issues
I removed the following lead that was inserted:


 * The Joint Direct Attack Munition is a guidance kit used to make dumb bombs smart. A smart bomb is one that can find its target in spite of its release errors while the dumb bomb is a free-fall weapon meaning it hits the target without any guidance. The JDAM coverts dumb bombs by using a smart tail section which has an intertial navigational system (INS) and a global positioning system (GPS) thereby improving accuracy in all weather conditions. The JDAM can be used by every Navy fighter-attack aircraft such as the Harrier (AV-8B), the F/A-18 (Hornet or Super Hornet) and the F-14 (Tomcat). The Air Force also uses the JDAM. The Air Force uses the JDAM on the following aircraft: B-1B, B-2A, B-52H, F-15E, F/A-22. The JDAM can also be used with Unmanned Ariel Vehicles (UAVs). It is a joint program between the United States Air Force and United States Navy.

Problems with it include:


 * " dumb bombs smart. A smart bomb is one that can find its target in spite of its release errors while the dumb bomb is a free-fall weapon meaning it hits the target without any guidance." As I mentioned above on the talk page, there is specific nomenclature in use.
 * guided bomb and, in some cases, precision-guided munition, not "smart bomb"
 * Mark 8x series conventional bomb, not "dumb bomb"
 * unmanned aerial vehicle
 * gravity bomb, not free-fall
 * "The JDAM can be used by every Navy..." This is directly from the Navy data sheet, and is out of date and misleading. F-14 Tomcat aircraft have been retired. The greater number of JDAMs dropped are from Air Force aircraft, simply because there are more of them; the Royal Air Force and other militares use them.  It would be most correct to say it can be used on any aircraft, obviously with drop testing, that supports the MIL-STD-1760 and MIL-STD-1553 interfaces.
 * Even for the Navy aircraft, the names were not internally wikilinked.

Howard C. Berkowitz 04:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Howard the explanation of the difference in bombs is appropriate as the average reader would not know the difference. Clear writing requires the author to provide a clear explanation. Any weapon that does not have guidance can be considered a free-fall weapon. Free-fall weapons are dumb. Smart weapons have some form of guidance. You could insert (retired) next to the F-14 but historically this is accurate and correctly written. I have submitted a request to the EC to review the actions taken concerning this article. Mary Ash 04:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, the article I wrote said JDAM was a joint project between the USN and USAF. I also left almost everything you wrote while you managed to remove almost everything I wrote. I don't think that's called a merge but I will let the EC decide. Mary Ash 04:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)