NOTICE: Citizendium is still being set up on its newer server, treat as a beta for now; please see here for more.
Citizendium - a community developing a quality comprehensive compendium of knowledge, online and free. Click here to join and contribute—free
CZ thanks our previous donors. Donate here. Treasurer's Financial Report -- Thanks to our content contributors. --

Talk:Joint Direct Attack Munition

From Citizendium, the Citizens' Compendium
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is developing and not approved.
Main Article
Talk
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
 
To learn how to fill out this checklist, please see CZ:The Article Checklist. To update this checklist edit the metadata template.
 Definition An add-on guidance kit that converts a standard Mark 8x "dumb bomb", or ballistic equivalent, into a precision-guided munition, using inertial navigation enhanced with GPS satellite navigation [d] [e]

Article 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 It is out of date (e.g., F-14 delivery), and is not at the engineering level we expect--more than a data sheet.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 with insensitive 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
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.
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.
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.


A comment here was deleted by The Constabulary on grounds of making complaints about fellow Citizens. If you have a complaint about the behavior of another Citizen, e-mail constables@citizendium.org. It is contrary to Citizendium policy to air your complaints on the wiki. See also CZ:Professionalism.

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)


A comment here was deleted by The Constabulary on grounds of making complaints about fellow Citizens. If you have a complaint about the behavior of another Citizen, e-mail constables@citizendium.org. It is contrary to Citizendium policy to air your complaints on the wiki. See also CZ:Professionalism.

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


A comment here was deleted by The Constabulary on grounds of making complaints about fellow Citizens. If you have a complaint about the behavior of another Citizen, e-mail constables@citizendium.org. It is contrary to Citizendium policy to air your complaints on the wiki. See also CZ:Professionalism.

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. [1] 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).[2] 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.
  • "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)
First, Mary, it is an Military Editor responsibility to determine what clear writing may be. Second, we have established terminology in CZ articles, and it is not "smart" and "dumb". Please make a point of wikilinking to existing articles, such as precision-guided munition, gravity bomb, guided bomb, etc. If you have a problem with the terminology of those articles, so indicate on their talk pages. If you do so, give authoritative citations for the alternate usage of the terms.
I removed things that you added that did not add information to the article, and, in my opinion, were awkwardly or incorrectly phrased. Turn this around: what is incorrect about the text in the preexisting article, admittedly improperly named? Why should it be replaced?
I make an Editor Ruling that "smart" and "dumb" are not the principal CZ terms for these concepts and need not and should not be explained in each article. The term is not "free-fall" bomb but gravity bomb; this reflects Joint Chiefs of Staff and other U.S. military definitions.
I make an Editor Ruling that "historically accurate" does not help if it does not reflect the current situation. A sufficient number of aircraft use the JDAM that it may indeed not be helpful, in the main article, to list them individually. Suffice it to say that every U.S. and many allied aircraft that drop bombs use JDAMs. Howard C. Berkowitz 04:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Free-fall is not synonymous with unguided

It is misleading to call these free-fall; perhaps this could be expanded in gravity bomb -- although not all unguided bombs are purely controlled by gravity.

Since JDAM strakes produce aerodynamic lift, not only stabilization, a basic JDAM has some similarity to a glide bomb. Indeed, variants such as the GBU-39 Small Diameter Bomb have gliding wings but still principally use JDAM guidance.

Mark 8x series conventional bombs are not free-falling when equipped with aerodynamic retarding devices that allow the delivery aircraft to escape the explosion when dropping bombs at low altitude. Early retarders were pop-out fins that acted as speed brakes, although the current approach is to use "ballute" drag parachutes. Other bombs, released at high altitude, may also use parachutes for stabilization, especially if they have poor aerodynamic characteristics, such as early nuclear weapons or exceptionally large blast bombs.

Napalm and related canisters built from fuel tanks are unstabilized, and tumble due to aerodynamic effects. This was considered desirable, because the bomb would hit the ground with considerable horizontal velocity, scattering the burning incendiary in a straight line.

Please try not to make all expansions in a single article, such as JDAM, which is subordinate to more general ones, such as gravity bomb, guided bomb and precision-guided munition. Also, before introducing "simpler" terms, be sure to understand the nuances, and if a popular term may be imprecise. Howard C. Berkowitz 18:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Howard according to Boeing the JDAM is used to convert unguided free-fall weapons: http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/missiles/jdam/index.htm or you can try this link: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/jdam.htm or how about this one: http://www.harris.com/view_pressrelease.asp?act=lookup&pr_id=1677. All state that JDAM converts free-fall weapons into "smart" ones that are no longer free-fall. Wikipedia has an unsourced description but it's accurate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-fall_bomb. Any weapon that is unguided is considered a free-fall weapon. What makes JDAM different is the ability to take a "dumb" bomb, or free-fall bomb; and make it a "smart" one. Mary Ash 19:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't really care what Boeing says in its public relations material, if it oversimplifies.
We do not accept Wikipedia as a source.
Not all "dumb" bombs are free-fall, as I carefully explained above. It appears that you aren't following the nuances of precise definition, or are trying to do newspaper-style dumbing down. I just gave numerous specific examples of unguided bombs that are not free-fall, but you simply seem to be arguing that you are right and unchallengeable. Press releases are not preferred sources. At times, they are appropriate, but only when verified from expert knowledge -- and that means engineering or operational experience, not general journalism. It happens that one of my projects for the Office of Naval Research was tracking the dissemination of technology, which included WWII glide bombs and their limitations. Howard C. Berkowitz 19:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I gave good sources which you have denied. The United States Navy is not a good source and neither is Boeing. Those are trusted sources as they are reliable sources for publicly available information. The definitions provided by Boeing (and I could find other sources) are good examples of information that explain what needs explaining. A part of being a good writer is being able to write for all audiences not for a select few. The folks who do not need the "dumbing" down of esoteric material can skip it. Citizendium's goal though is to provide accurate, clear information. Part of that process is writing for all. Also, it clearly states in the CZ info page that articles are to be written in a lively manner to interest the reader. This means articles should not be a list of numbers or lists of information. That's not writing it's just regurgitating information.Mary Ash 01:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Please see Editorial Council Regulation R-2011-12]. It is the responsibility of an Editor to define the level, style, etc. of an article. I have repeatedly tried to guide this article to what I consider an appropriate level, and you inform me that you know better what Citizendium's goals and styles should be.
Take the example case of not dumbing down, and the example of ceiling (weapon). I made the definition a wikilink rather than putting it inline, but then expanded on the concept for the more knowledgeable reader. You cited a Navy fact sheet that put it at 45,000 feet, where the reality is that there is a strong effort, especially with the F-22, to exploit dropping at higher ceiling.
Is there a problem in understanding the Editor role based on the Regulation I cited? I did not say that the Navy or Boeing were inherently bad sources, but I did say that some of their news releases, especially those that are clearly out of date or dumbed down, are inappropriate sources. I am giving guidance that should be usable. Please use it. I do not really enjoy correcting things that are imprecise.
As far as regurgitating, I have been explaining the significance of information, often in my own words since I am familiar with the detailed reasoning. In this talk page, I repeatedly have explained my reasoning on terminology, such as free-fall not being synonymous with dumb. You have come back saying sources say otherwise -- although I don't see them being explicit when I check them -- but you do not directly respond to my explanations. If one were expert, one could deal personally with the explanation, not simply appeal to authority.
If you feel some terms need defining, create articles for them and wikilink to them. As you frequently point out, this is a wiki -- and wiki software allows and encourages linking. Defining every basic term inline is not good web writing.
Also, I expect full sourcing, preferably from the original publisher, as with the Air University paper whose title was not even given. I expect topics not to be randomly inserted, such as a discussion of collateral damage in the second paragraph, especially when the statement is not correct: some PGMs are designed for minimizing collateral damage. Your source mentioned this specifically for the 500 pound class bombs; it was not a general statement. The second paragraph is about the relevance of precision to the principle of mass, which was the main point of that paper, not avoidance of collateral damage. In point of fact, the existing article discusses collateral damage minimization later on, in the specific class of weapons for which that is a design goal.Howard C. Berkowitz 01:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Adding graphics

Before adding graphics, think about the information they will add; we don't need things that are eye candy alone. When I have selected pictures, I make sure that they show some distinctive features of the subject. For example, the aerodynamic and control features of JDAMs in general are visible from a side or rear view, unless it is a 500 pound bomb that has the strakes on the nose.

The front view of the GBU-51 laser JDAM does show the laser seeker, where there would simply be a fuze well on a conventional bomb.

An image to which I objected was dramatic in that it was a "panned" photograph with creative blur, but did not show many details, and, as far as I could see, part of the JDAM kit had not yet been attached (the top connectors). There was also confusion on the cutline that initially called it a GBU-10, which is a laser guided bomb, not a JDAM.

I may do some line drawings to explain the components; I haven't yet seen a usable diagram that shows what I would like to have. In like manner, I may request permission to use some illustrations of flight paths -- I'm just insufficiently adept with graphics software to produce something I can draw clearly by hand. Howard C. Berkowitz 19:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

What information is added with the graphic "loading a JDAM onto a plane"? It is a front view and the JDAM-specific components cannot be seen. Howard C. Berkowitz 19:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Howard I suspect the United States Navy would know what the photo depicts. It is an expert source when it comes to these things as they helped develop JDAM. Also, the photo shows the ordies installing the JDAM on the F-18. None of the photos currently in use show the installation or the ordies at work. Remember photos sell articles...and they do. Mary Ash 19:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Actually, the GBU-51 picture shows an Air Force ordie at work; while my family had more naval aviators than members of the United States Air Farce, I don't discriminate (I'm very proud of an inlaw, BG Noel Parrish, the trainer of the Tuskegee Airmen). My mother, in WWII, ran the aviation maintenance school at Pensacola, and my former father-in-law was a Navy test pilot. Some of their stories do not necessarily suggest that the Navvy was Prefect.
The United States Navy seemed not to know how to defend Pearl Harbor or to insist on crew protection for the USS Pueblo or USS Liberty, or prevent catastrophic accident-caused carrier fires on the USS Oriskany, USS Bennington, or USS Forrestal, and many other things. I'm proud of the Navy, but I do not assume that a Navy document can be without errors -- after all, I've written a few, variously for SPAWAR, the Office of Naval Research, and the Naval Computer Systems Support Activity. Editor ruling: A source is not unchallengeable merely because it comes from a government source.
We are not selling articles. We provide focused information. I'd really hate to think that people read Playboy Citizendium for the pictures alone. (For the record, I read Playboy for the cartoons, for which only the New Yorker comes close). Howard C. Berkowitz 19:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

{unident) I disagree. You are "selling" articles at Citizendium if you want people to visit and use the site. In order for people to want to visit they must find the articles inviting, clearly written and informative. Part of that process is providing information for all readers not a select few. Mary Ash 02:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I've given guidance about the style and point of this article. If you want to discuss general policy for CZ, please take it to the Forums. We differ about what makes an article "inviting". Howard C. Berkowitz 02:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
We may disagree but I do have a right to write as anyone does here. A good editor respects that. Mary Ash 02:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
And you also have the right to have your writing reverted by Editors, who are ultimately responsible for consistent treatment of subjects and style in articles. Again, you are arguing policy, in a manner that appears to defy the stated Editor responsibilities passed by the EC. The EC did not endorse anarchy in writing; it has long been CZ policy that a role of Editors is to put an end to otherwise endless back-and-forth.
We can collaborate if guidance will be accepted. When I say, however, that a picture does not add information, I mean it. Incidentally, how is "ordie" not a specialized term? Howard C. Berkowitz 03:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Collateral damage

I know what collateral damage is, but I have not find an online source to reference it. This should be explained so the reader understands JDAM is designed to hit a specific target thereby minimizing injuring to near-by civilians. I'd write this but I don't have the sources to back up this statement. Perhaps someone could find the source and reference it. Mary Ash 02:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I've provided a definition, which certainly could be expanded. Remember, if one is a subject matter expert at CZ, there doesn't always have to be a specific source. Nevertheless, in Joint Publication 3-60, the Joint Chiefs of Staff define it as "Unintentional or incidental injury or damage to persons or objects that would not be lawful military targets in the circumstances ruling at the time. Such damage is not unlawful so long as it is not excessive in light of the overall military advantage anticipated from the attack."
To write an article on it, however, I think it would be worthwhile to consider concepts from the Geneva Conventions and just war theory--the latter would include the principle of proportionality, as well as jus in bello. I would caution that PGMs in general, and JDAMs specifically, are not a panacea for avoiding collateral damage. There is a considerable amount of writing surrounding the Al Firdos bunker incident, which was hit by PGMs. A broad article is in Air Force Law Review. Another study, from the Hoover Institution, makes some good points from Operation Allied Force. Howard C. Berkowitz 03:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

FMU-139C/B fuze

Note the full designation, and how I completed the reference -- I do need to change "conference" to "publisher".

You mentioned that it was wise not to regurgitate information, with which I agree. In this case, then, what does knowing the fuze type tell the reader? Howard C. Berkowitz 03:35, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The fuze is responsible for insuring safe handling, storage and loading; arms the weapon when it's safe to do so; and is responsible for detonating when it reaches its target. Without proper furzing the JDAM would not function. Mary Ash 05:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
But this fuze is not only used on JDAMs, but on other ordnance--you've described how it would work on a plain Mark 84. What additional information does this provide, to the reader, about a JDAM? Remember, a JDAM is an extension to a dumb bomb and the dumb bomb retains all of its original explosive characteristics. Does the JDAM kit integrate it with MIL-STD-1760 or MIL-STD-1553?
So far, you've only described what the fuze does with any bomb. For that matter, are you sure that all JDAM bomb configuration use it, or could any use a FMU-143? What's the role of the FMU-152? Should the reader know?
Mary, you have said that an article should not be a regurgitation of facts. I know the factors in fuzing, but, right now, you put in a flat statement that, I must say, is not always the case. For interesting writing, facts should be in context. What is the JDAM-unique context of fuzing, if any? Howard C. Berkowitz 06:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Returned the clear explanation about bomb types=

I returned the section clearly explaining the difference between bomb types which Peter wrote. It needs some wiki clean up but I have an appointment to attend to. Please leave this section in place as it is needed. I will contact a Constable for assistance. Mary Ash 21:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Why are you trying to contact a Constable? This is a content issue under the scope of the Military Workgroup. I am a Military Workgroup Editor.
It is not, Mary, your decision, or that of a Constable, what content goes into an article. It is not, under the Editorial Council decision I cited, your decision as to whether material is clear or not.
If there is a need to distinguish between "smart" and "dumb", such a distinction, I rule, belongs in guided bomb or precision-guided munition. JDAMs are only one kind of guided bomb, so it makes little sense to make the discussion here.
Please accept Editor rulings, or the Constables will become involved in a different way. In my opinion, you are refusing to accept rulings. Further, you are revert-warring when you return a section that I removed. Howard C. Berkowitz 22:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Errors in reverted text

...used by United States Air Force and United States Navy to enhance the precision of conventional bombs. It converts unguided (so-called "dumb") bombs into guided ("smart") bombs whose drop and target coordinates are set immediately before they are dropped from the aircraft.

No. For a preplanned drop mission, they are set well before drop. With a GBU-54 and the upcoming GBU-53, the coordinates can be adjusted in flight.

The guidance kit consists of movable tail fins, which attach to a variety of standard Mark 8x bombs.

No. For Air Force weapons, Mark 8x, but hard-target penetrators for all services, as well as Navy variants of the 8x, BLU- series that use insensitive high explosives. As mentioned later in the article, the JDAM kit had considerably more than tail fins: the navigationals sensors and the control computer, fin actuators, strakes and hardbacks, and the MIL-STD-1553 and MIL-STD-1760 interfaces. Some of the newer JDAMs, such as the GBU-39 and the BLU-126/B, are not derived from Mark 8x but use JDAM guidance with specialized explosives.

Initially the navigational system was based on inertia (INS) only, but newer models also use GPS and laser guidance.

The term is inertial navigation, which is not synonymous with INS. INS is a specific kind of inertial navigation for aircraft. In general, all new models supplement inertial with GPS, but only some use laser guidance. The newest in development use the Common Tri-Mode Seeker with infrared, radar and laser guidance as well as GPS/inertial. Howard C. Berkowitz 22:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Since this concerns "my" text I have modified it accordingly. --Peter Schmitt 23:42, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
In that case, please use or discuss the content guidance I provided inline in this section. "Smart" and "dumb" are rather relative; I prefer gravity bomb and guided bomb. Howard C. Berkowitz 00:08, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
That is the reason why the terms are in brackets, between quotes, and "so-called". The lead is not written for experts (only) therefore informal language is useful. Moreover, you left the same phrase -- from my earlier attempt -- in the text a few lines below. It is much more suitable in the beginning, with precise terms used later. --Peter Schmitt 00:27, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Part of the problem is that the lead has been changed so often that it's hard to keep track.
At least in American English, "so-called" has a distinctly negative implication, suggesting the term is inappropriate or not true.
The guidance-setting is oversimplified, as is the statement that JDAM converts dumb to smart -- that was the original case, but is no longer true in each case. Howard C. Berkowitz 00:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Howard here about "so-called" -- its usage is ambiguous but, by and large, there is a negative aspect to it, as it is apparently casting doubt upon whatever the subject is. My French isn't ingrained enough to compare it to "soi-disant" but I have a *feeling* that "soi-disant" is a little more neutral. To avoid problems in English, however, I would try to avoid this usage unless you're very clear in your mind that you are being negative about whatever is being "so-called". You can check with Ro on this, of course.... Hayford Peirce 03:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
I think that in this particular case, referring only to these bombs, "so-called" could be used. But Peter's "informally" is probably better. "Often", or "frequently", or "colloquially" could also be used, I think. Hayford Peirce 17:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you preview your edits before you save them?

Mary, do you preview your edits before you save them? You should. For example, you left a single space between the first word of your last edit and the left hand margin ... and this resulted:

[space here]The Joint Direct Attack Munition, usually abbreviated to JDAM, is an add-on used by United States Air Force and United States Navy to enhance the precision of conventional bombs. It converts unguided (so-called "dumb") bombs into guided ("smart") bombs whose drop and target coordinates are set immediately before they are dropped from the aircraft. The guidance kit consists of movable tail fins, which attach to a variety of standard Mark 8x bombs. Initially the navigational system was based on inertia (INS) only, but newer models also use GPS and laser guidance. In the 2003 Iraq War, the majority of bombs dropped by the U.S. were JDAMs. Pure unguided gravity bombs are used less and less.

By simply removing that space , you would have gotten this:

The Joint Direct Attack Munition, usually abbreviated to JDAM, is an add-on used by United States Air Force and United States Navy to enhance the precision of conventional bombs. It converts unguided (so-called "dumb") bombs into guided ("smart") bombs whose drop and target coordinates are set immediately before they are dropped from the aircraft. The guidance kit consists of movable tail fins, which attach to a variety of standard Mark 8x bombs. Initially the navigational system was based on inertia (INS) only, but newer models also use GPS and laser guidance. In the 2003 Iraq War, the majority of bombs dropped by the U.S. were JDAMs. Pure unguided gravity bombs are used less and less.

After all this time at CZ, have you not learned to preview your edits before you save them? I don't understand how an experienced "journalist" failed to preview an edit. Please fix this error as soon as possible. Milton Beychok 22:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Ro, for fixing that. D. Matt Innis 02:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Pleasure, Matt. (That error, a leading space, makes the page about 4 times as wide as my screen so it's very difficult to follow---no exaggeration---so I do tend to fix it.) Ro Thorpe 03:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


A comment here was deleted by The Constabulary on grounds of making complaints about fellow Citizens. If you have a complaint about the behavior of another Citizen, e-mail constables@citizendium.org. It is contrary to Citizendium policy to air your complaints on the wiki. See also CZ:Professionalism.


A comment here was deleted by The Constabulary on grounds of making complaints about fellow Citizens. If you have a complaint about the behavior of another Citizen, e-mail constables@citizendium.org. It is contrary to Citizendium policy to air your complaints on the wiki. See also CZ:Professionalism.

I left a clear explanation of why I did not have to "wikify" the change. I had an appointment to attend to. And that needs no other explanation. Mary Ash 04:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

CEP?

The term "CEP" is used twice, once in text and once in a table caption, but I see no explanation of it. It needs at least a brief explanation (expansion of the acronym might suffice) and possibly a wikilink if the term deserves an article. Sandy Harris 06:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Circular error probability. Will fix. Howard C. Berkowitz 06:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Clarification

What does this paragraph mean?

Terminal guidance [edit] GBU-54 Laser JDAM GBU-54 Laser JDAM

Both for increased accuracy and to deal with moving targets, a prototype terminal guidance seeker was evaluated in 1997-1998. Called DAMASK (Direct Attack Munitions Affordable Seeker), it used IIR (Imaging Infrared) seeker and associated control algorithms to improve the circular error probability to 3m (10 ft).

Terminal guidance, however, was abandoned until 2006, with a competition, by the Air Force and Navy, for a Dual Mode Guided Bomb (DMGB) program, which was won by Boeing's LJDAM that Precision Laser Guidance Set (PLGS) to JDAM guided bombs. The other two contenders were Lockheed Martin's DMGB and Raytheon's Enhanced Paveway II (EGBU). Inertial and GPS guidance still gets the JDAM to the target area (i.e., midcourse guidance), but it then follows a laser designator spot onto a potentially moving target.

What was won? Was it a bomb and did someone receive a bomb as a trophy? Was it a program that was won (selected) over other contenders? Clarification please as I don't think anyone was winning anything. Perhaps they were awarded a contract... Mary Ash 15:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

"...a competition, by the Air Force and Navy, for a Dual Mode Guided Bomb (DMGB) program, which was won..." A competition was won. Ro Thorpe 16:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, Ro. Does this need to be tweaked further? Certainly, whenever I've worked for a contractor bidding on military contracts, we spoke of either "winning", or, in formal contract terms, "award" of the competition. There is a point at which things are nitpicking; you tend to be a fair judge. Howard C. Berkowitz 16:45, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Howard; no, I think it's clear. Ro Thorpe 16:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
In typical military parlance contracts are awarded. There could be a competition between contracts or programs the contract was awarded to the winning bidder. Also, the way the sentence is written bombs were awarded not programs. Mary Ash 17:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Contracts office, perhaps. When, variously, I worked for URS Systems, Bunker-Ramo, the Human Resources Research Office and the Center for Research in Social Systems, Behavioral Studies, GTE, and teamed with CSC, SAIC, and others, we were proud to have our proposals win. When in government, I told my contractors when they won. Is this really an important point worth belaboring? Are we to use the Defense Contract Acquisition Regulations as the style guide? Howard C. Berkowitz 17:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

{unindent}Just making sure everything is perfectly correct as it's expected to have the clearest, most correct writing here. Contracts are not won as they are awarded based on the ability to meet contract specs usually for the lowest cost i.e. the lowest bidder is awarded the contract. It is not won in the sense someone one usually wins something through luck not effort. There is effort involved when placing a bid in for a program. Informal language or writing would allow the use of the word win versus award. Mary Ash 02:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Where is it said that informal writing is precluded at Citizendium? There are many people who will discuss "most correct", but they typically source it to recognized style guides. Alternatively, there is a logical analysis of the expression.
Now, I am quite careful about not using "won" to refer to awards for valor; the Medal of Honor is not a contest. In point of fact, however, competitive procurement is just that -- a contest. Typically, competitive bidding is zero-sum; one competitor takes all the award and the others go home hungry. In terms of the competitive process, I would argue that "win" is actually more correct than "award", but "award" is more correct for the contractual phase.
Nevertheless, I note that Ro and I do not agree with your analysis of phrasing. The matter is not specific to JDAM. I suppose you could submit a motion to the Editorial Council that "awarded" be required for any competition, and see what vote it gets. Is it worth continuing this, when there are refinements that can be made in the subject matter? I'm probably going to do some schematic drawings, better to illustrate the subsystems, and, at such time as I start a new article, do something on laser-guided bomb technology--which gets fairly complex. There are relevant concepts both in guided bomb and electro-optical tracking. Howard C. Berkowitz 06:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  1. Boeing: Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) Home. Retrieved on 2011-02-15.
  2. JDAM: A GPS-INS Add-on Adds Accuracy to Airstrikes.