Talk:AGM-158 JASSM

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
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 a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.

Developed by USA or Lockheed Martin? Cwolfsheep 18:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  • There's a difference? Lockheed Martin is a US company. Being built by them IS being built by the USA. BobThePirate 23:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
LM is a private corporation, I replaced 'by' with 'in'. Joffeloff 23:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I think you're making a distinction where none exists. Yes it's a private corporation, but it's an American one. It's part of the US! Still, "in" is just as good so by all means let's leave it like that. BobThePirate 00:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I'd have to argue that in context 'for' is the same as 'by'. --Streaky 16:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

the article does not make claims regarding that as a reason for the JASSM-ER[edit] but they're not designed to penetrate areas guarded by state-of-the art radar, missiles, and aircraft. "We are not Night One aircraft, meaning we don't penetrate enemy radar and kick down the door," Been says. F-22 Raptors and B-2 bombers would need to take out air-defense targets (radar, airfields, and so on) before more vulnerable bombers like the B-1 could join the fight. But the U.S. has just 188 F-22s and 20 B-2s.

The Air Force has found a role for B-1s during the early phase of an air war. The large bomb bays of B-1s can accommodate as many as 24 Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missiles (JASSM) that can fire from more than 200 miles away. These missiles use GPS and inertial navigation to deliver 2250 pounds of explosives on a target. "There's a huge emphasis in stand-off weapons training," Been says. "We're not going in with the F-22s, but those JASSMs are very important in defeating an anti-access challenge."

How exactly does that not equate to

which will use the extended range to compensate for its lack of stealth when attacking against modern air defenses

? Hcobb (talk) 18:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The lack of any mention of stealth, for one. You use that word, what you quote does not. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 05:01, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
"The Lancer can also keep up with non-stealth-fighter escorts to deliver added punch to the strike missions they conduct." ... "but they're not designed to penetrate areas guarded by state-of-the art radar, missiles, and aircraft. "We are not Night One aircraft, meaning we don't penetrate enemy radar and kick down the door," Been says. F-22 Raptors and B-2 bombers would need to take out air-defense targets (radar, airfields, and so on) before more vulnerable bombers like the B-1 could join the fight."

What is the vulnerability they are talking about, other than the lack of stealth? Hcobb (talk) 15:49, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

It is not our place to synthesize what that vulnerability is when it is not stated. What we can say is that JASSM-ER gives the B-1 the ability to execute early war strikes of defended targets. To specifically say it is about lack of stealth or, especially the way you worded it, to categorically say that the B-1 has a "lack of stealth" is not stated in your article and is somewhat misleading. The B-1 may not be considered a true "stealth aircraft," but it was designed with RCS reducing structures and materials giving it a far lower cross section than most other aircraft of its size. Maybe it is not stealthy enough, but that forces us to get into a judgment call on how to word something that isn't even stated in the source to begin with, so it is best to just leave it at the capability the missile gives the B-1. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 17:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Users ?[edit]

In the list of users Turkey is included, although it is not mentioned in the foreign sales sector. Is this the case? Nothing is mentioned in the foreign sales section of the article. Turkey's relations with the USA have been rather tense for some years now, so a strategic weapon would be unlikely to be offered for sale. In any case, some sources should be added to the article and in particular the users section. Alfadog777 — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Mission and Description[edit]

Very interesting. I was discussing the frequent serious unreliability of Wikipedia in an academic discussion group. Several participants opined that this was largely due to cabals that guarded the falsehoods and single points of view for ideological reasons. The same day I find that the JASSM page is full of serious inaccuracies, giving a highly distorted impression of the program. So I inserted the statement from the Selected Acquisition Report, which certainly was sourced and not original research. And sure enough, practically instantly the page was reverted to preserve its falsehoods and single point of view intact.

Will O'Neil (talk) 04:06, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Why would someone with "education in mathematics, engineering, and applied economics" think that merely dumping text into an article on WP would not be instantly reverted? No attempt was made to edit or summarize the information in any way to suit WP's Style Guide (WP:MOS), or to fit into the article's existing structure, such as it is. Any student doing such with a term paper would instantly receive a failing grade for such a stunt, while the response of any professional organization receiving such a submission should be justifiably harsh. Why would you think WP would accept such shoddy content submission? While I doubt such an esteemed scholar as yourself has the time to edit and improve a single article on a missile, surely you can do better than dumping in unedited text! - BilCat (talk) 09:47, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessaryily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

    Triggered by \bairforce-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 13:03, 3 April 2014 (UTC)