|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the AGM-158 JASSM article.|
- 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 
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/planes-uavs/b-1-pilots-turn-their-bombsights-to-the-pacific-7962209?click=pm_news 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
- 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."
- 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 ? 
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 184.108.40.206 (talk) 10:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)