Talk:AGM-158 JASSM

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Mission and Description

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
He could at the very least text dump the Talk section and leave it to others to sift through it and cross reference with the existing WP article. Zhanjack822 (talk) 19:20, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

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 necessarily 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:

  • http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/agm-158-jassm-standoff-missile/
    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)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on AGM-158 JASSM. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:06, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on AGM-158 JASSM. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:33, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Misquotation on note 19

According the link, quotation on note 19 is from Joseph Breen (Business Development Director of Lockheed Martin Missile and Fire Control department) - not from some Finnish senior official — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.30.132.139 (talk) 13:25, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on AGM-158 JASSM. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AGM-158B JASSM-ER Range

The current listed source for the 575 mile range of the AGM-158B is a GAO report (https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-13-294sp.pdf#page=87). However, upon skimming through the section on the report for the JASSM-ER, it only says the range is, "greater than 500 miles." I'm guessing whomever originally wrote the 575 mile figure assumed that the GAO report meant "500 nautical miles," which when converted to the nearest whole number in miles, would be 575. However, the GAO report in other areas wrote "nautical miles" explicitly, so I don't think we can assume the range for the JASSM-ER is also in nautical miles since it wasn't explicit. Perhaps I just misread the section and am missing something. Can someone else double check and confirm? We may need to do a slight edit if this was in fact done erroneously. Zhanjack822 (talk) 19:26, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did some search on this, and there are plenty of official documents that explicitly says "500 nautical miles", actually (for example: https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/FOID/Reading%20Room/Selected_Acquisition_Reports/FY_2019_SARS/20-F-0568_DOC_46_JASSM_SAR_Dec_2019_Full.pdf, https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/110659/jassm-er-nears-operational-employment/). We don't know which one was the original wording, i.e. whether it was someone in the government interpreted "miles" as "nautical miles" or vice versa that led to two different specifications to coexist in the documents, but it probably doesn't matter, as the true range would most probably be way longer than 500 whatever that they are comfortable with declassifying as a lower bound. Licjar Xeymelloz (talk) 10:21, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AGM-158B-2 and the JASSM-XR are different things.

The JASSM-XR being described in the content is a proposal from the 2000s. Those articles confused it, understandably, with the AGM-158D JASSM-XR from the late 2010s which was later renamed the AGM-158B-2 because it... really isn't all that significant a change to the AGM-158B. For proof that this is the case refer to this source stating that "The JASSM-ER maintains the same outer mold line and low-observable properties as JASSM-BL" You can't double the the weight of a weapon from 2,600lbs to 5,000lbs whilst the weapon remains the same size. That source even refers to a new AGM-158D still only has wing and chine changes (and a new datalink), not a doubling of size of the weapon. TaqPCR (talk) 23:29, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That may or may not be true that it's a proposal from the 2000's, but it doesn't allow you to simply blank massive swathes of reliably sourced content from the article without discussion, or without citing your changes to a reliable source yourself. Your "proof that this is the case" is a clear-cut example of disallowed synthesis -- combining a source with other information not contained within that source, to reach a conclusion not stated by the originally cited source. Further, even if your assertions were correct, none of this appears to explain why you blanked an entire history section that documents the name changes between JASSM-XR/AGM-158D and AGM-158B-2. What you'd need to provide is a reliable source stating that the JASSM-XR of the 2000's and the JASSM-XR of the 2010's (that started as AGM-158D and became the JASSM-ER AGM-158B-2) are two different things; in which case we'd rewrite the section that implies that *without* deleting all the other content about the later (AGM-158D/AGM-158B-2) variant. But mass blanking is absolutely not the answer. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 00:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not reliably sourced. That's my point. The content I deleted says that the JASSM-XR is 5000lbs. That is clearly not the case because the missile is the same size per the US government. Ergo those articles are not reliable. Everything they're saying about the increased warhead weight, the increased range. All of that is nonsense that clearly contradicts with reality.
The article I posted says exactly what the AGM-158B-2 is. A few minor upgrades to the "Electronic Safe and Arm Fuze (ESAF) and Missile Control Unit (MCU) upgrades, a new GPS receiver for highly contested environments, and warfighter capability enhancements through agile software development." Nothing about increased size, nothing about increased range, nothing about a larger warhead, etc.
As to the suggestion that the section should remain... why? It's a few minor upgrades to internals and software. At most it's worth a single sentence in the AGM-158B JASSM-ER section and probably not even that. TaqPCR (talk) 00:28, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Saying "It's not reliably sourced" based on your own personal conclusions, requiring the use of what would be disallowed synthesis from a primary source is insufficient. I've reviewed the doc you posted -- it does not anywhere state what you're claiming about the proposal from the 2000's; nor does it state "exactly what the AGM-158B-2 is" (ignoring for a moment that it's an unclassified summary which would never have that degree of detail, it only provides a few representative examples of the "multiple initiatives"). There also was no reason for you to be deleting content that was explicitly about the AGM-158D and reliably sourced (e.g. Air and Space Magazine, Janes, etc.) as such. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 01:36, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Saying "It's not reliably sourced" based on your own personal conclusions"
US government: "the AGM-158B-2 is the AGM-158B with a few internal electronics and software changes and it's the same size as the original AGM-158, the AGM-158B-3 is that plus M-code GPS, and the AGM-158D changes the shape with new chines and wing designs and a datalink"
Media sources: "the AGM-158B-2 is twice the size as the AGM-158B with twice as large a warhead and twice the range"
Whether you trust me on how it came to be that those media sources are wrong and whether I can source it doesn't matter because I don't plan on discussing that JASSM-XR until one actually exists. What those media sources say is clearly not what the AGM-158B-2 is. Therefore those parts of the article should be removed.
"which would never have that degree of detail"
So your contention is that internal changes to communications equipment and GPS capabilities etc. are just fine to release, but when the missile is suddenly twice the size it being secret will prevent enemy nations from learning about that change? TaqPCR (talk) 03:14, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whether I "trust you" or not is irrelevant -- Wikipedia's policies do not allow for "trust me bro" as an acceptable justification for contesting the reliability of widely used reliable sources, as I've repeatedly explained. If you do not plan on discussing it, that's fine, but since the burden lies with you to achieve consensus for your changes, that leaves us with the status quo.⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 04:42, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok lets start over.
Hey these paragraphs talking about the AGM-158B-2 totally contradict what the US military says the AGM-158B-2 is. They're talking about increased warhead weight and increased range and most significantly of all they say that it's double the size. But actual military documents directly say that the AGM-158B-2 hasn't changed size at all from the original JASSM. I think these articles are wrong and any parts of wiki article based on them should be removed given a much higher quality source source about the AGM-158B-2 contradicts the article. TaqPCR (talk) 05:33, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You keep stating that they "totally contradict what the US military says the AGM-158B-2 is" without actually having evidence that supports the claim. Your repeated assertion to "actual military documents..." do not say what you claim they do, and do not purport to include all the changes that comprise the AGM-158B-2, or even talk about the size at all. We've already established this. I get that you think the articles are wrong, but you have yet to provide literally any evidence to suggest that's the case other than your own say-so. If you can't do that, there's nothing further to discuss, but I'm not going to waste time going around in circles with you on this. Either provide a source that *directly* supports your assertion that these articles are wrong and you're right, or move along. This is quickly becoming tendentious. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 06:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"or even talk about the size at all."
Except it does as I have already stated in my first comment here on the talk page.
"The JASSM-ER maintains the same outer mold line and low-observable properties as JASSM-BL"
Outer mold line is a term of art referring to the exact exterior shape of the weapon. The weapon has not increased in size like the wiki currently states.
Plus the wiki article is already self contradictory. The AGM-158B-2 in the info box is listed as having a 1000lb warhead while the paragraph states it has a 2000lb warhead. TaqPCR (talk) 07:49, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK this is pointless and tendentious, I'm done here. You're just repeating the same arguments you've already been told aren't usable as a justification for blanking the content. Do not continue to vandalize the article further with removals. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 15:31, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dude I only deleted it once. Its not like I made an edit war. And again, explain to me how the US government saying the missile is the same size does not mean the articles are wrong when they says its twice the size?
Especially when the wiki article is currently self contradictory? TaqPCR (talk) 18:21, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the article is self-contradictory, we can fix it without disruptively blanking entire paragraphs of content. For instance, the problem with the 1000lb infobox vs. 2000lb article claims, is that the article paragraph misrepresents what it's reference says -- saying in the article that In September 2018, the corporation was awarded a contract to develop an "Extreme Range" variant of the AGM-158. The weapon would weigh about 5,000 lb (2,300 kg) and deliver a 2,000 lb (910 kg)... while the source says "Lockeed has been working on an "Extreme Range" variant of its AGM-158 JASSM since 2004. The company then entailed a stealthy, 5,000 pound-class weapon that can fly out to 1,000 nautical miles to deliver a lethal payload up to 2,000 pounds precisely on target.", with the article missing the operative words "then entailed". That is a trivial fix that does not require blanking entire paragraphs, or declaring perennially reliable sources to be magically somehow unreliable based on some mythical insight average readers are supposed to have based on ordnance internals, or fabricating the belief that the U.S. government said something that your sources don't say they did. I'll correct the sentence to accurately reflect the reference.⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 19:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I'll try to preserve more of it but a lot is still in need of correction.
The article still references the AGM-158D as being the JASSM-XR, having 1000 miles of range, and being produced since 2021. Per the FY 2025 Program Acquisition Costs by Weapon System document the AGM-158D's name is still just JASSM-ER, it's range is only referenced at >500nm, and the AGM-158D is still in development in FY2024
"The JASSM-Extended Range (ER) variant has four configurations, AGM-158B, AGM-158B-2, AGM-158B-3, and AGM-158D, which have a more fuel-efficient engine, greater fuel capacity, and add 2.5 times the standoff range at greater than 500nm."
"Continues production of the AGM-158B and development efforts on the AGM-158D."
And per the JASSM Selected Acquisition Report (SAR) while lot 19 was awarded in 2021, that lot 19 would include LRIP of AGM-158B-2s was only approved in 2022. It also once again states that all JASSM-ER variants are just >500NM range.
My plan is to reorganize the AGM-158B-2 section into the main JASSM-ER section and also integrate all the information about the different JASSM-ER variants into one info box since no missile called the JASSM-XR appears to exist at least as of yet. TaqPCR (talk) 20:30, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:AGM-158_JASSM"