Talk:Joint Direct Attack Munition

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Naming conventions[edit]

What's the difference between a "Mark-xx" warhead and a Bomb Live Unit ("BLU-xx") warhead? Jigen III 06:34, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AIUI it's an historical thing - the standard BLU, CBU naming conventions came in mid sixties, anything in use from before then could still have the Mark-xx nomenclature. Riddley 08:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The MK 80 series and BLUs referenced in the article are nearly identical. But they have a couple of case differences. Whereas the Mk80 series are set up with a standard lightweight aluminum jacket, the BLUs have a "thermally stabilized" (IIRC) jacket (which is also hardened and much more robust than the jacket found on the Mk80 series), and are widely in use with the US Navy. This bomb is particularly safe when exposed to a fire like the USS Forrestal fire in the late 60s. In that fire, Mk80 series bombs were exploding from the heat. Additionally, the BLU has better penetration characteristics because of its jacket. — Andrew 03:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Better late than never.... Mark-80 series bombs are the modern, low drag family of weapons. Mark 82 bomb (for example) is the 500-pound type modern low drag bomb. The BLU-111/B, BLU-111A/B, and BLU-126/B are models of that bomb - all the same shape and casing design, and roughly the same weight, but with different explosive fillers and outer fireproof coatings, etc. Andrew's comment isn't entirely accurate - all the Mark 82's to date use the same steel casing (somewhere, I have the manufacturer's contact info and part prices, I was looking at buying some filled with cement for a R&D contract a few years ago). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other platforms[edit]

Use of JDAM with B-2 is important, but as written, it sounds like B-2 is major user or only game in town whereas F-14, F-15E, F-16 and F/A-18 make great use of JDAMs and so will JSF and F-22 (if so tasked). Also need to add reference to Small Diameter Bomb (SDB) which is a 250# class GPGW and a totally separate program altogether. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HJ32 (talk • contribs) 06:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Other issues[edit]

The article shows growth going from the 2000lb class JDAM and then right to the 500lb class JDAM. Thing is that the 1000lb class JDAM reached operational service with the Navy before the 500lb JDAM entered service. A chronology would be like this:

2000lb class -first with B-2 and later with other platforms 1000lb class -First with Navy -500lb class entered service 1000lb class used on USAF F-22

If anyone can find a complete list of the 18? export customers along with a source this would be great. I can't seem to find all of them. As it is the export customer list ( both solid orders and requests to congress ) is incomplete. Thanks in advance. ELPusa 00:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fuze or Fuse[edit]

The correct spelling for the fuze in a bomb, or artillery shell is fuze, with a z. It is a common mistake, but the correct terminology is with a z. A firecracker does have a fuse, but a bomb has a fuze. For more info read about fuses here. Yes it is a fine line, but I think it is clear. — Andrew 03:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but both articles "fuze" and "fuse" dont'make the distinction, the one saying "fuze (or fuse)", the other "fuse (or fuze)". Citation: "Fuze, a variant of fuse, is the official NATO spelling" 194.174.73.80 (talk) 17:54, 17 January 2017 (UTC) Marco Pagliero Berlin[reply]

Compatibility[edit]

I'm pretty sure the F-117 is currently deploying the JDAM. I've seen a few programs where the major reference to use of the JDAM was with the F-117. Furthermore, the Nighthawk's Wiki page says it can carry it. I moved it to currently compatible. Wilhelm Screamer 10:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page Classification[edit]

This is still tagged as "start-class" but with the number of references and ongoing high quality edits, this page is becoming a stable and well researched resource. Should it be nominated for a different classification? I'm not that up on Wikipedia and don't really know what else should be done to get it rated higher. Thanks. Andrew 12:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Range[edit]

Is 15 nautical miles 24 km or 28km?

In the subject prologue it is stated that the range is (after conversion) 28km while in the side box it is stated as 24km. Can someone please clarify this?

I have a calculator with built in unit conversion. It says that 15 nm converts to 27.78 km. JDZeff (talk) 18:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Despite their precision, JDAM employment is not without risk"[edit]

The section about Hamid Karzai almost being struck by a JDAM is a bit odd. The current text implies that 1) the JDAM was somehow responsible for the accident, and thus that if another weapons system was used the problem might not have happened; and that 2) if the JDAM were more precise, the problem wouldn't have been as severe. In fact, the exact opposite seems to be true. In this situation, it wasn't the munition's fault, it was the ground controller's fault. Also, in this particular accident, the less precise the bomb is, the better, since it'd be less likely to precisely hit the ground controller's position. One could change it to "Because of their precision, JDAM employment is not without risk", but since this is a problem that's totally orthogonal to JDAMs, and since it's a problem that occurs infrequently (otherwise the ground controller would have had training to specifically address it), it almost seems better to reword it to indicate that the JDAM's capabilities and incapabilities had nothing whatsoever to do with the accident. --Underpants (talk) 01:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed.. I altered the wording so as to put more emphasis on the risk or danger (as you suggest) in the employment of JDAM rather than the system itself.. The use of 'foolproof' somehow can be misread is JDAM isn't foolproof, even though it clearly said 'employment of JDAM isn't foolproof' schroding79 (talk) 02:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

When I browsed this article I had several concerns about its balance and prose. It comes off as promotional and is front weighted toward thinly cited claims about the system's advantages. The first eyebrow raiser is a low-cost guidance kit in the opening line, which I had to reread to make sure this was an actual military system rather than a hobbyist kit that might be sold on a shelf next to remote controlled toy cars. The entire opening paragraph touts the advantages of the system.

From the second section, uncited material:

  • The kit is compatible with the entire Mk-80 family of general purpose bombs - Why the modifier? Should a reader otherwise presume only part of the Mk-80 family would be compatible?
  • JDAM enables accurate delivery against high priority fixed and relocatable targets from both fighter and bomber aircraft. What do these modifiers add to the informational value of the statement?

From the third section:

  • Desert Storm highlighted a shortfall in air-to-surface weapon capability. The structure of the history and development section mimics the structure of a sales presentation: identify a problem, then describe how perfectly the product solves the problem. Although the later paragraphs also cite independent sources, the opening paragraph is entirely referenced to a Boeing press release.
  • In subsequent years, unit costs increased modestly to $21,000 in 2004 and were expected to reach $31,000 by 2011. Why the adjective? For that matter, why place a discussion of cost increases at the very end of the section and juxtapose a comparison with another product that sells for twenty times the price? Tomahawks are missiles rather than guidance systems. Could the reason for this comparison be that Tomahawks are produced by Boeing's competitor Raytheon? Or to downplay the fact that he unit cost of JDAM has nearly doubled?
You may be correct on all accounts, and your points are valid. However, if you are going to tag something as an advert sounding article, fix it, instead of criticizing it. You spent the time to point out errors in the formatting and content, but instead of fixing the article, polluted the discussion page, thereby leaving the article insufficient by Wikipedia standards, or your understanding of them? Most of the sourcing for this article comes directly from Boeing and AF press releases, along with industry publications, what would you expect for a roughly drafted piece, that I greatly expanded, hoping others with enough editorial wherewithal would have helped improve. Thanks for the constructive criticisms, I'll go ahead and work further on this.Andrew (talk) 02:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't entirely omit criticism, but a malfunction that nearly killed the president of Afghanistan is buried deep in the text, just before a discussion about upgrades. DurovaCharge! 02:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents (plus inflation...):
  • On the cost issue, at a time when the GBU-10 laser guided bomb cost $23-27,000 ( [1], the most expensive JDAM kit was $18,000, which makes it in relative terms (among guided bombs) a low-cost unit. NPOV could be applied, but it's a true statement.
  • On general tone, you see commentary like this even in semi-critical sources like Globalsecurity's website and so forth. If the weapon isn't controversial people tend to parrot the PR stuff a bit (here, as well). The tone could be shifted a bit without hurting the info.
  • The Karzai incident wasn't a weapon malfunction. The weapon was confirmed to have landed plus or minus epsilon right where it was told to land. It was user error - the forward observer changed batteries on his target position transmission device, and forgot to re-add-in the offset to the target area, so it was sending his own local position to the bomber. He didn't realize, the bomber pilot didn't cross-check with where the friendlies were, and it hit where it was told to hit. Same thing could have happened if you called in an artillery strike on your own coordinates or a dumb bomb bombing run on a set of coordinates, blind.
I think that we can do better at the tone on the article, though. It's not as neutral and encyclopedic as we strive for, on reflection. That it's what I'd write for an industry specific writeup doesn't mean that it's what Wikipedia should do.
Thanks for the outside viewpoint and input. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Please ping me when the improvements are in place. :) DurovaCharge! 21:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Karzai Incident": Not to be flip about this, but was the forward observer killed in the incident? That would indicate the weapon system was working correctly. I realize that's an incredibly callous statement. I don't see anything in the cited ref about the batteries, centcom.mil seems not forthcoming and the wayback machine isn't helping. Can the details be clarified? Sorry if I cause any offense, it's serious business when people are dying. Franamax (talk) 23:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The details were released in industry magazines shortly after the incident, it's been confirmed. I don't have the refs in front of me though, I'll go looking. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Found a ref to a ref - [2] - shows the causal events chain to the accident, and references Vernon Loeb's 2002 Washington Post article on the incident. The WP doesn't seem to have that article online though. A copy of it is included in the paper linked, though, so we know what it said. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the diligent work - but holy technical Batman! Am I a leaf-node? I always wanted to be a b-tree ;) I'm gonna try putting that ref in nonetheless. Interesting note though, the article before I changed it and another ref said "allied fighters", this one says "opposition soldiers" - a little confusing, isn't that? Franamax (talk) 00:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You always wanted to be a B-tree? Strangely enough, my best friend growing up was Marc Kaufman's son... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am the guilty party to rewriting an incredibly biased section on the Karzai incident. The problem I was faced with was that I am intimately knowledgeable with the incident, some of which is still classified by the US Government, so I had to be very careful how I phrased things, and referring it was very difficult...in the sense that I was looking for references that would refute blatant errors in the original reference used to build that section. That said I do agree, the incident was not caused by a JDAM guidance failure, but by a coordinate error induced by the position locating device defaulting to its home position when the batteries were replaced, meaning the failure was operator induced.Andrew (talk) 02:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Currently(?) compatible[edit]

Should the F-117, F-14 (both retired), and F-35 (in development) be listed as "currently compatible"? (assuming the Iranian F-14s don't support JDAMs) 208.29.184.143 (talk) 02:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded History[edit]

I added a bit about the origins of GPS weapons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aseidave (talk • contribs) 05:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

replaced a paragraph which was a bit misleading with more general info[edit]

The paragraph about off-axis launch and fuzing was misleading. There are non-GPS systems (before and after JDAM) that have variable fuzing, and multiple weapons can be launched by a single aircraft in one pass against a single target. The revolution of GPS guidance is not in fuzing and multiple launches, but in tactical flexibility. Aseidave (talk) 01:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Aseidave (talk • contribs) 00:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good edit! 67.77.216.88 (talk) 02:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JDAM variant developed by Turkey.[edit]

According to this source the Turks have developed their own variant of the JDAM in which the source states that this was done due to the U.S.A placing restrictions on the mass acquisition of these munitions. The source also has a Youtube video embedded showing the Turkish developed variant of the JDAM.

This development I believe should be mentioned in the article. AussieSkeptic82 (talk) 15:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning of "Joint"[edit]

"The guidance system was developed by the United States Air Force and United States Navy, hence the "joint" in JDAM."; I don't know but this doesn't seem to make sense. Doesn't "Joint" rather refer to the system being a fixed set of composite devices (like, propulsion/steering and navigation units)? -37.209.28.178 (talk) 04:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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 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.aerospace-technology.com/news/news52402.html
    Triggered by \baerospace-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 11:29, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 19:23, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Joint Direct Attack Munition. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 06:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns regarding "Taiwan JDAM Equivalent"[edit]

The content of "Taiwan JDAM Equivalent" actually refer to Wan Chien system, which is not precisely an equivalent of JDAM but more like JSOW. Besides, unlike the original source from South China Morning, the writer used a highly politically biased tone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Damowang2 (talk • contribs) 06:52, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've removed it, again. - BilCat (talk) 10:35, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It keeps coming back. Perhaps it's time to seek semi-protection. - BilCat (talk) 21:13, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a while. (tweaking settings in a sec, but for six months when I'm done). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:18, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! And I didn't even have to file for semi-protection. I would have, but was busy today. - BilCat (talk) 02:14, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Joint Direct Attack Munition. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 13:10, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 5 August 2017[edit]

Under "Operational Use" in the caption for the picture of the F-16 ("JDAMs loaded under the left wing of a F-16 Fighting Falcon with a LITENING II Targeting Pod visible beneath the fuselage") there is an error in grammar. "a F-16" should be "an F-16"; the correct use of either article in English is based on the sound of the succeeding word, not the spelling ("F" is read as "eff"). 183.83.223.224 (talk) 16:33, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. The F here stands for Formula, which makes the usage of "a" rather than "an" valid. I ask for consensus because most editors will disagree with you based on this. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 18:10, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Joint Direct Attack Munition. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 05:25, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JDAM-ER[edit]

The section on the JDAM-ER (extented range) fails to make clear that the original Australian DSTO design work (& subsequent RAAF/DSTO/Boeing Australia testing & developement) was done in relation to the 500lb bomb. The wing kits for it are manufactured in Australia & it is in service with the RAAF & is available for export. The work started later by Boeing in conjunction with South Korea is in regards to creating a 2000lb bomb version (DSTO has stated they believe their design is scalable but obviously it actually has to be done & tested & paid for). No one has yet requested a 1000lb version to the best of my knowledge. This is also why the Quickstrike-ER aerial naval mines (based on the JDAM-ER) is only available in 500lb & 2000lb versions. 144.139.103.173 (talk) 03:15, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Joint Direct Attack Munition. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 12:16, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For starters[edit]

  B-2s launched 651 JDAMs with 96% reliability and hit 87% of intended targets..."[7] Due to the operational success of the original JDAM, the program expanded to the 500 pounds (227 kg) Mark 82 and 1,000 pounds (454 kg) Mark 83, beginning development in late 1999

What does "96% reliability" mean? Does that mean 4% of them failed to function? Couldn't find the GPD signal? Then "hit 87% of intended targets", that means 13% failed to hit the intended target. Why? Does this number include the 4% that failed to function? Does "reliability" include proper function of the fuse and explosive, or does that only factor in correct function of the JDAM kit? Also, when it says that "the program was expanded to the 500 pounds...and 1,000 pounds [bombs]", this is the first time the article mentions anything at all about the weight of the bomb used. I infer from this that the orignal JDAM was built around the 2,000 pound bomb, but it'd be nice if it said so before talking about how it was expanded to include the 500 and 1,000lb bombs. For all I know the original JDAM was a 4,000 pound, or 750lb bomb. Is it only used on bombs of the "lo-drag" family, or are their variants for other types? Does this mean that all the JDAMs used in Yugoslavia were 2,000lb bombs then?


Idumea47b (talk) 06:55, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious[edit]

All this stuff about being able to release JDAMs at "very large off-axis angles" and "to hit targets behind the plane" seems very dubious to me. A JDAM is not a missile. It's not even a glide bomb. Once it's released, it can do one thing: fall. All the JDAM unit is capable of doing is steering it a bit, but nothing can make the bomb fall outside of a certain circle drawn on the ground. The strakes and fins probably allow it an amount of steering side to side, utilising the forward speed of the bomb falling through the air, but that would also reduce the range, since it would have to convert the forward momentum. I am sure that it can do these things, but this article makes it sound like it's some kind of guided missile, that can fly back behind the plane to blast a town it's already flown past. Rather, if the altitude if enough, it can mofify the ballistic path of the bomb enough to even make it hit targets behind the aircraft (although why this should be particulalry valuable, I don't know).

Idumea47b (talk) 07:20, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Inertial navigation system. The specification for the performance of the strakes and fins is in the info box of this article. Perhaps you might search for a performance study to back up your doubts. What comes to mind is a paper airplane; if you launch it, it will glide. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 08:59, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've done 6DOF and 3DOF modeling of other lightly steered projectiles, and honestly most people have a hard time understanding what these things can do until you see it. It really doesn't take much fin to steer and given altitude and time, it can reverse direction easily. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:10, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, I don't doubt that it is physcially capable of striking targets behing the plane (even behind the plane at release point as opposed to impact point). Anyway, my edits never denied that it could stike behind or to the side. I was only pointing out that it is a gravity bomb, and it cannot glide. I'm sure that with 20,000ft to work with you can achieve miles of standoff, even from side to side or to the rear, but you are still fixed to hit targets within a relatively small circle, and the target MUST be inide that circle around the launching aircraft or it cannot phycially reach the target. There is a limit to what strakes and steering tailfins can do. But I'm not prepared to argue over it if people would rather believe that the JADM can be used like a cruise missile.

Idumea47b (talk) 03:32, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cost[edit]

"Unit cost: About US$25,000 (Depends on acquisition lot. Foreign sales have considerably higher prices.)" is in the discerption box. 'Considerably higher' has no meaning. Foreign military sales incur a 3.5% fee. https://www.dsca.mil/news-media/news-archive/dsca-reduce-fms-administrative-surcharge-partners I will change the 'considerably higher' to 3.5% Jack412 (talk) 01:17, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I note that this was reverted back to considerably higher..
I think reality of 3.5% is better than a nondescript. I'll let those more focused on the page work it out. Jack412 (talk) 02:57, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Russian counterpart KAB-500S-E[edit]

shouldn't the Russian KAB-500S-E be mentioned in the section "Similar systems"? Even if it is not a NATO/western system. 2003:C9:8F18:CD00:32A1:AA5F:2E22:F37B (talk) 05:42, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joint_Direct_Attack_Munition&oldid=1203119799"