Talk:GBU-39 Small Diameter Bomb

Penetration Capabilities
The claim of 'same as a BLU-109' is utter BS; marketing hype by Boeing or the program office. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.92.250.41 (talk) 17:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Any source to verify that statement? BobThePirate (talk) 18:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Range
I've heard that these actually have quite a long range (relative to other unpropulsed dumb bombs) when fitted with special fins and dropped from high altitude. Up to sixty miles or so. Does anyone have any information concerning this?

That's me up there, sorry about not signing. Anyways after some unintentional searching I found some stuff about its range here http://www.defense-update.com/products/s/sdb.htm. It describes a 70km range with the folding diamond shaped wings. The relative size and power of this weapon had already amazed me, but add to that is seemingly incredible range and accuracy. This makes it really an incredible standoff weapon especially so because of a few aircraft being able to carry so many. This is a force multiplier if I've ever seen one. Cuitlahuac

As long as the enemy does not possess a credible IADS... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.125.135 (talk) 20:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I was watching the Discovery channel and the project leader said in an interview its 50-60 miles (isnt that a lot more than 70km?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.16.153.191 (talk) 03:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yup- 60 nautical miles, what's in the article, is what Globalsecurity.org says, which will be based off information from the manufacturer and the military. That's about 70 miles. Nevard (talk) 11:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Picture
I've noticed that the german entry features a picture of the SDB with wings and fins in "glide" position. Maybe someone would incorporate this picture in the article, as I'm not familiar with the wiki synthax. 84.166.223.18 11:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

F-22A
Recently it dropped by F-22A successfully --Max Mayr 23:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Find a good source and add it to the article. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Move to "Small Diameter Bomb"?
Since this article refers to both the GBU-39 (INS) and the GBU-40 (thermal seeker). What do you think? --RucasHost (talk) 02:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Ordered by the Netherlands
US Congress has been notified of the following FMS:press release ICBUW (talk) 09:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Number ordered
http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=1511 Lots 1 through 7 comprise a total of 12,379 munitions and 2,059 carriages.

Should this be added? Hcobb (talk) 01:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

See Also?
Why no See Also section?

Cantab1985 (talk) 13:32, 24 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Because no one has added one yet. What would you recommend adding? - BilCat (talk) 13:35, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Contract Award Date: 2001 or 2002?
These two statements contradict each other: question posted by Jw205 (talk) 08:03, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * In 2002, while Boeing and Lockheed Martin were competing to develop the Small Diameter Bomb, Darleen A. Druyun – at that time Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition and Management – deleted the requirement for moving target engagement, which favored Boeing. She was later convicted of violating a conflict of interest statute.[20][21]
 * October 2001 – Boeing is awarded the SDB contract.[25]


 * Fixed. 2001 both companies awarded contract to compete. Wasn't until 2005 that boeing won. Interference from Druyun occurred in 2002, when she removed requirements.
 * October 2001 – Boeing is awarded SDB development contract in addition to Lockheed Martin to compete to become the prime contractor.
 * April 2005 – Boeing awarded contract as Prime Contractor, beating Lockheed Martin.
 * KarmaKangaroo (talk) 21:34, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Whitewashing
User 96.232.130.182 whitewashed the article and no admin will do anything about it? 46.31.118.94 (talk) 10:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Actually it looks like they correctly reverted out content that should not have been included in the first place, given that you (the person who originally inserted it) did not meet the ECR criteria to include it. ⇒   SWAT Jester   Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 15:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I have restored the content. This content should not be removed.VR (Please ping on reply) 07:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * And I've removed it again, as it was added in the first place by a user not eligible to make edits due to WP:ARBPIA restrictions. ⇒   SWAT Jester   Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 20:45, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If you'd like to reinsert it again, attributed as your own edits, that's totally fine of course; but given that it should never have been there in the first place, I think we should make that clear that it's your edit, rather than an IP's requested reversion. ⇒   SWAT Jester   Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 20:48, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Not only is it my own edit, but you revert removed material that (to the best of my knowledge) was originally written by me. Can you explain why you removed the following:
 * Its usage in a densely population civilian area was criticized by munitions experts. The size of the debris field indicated that the bombs may have been timed to detonate in air to maximize the area of damage.
 * To the best of my knowledge, the above material was never written by an IP. If this is an honest mistake, kindly self-revert. Otherwise, I'd like to hear why such material might be problematic, and how we can collaborate to improve it.VR (Please ping on reply) 00:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC) VR (Please ping on reply) 00:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not the material that's problematic, it's the process. The section of this article in question falls under the scope of WP:ARBPIA4's sanctions, including the restriction of non-ECR users editing in that area. The content was originally added by this IP user. As such, it was procedurally disallowed to be there. I've self-reverted, as you've endorsed the edit as being your own; and as I indicated on your talk page, it wasn't clear whether that was the case that you had the full context on the history. ⇒   SWAT Jester   Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 00:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Alright thanks. VR (Please ping on reply) 00:54, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

46.31.118.94 (talk) 06:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC)