Jump to content

Talk:JL-2

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

Inaccuracy.

[edit]

The JL-2 was not launched in 2001, it wasn't anywhere near operational until 2004-2005. I cannot cite my source, as it is not public domain, but it should be noted. The launch that eportedly occured in 2001 was a rehashing of the JL-1 to assure the PLAN of the working status of the archaic mod-Golf in anticipation of future testing. Also note that the mod-Golf and the mod-Romeo up in the NSF both test multiple systems, and are very frequently refitted to accomodate them.

Actually, it wasn't successfully test launched in 2001. They did actually try to launch it. I may not have worded that quite appropriately. Jaguitar (talk) 22:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, it should be noted that the JL-2 is the first weapon in the PLAN arsenal that has the potential to strike US soil from the safety of the Bohi Gulf, leaving the launching platform inaccesible to conventonal retaliation - and due to the stated 'first strike' mentality of the PLA(AF/N)'s nuclear arsenal controllers/leaders in the case of conflict with the US, this creates a substantial threat to US defense. This weapon, along with the North Korean and Iranian weapon programs, led to the further development of the US Balistic Missile Defense system (tested in Hawaiian waters last year with the JSNDF).Jaguitar (talk) 19:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Capability - over-estimate

[edit]

The JL-2's range is thought to be up to 8,000 km, according to the US DOD intelligence which should be the most accurate reference. It's definitely not 12,000 km or greater. Even the US Navy's most advanced SLBM only has a range of up to 11,000 km. At 8,000 km, the JL-2 cannot reach the US Mainland from the Chinese coast. They got to sail past Japan to get there. Please do not exaggerate the JL-2 capability. Heilme (talk) 15:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still see some editors reverting back to 12,000 km range. Once again this is not true. Please check the reference - US DOD report on China's military 2008 - in the very last page of this reference. -Heilme (talk) 01:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above poster's "Intelligence" over-estimate

[edit]

---You wrote:"...according to the US DOD intelligence which should be the most accurate reference..." This statement is puzzling at best. And based on what track record of accuracy are you making that statement about the US DOD's intelligence? In recent times, the DOD's annual reports have been as reliable as your neighborhood theme park's fortune- teller machine. They have been repeatedly proven wrong on almost every major aspect of China's military development. Instead, the most reliable sources have been the "leaks" of information from the Internet. The DOD's woefully inaccurate assessments are most obvious in their drastic revisions from year to year that seem laughably incongruent with data from preceding years. So, I would treat DOD's "intelligence" accuracy with a hefty grain of salt and NOT accord it any authoritative value simply because it comes from a big name dept. called the DOD. 24.199.75.195 (talk) 02:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)David[reply]

And oh dear intelligent poster above, what "leaks" of information from the internet do you consider so accurate? Your claim puzzles me as well, especially coming from a self-proclaimed intelligent poster. Is it the kind from baidu.com blogs? Or the kind that provides artificially enlarged numbers to please your inferior tiny self? It might have been fatal for me to claim that the DOD's report is the most accurate reference there is. Indeed, in the past decades, the DOD has frequently over-estimated Chinese armament capabilities and speed of deployment in order to secure more funding from the federal government. But, gee, you know what? At least my source doesn't come from an anonymous Mr. Wang or Mr. Liu writing nonsense on the internet during his free time. Heilme (talk) 19:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Liquid-Fuel Stage?

[edit]

What maniac puts a liquid fueled rocket into a submarine? The Soviets made some very bad and fatal expierences with liquid fueled SLBMs on their early SSBs and SSBNs.

Even the Russians are withdrawing there liquid-fueled SLBMs. While the USN never Used liquid-fuel on SLBMs. The Polaris was solid fuel. We do not talk about Otto-Fuel here.

--176.199.14.69 (talk) 22:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] 

liquid-fuel missiles have higher specific impulse(longer range) than solid-fuel missile and
can fly more complex trajectory. The new Russian Bulava SLBM has a liquid-fuel 3rd stage. Carlji (talk) 07:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"In service" status

[edit]

I have reverted this edit (changing the in service status back to development) for the following:

http://mil.news.sina.com.cn/2013-05-09/0940724183.html does not say the JL-2 was operational in 2013. The article refers to the US DoDs 2013 report which says "the JL-2 appears ready to reach initial operational capability in 2013." There is no indication in the 2014 report whether that actually happened. The 2014 report only says:


There's nothing about the operational status of the JL-2.

http://mil.news.sina.com.cn/2013-10-28/0956746615.html also does not say the JL-2 was operational in 2013. It merely says the missile exists, repeats information on the missile's reported capabilities (doesn't say where it's getting the information from), and gives a bare-bones outline of the development of the China's submarine-based nuclear deterrence force.

http://war.163.com/14/0219/13/9LEVHEBC00014J0G.html makes no claims about the JL-2 operational status. The year "2013" doesn't even appear in the article. The article seems to have been written on 7 February 2014, and seems to be passing on information from articles from the "Honolulu Star" and "Washington Times", which in turn drew information from a US Navy ONI report. I can't find the Star or Times articles, but I suspect they were drawing from ONI testimony made in late-January before a US Congress committee. The text of this statement can be found at the end of this CRS report published at the end of 2014.

The ONI statement says:


which (unsurprisingly) coincides with the DoD 2014 report. Again, nothing about the operational status of the JL-2. The CRS report, which attempts to summarize everything in 2014, apparently can't find anything more recent about DoD's views on the JL-2 and the Type 094 other than the 2014 report. Thus, at least from these sources, there's no indication that the Type 094 actually conducted an operational deterrence patrol last year, and so from which one might infer that the missile is actually operational. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 01:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

_______________________________________________________________

Yes yes yes, 094 conducted patrol in 2014 without missiles. The Chinese are so stupid that they can not even make a missile work. Go ahead USA start a nuclear war now with China. You most hated and bitter enemy. They utterly destroyed your economy and is your biggest debt holder. Go ahead USA nuke China, they do not even have a missile that work !!

None of the three sources above say the Type 094 conducted a deterrence patrol in 2014. The 2014 DoD report (released early in the year) says it was "likely", while the CRS report released at the end of the year merely repeated what the DoD report said (i.e. there was no update, and no confirmation that any deterrence patrol happened.)
http://www.qianzhan.com/military/detail/275/131114-47614a87.html also does not say anything about the operational status of the JL-2, or whether or not the Type 094 conducted a patrol in 2013 or 2014. Therefore, not proof of the missile entering service. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 05:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT: The http://www.qianzhan.com/military/detail/275/131114-47614a87.html article is also reporting on the report received by the US Congress, which we have access to, and which we know do not say the JL-2 entered service in 2013. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 05:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]


The book source is removed

[edit]

The attached source is a book and it did not show its intended content. Also think about it !! Does it make sense for China to build the 094 SSBN carrying the JL-2 nuclear missile without actually having a nuclear warhead?

--162.74.52.147 (talk) 19:40, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on JL-2. 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) 15:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on JL-2. 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) 21:40, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:JL-2&oldid=1202660604"