Talk:CJ-10 (missile)

Is CJ-10 the Chinese name for DH-10?

I'm a bit unsure here. DH-10 is the rumored Chinese cruise missile by US intelligence, CJ-10 is the new smoking gun in the parade, are those the same thing? Jim101 (talk) 14:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Regardless, CJ-10 is the official name as per CCTV-1. If they are not the same thing, then good, but if they are, I'm afraid that the DH-10 article is the one that's got to go (outdated, speculative information for a start, that isn't entirely confirmed by the PRC but rather projections by external outlets, plus the incorrect name). -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 01:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit: The DH-10 article is almost entirely based on one source, SinoDefence, which specifically reads: "Designations of current development projects reportedly include ChangFeng (CF), HongNiao (HN), and DongHai" - note the bold. Also note that these refer to development projects, not missiles. Prior to the release of the Wii, it was known as Nintendo Revolution. Much of the article is also a direct copyvio of [1] (Last updated 7 May 2007, almost eternity in comparison to the span of a development project). The DefenseLink footnote given only speculates on a new cruise missile system, and do not refer to the name DF-10 specifically. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 01:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Regardless, DH-10 name has been used by Jane's and Pentagon white papers for a long time as THE LACM used by PLA. The only way to close this issue is to pick up the newest version of the Pentagon white paper on Chinese military power. Jim101 (talk) 02:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

We might have to wait a bit, since this new missile has only been released to the public very recently. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 11:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

We might have a major screw up here...

According the some knowledgeable sources, the naval three tube launcher are one of the YJ-91/62 missile, not the CJ-10 missile. Jim101 (talk) 23:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I did more digging and compared the launch tubes, and indeed the naval round tube is the YJ-62 missile, while the square tube is the CJ-10. Jim101 (talk) 23:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 23:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Now I feel guilty on doping some Taiwan and Hong Kong tabloids to believe the CJ-10 is a sliver bullet against the US carriers... Jim101 (talk) 23:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I was the one who added the 2 RS. The PLA has never counted the CJ10 = sliver bullet vs the carrier group, they are too small in volume to make any big difference. It's just 1 of the many options that the PLA has looked into. To the best of my knowledge, CJ10 has never been fully tested, so as the majority of PLA's ICBM, IRBM arsenals. Any medium + range bomber carried Anti-ship missile would pose a much greater thread than CJ10 right now. And finally, TW & HK tabloids love to hype, it’s their job. TheAsianGURU (talk) 23:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Guidance

It cannot be stellar update, because it could only be used on nights whith clear sky when the system can see the stars, unhindered by clouds. Stellar update is used for ballistic missiles because they fly out of the atmosphere where the stars are always visible, but a cruise missile never gets out of the atmosphere.--Arado (talk) 10:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Concerning Type 052D

These two source:

1. http://hn.people.com.cn/n/2015/0803/c356889-25824085-4.html
2. http://toutiao.com/a5073602637/

are being used to claim the ship is - for certain - armed with the CJ-10. (1) says the VLS can fire a missile with a range of 1500 km. (2) then says "we are told 052D can carry a missile with 1500 km range" and then concludes that that missile must be the CJ-10 since it is the only Chinese missile that fits. Given the uncertainty surrounding Chinese weapons development, and the properties of those weapons, taking this conclusion for face value - especially as it comes from a source with no credentials - seems hazardous.

I'm removing 052D from the list until a more reliable source says it. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 22:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

PopSci and Janes

The Popular Science article CHINA SHOWS OFF ITS DEADLY NEW CRUISE MISSILES by Jeffrey Lin and P.W. Singer (10 March 2015) is a poor source compared to what is available. From what I can find, Lin lacks credentials, Singer is somewhat better but seems to write in general about military technology. One wonders where they are getting their numbers from.

Compare this to both the JFQ (publication of a US military institution) (30 September 2014) and NAISC (US military organization) (11 May 2013) sources, which only attempt to give a range of 1500km.+. I believe the more recent US "Annual Reports to Congress" simply stop guessing.

The Janes' article Xi Jinping visit reveals H-6 bomber details by Richard D Fisher Jr (21 February 2015) doesn't mention the CJ-10 at all. It mentions a "KD-20/K-AKD-20".

Listing the range in the box as 1500km+ seems to cover all of the bases. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 11:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on CJ-10 (missile). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150719075400/http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?id=20150407000124&cid=1101 to http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?id=20150407000124&cid=1101
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150221154659/http://www.25af.af.mil:80/shared/media/document/AFD-130710-054.pdf to http://www.25af.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-130710-054.pdf

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: 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) 05:55, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

CJ-20/KD-20

Since evidently people have not been reading the sources they're using:

"A Potent Vector" (Gromley et al.) For the CJ-20, reads:

An air-launched version of the DH-10, called the CJ-20, has reportedly been tested on the H-6 bomber, which has the capability to carry four CJ-20 LACMs externally.

For the KD-20, appears in a table as an air-launched missile, with no association with the H-6.

'"China Shows Off Its Deadly New Cruise Missiles" (Popular Science)

Says the H-6K can carry 7 KD-20s, and that the KD-20 is an air-launched variant of the CJ-10. No mention is made of the CJ-20.

"China Teases Its H-20 Stealth Bomber and Trolls Northrop Grumman At The Same Time" (The Drive)

Says that the KD-20 may be another name for the CJ-10K. Significantly, the article links to Wikipedia's CJ-10 article for CJ-10K. No mention is made of how many CJ-10K/KD-20 the H-6K may carry.

Global Security

Says the H-6K may carry 6 air-launched variants of the CJ-10. Identifies the CJ-20 as the KD-20.

---

It becomes apparent that there are a number of disagreements between the sources. Like is the KD-20 a CJ-10 variant; if it is, is it another name for the CJ-10K or the CJ-20 (and perhaps even if the CJ-10K and CJ-20 are the same missile.) And whether, and how many, KD-20 or CJ-10 variants the H-6K actually carries.

At this time, I am inclined to go with Gromley et al.; their credentials are far superior, and their scholarship less questionable, than the other sources. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 00:58, 16 November 2018 (UTC)