Talk:JL-2

message: 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)
thread_title:  Inaccuracy. 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Capability - over-estimate 

message: ---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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The above poster's "Intelligence" over-estimate 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Liquid-Fuel Stage? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The book source is removed 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150128112946/http://www.25af.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-130710-054.pdf to http://www.25af.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-130710-054.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150113120816/http://www.defense.gov/pubs/2013_china_report_final.pdf to http://www.defense.gov/pubs/2013_China_Report_FINAL.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20132009364600/http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/jl2.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/jl2.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:40, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified