Talk:DF-100

the name is DF-100

If you go to to the second source and look at the first page of the PDF it clearly shows a launcher with DF-100 plastered on the side, so what if ISS calls it CJ-100, the PLA doesn't. MaLLeusOrdo (talk) 22:00, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

@MaLLeusOrdo: It's not just IISS2025. Even the US DOD Military and Security Developments Involving the People's Republic of China 2024 goes with "CJ-100 (DF-100)". The picture from the second source is from 2019, and neither you nor I are qualified to say if something changed with how China calls the thing. If you want to be productive, find reliable sources to back up your change; it can't be that hard if what you say is true. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 04:16, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/military/article/3321469/china-releases-rare-footage-df-100-cruise-missile-deter-us

https://nationalsecurityjournal.org/chinas-df-100-supersonic-cruise-missile-just-broke-cover/

https://www.bilibili.com%2Fvideo%2FBV1cKtuzEErP%2F&psig=AOvVaw3fbS8cLRhZp1eEdn9HHEoW&ust=1761106949827000&source=images&cd=vfe&opi=89978449&ved=0CBUQjhxqFwoTCJiTiOS4tJADFQAAAAAdAAAAABAE 官曝东风100打击移动目标画面_哔哩哔哩_bilibili MaLLeusOrdo (talk) 04:23, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

@MaLLeusOrdo: CJ 长剑 is the missile series produced by China Aerospace Science and Industry Corporation (CAISC), including CJ-10, CJ-100, and CJ-1000. DF (东风) attributes the missile's deployment to the PLA Rocket Force. One is a manufacturer's name, while one is a military designation. Both are correct. It's not a made-up name created by USAF or IISS. In fact, there is are plethora of sources noting the missile's name is CJ-100 in Chinese. I don't have a clue where MaLLeusOrdo got the idea that CJ-100 is a "western attribution". Their reason for removing the mention of CJ-100 or removing the page name is not sufficiently valid. @RovingPersonalityConstruct: .-Loned (talk) 10:22, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

except the fact that CJ-1000s and CJ-10s in the service of the rocket force are very clearly designated CJ and not DF, you can see this at the parade column groups. the CJ-100/DF-100 when it appears during 2019, it appears with the rest of the equipment of the Rocket Force and is very clearly marked DF. If your assertion was truly correct then both CJ-1000s and CJ-10s would all be named DF instead of being named CJ. And considering the PLA, the Chinese government and even more sources all say DF, CJ should be considered wrong. I will admit i got that wrong and that is my fault, however at very least the name is considered DF-100 by the PLA and thus the PRC, no matter what CAISC says (even they say DF-100 on their stuff like Zhuhai) MaLLeusOrdo (talk) 17:19, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

@MaLLeusOrdo: While we do not know what’s CJ-1000 called internally at PLARF (as this is an extremly new service entry), the CJ-10 in Rocket Force service is actually called DF-10 and painted as DF-10, as reported by Chinese PLA official website: Your probably missed that when searching the Chinese sources. As the PLA Navy and Air Force also operate CJ-10 as YJ-100 and KD-20, it makes sense to call the product name CJ-10 instead of the service name. As for CJ-100, the name CJ-100 was reported as CJ by state-owned CNR and Xinhua, which was reported by PLA website 81.cn. Enough official sources used the missile product name. The CJ-100 was also introduced as CJ when presented at the 2019 parade. The commentary even noted that the "DF-100" (CJ-100) is the latest iteration in the CJ series of missiles. The vehicle was painted as DF-100 simply because it was a PLARF vehicle inside the Rocket Force formation. Saying that PLA or PRC doesn’t consider the missile CJ-100 is such a peculiar claim, because, as you can see, there are myriad sources from official channels that note the missile is called CJ-100. CJ-100 should never be considered wrong, because it is interchangeable with DF-100.-Loned (talk) 12:38, 6 November 2025 (UTC) Loned (talk) 12:38, 6 November 2025 (UTC)