Talk:DF-ZF

Comments

There is no confirmation on the alleged failure of the Aug. 7 test. The sources from South China Morning Post, where ru is quoting from, are "two sources close to the military". So unnamed sources are now credible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.62.189.174 (talk) 09:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

There is no proof the plan actually exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.161.220.116 (talk) 01:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Is Free Beacon's claim accurate? IIRC Russia is still trying to make Yu-71 work. China would be 1st or 2nd depending on whether you count the HTV-2's incomplete flights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.131.140 (talk) 12:03, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

"Sources close to the military" is a journalistic and literary device to mean "the military"; yet the sources are highly placed enough to be thought knowledgeable, and who wish to remain unnamed. US intelligence does not confirm topics of interest to them. It is probably better to name the reporter in the citation. Nice try though. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 12:31, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Image Update

There needs to be an image update for the HGV, given the recent military parade showcasing the DF-17 missiles. 42Grunt (talk) 06:03, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Is there any American US defence department image or sketch that would be in the public domain? Macktheknifeau (talk) 04:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Infobox

Why is it using the aircraft infobox when it is supposed to use the weapons infobox like other missiles Thehistorianisaac (talk) 07:33, 26 November 2024 (UTC)