Talk:Wan Chien

Wan Chien is NOT a JDAM weapon

The sources provided specifically make a distinction between a JDAM and the Wan Chien cluster bomb which is a different system. For uneducated low IQ inferior editors, such as Adamgerber80 (talk), who apparently didn't take the time to thoroughly read through the source that he provided, or perhaps just didn't comprehend and understand the information contained within. The Wan Chien was NEVER designed to be a "JDAM" weapon. Taiwan has developed another separate weapons system that would be properly called a JDAM equivalent, but that is an entirely different weapons system that has another page on Wikipedia and Adamgerber80 (talk), with his low educational level and inferior IQ, doesn't seem to understand that, so please take the time to read through the following excerpts which are taken directly from the source that Adamgerber80 (talk) provided himself which prove indisputably once and for all that the Wan Chien is NOT a JDAM weapon.

Please read the following taken from the source directly provided by Adamgerber80 (talk):

http://defense-update.com/20140120_taiwan-unveils-wan-chien-air-ground-cruise-missile.html

"In January 2013 news reports in Taiwan claimed the Ministry of Defense was prepared to cut the number of the indigenous stand-off weapons by half, given the US agreement to provide Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM) to the Republic of China Air Force. While both weapons are targeted at a predesignated coordinates, the two are inherently different in performance – JDAM is a unitary weapon with a range of up to ‘tens of kilometers’ while the stand-off weapon designed for target penetration, such as the Wan Chien is a cargo ‘bus’, capable of striking surface (area) targets at a range of 200km. The new Taiwanese weapon is more similar to the AGM-154A (JSOW) which the US is not offering to Taipei."

So just in case Adamgerber80 (talk) doesn't comprehend the above paragraph which is taken directly from the defense-update source he provide. Let us explain and clarify, the source specifically states about the Wan Chien that "While both weapons are targeted at a predesignated coordinates, the TWO ARE INHERENTLY DIFFERENT IN PERFORMANCE – JDAM is a unitary weapon with a range of up to ‘tens of kilometers’ while the stand-off weapon designed for target penetration, such as the Wan Chien is a cargo ‘bus’, capable of striking surface (area) targets at a range of 200km"

So to Adamgerber80 (talk), please refrain from arguing even when you know you are wrong. The source you provided specifically state that the JDAM and the Wan Chien are "inherently different in performance – JDAM is a unitary weapon with a range of up to ‘tens of kilometers’ while the stand-off weapon designed for target penetration, such as the Wan Chien is a cargo ‘bus’, capable of striking surface (area) targets at a range of 200km"

Thank You! 60.94.69.103 (talk) 18:59, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

The references I have provided are as follows [1], [2], [3]. These references clearly state that this is a surface to air missile. Please provide multiple reliable sources which state otherwise. The reference mentioned above is provided by the other editor has clearly states it itself based on media reports which makes it questionable. I am open to accepting I am wrong given there are reliable sources which refute the information mentioned on this page. Also, please refrain from personal attacks and edit warring in the article. Let's try to have a civil discussion on this subject. Thanks Adamgerber80 (talk) 19:15, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Page is fully protected for three days while you two try to resolve the content dispute here. Please be mindful of our standards of civility—discuss the edits not the editor. El_C 19:30, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Another important point to note is that all the provided references compare Wan Chien to AGM-158 JASSM or AGM-154 Joint Standoff Weapon, Storm Shadow which are considered to be cruise missiles not cluster bombs. There is also some content on this page which has no references for them. For example, the dimensions(length, weight, diameter, warhead) of the weapon. Adamgerber80 (talk) 19:54, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Wan Chien is both a cluster bomb that is contained within the design of cruise missile allowing extended combat range, a unique innovative Taiwanese design that is different from the American AGM-158, AGM-154 or the Storm Shadow. Wan Chien has similar capabilities to them but many differences. And your sources such as, http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/how-china-plans-win-the-next-great-big-war-asia-19733, mention nothing about Wan Chien being a JDAM or "surface to air" missile.211.192.191.65 (talk) 20:12, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

And Adamgerber80 (talk) apparently did not comprehend and understand the second source which Adamgerber80 (talk) provided himself, Please read Adamgerber80 (talk)'s second source http://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/2022492 which specifically states "Taiwan-developed Wan Chien missile will function like the United States' AGM-158 Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile"....the key word being "AIR-TO-SURFACE" missile and NOT "surface to air" missile as mistakenly and stubbornly claimed by Adamgerber80 (talk). 211.192.191.65 (talk) 20:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Additionally, Adamgerber80 (talk) apparently misread the first source which Adamgerber80 (talk) provided himself, http://thediplomat.com/2014/01/taiwan-unveils-wan-chien-air-to-ground-cruise-missile/, which states specifically that the "Taiwan’s new AIR-TO-GROUND cruise missile could play a major role in any military confrontation with China" and nowhere does it mention anything about Wan Chien being a "surface to air" missile as foolishly claimed by Adamgerber80 (talk).211.192.191.65 (talk) 20:21, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Be civil Adamgerber80 (talk) says? That's something that the uneducated hypocrit Adamgerber80 (talk) should learn to do himself first! Adamgerber80 (talk) has repeatedly been wrong and stubbornly refusing to accept new reliable up to date information on so many different subjects already due to his lack of high education on subjects of engineering, technology and other areas, but it's no problem low IQ genetically inferior people editing Wikipedia is why the the information is perpetually low quality, outdated and not 100% correct. Just go ahead and keep messing up this world as well as Wikipedia! The Wan Chien is NOT a "surface to air missile" the Wan Chien is carried on the IDF jet fighter, you do know what a jet fighter is right? The IDF jet fighter launches the missile, which carries over 100-300 individual cluster bombs within it's interior, allowing this ONE missile to destroy a surface area of over 300 kilometers in diameter. Just so you understand, what this means is that this Taiwanese Wan Chien super weapon (which translates from the ancient Chinese characters as "Ten Thousand Swords"), using just conventional high explosives, has the capability to destroy a surface area equivalent to that destroyed by a small nuclear weapon, without actually having to use nuclear weapons and without all the international sanctions and diplomatic fallout from the United Nations. The following reliable sources specifically state that it is an AIR TO GROUND missile and NOT a "surface to air missile" as you mistakenly and stubbornly claim. Go read the following:

1.) http://defense-update.com/20140120_taiwan-unveils-wan-chien-air-ground-cruise-missile.html

"The Taiwanese Air Force unveiled an locally developed AIR-TO-GROUND stand-off weapon developed for the nation’s F-CK-1 Indigenous Defense Fighter (IDF) "

2.) http://thediplomat.com/2014/01/taiwan-unveils-wan-chien-air-to-ground-cruise-missile/

"Taiwan Unveils ‘Wan Chien’ AIR-TO-GROUND Cruise Missile

Taiwan’s new AIR-TO-GROUND cruise missile could play a major role in any military confrontation with China."

3.) http://www.chinapost.com.tw/taiwan/national/national-news/2014/01/17/398552/Ma-touts.htm

"Wan Chien Cluster Bomb

The upgrade program was mainly to strengthen the air-to-land strike capacity of the jets, the Air Force said."

4.) https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/roc-fighters-to-be-armed-with-locally-developed-cluster-bombs.293801/

"Seventy-one out of more than 120 on-duty IDFs saw upgrades by the state-run Aerospace Industrial Development Corporation to beef up the decade-old jets' air-to-ground combat capabilities.

To take some of the burden off of the nation's F-16 fleet, the Wan Chien cluster bombs, the name of which translates as "ten thousand swords," have been added to the IDFs, giving the fighters the ability to fire the bombs at a range of over 200 kilometers.

The bombs can be launched from the air over the Taiwan Strait to target troop concentrations, defensive positions, harbors and airstrips on the Chinese mainland, said Lin Yu-fang, a veteran lawmaker and long-time supporter of beefing up national defenses"

5.) http://focustaiwan.tw/news/aipl/201401160025.aspx"

"Similar to the AGM-154 Joint Standoff Weapon employed by the U.S. military, the Wan Chien can strike targets from a distance to take out an enemy airfield without exposing the IDF to anti-aircraft fire, the officials said

6.) https://jamestown.org/program/taiwans-military-shores-up-indigenous-defense-capabilities/

"the Wan Chien "Ten Thousand Swords" cluster bomb has also passed the air force’s "initial operational testing" and will eventually be employed to augment the combat capabilities of its Indigenous Defensive Fighter (IDF)"......Key word CLUSTER BOMB with cruise missile capabilities and NOT a "surface to air" missile as Adamgerber80 (talk) mistakenly and stubbornly claims.

7.) http://indiandefence.com/threads/taiwan-unveils-awan-chiena-air-to-ground-cruise-missile.41660/

"The Taiwanese Air Force on January 16 unveiled a new AIR-TO-GROUND cruise missile that could play a major role in any military confrontation with China"..........key words AIR-TO-GROUND CRUISE MISSILE and NOT a "surface to air missile" as Adamgerber80 (talk) mistakenly and stubbornly claims.

211.192.191.65 (talk) 20:03, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Break 1

ONE missile to destroy a surface area of over 300 kilometers in diameter—must be one super-nuke! El_C 20:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Defence.pk, indiandefence.com, jamestown.org, defense-update are questionable references and not considered on Wikipedia. Please read through REF to correctly identify which references are allowed. Diplomat and Focus Taiwan call it a missile and compare it to similar missiles as mentioned above. Thus, it was stated that the missile is air-to-ground missile not a cluster bomb. Even chinapost calls it a missile and a cluster bomb so there is some ambiguity in that reference. None of these references mention any dimensions of the weapon, nor that it can destroy an area of 300km in diameter or call it a super-weapon. I would request again to please be civil in your arguments here. Thanks Adamgerber80 (talk) 20:23, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Is your IQ so low that you can't read what was just written by us, Wan Chien is indeed a cruise missile that contains cluster bombs within it's interior, what do you not understand about that????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.192.191.65 (talk) 20:27, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Additionally, any conventional weapon that has the capability to destroy a surface area of 300 kilometers in diameter, such as the Wan Chien cluster bomb cruise missile, can definitely qualify to be called a super weapon since it's function and destructive power is roughly equivalent to that of a small tactical nuclear weapon. Please go study and do your research! 211.192.191.65 (talk) 20:30, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

(There's that signing bot, so capricious.) Again, 300 meters, not kilometers. And watch it, IP, one more personal attack and you'll no longer be allowed to participate. What do you not understand, s/he is saying your sources are not reliable—not that they don't exist, obviously. El_C 20:34, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Adamgerber80, dosen't your own source say it's air-to-surface? El_C 20:39, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

There was a typo on my part here in the discussion and for that I apologize. I do agree that it is a air-to-surface missile(and also what I wrote in my edit on the article). For clarity, I am stating the following: Wan Shien is a Air-to-Surface Missile which is similar to other weapons like AGM-158 JASSM, AGM-154 Joint Standoff Weapon, Storm Shadow. I contest the fact of calling it a cluster bomb since other weapons of the same class are called missiles not cluster bombs. Also, I propose to remove the dimensions of the weapon, and it can destroy a region 300km in diameter since there is no reference to back that claim. Adamgerber80 (talk) 20:56, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Again, I'm sure it's just a typo and the IP meant 300 meters. El_C 20:58, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

El_C I am not so sure that the IP meant 300 meters. Check your talk page. Adamgerber80 (talk) 20:59, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Nah, it can't be. El_C 21:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

---

 Administrator note Incidentally, IP, we only allow one individual per account, in case there's more than one of you. El_C 20:45, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

---

And yes, destruction of 300 Kilometers in diameter is correct because the 100-300 cluster bombs contained within the cruise missile itself is designed to spread out and detonate high above the ground in order to inflict maximum spreading of the explosion and shrapnel. It is unfortunate that weapons of destruction are created on Earth, but our job as editors is not to place judgement but rather only to make sure that Wikipedia articles are accurate with up to date information, which Adamgerber80 (talk) and his small group of edit war friends merlinVtwelve (talk) and L3X1 (distant write) apparently are trying to prevent. These three editors are constantly putting false information into articles and ignoring up to date information despite being repeatedly provided with reliable sources and references that prove otherwise. And something which every one in the world can see, the editor Adamgerber80 (talk) is still refusing to admit that he is wrong and continuing to mistakenly and stubbornly argue despite the indisputable fact that the three academic sources which Adamgerber80 (talk) provided himself specifically mentions that the Wan Chien is an "AIR TO GROUND missile" and NOT a "surface to air" missile. Thank you! 211.192.191.65 (talk) 21:04, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Please try to argue to these points: Please revisit my edits on the article. I call it a Air-To-Surface missile, similar to other weapons of it's class which are also called missiles not ""cluster bombs". I also propose to remove the dimensions of the missile itself since there is no reference for them. Also, there is no reference to back the claim that the missile can destroy an area of 300 kilometers. The references do claim that the missile has a range of 200km and is GPS guided which were included in my edits. Adamgerber80 (talk) 21:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

There's no nuclear weapon on earth that can do that—your scales are highly exaggerated. El_C 21:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Range is not the same as diameter(!). El_C 21:15, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

No disrespect or offense meant but are you an engineer or physicist? How do you know that it is "not possible"??? Weapons have been designed that the average human can never comprehend. The objective of the Wan Chien is simply to destroy surface targets such airport landing strips as well as military bases, cities and urbanized areas. So in terms of sheer power released it's not as powerful as a nuclear weapon such as Russia's Tsar Bomba which releases a tremendous amount of energy through the fission and fusion nuclear processes but rather the Wan Chien is cruise missile carrying at least 300 cluster bombs made from high explosives that most importantly spread out in the air and disperse the damage to a large blast radius, hence the large diameter of destruction. But again, a nuclear weapon has more power than the Wan Chien so please do not confuse the two different weapon systems. But nonetheless, the diameter of destruction is great due to the spreading of the cluster bombs, this is the reason why cluster bombs are banned by the United Nations. Hence because of this, the Wan Chien can accomplish the destruction of surface targets equivalent to that of a small nuclear weapon. Additionally the amount of cluster bomb spreading can be controlled and altered depending upon mission profile so it can be smaller or greater depending upon the combats needs and requirements. 211.192.191.65 (talk) 21:29, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what I am—have enough military experience to know that a diameter of 300km is way beyond even nuclear weapons. El_C 22:04, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

A Typo Adamgerber80 (talk) claims??? Adamgerber80 (talk) needs to just be a real man and admit he made mistakes instead of pathetically claiming "oh, I made a typo" while stubbornly and repetitively editing the Wan Chien article to say that it is a "surface to air" missile when in reality the Wan Chien is a cluster bomb contained within the aerodynamic external structure of a turbofan engine powered cruise missile allowing the cluster bomb cruise missile to travel at extended ranges and inflict maximum destruction with the cluster bombs contained on the interior of the cruise missile. Adamgerber80 (talk) be a man, admit you are wrong!

Please read this reliable source, http://thediplomat.com/2014/01/taiwan-unveils-wan-chien-air-to-ground-cruise-missile/ , which Adamgerber80 (talk) is going to try to portray as a so-called "unreliable" "blog" or "tabloid" to push his biased pov. This source, The Diplomat, specifically states "Although the Taiwanese military has shied away from designating it as such, the Wan Chien is predominantly a delivery device for cluster bombs, with Chinese airstrips as the primary target, although other sites, such as radar installations and missile bases, are likely candidates" 211.192.191.65 (talk) 21:20, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Wan Chien is predominantly a ""delivery device"" for cluster bombs. It is a delivery device for cluster bombs not a cluster bomb itself. That is the important distinction and the reason weapons of similar class are called missiles not cluster bombs. We can mention this in the article that "Wan Chien is a delivery device for cluster bombs". I am not opposed to that, but I do oppose calling it a cluster bomb. Hope this helps. Adamgerber80 (talk) 21:30, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Adamgerber80 (talk) is apparently not a physicist or aerospace engineer and as such is not qualified to oppose calling it a cluster bomb, we have made it very clear that the Wan Chien is both a Cruise missile and Cluster Bomb, Adamgerber80 (talk) seems to be having difficulty in his brain understanding our position, as we have never denied that the Wan Chien is a cruise missile. As a matter of fact we have specifically stated that the Wan Chien is both a cruise missile and cluster bomb, an unique Taiwanese design different from others, that allows the Wan Chien to be classified as both a cruise missile and a cluster bomb. So your opposition to calling it a cluster bomb is based upon your lack of understanding about this weapons engineering and technological design, hence, your opposition is irrelevant. Please just admit you made mistakes, just admit you are wrong as everyone in the world can see your mistakes! @ Adamgerber80 (talk) Be a Man! Admit you are wrong! 211.192.191.65 (talk) 21:51, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

All that I am saying is that weapons of similar class are referred to as cruise missiles (on Wikipedia) and not cluster bombs. A missile can contain cluster bombs as this one does but that does not qualify it to be called cluster bomb and this capability(of delivering cluster bombs) can be mentioned in the article. AFAIK, bombs do not have a range of 200km or are not called stand-off weapons. Also, there are no references for claims(300 kilometer diameter, super-weapon, physical dimensions of the missile) which should be removed from the article. El_C, Can you please take note of consistent personal attacks. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 21:58, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Adamgerber80 (talk) stop making noise and admit you are wrong! You made mistakes so just admit it! 211.192.191.65 (talk) 22:02, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Please argue on the points mentioned. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 22:03, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Why not call it both? Once again, range is not diameter. I'd love to see you cite a reliable source that says it has a diameter of 30km—forget 30, how about 3km? 300km, really?(!) I expect no sources will be provided for that because none exist. But by all means, prove me wrong. El_C 22:04, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Will do! But first Adamgerber80 (talk) needs to admit he is wrong! Be A Man!211.192.191.65 (talk) 22:07, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't work like that. The onus is on you as the editor making the claim. El_C 22:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually, Adamgerber80 (talk) is the one who made multiple false claims that the Wan Chien is a "surface to air" missile when it is NOT and refusing to admit that the Wan Chien can be called both a cruise missile and cluster bomb which he opposes, for what logical reason, we don't know? Adamgerber80 (talk) needs to explain his "logic" and "reasoning" as well as admitting that he was wrong! 211.192.191.65 (talk) 22:35, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

But I am not Adamgerber80, and I'm asking you. El_C 22:45, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Break 2

With all due respect, all has been said. We are not entities trapped in a repeating closed timelike curve so one should not repeat over and over again! And now Adamgerber80 (talk) needs to be a Man!211.192.191.65 (talk) 23:00, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

This is becoming tendentious at this point. If you don't cooperate, the page will be unprotected and you will be blocked. This isn't a negotiation. You made a claim, now be an adult and confirm where you learned this. We can't just take your word for it. Especially, if the claim is as outlandish as to posit a diameter that goes way outside strategic nuclear weapons, not to mention tactical ones. El_C 23:05, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

El_C, As I have said before that I am open to mentioning that Wan Chien as a supersonic air-to-surface missile which delivers cluster bombs. I have not denied the presence of this capability. I do have issues with un-referenced information being included in the article, namely dimensions(weight, length, diameter, warhead) of the missile. Specifications which are referenced include range of 200km and GPS guidance. Second piece of information which is not referenced is the diameter of attack which is not mentioned and being claimed as 300km. Adamgerber80 (talk) 02:36, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

That's because it's not possible, we have the laws of physics to contend with. El_C 03:37, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

El_C, I see that you have changed the protection level on the page. Am I allowed to make changes as I have described above? Feel free to edit them if you feel I have deviated from what I stated. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 04:09, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Since the IP stopped responding and since I doubt the 300km diameter can ever be proven to be factual (again, even strategic nukes can't achieve this), I have reduced the protection. You are free to edit now. But note my attempt to incorporate both versions. (I still think some of the IP's sources are at least border-line reliable. Do you agree?) El_C 04:21, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I almost agree with your version but disagree on the reliability of some of the sources(simply because I have been seen other sources used by the same IP which are questionable). Anyways, there is one sentence "As of 2015, total of four Wan Chien munitions have been produced and are currently undergoing testing and evaluation with the Republic of China Air Force's AIDC F-CK-1 Ching-kuo fighters" for which we are missing a reference. Do you agree? Adamgerber80 (talk) 04:31, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I thought the IP's sources supported that, but if not, feel free to remove. El_C 04:37, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Wan Chien is both a Cluster bomb and a cruise missile, read:

1.) Taiwan said to begin cluster bomb production in 2015
2.) The Wan Chien is a 4.5-4.8m long aircraft launched cluster bomb designed to enable the Republic of China Air Force (ROCAF) to conduct long-range suppression attacks against coastal inland military targets, whilst operating from the Taiwan Strait airspace

Thanks!128.90.118.156 (talk) 21:53, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

300 km diameter—prove it. El_C 21:55, 19 March 2017 (UTC)