Talk:DF-21

Military history: Technology / Weaponry / Asian / Chinese Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force
	Asian military history task force
	Chinese military history task force

Rocketry Start‑class

	Rocketry portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rocketry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of rocketry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RocketryWikipedia:WikiProject RocketryTemplate:WikiProject RocketryRocketry articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Controversy: All the news media reporting on this is such nonsense. The SS-N-22 missile was known to be effective against carrier groups for a long time, the P-270 Moskit especially. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.200.140.62 (talk) 21:23, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Drive up to border and launch

The article I just posted shows exactly why units do not drive up to the border to launch their missiles so the maps given are bogus and should be replaced with maps showing maximum ranges from actual launch facilities. Hcobb (talk) 15:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But given time they could drive to a border and get it set up. 173.164.86.190 (talk) 20:19, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming nobody responds while the concrete is setting. Hcobb (talk) 21:26, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bunch of crap. You could create a concrete launch pad in a few days at a pre-surveyed site near the border - in the direction of a developing threat. The article outlines that two peacetime deployment locations have been identified in central China, and would presumably be where the missiles are stationed during periods of low-threat. Why on earth would you build _mobile_ short-range ICBMs with the intent of stationing them in fixed positions which puts no meaningful strategic targets under their footprint? It's like noticing that US aircraft carriers spend a lot of time in San Diego, and then drawing aircraft strike radii centered on Point Loma . Megapixie (talk) 22:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The current location holds at risk the primary threat to the Chinese government, which is the Chinese population. Hcobb (talk) 23:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These units can be monitored by satellite and taken out by space. That is the kind of technology China would have to deal with if they wanted to go nuts. Ipunchouthorses (talk) 03:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Claim of only ASBM exist removed

With the release of pictures of the Iranian Khalij Fars(Persian Gulf) ASBM based on the Fateh-110, I've removed the claim that the DF-21D is the only ASBM in existence. Here's a link to the new ASBM: http://defense-update.com/wp/20110208_fateh110_eo.html Demon Lord Razgriz (talk) 00:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doubts over China's 'wonder weapon'

The Asia Times's article with the same title contains this response by Arthur Ding (professor at the Political Warfare Cadres Academy in Taipei):

Asia Times Online: The DF-21D can strike US aircraft carriers and sink them in a very short time. Will this development have an impact on the naval balance in the East China Sea?

Arthur Ding: This is the ultimate goal China aims to achieve. But technically speaking, it's not feasible. That is because when the missile re-enters the atmosphere, its speed would be somewhere around Mach 7 [2,382.03 meters/second]. That is so fast that there would not be sufficient time to re-direct the warhead to hit an US aircraft carrier precisely. A carrier could only be hit indirectly by a special warhead, such as a fuel-air explosive.

Maybe that's worth incorporating?